Talk Cancer

Question:

Edited and replied below… How do you suggest that this necessary research be done then?  You must recognize that it yields great results. It may yield great results, but how much pain is inflicted to obtain those results?  I would think that with the power of computers today, they would be able to use the power of simulation of achieve excellent results.

Guess what, Joe?  This is already being done, to the extent that it can be.  The biggest use I know of today is in designing molecules. However, biological systems are so complex that the idea that we can do a worthwhile computer model of a test animal is so ignorant as to be ludicrous.   — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone      These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.        "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants                   were standing on my shoulders."

Response:

What I am against is the deliberate pain inflicted on animals. I may be classified as a bit of an animal liber, and many argue that animals have no worth or feelings, or as a lower lifeform than us are expendable, I disagree.

Then what do you eat?  Are you aware of the thousands of small animals killed as a result of crop farming?  Do you sweep the path in front of you (some do) to avoid treading on insects?  I’m not being facetious.  I think that people with this stance haven’t thought it through. You are correct, Steven.  Who is to say that a so-called animal’s life is any less precious than a person’s life?  I know many people in this group and others agree that it is okay to deliberatly inflict pain on animals if there is a possiblity that it will help "humankind", but I disagree.

Your life is vastly improved as a direct result of animal research.  Your prognosis for your future health is far better as a result of animal research.  Instead of testing new surgical procedures on animals before digging into people would you suggest that we experiment with, say, a new transplant procedure on humans first?  You gonna volunteer?  If not, a decision has to be made regarding the "preciousness" of animal lives. If treating an animal (in this case a monkey) with a pre existing problem is the sole intention then I am not against it. But on the other hand if causing the animal or giving the animal some illness or disease to test on, then I am against it as I feel it is abuse and should be stopped. I am aware of how animals in testing facilities are treated and that their life expectancy is greatly reduced which is a great shame.

Animals in testing facilities are treqated with far greater care than animals raised to be eaten.  They are treated better than animals at your local humane society. I would argue that animal experiments is a far more worthwhile use of animal life than, say, eating it in the form of beef. ls were treated with great care, the fact is that they are raised for the sole purpose of experimentation.  It is unethical.

And, again, what of those killed in the cause of many other things that you, likely, take for granted? erf

Response:

This was my last post to <SNIP Thank you for your input.

Well, you can’t say that it wasn’t politely worded or that it didn’t ask you very specific questions about your anti-vac position.  ( don’t think even Kaalga could find much fault with it.)  So, I guess that all you can do, instead of explaining your position, is to label me a troll and ignore my questions.  I think that’s an unacceptable position for someone who wishes to have his professional colleagues declared primary care physicians.  But welcome back anyway. erf

Response:

<snip Rich’s usual harping on last year’s news Several questions Rich hasn’t answered, he forgets this, but never forgets to continually asks questions of others that have been answered. Jan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And what is the problem with that?  Are you saying that animals should not be used for research? Are you asking me about the ethical ramifications about deliberately giving an animal a deadly disease (such as cancer) so that it will inevitably suffer a long, slow, agonizing death? Yes. PS  I’m still waiting for your answers on the polio vaccination issues you raised. Nice beat a dead horse content. Sorry, erfy, that issue is closed.  Ended. Kaput. Finished. There has been closure on the subject. Discontinued.

<snip off topic continual discussion Jan

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive:  yes Why is having an extra gene "animal abuse"?  You almost certainly have at least a few mutations that your parents did not.  Do you feel abused because of this?  You’re being very emotional, but you don’t know what’s really happening.    Perhaps giving it an extra gene that causes it to glow in the dark is harmless enough. The television program I watched also mentioned deliberately putting cancer into the monkeys for purposes of experimentation. It’s a simple enough issue here. Good for human cancer research. Bad for the experimental animal.

At times like this, I’m reminded of an old New Yorker cartoon, wherein an older couple are standing in a restaurant in front of the lobster tank.  The husband, with an irritated expression, is saying "Oh, for heaven’s sake, Marion!  They wouldn’t think twice about eating *you*!" I am not in favor of inflicting unnecessary cruelties on animals in labs, like those damn cosmetics tests, but if it’s animals vs humans for testing, I go with the animals.   — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone      These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.        "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants                   were standing on my shoulders."

Response:

And what is the problem with that?  Are you saying that animals should not be used for research? Are you asking me about the ethical ramifications about deliberately giving an animal a deadly disease (such as cancer) so that it will inevitably suffer a long, slow, agonizing death?

Yes. PS  I’m still waiting for your answers on the polio vaccination issues you raised. Nice beat a dead horse content. Sorry, erfy, that issue is closed.  Ended. Kaput. Finished.

There has been closure on the subject. Discontinued. This was my last post to you.  It was a repeat of points made that you dismissed by simply saying "wrong".  You never responded:   Okay. Then why is it that the three of you have repeatedly hammered away on a few examples where you claim that the only variable which changed was vaccination – everything else remained the same? I contend that they’re all worthy of consideration.

Well, you started it by asserting that domestic polio vaccination is no longer necessary.  Vaccination is a common variable.  Places with vastly different sanitation, nutrition, health care and economic status all have zero or near zero wild polio when vaccination is universal or near universal.  You keep hinting at these other factors by saying that they’re worthy of consideration.  They have been considered.  It’s been pointed out that polio becomes a worse disease as sanitation improves because the exposure is decreased and the age of infection increases.  It’s a far worse disease in older people.  Do you have a disagreement with this?  Do you contend (you seem to hint) that sanitation is responsible for the eradication of wild polio on anywhere near the scale that vaccination is? My position is that ceasing to vaccinate people against polio will likely result in another domestic outbreak. Okay. That’s you’re opinion.

No.  It’s an assertion based on the history of the disease and an understanding of the carrier and transmission routes.  It’s a very contagious disease and deadlier as age increases.  Do you disagree with this?  If not, then on what grounds do you disagree with my assertion that polio will return if vaccination ceases before its eradication? If vaccination ceases, there will be a huge vulnerable population while wild polio is still alive and well. There already is a significant population – which is unvaccinated – in THIS country. The odds that they’ve been exposed to foreigners is extremely high.

I really doubt this and you can’t prove that the number of unvaccinated is significant.  I can’t prove that it is insignificant but I do know that the vast majority of infants are still vaccinated.  There are stats on that.  So where is the "significant" unvaccinated population coming from?  As well, I also doubt that many wild polio carriers have sufficient contact for transmission to be a risk at this time.  But I have a more important question I’d like to ask:  If my take on this is wrong (few unvaccinated and little contact responsible for no wild polio now) what do you contend is responsible for the lack of new cases?  In other words, since you have stated that you think that numerous opportunities for transmission have occured, presumably like in the bad old days, why do you think that nobody has become infected? Do you agree that smallpox would still be with us if not for the vaccination program? Sure.

See, this is what I don’t get about your position.  We know that polio and smallpox are good candidates for global eradication because they don’t seem to be transmissible by anything other than other infected humans (bio warfare excepted).  You accept that smallpox was eradicated by a relentless global vaccination program and that it would still be a menace if not for that program.  Yet you claim that this is not necessary for a similar disease, possible to eradicate, at a time when global travel is far less restricted.  This is something I’d like you to explain. I usually read your posts, because they are quite often interesting, and intelligently written. However, if you are incapable of moving onto new topics with me, I’ll simply interpret that as trolling on your part. And you can then join Rich and Andrew in my killfilter.

Fine by me.  I am really disturbed by your anti vac stance and your refusal to address the issues I raised.  My above posts asks very specific questions of things you’ve said.  It is polite and on topic.  It is not fair to call it "trolling".  Did I miss you explanations?  Did anyone else get answers to the above? erf

Response:

Edited and replied below… How do you suggest that this necessary research be done then?  You must recognize that it yields great results.

It may yield great results, but how much pain is inflicted to obtain those results?  I would think that with the power of computers today, they would be able to use the power of simulation of achieve excellent results.  Of course then the clinical trials and testing would have to be done.  It is unfortunate that we, people,  cannot come up with a better way of doing things. You are right, that is a hard one. Joe

Response:

My position is that ceasing to vaccinate people against polio will likely

result in another domestic outbreak. Okay. That’s you’re opinion. No.  It’s an assertion based on the history of the disease and an

understanding of the carrier and transmission routes.  It’s a very contagious disease and deadlier as age increases. You are dead on target. To stop Tb vaccines would be genocide. Peace, Jason

Response:

I have edited and replied below. What I am against is the deliberate pain inflicted on animals. I may be classified as a bit of an animal liber, and many argue that animals have no worth or feelings, or as a lower lifeform than us are expendable, I disagree.

You are correct, Steven.  Who is to say that a so-called animal’s life is any less precious than a person’s life?  I know many people in this group and others agree that it is okay to deliberatly inflict pain on animals if there is a possiblity that it will help "humankind", but I disagree. If treating an animal (in this case a monkey) with a pre existing problem is the sole intention then I am not against it. But on the other hand if causing the animal or giving the animal some illness or disease to test on, then I am against it as I feel it is abuse and should be stopped. I am aware of how animals in testing facilities are treated and that their life expectancy is greatly reduced which is a great shame.

It wouldn’t matter if the animals were treated with great care, the fact is that they are raised for the sole purpose of experimentation.  It is unethical. This is just a personal belief that I have. Joe

Response:

"Steven Fochi" < If treating an animal (in this case a monkey) with a pre existing problem is the sole intention then I am not against it. But on the other hand if causing the animal or giving the animal some illness or disease to test on, then I am against it as I feel it is abuse and should be stopped.

How do you suggest that this necessary research be done then?  You must recognize that it yields great results. I am aware of how animals in testing facilities are treated and that their life expectancy is greatly reduced which is a great shame.

I don’t think you are aware of how research animals are treated.  Do you know the standards? erf Personally I would rather sacrifice myself to ensure that another living creature is not hurt. Some may think it’s wrong to care, but I don’t.

Please.  You’d off yourself for a cockroach? erf

Response:

was wondering what folks thoughts were about the latest genetic engineering feat…. my main question would be why cross a jelly fish with a rhesus monkey in the first place? and is that a joke in the making or what? i’m thinking of the possibilities…..anyone seen the cartoon ‘catdog’ ? that could be interesting….. and hey, if you are allergic to cats or dogs but like birds, you could now be the proud owner of a real "bird dog" that barks at intruders? does acupuncture really work? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000324.html Some people think only intellect counts: knowing how to solve problems, knowing how to get by, knowing how to identify an advantage and seize it. But the functions of intellect are insufficient without courage, love, friendship, compassion and empathy. Dean Koontz

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive:  yes was wondering what folks thoughts were about the latest genetic engineering feat…. my main question would be why cross a jelly fish with a rhesus monkey in the first place? and is that a joke in the making or what? i’m thinking of the possibilities…..anyone seen the cartoon ‘catdog’ ? that could be interesting….. and hey, if you are allergic to cats or dogs but like birds, you could now be the proud owner of a real "bird dog" that barks at intruders?         I saw a presentation about this today on TV. It certainly does bring up a lot of ethics questions.  The researchers feel that it’s necessary to do this sort of Frankensteinian work because it can benefit the humans.  The animal rights crowd is crying foul (fowl).         To answer your question about why they’d cross a jelly fish with a monkey… That’s simple. The world *needs* glow in the dark monkeys. Sheesh. I would’ve thought that you could’ve put that one together yourself. <G

LOL! welcome back atlas. have a nice break? please put on your insult-proof armor. the musketeers are on a rampage lately. does acupuncture really work? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000324.html Some people think only intellect counts: knowing how to solve problems, knowing how to get by, knowing how to identify an advantage and seize it. But the functions of intellect are insufficient without courage, love, friendship, compassion and empathy. Dean Koontz

Response:

        To answer your question about why they’d cross a jelly fish with a monkey… That’s simple. The world *needs* glow in the dark monkeys. Sheesh. I would’ve thought that you could’ve put that one together yourself. <G

LOL!  The possiblities are mind boggling.  Glow in the dark dogs so one could see them at night when they come to defile one’s lawn.  Hey, how about glow in the dark burgler sorts so we could keep an eye on ‘em? Just think of the savings in policing costs!  : ) Connie

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – was wondering what folks thoughts were about the latest genetic engineering feat…. my main question would be why cross a jelly fish with a rhesus monkey in the first place? and is that a joke in the making or what? i’m thinking of the possibilities…..anyone seen the cartoon ‘catdog’ ? that could be interesting….. and hey, if you are allergic to cats or dogs but like birds, you could now be the proud owner of a real "bird dog" that barks at intruders?

Did I miss something here??? frank

Response:

Did I miss something here??? frank

it’s been in the news that a rhesus monkey named andy has successfully had his DNA intermingled with a jelly fish’s. and everyone is wondering when and if the monkey will develop bioluminescence? let’s just hope it wasn’t an australian box jellyfish that they (has deadlier venom than a cobra) does acupuncture really work? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000324.html Some people think only intellect counts: knowing how to solve problems, knowing how to get by, knowing how to identify an advantage and seize it. But the functions of intellect are insufficient without courage, love, friendship, compassion and empathy. Dean Koontz

Response:

Hey WELCOME back Atlas. I was afeared that you had run off with your little ole tail betweeen you Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -x-no-archive:  yes was wondering what folks thoughts were about the latest genetic engineering feat…. my main question would be why cross a jelly fish with a rhesus monkey in the first place? and is that a joke in the making or what? i’m thinking of the possibilities…..anyone seen the cartoon ‘catdog’ ? that could be interesting….. and hey, if you are allergic to cats or dogs but like birds, you could now be the proud owner of a real "bird dog" that barks at intruders?    I saw a presentation about this today on TV. It certainly does bring up a lot of ethics questions.  The researchers feel that it’s necessary to do this sort of Frankensteinian work because it can benefit the humans.  The animal rights crowd is crying foul (fowl).    To answer your question about why they’d cross a jelly fish with a monkey… That’s simple. The world *needs* glow in the dark monkeys. Sheesh. I would’ve thought that you could’ve put that one together yourself. <G

Response:

Did I miss something here??? frank it’s been in the news that a rhesus monkey named andy has successfully had his DNA intermingled with a jelly fish’s. and everyone is wondering when and if the monkey will develop bioluminescence?

I believe the answer is that yes, the monkey has indeed developed bioliminescence, at least in its nails.  They only added that one gene. The same thing was done recently to create a strain of potatoes that light up when they’re in need of watering (the bioluminescence is triggered when the plant gets too dry).  I’ve seen skepticism from farmers that this is really going to be useful, but with water costing more every year, you never know.   — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone      These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.        "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants                   were standing on my shoulders."

Response:

   Atlas, good to see ya here again.  T

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive:  yes LOL!  The possiblities are mind boggling.  Glow in the dark dogs so one could see them at night when they come to defile one’s lawn. How about glow in the dark turds, so when you’re walking Fido at night, it’ll be that much easier to pick up after the ol’ pooch? <G Hey, how about glow in the dark burgler sorts so we could keep an eye on ‘em? Just think of the savings in policing costs!  : ) Reminds me of a few George Carlin lines (when he was talking about some of his inventions): A Roach Spray: It doesn’t kill the roaches. But it fills them with self doubt as to whether or not they’re in the right house. A Lightbulb (that only shines on things worth looking at). <G Atlas

Response:

Welcome back Atlas Steven

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive:  yes was wondering what folks thoughts were about the latest genetic engineering feat…. my main question would be why cross a jelly fish with a rhesus monkey in the first place? and is that a joke in the making or what? i’m thinking of the possibilities…..anyone seen the cartoon ‘catdog’ ? that could be interesting….. and hey, if you are allergic to cats or dogs but like birds, you could now be the proud owner of a real "bird dog" that barks at intruders? I saw a presentation about this today on TV. It certainly does bring up a lot of ethics questions.  The researchers feel that it’s necessary to do this sort of Frankensteinian work because it can benefit the humans.  The animal rights crowd is crying foul (fowl). To answer your question about why they’d cross a jelly fish with a monkey… That’s simple. The world *needs* glow in the dark monkeys. Sheesh. I would’ve thought that you could’ve put that one together yourself. <G

Response:

Hi, Hitler would be proud. It all smells a bit fishy to me and if the likes of Monsanto get their greedy little paws on it, it would no doubt end up being abused. I can see some in the sporting industry getting quite excited over this. IMHO there are strong ethical concerns about all of this. I understand where they want to go with it, but as someone against animals being abused by testers I think it is not a good thing and should be stopped. The poor animals. Steven

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – was wondering what folks thoughts were about the latest genetic engineering feat…. my main question would be why cross a jelly fish with a rhesus monkey in the first place? and is that a joke in the making or what? i’m thinking of the possibilities…..anyone seen the cartoon ‘catdog’ ? that could be interesting….. and hey, if you are allergic to cats or dogs but like birds, you could now be the proud owner of a real "bird dog" that barks at intruders? does acupuncture really work? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000324.html Some people think only intellect counts: knowing how to solve problems, knowing how to get by, knowing how to identify an advantage and seize it. But the functions of intellect are insufficient without courage, love, friendship, compassion and empathy. Dean Koontz

Response:

Why is having an extra gene "animal abuse"?  You almost certainly have at least a few mutations that your parents did not.  Do you feel abused because of this?  You’re being very emotional, but you don’t know what’s really happening. Perhaps giving it an extra gene that causes it to glow in the dark is harmless enough. The television program I watched also mentioned deliberately putting cancer into the monkeys for purposes of experimentation. It’s a simple enough issue here. Good for human cancer research. Bad for the experimental animal.

And what is the problem with that?  Are you saying that animals should not be used for research? erf PS  I’m still waiting for your answers on the polio vaccination issues you raised.

Response:

Hitler would be proud.

Bing!  Look at that.  Once sentence and we can invoke Godwin’s Law and you lose.  But that’s too quick. It all smells a bit fishy to me and if the likes of Monsanto get their greedy little paws on it, it would no doubt end up being abused.

Steven, did you ever even *once* bother to find out why this sort of thing is being done?  I really doubt it. I can see some in the sporting industry getting quite excited over this. IMHO there are strong ethical concerns about all of this.

Depends.  If you’re one of those Animal Liberation Front types who think that any experimentation on animals is evil, maybe there are. But this is not being done just for fun, as you apparently think. (By the way, I was wrong the other day when I said that the monkey was indeed glowing in the dark.  It isn’t.  It may yet start; the genes are present, but it may not happen.) I understand where they want to go with it, but as someone against animals being abused by testers I think it is not a good thing and should be stopped.

Why is having an extra gene "animal abuse"?  You almost certainly have at least a few mutations that your parents did not.  Do you feel abused because of this?  You’re being very emotional, but you don’t know what’s really happening.   — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone      These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.        "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants                   were standing on my shoulders." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – was wondering what folks thoughts were about the latest genetic engineering feat…. my main question would be why cross a jelly fish with a rhesus monkey in the first place? and is that a joke in the making or what? i’m thinking of the possibilities…..anyone seen the cartoon ‘catdog’ ? that could be interesting….. and hey, if you are allergic to cats or dogs but like birds, you could now be the proud owner of a real "bird dog" that barks at intruders?

Response:

Hi David, sorry you mistook the attempt at humour the wrong way although it does have a ring of truth about it. I am aware of the intentions of some of the researchers and in theory it may be a good thing. What I am against is the deliberate pain inflicted on animals. I may be classified as a bit of an animal liber, and many argue that animals have no worth or feelings, or as a lower lifeform than us are expendable, I disagree. If treating an animal (in this case a monkey) with a pre existing problem is the sole intention then I am not against it. But on the other hand if causing the animal or giving the animal some illness or disease to test on, then I am against it as I feel it is abuse and should be stopped. I am aware of how animals in testing facilities are treated and that their life expectancy is greatly reduced which is a great shame. Personally I would rather sacrifice myself to ensure that another living creature is not hurt. Some may think it’s wrong to care, but I don’t. Also I am aware of the lack of ethics monsanto has and if they were to be allowed to get their hands on this then who knows how far they will take it, it’s scary what could happen and probably likely. Steven

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hitler would be proud. Bing!  Look at that.  Once sentence and we can invoke Godwin’s Law and you lose.  But that’s too quick. It all smells a bit fishy to me and if the likes of Monsanto get their greedy little paws on it, it would no doubt end up being abused. Steven, did you ever even *once* bother to find out why this sort of thing is being done?  I really doubt it. I can see some in the sporting industry getting quite excited over this. IMHO there are strong ethical concerns about all of this. Depends.  If you’re one of those Animal Liberation Front types who think that any experimentation on animals is evil, maybe there are. But this is not being done just for fun, as you apparently think. (By the way, I was wrong the other day when I said that the monkey was indeed glowing in the dark.  It isn’t.  It may yet start; the genes are present, but it may not happen.) I understand where they want to go with it, but as someone against animals being abused by testers I think it is not a good thing and should be stopped. Why is having an extra gene "animal abuse"?  You almost certainly have at least a few mutations that your parents did not.  Do you feel abused because of this?  You’re being very emotional, but you don’t know what’s really happening.   — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone      These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.        "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants                   were standing on my shoulders." was wondering what folks thoughts were about the latest genetic engineering feat…. my main question would be why cross a jelly fish with a rhesus monkey in the first place? and is that a joke in the making or what? i’m thinking of the possibilities…..anyone seen the cartoon ‘catdog’ ? that could be interesting….. and hey, if you are allergic to cats or dogs but like birds, you could now be the proud owner of a real "bird dog" that barks at intruders?

Response: