Top 10 scientific breakthrough of 2008. vol Cure for HIV? wth

[johnnyredstorm]

Originally Posted by Dathbgboy

Originally Posted by iceNcream

Conspiracy Theory-


i bet there is a cure for HIV/AIDS/Cancer but the government is trying to hide it from us because it'll take a big chunk out of the sales of medicine.

Not to mention HIV/AIDS is largely affecting minorities, and we all know how America don't give a @$!* about us

Not to bust your ignorant bubble, but America cares more about making money than keeping the black man down

 

[shuges]

Good find.

I agree with Boilermaker though.

You have to take much of this with a grain of salt.

 

[drsfinest72]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker X

StarkyL0ve wrote:

---

word, Boilermaker you sound like a jack @%$.

You're right. Last night I thought about what I wrote and I wanted to apologize for getting on my soapbox. I've been going on 3-4 hours of sleep for the last couple of weeks, it was Friday afternoon, I got a little worked up, and I'm sorry. It's difficult to live and work in a world of scientific and medical research where you really are working to help mankind only to have people (in this case, the writers of the original article) choose select bits of information, twist them, and present stories packed with half-truths to a public that is hungry for information and change. It's upsetting to see real and important work being spun into fuel for the rumor mill and the conspiracy machine.

drsfinest72 wrote:

---

Um are u insulting me or all the other people that aren't as "smart" as you? U sound dumb cocky right. Now. Anyways Gene editing do exist on argricultural products. And that's just the first step in understanding gene editing. Sooner or later scientist would be able to alter a human gene to be immune to cancer that runs in the family or other great possibilities.
I did not mean to insult anyone here. Again, I was referring to the people writing the article. The reference to gene editing in the article is another perfect example of what I'm trying to get across. Yes, gene editing does exist - and it's nothing like the the article casually describes ("Instead of transferring bone marrow from another person, doctors could take a few cells from a patient, modify them to be HIV-resistant and then put them back in."). If you're aware of its applications in agriculture then you're aware of the meticulous work that has to be done for even simple modifications in well understood plant species. This article wants to make it sound like you just take out a few cells, magically modify them, and drop them back in the patient. The fact is that the sort of technology they are describing is DECADES away. Whether it be through ignorance or agenda, this piece does the public a great disservice by presenting things in a wholly unrealistic way.


I have come to the unfortunate realization that some people want to believe in conspiracies in spite of any facts to the contrary and I can't do much about that. But sometimes I can point out when people are presenting misleading, twisted, or false information related to my little corner of the universe. So if you want to believe that the government is withholding the cure for AIDS or that vaccines cause Autism, then be my guest. But I don't know many people that would dedicate their lives to something and then sit back and watch while people spread false information about it.


Na it's cool man. But yeah the thing with gene editing in agriculture is that we don't know the long term effect in humans eating GE foods. So ge humandna won't happen for a while longer. I read somewhere that now you can choose your baby eye color and stuff. Isn't that considered GE?

 

[boilermaker x]

drsfinest72 wrote:

---

Na it's cool man. But yeah the thing with gene editing in agriculture is that we don't know the long term effect in humans eating GE foods. So ge human dna won't happen for a while longer. I read somewhere that now you can choose your baby eye color and stuff. Isn't that considered GE?
Can you choose your baby's eye color? Yes and no...and no.
If you were to examine the genetic markers on the eight genes involved in determining eye color you can predict with a great deal of accuracy what eye colorthe individual will have. If you were doing in vitro fertilization (IVF) where multiple eggs are fertilized and allowed to go through a couple of celldivisions you could, in theory, screen the individuals for the eye color that you like, implant those ones in the womb, and dispose of the rest.

So can you choose the eye color of your baby? Yes and no. You could only "choose" in the sense that you could look for aparticular trait and choose the individual or individuals that you want.
Can you decide what color eyes a baby will have? No. You cannot decide in advance what color you want your baby's eyes to be and thenscientifically make it happen.
Is anybody doing this? Earlier this year an IVF clinic in the US offered to screen for things like gender, hair color, and eye color. Somepeople described them as making "designer babies." However, the clinic quickly withdrew the offer for cosmetic screening and now offers only toscreen for particular diseases and genetic disorders.

drsfinest72 wrote:

---

Isn't that considered GE?
There's no genetic engineering involved. It's just screening individuals and selecting the ones you want.

For many people this becomes less an issue of science than one of ethics and morality. For instance, the idea of choosing who might be born - particularlybased on something like eye color - makes many people very uncomfortable.

 

[pftjordans]

thanks for the info .. one of the best posts i've read in a while..

 

[drsfinest72]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker X

drsfinest72 wrote:

---

Na it's cool man. But yeah the thing with gene editing in agriculture is that we don't know the long term effect in humans eating GE foods. So ge human dna won't happen for a while longer. I read somewhere that now you can choose your baby eye color and stuff. Isn't that considered GE?

Can you choose your baby's eye color? Yes and no...and no.
If you were to examine the genetic markers on the eight genes involved in determining eye color you can predict with a great deal of accuracy what eye color the individual will have. If you were doing in vitro fertilization (IVF) where multiple eggs are fertilized and allowed to go through a couple of cell divisions you could, in theory, screen the individuals for the eye color that you like, implant those ones in the womb, and dispose of the rest.

So can you choose the eye color of your baby? Yes and no. You could only "choose" in the sense that you could look for a particular trait and choose the individual or individuals that you want.
Can you decide what color eyes a baby will have? No. You cannot decide in advance what color you want your baby's eyes to be and then scientifically make it happen.
Is anybody doing this? Earlier this year an IVF clinic in the US offered to screen for things like gender, hair color, and eye color. Some people described them as making "designer babies." However, the clinic quickly withdrew the offer for cosmetic screening and now offers only to screen for particular diseases and genetic disorders.

drsfinest72 wrote:

---

Isn't that considered GE?
There's no genetic engineering involved. It's just screening individuals and selecting the ones you want.

For many people this becomes less an issue of science than one of ethics and morality. For instance, the idea of choosing who might be born - particularly based on something like eye color - makes many people very uncomfortable.
oh okay i see. good looks boiler.

but like you stated on the other post. that guy became immune to the HIV and he was like 1 in a million to survive it? but technically this procedure work,just lethal and over 85% chance of you dying. correct?


so if im right about that. maybe scientist should look into the procedure that he did and find a way to make it more safely so it can be used wide spreadaround the world.

 

[craftsy21]

boilermaker went OOFFFF on that article haha... i like it.