REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

War on Death

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Monday, January 10, 2011 05:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2420
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, January 7, 2011 10:56 AM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, to restart the discussion Pizmo started, I want to state some ground rules.

1. This is a war on Death. You cannot be neutral in this war. You can either side with Death, or you can oppose Death.

2. If this is not your battle, stay out. But death will come for you and yours eventually, and so joining the fight early is not a bad idea.

3. Death comes from many places. Some are natural, and some are instigated by the people I refer to as "The Merchants of Death."

4. A lot of people I know died this past fall, and others are very sick. I would like to kick the ass of this Death as soon as possible.



Our first known entity: Death. Note the scythe and hourglass.

Natural death comes from:

Age: Not really sure why, but the human body wasn't meant to last. Making it last is probably a simpler trick than some of these others, but figure that science will beat this one soon, and that when they do, the Merchants will sweep in and silence it.

Cancer: Might actually be a harder one to cure, and it's not always natural. It comes from infections and contamination, which may be done intentionally.

Infection: Will generally be easier, but there are many different types, so it will take a long time to get them all.

Violence: Is usually intentionally stirred up by the Merchants. Avoiding it means getting out of their way.

Accidents: Most come from poorly designed products, like cars, which we know, from race cars, could be designed with a much higher survival rate at 60mph than the ones sold to us.

Suicide: This is overwhelmingly the result of chemistry, statistically, about 95% of suicides are tryptophan deficient vs. 5% of the population, still, it's a big one, and worth saying a couple things about:

The will to commit suicide comes upon most people very quickly and lasts a short time. If they survive this urge, it's gone and they wonder what they were thinking. Very few of those who actually try and survive will even try again.

Slow Motion Suicide: This is when people start behavior patterns that they know will kill them because they lack a will to live, and also a will to die. We know this behavior very well because we've all watched people do it.



The Merchants exist for one basic reason, and it's not money. They invented money, the concept, and they have no need for more of it, because they can invent more of it whenever they want, in infinite capacity. Rather, money is a weapon they use, a tool, to encourage destructive actions in others.

The purpose of the Merchants is survival, of themselves, at the cost of all other living things. If something exists which is not them, it posses a possible threat to them. If a genetic line exists which is not theirs, it must be extinguished and replaced with theirs. If some species exists which is not them, or useful to them, it must be destroyed, because it might take resources that they want.

What the Merchants do not realize is that like the Mind, Nature is not finite. By this I don't mean that it is infinite, but that it is indefinite. The amount of life available cannot be quantified. If you take life away from someone else, there is not suddenly more for you, there is less for you, because there is less life. Conversely, if you add life to the world, you do not decrease the amount of available life for everyone else. Similarly, when we learn, we do not "use up space" thus limiting the amount we can learn in the future, but rather we increase our ability to learn more. Anyone who has studied the brain can tell you why this is so: There is, sure, a theoretical limit to the storage capacity of the brain, but that capacity is increased with use, and that theoretical limit is far more than we can ever achieve. So it is with the quantity of life in the world.

Nonetheless, the Merchants of Death are determined to continue on their mission.

A word about the specifics of who they are, AFAIK, from what I have learned to date:

The Merchants come from every walk of life, every ethnic group, every society, because this idea of genetic supremacy can occur to any brain, just like psychopathy or anything else, it is anchored in the failure to recognize the validity of other, and the infinite desire to impose the continuance of self.

The Merchants collectively act towards goals and use mechanisms in common because they are a community. What they are not is an illuminati. They all huddle in their own little subgroups, planning their own domination vs. all of the other Merchants, but they all collectively tug on the various monkey forces of the world with their various strings, and when they tug in the same direction, action results.

In theory, after they had killed the rest of us, they would have some showdown, but this fantasy exists only in their heads. They will kill themselves long before they kill all of us because their logic is flawed, and their methodology destructive. Unfortunately, as some die, new ones spring up. I don't think there's an active Merchant of Death group that predates 1700 or so, but I think the idea is much, much older. This can be seen as a disease in human society which evolves, and as it does so, consumes its own predecessors.

The destructive methodology of the Merchants are myriad:

Here are a few

a) Their weapons tend to hit very close to home, they are the epicenter of any destruction they initiate.

b) They tend to poison the earth and limit its future habitability for themselves as well as others.

c) In destroying life, they reduce life, and they reduce the possible resources for their continued survival.

d) In spreading disease and destroying cures, they risk infecting themselves and being left without an out.

e) In reducing global population and diversity, and limiting their own gene pool, they become inbred.

Etc.

All of their policies come down to

1) Kill people. There are lots of ways to kill people. If there are two groups you don't like, stir them into a war against one another.

2) Poison the land. Make some flimsy excuse for extracting resources, and use that cover to pour toxins into the water, air and food, in hopes of killing the people.

3) Destroy the land. Deforest, depopulation the waters, destroy the topsoil in hopes that a natural disaster will wipe out the target population, like in Haiti.

4) Spread a plague, or fear of a plague, deliberately, or wait for one to spring up and exploit it. If possible, use this to get direct access to people for "care" so you can further infect, sterilize and kill them.

5) Control the people. The easiest way to do this is economic. You can balance a system of wage and taxation to ensure that the hamsters run the wheel forever and never get ahead, all the while doing the work for the betterment of your group, to the detriment of theirs.

6) Reduce the population. There are many ways to do this, but the simplest is to stop it from reproducing. As the old die off, the young will not be enough to replace them, and the population will dwindle. This can be done through the introduction of economic mechanisms and laws that discourage birth.

7) Take over the currency. When you own the economic system, the target population is beholden to you, and you are free to manipulate their society as you see fit.

