There are actually proven ways that work, such as using a certain vegetable for some sort of eye testing instead ripping the eyes out of the poor animals and others. I read about them because my brother was doing a report about animal testing.
There are actually proven ways that work, such as using a certain vegetable for some sort of eye testing instead ripping the eyes out of the poor animals and others. I read about them because my brother was doing a report about animal testing.
Im no expert but I know it wont be half as succesful as doing it to another mammal. The difference between a mouse biologically to a human is 98% someone said in this thread. Imagine the difference between a Human and a carrot or whatever this magical vegetable is. And the effects show on a mouse much faster than a human. Im pretty sure this vegeatble cant manage as well.
millions compared to Billions if it suceeds than billions of people could be saved for Generations to come
LET THE HAMMER FALL
Umm... a few pointers for those less bio-science inclined:
1. Cancer is caused when one of your own cells is mis-copied, and behaves unlike how it should. Usually, it dies, but sometimes it forms a growth and spreads, which causes a variety of problems to vast to list here. That's the reason our systems have such trouble spotting cancer cells- they're more like a rebellion than an invasion.
2. HIV, and all other viroids, survive by attacking a cell, merging into it, growing to maximum density, and leaving. End result: a thousand or more virii, and a dead cell. THESE are the invaders.
3. Most viral strains can only attack certain tissues. HIV affects, typically, only the imune tissue and the liver tissue. Rabies affects nervous system, and only those cells within it. And so forth. A virus coded to affect a cancer could probably only affect one type of cancer.
In HIVs case, it's unlikely it would mutate in such a way to make itself able to infect a new type of tissue. It has had more than enough time to do so in nature, yet hasn't. I don't know why, no scientist would do more than speculate, but of all the AIDS in the world, it has never jumped to a new type of tissue. Maybe it can't, I don't know.
HIV, however, is a retrovirus. The super-rare (thankfully) type of viral chain that uses RNA instead of DNA codes. It mutates faster, spreads more rapidly, is harder for the immune system to fight. Heck, just look at the Ebola retro-virus. I'd be loath to rely either for the job at hand, but such is the price one pays.
And although plant and other organism testing has some merit, you could NEVER trust it to behave the same way in the areas of the immune system (which only animals truly possess). Which, FYI, both cancer and HIV are a matter of.
Also, this modified version probably would still possess the ability to transfer sexually. However, even the natural version doesn't guarentee a spread during contact. And it's doubtful then that the virus would have a chance to reach exploitable cells before its rather limited luck ran out. And the immune system can attack HIV, especially a type that won't fight back. You'd have to be sexually active with an "onco-phage" (cancer-eater) carrier for months before a successful infection. Whereas, all the docs would need do is stick a needle in the cancer and inject it strait. Guarenteed results, first time around.
Last edited by udsuna; 02-15-2005 at 08:39 PM.
And there are also ways of testing certain cancer therapies on yeast cells. But the truth of the matter is that it will have to be tested on a mammal at some point. I do this stuff for a living. If someone brought to the scientific community some eye treatment based entirely on the workings of vegetables, he/she would be laughed out of the country. All scientific measures are started in single cellular or low multi-cellular organisms. To start research on a mouse would be insane. But eventually, you are going to have to test stuff on a system parallel to that of a what you are trying to treat. If you are trying to treat something with an eye, say a human, you can't base your research entirely on something that doesn't have an eye, say a carrot. You can do preliminary testing on a carrot, it's actually what goes on in general. But you are going to have to test this on something with an eye, and that testing can throw variables in that you didn't see before and more testing is going to need to be done. People have been working of cancer related stuff for years, and they always start their research in yeast, it's a very good environment for these tests. But, if you want viable data to use, you are going to have to go beyond yeast into a mammal. Don't think that scientist like to work with mice or anything. If we could all work with yeast we would. It's simple, cost efficient, and very effective. But the truth of the matter is we can't, because the data from yeast simply isn't enough.Originally Posted by Rye
Is that really a reputible site?
In and of itself, no. I wouldn't trust anything on the internet as "reliable". But it isn't the only source, and you can check out medical science journals that have similar materials. The use of virii to attack cancer has been a dream for at least the last decade. The use of HIV is a logical choice. Other than that, well, there is a LOT of government (USA) funding in this area. I can't speak for anywhere else, though.
And, there are documented "miracle" cases where a viral infection triggered a remission or complete destruction of a cancerous tumor in a patient that was diagnosed as incurable. If it happens in nature, we should eventually be able to replicate the results.
Case studies don't provide the best research. For example, all of Frued's theories were based on about 150 case studies and look how screwy all that stuff turned out to be.
Makoto, Honesty.
Never said they did. I'm just saying that said studies at least warrent further investigation. When coupled with a strong theory and some empirical data, such as in this case, it's definately worth the attempt. Especially given the potential rewards we would reap. Admittedly, I'd prefer a safer disease than HIV to toy with, but I'm not the expert.
Posting Permissions