8) Bury them in debt. The more they owe, the more they will have to do what you say in order to get out of debt, and if you have designed it well, this will only serve to keep them in debt forever.

9) Spread democracy, socialism, capitalism and other systems that you can easily manipulate. If they believe that their system is equitable and good, and that their leaders are their own, they are much more likely to follow them, and if the system of selection is accessible, then you can install whomever you want in order to initiate the policies you desire.

10) Control commodities. No population can exist or thrive without fulfilling collective needs, and where those don't exist, you can create them. By controlling the flow of food, water, medicine, energy, you can force the people collectively to their knees, and force them to accept bad policy. That policy can be any of the policies on this list, or others.

The purpose of control is simple: Death. Control enslaves the population to bring benefits to the Merchants, and Death to the enslaved.

As the Merchants of Death are busy seeing to it that the natural causes of Death are not defeated, opposing or subverting the Merchants becomes essential to any task.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 11:04 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Death really scares you.

It shouldn't.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 11:33 AM

DREAMTROVE


Thanks Wulf, I'll mark you down for pro-death.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 12:09 PM

CANTTAKESKY


I'm anti-Death.

I've some ideas on how to fight Death, but they are all considered hogwash by 99% of the people on Earth. Including you, DT.

So, not sure how helpful I can be in the war effort, except to raise my hand and say, "Present."

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 12:18 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


I could make some snarky comment about baby-boomers realizing that they are coming to the end of the line and are scared of death.

I won't.

We live. We die. We make room for those coming after.

Our purpose is defined by its shortness.

You've got one shot, one fleeting moment, to make things better.

So stop bitching, stop sitting on your couch..

and do something.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 12:25 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Thanks Wulf, I'll mark you down for pro-death.


DT, mark me down as pro-death for most people, but anti-death for me.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 12:36 PM

HARDWARE


I am pro death.

After all, it is the high cost of living, as Neil Gaiman wrote.

And death is the most natural thing in the world. People confuse quality of life for quantity of life all the time.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 12:58 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:
I could make some snarky comment about baby-boomers realizing that they are coming to the end of the line and are scared of death.
You just did, but of course you have no evidence whatsoever that baby boomers are scared of death...
Quote:
So stop bitching, stop sitting on your couch..

and do something.
So tell us exactly what YOU have done lately? From the amount of time you’re here, I’d guess you spend plenty on your own “couch”...what else do YOU do?
Quote:
And death is the most natural thing in the world. People confuse quality of life for quantity of life all the time.
Yup, me too. One doesn’t have to be “pro” or “con” death...one can be “accepting” of it, rather than in favor of it. And I am.

Didn’t we just recently have this discussion anyway? Or are you just venting, DT? If the latter, gawd knows you have EVERY right, so go for it and we’ll support you all the way.

Hey Hardware, like your signature; me too!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 1:03 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Me too Niki. Accepting, but not loving it. I'd hate to see death irradicated, after all it's still the greatest social leveler of all time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 1:11 PM

MINCINGBEAST


I'm one of Death's camp followers.

As a cub I used to day dream about the end of all life on earth; I later graduated to wishing I could douse the stars with piss. Turns out it wasn't a phase.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 2:24 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
I'm one of Death's camp followers.

As a cub I used to day dream about the end of all life on earth; I later graduated to wishing I could douse the stars with piss. Turns out it wasn't a phase.



Don't give up. You can piss on stars...I once pissed on the foot of Chris Farley @ the lime light....true story. Though he was only on SNL at that time and not the Movie star he turned out to be.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 2:40 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


"The last enemy that shall be defeated is Death."

I personally think it will be stupidity, but to each his own.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 2:45 PM

MINCINGBEAST


Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
I'm one of Death's camp followers.

As a cub I used to day dream about the end of all life on earth; I later graduated to wishing I could douse the stars with piss. Turns out it wasn't a phase.



Don't give up. You can piss on stars...I once pissed on the foot of Chris Farley @ the lime light....true story. Though he was only on SNL at that time and not the Movie star he turned out to be.


Must've been quite a feat, considering your alleged girl parts and all.

I wish I were Galactus. I'd whizz on worlds.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 2:49 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
I'm one of Death's camp followers.

As a cub I used to day dream about the end of all life on earth; I later graduated to wishing I could douse the stars with piss. Turns out it wasn't a phase.



Don't give up. You can piss on stars...I once pissed on the foot of Chris Farley @ the lime light....true story. Though he was only on SNL at that time and not the Movie star he turned out to be.


Must've been quite a feat, considering your alleged girl parts and all.

I wish I were Galactus. I'd whizz on worlds.



Girl parts.... I like girl parts. Or is it girls in parts? Well, either way I knew something was afoot before it happened...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 3:24 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Pro-Death, absolutely, no story can ever be complete without its ending.



She comes for us all, in the end - but she gonna have to catch ME, bwahahahaha!

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 4:00 PM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

It doesn't matter whether or not we agree on the solution, because we're both wrong, if it were not so, the people we learned from would be immortal.

However, neither one of us is 100% wrong, so the answer lies somewhere in the darkness in between. Everyone has a piece of the puzzle.

Sadly, it's easy to see how easily we fail, so many of us have no interest in trying.

Well, I think we have Pizmo on our side. In some sense or another.

I think that the fight against TPTB and the fight against Death are inextricably connected, because I believe they are, as I said, the Merchants of Death.

They are like Cain, they seek life for themselves, death for others. At least Kane is honest about it.


Frem

I knew where you stood on this one. It's one of many things that make you a paradox.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 9:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


“Greatest social leveler” and “No tale is complete without an ending”—-excellently said! And I, too, think the problem is more stupidity than death, because our stupidity tends to LEAD TO the death of millions. You could add intolerance, ignorance, ease of manipulation and a whole bunch of other things---especially our genetic carry-overs from all the way back to the stone age---but to me, those kind of come under “stupidity” in that they illustrate our inability to learn from our own mistakes OR history.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 9:53 AM

CANTTAKESKY



DT,

I am not necessarily interested in immortality. I don't think anti-Death necessarily means pro-immortality.

How about I say I am anti-"unnecessary" Death?

It wasn't so long ago that the average lifespan in the most developed countries was around 40 years old. Now, we're looking at 80 years old. I don't have a problem working to make that 160. Or 320. Or 640. Who is to say we can only double the expected life span once? Who is to say we should stop at 80?

So my goal is to postpone death as long as possible, not to prevent it altogether. Maybe that is a small distinction, but I believe it is a philosophically necessary one.



Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 10:06 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Age:
This one is the kicker, ain't it? Maybe all the others are not really pro-Death as much as they are pro-Aging.

Cancer: Unnecessary death.

Infection: Unnecessary death.

Violence: Ultra unnecessary death, but probably impossible to stop. You can dish out consequences, but that just leads to more violence.

Accidents: Unnecessary death, but I believe there are only two ways to prevent most accidental death: 1) resort to despotic and totalitarian devices, 2) accelerated wound healing technology (if it were ever developed). So we might have to live with this one, just on philosophical principle.

Suicide: Unnecessary death, but again, on principle, I believe in people's right to take their own lives. Hopefully, it is a last resort.

Slow Motion Suicide: Unnecessary death, but whatcha gonna do? Lock them up in a preordained lifestyle for their own good? Again, I fall back on the principle of freedom to die.

Then there is Involuntary Manslaughter, people who kill other people with the best of intentions. Say a doctor who prescribes chemotherapy believing it is the best chance for survival when it actually isn't. This falls somewhere between accidental death and violent death: Violence by Ignorance.

So really, when we're talking about anti-Death strategies, we're talking about anti-Aging, anti-Cancer, and anti-Infection. Everything else, well, there are too many political and philosophical issues involved--not an issue of technology.

I am more focused on the technology end.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 11:35 AM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

And yet you proceed along that line. If you think that human beings should get more than three score and ten, you should probably be put in the immortality camp. Nothing really lasts forever, not the species, nor the planet, etc. I remember reading a statistical study that said if humans did not age, the average life expectancy would be increased by three years. The reason? People die of other things. They slip on the floor and hit their head. etc.

But I actually wasn't talking about immortality, I was talking about mortality, the very real mortality that cuts us down way short of three score and ten. I mean like that list of ten top causes of death I sent you, which I should repost here:

Heart Disease: 11 million
Cancer: 8 million
Malaria: 5 million
Pneumonia: 4 million
AIDS: 3 million
Tuberculosis 2 million
Dysentery: 2 million
War: c. 1 million
Famine: c. 1 million
Malpractice: c. 1 million

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 11:53 AM

BYTEMITE


I think death is an important part of life? I'm not pro-immortality, otherwise in the fight between Werewolves and Vampires I'd choose vampires. But I don't. Kinda hate the angsty fancy gits.

Anyway. I will fight people who want to hurt and kill other people and make them sick, and, if it's safe, if THEY won't exploit the technology, maybe I'm okay with technology that stops aging but it still weirds me out.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 1:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


Honestly, assume that everyone here has known many people who have died, how many of them have died of old age?

It's not a leading cause of death in humans. It's the leading cause of death in mice. The leading cause of death in cats is starvation. Go, and also figure.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 1:50 PM

BYTEMITE


I know one person who died of old age, one of a heartattack, and one of cancer.

Though considering my family's cancer history, expect that to jump. A lot. My grandma on my mom's side (the cancer side) came back from an exam with apparently a bunch of growths they found. It's only a matter of time for my mom, my brother, my cousins, and myself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 2:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Hell, NO ONE in my family dies of old age - but then, remember the family yer talkin about here.

In fact it is with great amusement we recount to each other how much it took to finish off this one or that one, cause we're descended mountain folk, and those TAKE quite a bit of killin.
Seriously, read up on the folk history and how grisly some of those incidents were - then remember that a lot of the time, the victim *still* didn't die.

I rather sincerely doubt age is gonna do me, but I will be tremendously amused if it does, and even then no one is gonna believe it anyways, especially what with a halfsie-AI and backups to assume identity.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 3:31 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Depends on what you consider dying of old age to constitute. Most of my family have died of old age, or old age related diseases. My mum died of emphysema in her 70's related to her smoking habit.

Cancer rates jump incredibly for the over 50's. The body starts to wear out and disease becomes natures way of telling you that you're surpassing your usefulness in terms of survival of the species, at least.

Modern medicine has enabled people to live a lot longer, but whether this is a good or bad thing for society is debatable. It certainly creates something of a burden if you live somewhere with a communist..I mean a public health system and old age pension. One of the greatest strains on our public health is the fact that people live longer, but also require medical treatment to a far greater degree.

I don't see any particular global conspiracy to kill off the population, I see the opposite. Trying to cheat death (at least in Western nations), where to decide to forego treatment and die naturally is considered abhorrent and defeatist.

Another ridiculous 'truism' of the west. If you stay positive, you can do anything, even beat cancer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 3:54 PM

DREAMTROVE


Carcinogens increase in accumulation, other factors wear, but it's safe to say that cancer is a disease. I've known many people to get it, and die of it, and most were under 40.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 4:01 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Magon
I don't see any particular global conspiracy to kill off the population


Then you're not looking hard enough. Hell. It's not a conspiracy if they *admit* it. And they do. The main globalist agenda is to reduce the world population. Not to reduce its growth, to reduce the population. Almost every major globalist has come out and said they want to see a world population of less than a billion. To quote Nick Rockefeller "One way or another, five billion people have to die. Who cares how they die?"

OTOH

You have a point. However, things like emphysema are also not age related. Emphysema progresses over time, you have to abuse your body for a long time to get it. Long term abuse of one's body to perpetuate slow progressing conditions is one of the reasons older people have so many more health problems.

But sure, age is difficult to define, but I wouldn't define it so widely. I'd say that if you suffered a wound that would not have fazed a 20 year old, but you die from it because you're 96, that's age related, even though it's not old age.

Heart disease might be what was once called old age. Cancer is prevalent among all populations, and fairly pronounced in children. Some cancers progress slowly. A friend of mine who just died a couple weeks ago from it had had the disease for 20 years they estimated.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 4:03 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Honestly, assume that everyone here has known many people who have died, how many of them have died of old age?
Many people don't die of only one thing. They die of old age AND heart attack, or old age AND violence, or old age AND infection. Meaning, if they hadn't been debilitated by old age, they wouldn't have succumbed to those other things.

So I have no problem trying to figure out how to keep people younger longer, decrease the probability of one of the other things taking them.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 7:01 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Magon
I don't see any particular global conspiracy to kill off the population


Then you're not looking hard enough. Hell. It's not a conspiracy if they *admit* it. And they do. The main globalist agenda is to reduce the world population. Not to reduce its growth, to reduce the population. Almost every major globalist has come out and said they want to see a world population of less than a billion. To quote Nick Rockefeller "One way or another, five billion people have to die. Who cares how they die?"

OTOH

You have a point. However, things like emphysema are also not age related. Emphysema progresses over time, you have to abuse your body for a long time to get it. Long term abuse of one's body to perpetuate slow progressing conditions is one of the reasons older people have so many more health problems.

But sure, age is difficult to define, but I wouldn't define it so widely. I'd say that if you suffered a wound that would not have fazed a 20 year old, but you die from it because you're 96, that's age related, even though it's not old age.

Heart disease might be what was once called old age. Cancer is prevalent among all populations, and fairly pronounced in children. Some cancers progress slowly. A friend of mine who just died a couple weeks ago from it had had the disease for 20 years they estimated.


Hell, I'd like to see a reduction in world population, but doesn't mean I'm planning to kill masses to bring it about.
I think you're likelihood of having cancer increases exponentially the older that you live, even though some cancers target younger people. It seems to me that the major causes of cancer are hereditary, environmental, virus related and age related. After all cancer is just your cell replicating system losing the plot and we are hardwired to replicate poorly the older we get. I think that the correlation between viruses and cancer is an interesting, largely unproven area of medicine and it will be interesting to see what develops over the next few years.
No, DT, I don’t hold with the type of conspiracy theories that you are hinting at. In the west our live span is longer than ever, our infant mortality rate much lower. We are much more likely to reach old age than any time in history. That’s not to say we don’t live in unhealthy toxic environments and eat rubbishy processed largely nutritionless food, but even so, the evidence is overwhelming that we survive longer than ever before.
I can see that greed often produces shocking conditions for people, largely in developing countries, and that life is seen as much more expendable in those parts of the world. Basically businesses aim to maximise their profits and bugger the effect on local populations, and then the cover-ups take place. I can buy into those sorts of conspiracies.

On a global level, disease is as important to our survival as a species. On an individual; level it sucks to see loved ones suffer and die before they reach old age, or to suffer that kind of fate ourselves, but it is part of life. A painful part of life. I guess if it’s happening a lot, then the tendency of individuals is to seek answers to the ‘why’ questions. Why me? Why them? They are the unanswerable questions in most cases, but still, in pain, many seek to find an answer, creating ones when none are available.
God chose him/her. It is part of a greater plan. It is part of a global conspiracy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 10:53 PM

DREAMTROVE


Magon

You'd like to see a reduction in world population? Drink any koolaid lately? It's been overly proven the very obvious fact that the resources to support humans vastly exceed the population, in fact, with no environmental impact at all. It's a handful of humans behaving badly that destroys the planet. I see no reason why decreasing the number of humans would help that, it's the increase in technology that aids it, and if we decrease the number of humans, its not the evil which will decrease, because they'll be the ones doing the selecting.

Which they already are. I already said it's not a conspiracy theory, and I'm not hinting at it. I am telling you, outright, which the people who run our economy, outright, have said, publicly. Hell, its public policy. Here as it is in China.

As for cancer, you posted a wide swath of causes which kind of include everything. I just said most of the people I've known have been under 40, but no, none of them have had childhood cancers like leukemia, though thats also a factor in the demise of humans. Viral cancer is not at all unproven. Not all cancers are viral, but many are. This is pretty well known.

"life is seen as more expendable in those parts of the world"

Care to elaborate?

Also, I don't appreciate your effort to cheapen my personal tragedy with politics. I made my position on eugenics and environmentalism, control commodities, etc, very clear before any of this happened.

The only roles diseases play that are beneficial to us, besides their role in evolution, is that activities of phages, but The increase in human disease comes with the increase in us as a food source.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 4:10 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think that the correlation between viruses and cancer is an interesting, largely unproven area of medicine and it will be interesting to see what develops over the next few years.
It is well documented, through animal experimentation, that viruses can cause cancer in animals.

The controversy is whether those same viruses cause cancer in humans. Here, liability and other political questions come into play, and people are rightly more conservative about declaring a causal relationship without experimental evidence.

But I submit there is as much correlational evidence suggesting a possible causal link as there is in CO2 causing global warming.


Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 6:54 AM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

There is no controversy over whether or not viruses cause cancer in humans. It's is absolutely known that cervical cancer is caused by HPV-16, and many others are suspected. There is just discussion over which viruses cause cancer, and which cancers.

The reason for the debate is not that anyone doubts it happens, but that sometimes viruses migrate and collect in tumor tissue but didn't cause the cancer, and even in certain cases, like with the chicken pox virus, the virus actually *fights* the cancer.

But there is no scientific debate about the existence of a link between HPV-16 and cancer. The mechanism of action is well understood and available on Merck's website, with little videos to explain everything in exhausting detail. As someone well versed in the field, I can find no fault with their analysis, I'm certain they are correct, and have seen no credible dissent.

The only controversy I can see here is that there is a controversy over whether or not an HPV-16 vaccine is a good idea. IMHO, it is, in spite of risks, but that it would be done in a non-invasive manner to minimize infection risk or anaphylactic shock.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 8:45 AM

CANTTAKESKY


DT,

I'm afraid I don't read medical literature the same way you do. I like animal experiment data, but when it comes to humans, I just see lots of correlations. In my view, with correlations, there is always some room for debate.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:07 AM

DREAMTROVE


There is, but then there is science. And we can never let politics get in the way of science.

People can think what they will about Gardisil, et al, but viruses can and do cause carcinogenic mutations in humans. I know your position on vaccines, which is a common one, especially here, but there are also real known dangers of the natural world, and this is one of them. Tis like smoking and lung cancer. Sure, there are other ways to get lung cancer, but the statistics are overwhelming that people who smoke have a radically higher rate of lung cancer and places where smoking is common have a radically higher rate. In the case of HPV-16, we have the whole viral genome, and we know it encodes for the E6 and E7 proteins, which cause cancerous mutation in the host cell when transcripted. Anything disputing that would need to show that these facts were not so.

And yes, I know science can hold itself to an unreachable position and say "we have proven!" but as I showed with the global warming, you actually *can* do the science yourself, and prove it right or wrong. In this case I did, and I found that I agree with Merck, they are correct. IMHO.

It's dubious that my sisters brain cancer is viral. Brain cancers tend to be very rare and unique, a hallmark of random mutation. Cancers that are common, pass through close association, and show repeatedly the same characteristics are probably viral, because random chance will not produce the same genetic profile over and over again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:17 AM

DREAMTROVE


Moving on....

If we were to cure aging, you would find it extremely difficult to survive to 640, even if we then also cured every known disease, so we are not talking about eternity, just what a society might be able to accomplish if we lived long enough, and how much we lose when we die so young.

Think of the US, say, Texas, 640 years ago. Not long after, it would be invaded by Aztecs, then the Spanish, then the British, declare independence, and then fight the Civil war. And this is a stable part of the world, what if you lived in Palestine or Germany? Wars aside, random accidents, travel, slipping on the ice, crime, plagues that hit out of nowhere that no one knew about. totalitarian regimes coming to power, genocide. Toxic contamination from careless or malicious ecocide.

Odd are going to catch up with any immortal eventually, if they're not completely invincible.

I'm talking about removing the killers that are currently hindering us as a people, more than as individuals.

Most of the people Ive known who have died have died of cancer, most of those have been young, not children, but young enough that old age was not a factor in their illness.

After that, I'd have to count to see if suicide or car crashes were higher, probably car crashes, but not sure,

Then, some homicides, and some rare illnesses.

Some things we can cure. My best friend says the most brilliant person he ever knew was struck by lightning at 26 or so. I have no cure for that.

But to not spend some effort to remove the obvious threats to humanity seems self destructive to me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:01 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
...but viruses can and do cause carcinogenic mutations in humans.
I am not going to say viruses DON'T cause carcinogenic mutations in humans. Just like with everything else, I come from the scientific stock that conclusions are never final in science, and there is always room for disagreement and self-correction. This sort of hair-splitting "agnosticism" is very annoying, esp to those who believe certain "scientific truths." That's just how I am.

Here are some common correlations that have been interpreted causally (though not by the same people).

Vaccines cause autism.
Smoking causes lung cancer.
HPV causes cervical cancer.
CO2 causes global warming.
Seatbelts cause decreased accident mortality.
Vaccines cause decreased incidence of disease.
Lead causes brain damage.
Mercury causes brain damage and autism.

Some of these I believe, some I don't. Yet they all have more or less the same standard of evidence: strong correlations.

It doesn't mean I don't believe in anything. It means when I do, I acknowledge that I may be wrong. My interpretation of the correlations is biased by personal values and experiences. Sometimes those biases lead me to tilt towards belief, sometimes skepticism. It stands to reason that the biases of others might tilt them differently; therefore, there is room for debate.

That is to say, scientifically, I don't believe in anything. Personally, I believe in plenty of things.

Quote:
It's dubious that my sisters brain cancer is viral.
I know your sister doesn't have medulloblastoma. But the parents of this child believe his was caused by a virus: SV40. Not that this is proof. Just that virus-associated brain cancer has been thought of before.

http://www.ouralexander.org/isrc.htm


Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:10 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If we were to cure aging, you would find it extremely difficult to survive to 640, ...
I don't have a hard-on for 640. I tossed it out as an example of "why not"? Why not try to put off aging as much as possible and see where it lands us?
Quote:
I'm talking about removing the killers that are currently hindering us as a people, more than as individuals.

By anti-Death then, you're talking about anti-murder, anti-manslaughter, or anti-involuntary manslaughter. So I understand by anti-Death, you're not really saying anti-aging or pro-immortality?



Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 12:48 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
CTS

There is no controversy over whether or not viruses cause cancer in humans. It's is absolutely known that cervical cancer is caused by HPV-16, and many others are suspected. There is just discussion over which viruses cause cancer, and which cancers.

The reason for the debate is not that anyone doubts it happens, but that sometimes viruses migrate and collect in tumor tissue but didn't cause the cancer, and even in certain cases, like with the chicken pox virus, the virus actually *fights* the cancer.

But there is no scientific debate about the existence of a link between HPV-16 and cancer. The mechanism of action is well understood and available on Merck's website, with little videos to explain everything in exhausting detail. As someone well versed in the field, I can find no fault with their analysis, I'm certain they are correct, and have seen no credible dissent.

The only controversy I can see here is that there is a controversy over whether or not an HPV-16 vaccine is a good idea. IMHO, it is, in spite of risks, but that it would be done in a non-invasive manner to minimize infection risk or anaphylactic shock.


Yes, thank you for that DT, I was going to post the same. And I think that once the link in that case had been proven, then scientists began wondering what other cancers might be caused by viruses.

If you are interested in documentaries you can probably download this one http://blogs.abc.net.au/abc_tv/2009/10/catching-cancer-abc-documentary
-asks-is-cancer-contagious.html which explores the topic.

CTS, I'm interested in how you determine your beliefs. It seems to me that you come from a basic position which distrusts all expert authority. You appear to not believe anything because 99.% accuracy is not enough to prove anything as far as you are concerned. How then do you decide on what course of action to take regarding health and other matters? Do you undertake your own research on all these matters? Do you have a scientific or medical background?

It seems to me in the absence of absolutes you have to come down on one side or another, and as far as I am concerned I don't have the time to investigate every single piece of medical research that comes out. A bit of skeptism is one thing, but to actively distrust all empirical research because it never proves, would seem to me to be a very cumbersome way of living one's life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 4:44 PM

DREAMTROVE


1) not all correlations are equal. Some are hypotheses based on correlation, some are based on a scientific causation analsyis. HPV 16 causing cervical cancer is as strong a case as HIV causes AIDS, if not more so. Sure, either could be wrong, but until we ace good science indicating that, its not a good idea to bet against itl

2) SV40 is omnipresent, that's the problem with proving causality. If this is true, we would expect to see far more brain cancer than we do. This doesn't mean that SV40 does not play a role in brain cancer, it may very well. Its very often present in tumor tissue, but its very often present in healthy tissue. My sisters doctors said that it was present in 95% of all tissue samples they had tested, cancerous and healthy.

That doesn't mean that genetic mechanisms of the virus aren't involved in the progression of malignancy. They were not convinced that this was known, but they considered it. Anyway, thanks for the link, I'll take a look at the article.


Co2 causes global warming is a different kettle of fish. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect. IMHO, not enough of one to be statistically significant here, and IMHO, not enough human output of co2 to be significant.

I recently had this argument with a friend offline, and he granted that human industry did not produce as much co2 as humans breathing, but he said that human caused forest fires, brush fires, slash and burn agriculture, and vegetative decay because of human destruction of vegetation vastly exceeded all other forms of co2 output by animals and *could* be responsible for the increase in global co2

I had to admit it was a good case for a human caused climate change argument. In volume of co2 production, he is correct. Vegetative decay and wildfires collectively produce 18% of the worlds co2 output, and a fair amount of that is human caused. Thats statistically significant in a way that human consumption of fossil fuels is not.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 4:57 PM

DREAMTROVE


I was just using your example. No reason not to live to 640. By anti death I mean anti death. As hard as we try, I doubt we can get to 640and we cant get to forever, statistics are just against it. But if we don't try, we run some very serious risks:

One is death. People say they'll accept it when it comes knocking, but they also imagine that to be basically infinitely far off, and they imagine there's something on the other side, and they know what that is. Fact is, its knocking tomorrow morning. Are you ready for that, is it what you want, or are there parts of the world you haven't seen and thing you haven't done yet?

Two: the world is ruled by those who live the longest. The reason is that knowledge wisdom money and power all come with time. I'm convinced that the powers that be in their efforts to kill the inferiors, things like spreading HIV in Africa, that they are content to not kill the Africans or exterminate their race, but just reduce their life expectancy to 40 or 50, while extending their own to 90 or 100. They know that by this mechanism they will always rule Africa.

Africans are the same way. It seems odd in a country like Zimbabwe where the median life expectancy is 37 that the power struggle was between Ian smith, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. Odd, that is, until you understand the relationship between age and power. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. In the land of the 30 year old, the healthy 80 year old is a god.

Its also a reason why Wulf shouldn't be president. Not only does he not yet know enough, he doesn't know enough pele or hold enough power and he doesn't know enough tricks. He would be completely manipulated by pele already in DC who are twice his age or more.

IMHO, this is already what is happening to Obama, and pretty much exactly what happened to JFK.

So, yes, Ron Paul should be president, and Wulf should not. age alone is not a deciding factor, but it is a far more influential one than people realize.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 5:09 PM

DREAMTROVE


Magon,


I read the piece when it came out. I think its worth bearing in mindless. Merck is not entirely off course, they have some brilliant people, and sure, they are at times the very greedy international corporation, but they are also scientists, and damned good ones at that.

Also, its important to get your information from many sources. I read what the skeptics say about vaccines, genetic engineering and even specifically companies like Merck, but I also read the studies they put out, and find myself on Merck's own page enough times to be able to do some real objective analysis. I think its a complicated issue, but I'd definitely say that this one is as proven a link as we are likely to get in the medical sciences,

Sometimes people go too far though. The HPV virus family is another omnipresent virus, and unlike HPV 16 and HPV 18, most variations, and most infections are not retroviruses, and do not contain the enzyme reverse transcriptase, and often lack tumor suppressant factors. Again, these could be agents in cancer, but they may not be a plague of cancer.

So, there is room for scientific proof, and there is room for skepticism. Understood on the level that the scientists do, what the guys at merck have uncovered is absolutely true, I have no doubt at all. In the manner it is sometimes presented in the medial, I have my doubts.

Cancer can be caused by many things because cells contain a number of growth inhibitors and differentiation specifiers which, if lost, can cause a cell to become cancerous. It doesn't take a virus to cause this. Sometimes a virus may weaken a cell, knock out one defense, but then something else may be needed.

One speculated example is the link between herpes 8 and caposi sarcoma. It appears that the virus causes the disease sometimes, but may require a secondary inferno to provide the enzyme reverse transcriptase, and additionally only occurs in seriously immune deficient patients, like those with AIDS, or the very elderly.

This sort of combination of factors is something that i suspect we will be seeing a lot of in cancer findings in the future.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 5:56 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yes, thank you for that DT, I was going to post the same.
Hmm. I'm a bit confused. I thought you held the opposite position, because earlier you had said this:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think that the correlation between viruses and cancer is an interesting, largely unproven area of medicine and it will be interesting to see what develops over the next few years.

Quote:
It seems to me that you come from a basic position which distrusts all expert authority.
No. My default position is to trust expert authority--until I see dissent. Then I investigate dissenting arguments vis-a-vis conventional positions and arrive at my own conclusions. Sometimes I agree with the dissenters. Sometimes I agree with the expert authorities. Sometimes I arrive at a 3rd conclusion with has elements of both. Sometimes, I confess that after research, I need more information.
Quote:
You appear to not believe anything because 99.% accuracy is not enough to prove anything as far as you are concerned.
Science is a method by which models are made to describe the material world. Like all models, none of them are perfect representations of the real world. But 99% is pretty good. I'd easily go with 99%. The Law of Gravity, for example, predicts accurately, well over 99% of the time. You won't find me disputing gravity.

The other 1% is called anomalies. Anomalies kind of get ignored until enough of them accumulate over time. Then someone finds a better model that can explain the 99% of the anomalies. This is known as a scientific revolution. The new model takes over, until the next revolution, and so forth.

In science, the concept of "cause" is pursued, but never caught. You don't speak of cause unless you find one event that is 100% necessary and 100% sufficient to lead to another event--which is almost never. "Scientific cause" is quite more rigorous than "vernacular cause" or "legal cause." So while in the vernacular, you might say "sexual activity causes babies," and the idea would hold up in court as a cause, scientists would not say sexual activity causes babies, because sexual intercourse is neither necessary nor sufficient for babies to happen.

Plenty of things are proven, but scientists generally don't talk about proving causes. Physicians, sure. Epidemiologists, certainly. Scientists? Not so much. And if I find one that does? Red flag goes up. Just me.
Quote:
How then do you decide on what course of action to take regarding health and other matters?
If I see a guy leaving a restaurant vomiting, I might think it was just coincidence. If I see another guy, I'd get concerned. If I see 3 guys, I start getting suspicious. If I see 10 guys, I'd say there was a strong temporal correlation between eating at the restaurant and vomiting. Do I have either legal or scientific proof that the restaurant caused vomiting? No. Will I eat there? No, hell, no.

I make many decisions based on correlations and no hard proof.
Quote:
Do you undertake your own research on all these matters?
If there is no dissent, I go with conventional thought. If there is dissent, I try to research the dissenting opinion. If I don't have time, I say I don't know.
Quote:
Do you have a scientific or medical background?
Yes.
Quote:
A bit of skeptism is one thing, but to actively distrust all empirical research...
I never distrust empirical research. Data is data. I only distrust conclusions based on empirical research if I think the conclusions are premature or overreach the support of the data.

I hope that clarifies a bit where I am coming from.



Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 6:14 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yes, thank you for that DT, I was going to post the same.
Hmm. I'm a bit confused. I thought you held the opposite position, because earlier you had said this:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think that the correlation between viruses and cancer is an interesting, largely unproven area of medicine and it will be interesting to see what develops over the next few years.


I don't see any contradiction there. There has been a proven link between one or two forms of virus and cancer, but that the link between many types of virus and cancer has yet to be proven (or researched) and probably will be much greater than what it is believed to be today.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 6:43 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't see any contradiction there. There has been a proven link between one or two forms of virus and cancer, but that the link between many types of virus and cancer has yet to be proven (or researched) and probably will be much greater than what it is believed to be today.
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.


Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:24 AM

DREAMTROVE


I read the article on SV 40, and my conclusion would be similar: SV 40 is probably a promoter of cancer, but is far too common to be considered a cause, since only a small percent of those who have the virus will develop the cancer. P53 inhibition would encourage carcinogensis, or at least inhibit the body's ability to fight cancer, and so that provides a mechanism, but again, not proven as a sole actor in this case. This may be true of HPV 16 etc., but degrees and cancer rates vary among subtypes of the virus, which may be true of SV 40 as well, but also secondary factors may be required to cause the cancer, even if one of those factors is random chance.

At any rate, stopping all of these diseases is worth doing, and doing so through the use of genetic engineering is certainly safer than doing it by injecting the blood of the infected into the blood of the not yet infected.

I suspect in the future, genetically engineered proteins like the L1 capsid used in gardasil will be available in pill form to promote immune response to the viruses that contain it, but even this will have to be carefully done so as not to create food allergies. Ergo, such synthetic proteins will have to be virally specific, such as sulfur contain compounds that do not occur in foods that humans eat.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:32 AM

DREAMTROVE


I was dismayed that the majority of people were categorically in favor of death, even when the debate was framed not as a quest for immortality, but as something largely being doled out by TPTB to the masses.

My sister's cancer came from contamination on a govt. Site, of this, the doctors appear to be certain. It's not clear yet whether or not this is related to fracking or somme other sort of toxic waste storage, they said radioactive material, if present at the site, was a serious suspect. Statistically, now the entire office has brain tumors, and that is highly irregular.

She is the third person I've known to get cancer from contamination at a govt, site in no small part due to the complete lack of land use regulation on govt. Sites, which are exempt from their own land use laws.

While I think that its impossible to oppose a power when you are unwilling to oppose it's main weapon, I also think that this belief in acceptance is not natural, and that no other species would feel the same way. Sure, you must accept the deaths which happen, because he have no cure, but you do not need to accept those which have not yet happened.

I also suspect that we as a culture are sheep which have been bred into the total acceptance of our own slaughter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 4:10 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This may be true of HPV 16 etc., but degrees and cancer rates vary among subtypes of the virus, which may be true of SV 40 as well, but also secondary factors may be required to cause the cancer, even if one of those factors is random chance.
That's all I'm saying.

It's not just HPV 16 but also immunosuppression or immunodysregulation of some sort, chronic infection/inflammation from HPV 16, genetics, etc. Just like coition doesn't produce babies. It's coition + fertility + timing + successful implantation/gestation + successful birth, etc; and even then, you can skip the coition part with technology. The oncogenes are good starting glimpses of the underlying mechanisms, but we have a long ways to go to understand all the mechanisms involved. To speak of just one factor as the "cause" is ok for vernacular conversation, but if we're going to be anti-Cancer, we need to be more precise about just how little we understand and what still needs to be done.

Quote:
I suspect in the future, genetically engineered proteins like the L1 capsid used in gardasil will be available in pill form to promote immune response to the viruses that contain it, but even this will have to be carefully done so as not to create food allergies....
I'll be honest with you, DT. If the Merchants of Death exist, then I am convinced Big Pharm is one of their biggest minions for biochemical enslavement. So there is my bias out in the open.

This may not apply to VLPs like the L1 Capsid, which grows in yeast, but I have great reservations about using any biochemical technology grown in other animal species. I'm not that crazy about yeast either, truth be told, but at least I don't see a long history of possible cross-species contaminants like SV40 or HIV or maybe even XMRV in yeast products.

For example, lookie here:

http://www.frontiersin.org/virology/10.3389/fmicb.2010.00147/abstract

Quote:
The novel human retrovirus XMRV (xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus) is arguably the most controversial virus of this moment. After its original discovery in prostate cancer tissue from North American patients, it was subsequently detected in individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) from the same continent. However, most other research groups, mainly from Europe, reported negative results. The positive results could possibly be attributed to contamination with mouse products in a number of cases, as XMRV is nearly identical in nucleotide sequence to endogenous retroviruses in the mouse genome. But the detection of XMRV proviruses in prostate cancer tissue proves it to be a genuine virus that replicates in human cells, leaving the question: how did XMRV enter the human population? We will discuss two possible routes: either via direct virus transmission from mouse to human, as repeatedly seen for e.g. hantaviruses, or via the use of mouse-related products by humans, including vaccines. We hypothesize that mouse cells or human cell lines used for vaccine production could have been contaminated with a replicating variant of the XMRV precursors encoded by the mouse genome.
The FDA's regulation of DNA contamination from animal cell lines is actually so generous as to be disturbing.

I'm not saying I won't use Big Pharm technology. But I feel strongly about being very cautious about it.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 4:13 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I was dismayed that the majority of people were categorically in favor of death, even when the debate was framed not as a quest for immortality, but as something largely being doled out by TPTB to the masses.
Don't be too dismayed. The way I read it, they were mostly anti-immortality and pro-aging. I don't think they were actually pro-murder, pro-manslaughter, pro-involuntary manslaughter, or pro-cancer.

Death is too encompassing a term. I think if you phrased it differently, as in pro- or anti- different TYPES of death, you'll see most are on your side.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:41 AM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

I concur on Big Pharm. I think that part of the paradox is that in order for Big Pharm to continue to function, it must continuously buy up little pharm companies to get new ideas, new products and new scientists. It is therefore often the merger of good science and bad finance.

Mouse contamination is unlikely but possible. Humans are a derivative subspecies of fieldmouse, as is of course the entire simian line, so we share about 98% of our DNA. however, this story also might be a cover for something which was done which was less ethical that no one wants to admit was done, such as the use of primates or humans. Or some cloned human tissue. But overall, I don't see this as a risk factor in using things which are not related to us at all. Ultimately, the synthesis will be done using either equipment or completely artificial organisms that have no natural environment at all.

The major vaccine threat in the world is a moronic one, and it is still done all over the place, and that's to extract blood from one group of humans and inject it into another. This can carry resistance to Ebola that the first group has, and transfer it to the second group, as was done in Africa about ten years back. But at the same time, it can take HIV or whatever else that first group has, and transfer it directly to the second group without any mutation required at all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 7, 2024 07:38 - 7428 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 7, 2024 07:23 - 4615 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, November 7, 2024 06:37 - 924 posts
Can social media censor content? Google does it. So does FB and Twitter
Thu, November 7, 2024 06:07 - 115 posts
Trump wins 2024. Republicans control Senate.
Thu, November 7, 2024 05:51 - 15 posts
Bolton is out, finally!
Thu, November 7, 2024 05:35 - 28 posts
What I would do if I were President
Thu, November 7, 2024 05:03 - 29 posts
Countdown Clock, Trump Going to Jail
Thu, November 7, 2024 02:21 - 1481 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 6, 2024 23:42 - 4681 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Wed, November 6, 2024 23:09 - 645 posts
That didn't take long...
Wed, November 6, 2024 22:08 - 36 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:59 - 43 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL