AIDS Cure Found?

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Jrrrr it's beyond unreliable, it's irresponsible to make a headline like this. It's why I compared it to the arsenic bacteria debaucle provided to us from NASA recently- it's unfounded and, if anything, a blip on the radar that has been blown out of proportion with grotesque assumptions based on assumptions.

Don't forget that "for science" typically involves advancement on thought, technology, discovery and general understanding of the universe. "For God" typically involves flying planes into buildings, social stagnation and systematic armwaving.
Alternatively, "For Science" usually means perfecting the human race through any means neccesary (eugenics, slaughter), then writing a report on all the blood you spilled. Or if you prefer less bloody ways of getting worthless information, there's always defrauding millions of people with fabricated or hopelessly tweaked data just to enrich yourself while you deprive developing nations of technology that could have saved them from diseases your Western nation long ago cured. "For Science" usually means you got paperwork in exchange for human blood.

"For God" is usually just a cover for some other power grab, in the Jihadi's case it's a political movement that's basically the UN (unchecked global governance by important morally unimpeachable transnational busybodies) except Muslim only. Most of the people who act for God are decent charitable people who are basically mandated to avoid harming other human beings to the best extent possible. If it weren't for religion telling people it's a bad idea to base your society on social darwinism and the law of the jungle, you would never have had any scientific breakthroughs at all. You'd probably have some pretty badass spears though. There is almost no way to claim "For God" as a justification for most major religions because they explicitly prohibit their adherents from harming others.

Civilizations can exist without science. Science is an amoral tool that can be used either to advance or destroy, but it is not in itself a means to build a civilization. Without a moral compass provided by religion societies falter. Up until recent history the vast majority of scientists and thinkers were religious people as well, and while there have been historical wrongs in the name of maintaining the societal status quo enforced by the strongest religion at the time, it's no different than the so-called scientific chameleon of anthropogenic global warming (or whatever they call it now, even Anthropogenic Climate Change died off last I heard.) is today.

I believe the only reason atheism has taken hold in the scientific community is because they think we're now technologically advanced enough to call ourselves Gods, and as they consider themselves deities, the rest of us unscientific peons can pound sand. The fact these people are worthless outside their tiny enclaves of study escapes them. Scientists are not superheroes and from what I've read of your highly entertaining blog entries (visit Morm's blog btw.) they're as prone to error and illogical thinking as anyone else.

Moreover I submit to you that if you look at it from a scientific perspective, those societies that eschew religion are on a demographic course to irrelevance (nonexistence is perhaps the truest form of social stagnation). I don't really care how enlightened Europe proper thinks it is when they're only creating 1.3 children per couple while their Muslim immigrant counterparts are having 4 or 5. The survival instinct has been completely bred out of them. It's a rather sad state of affairs when the most likely branch of science to study your civilization will soon be anthropology.

Oh, and sorry for going off on you earlier. Got a bit carried away again.
 
Alternatively, "For Science" usually means perfecting the human race through any means neccesary (eugenics, slaughter), then writing a report on all the blood you spilled.
Pretty sure discoving things like insulin and other life lengthening things ad nauseum in lieu of eugenics (a simpler choice) demonstrates just how inappropriate that was.


Or if you prefer less bloody ways of getting worthless information, there's always defrauding millions of people with fabricated or hopelessly tweaked data just to enrich yourself while you deprive developing nations of technology that could have saved them from diseases your Western nation long ago cured. "For Science" usually means you got paperwork in exchange for human blood.
I'd like to know your definition of worthless information. I'd also like to know, even when the information is 'worthless', just how discovering a salamander that can photosynthesize is bloody...or tweaked. Data is data, you can't argue with a datapoint- it's the interpretation that is shit, which is why the scientific method was devised to mitigate the imperfections within humanity and our lovely irrational, emotion ridden train wreck thought process.


"For God" is usually just a cover for some other power grab, in the Jihadi's case it's a political movement that's basically the UN (unchecked global governance by important morally unimpeachable transnational busybodies) except Muslim only.
I feel remiss in pointing out that the only country more religious per capita than the USA (where you live) is turkey...and going back to an earlier point, the least religious country who has had atrocities done (by the second most religious state, the USA) is Japan. They are also the most technologically progressive, yet laughable in culture with shit like waiste size limits. LOL.

Most of the people who act for God are decent charitable people who are basically mandated to avoid harming other human beings to the best extent possible.
Muslim and christian extremests ARE known for gentleness after all...

If it weren't for religion telling people it's a bad idea to base your society on social darwinism and the law of the jungle, you would never have had any scientific breakthroughs at all.
I like how even now you bring up Darwin as some pariah of humanity. I refer you to the Dark ages to show what happens when religion gets its way. Kings mandated by gods, popes calling holy wars, social regression, class division to an outrageous extent by BIRTH and not merit and of course entire plagues mitigated not by discovery but by 1/3 of europe dying.

Civilizations can exist without science.
Not as we know them.

Science is an amoral tool that can be used either to advance or destroy, but it is not in itself a means to build a civilization.
Yeah, curse the man who made the discoveries that allowed for polio to be erradicated, as well as TB (in some parts of the world- but that's greed, not science limiting that). They must have been VERY amoral people indeed. If you are so at odds with science, I would ask you never use its exploits again lest you be a hypocrite: never drive over a bridge, never drive for that matter, never get a vaccine, never turn on your tv. Even making a stone speak was made with a rudimentary version of the scientific processes trial and error methodoloy. It is humanity that corrupts the process, not the other way around.

Without a moral compass provided by religion societies falter. Up until recent history the vast majority of scientists and thinkers were religious people as well, and while there have been historical wrongs in the name of maintaining the societal status quo enforced by the strongest religion at the time, it's no different than the so-called scientific chameleon of anthropogenic global warming (or whatever they call it now, even Anthropogenic Climate Change died off last I heard.) is today.
Almost every single founding father was atheist. Being scientific and religious can be mutually exclusive IF you apply the process properly to whatever you are looking at. Ugh, don't get me started on climate change. Climates have changed in the past countless times, they will change in the future and every discrete packet of time (long and short term) we are in transition. There is too much data for a model to encompass, so making any call is sensationalist arm waving; it's not a sign of weakness in the system as you are clearly trying to make it out to be, it's a sign that people are fucking stupid.


I believe the only reason atheism has taken hold in the scientific community is because they think we're now technologically advanced enough to call ourselves Gods, and as they consider themselves deities, the rest of us unscientific peons can pound sand
You are a man of belief, which means you don't have to justify it...how convenient. Atheism has taken hold of science not because we call ourselves Gods but because there is a lack of data to support the existence of any god. It is quite the opposite- people in science are modest enough to NOT have the answer to everything (see: God) which means a process is needed. That process is science. It's not some conspiracy, it's not some elaborate troll on you, it's simply a process demanding only two modest things: data and testing.

As Dawkins would say, we are all atheist, you just believe in one more god (out of thousands) than I do. That is a bit trollish of him, I admit, and I dislike him muchly. I do however understand the utility of pointing that out to people who believe their truth over others when there is the same evidence for any supernatural being: ZERO. The reason for this is because we cannot collect data on things that are supernatural, as science only can study nature. As such, science as a process MUST reject supernatural beings. That tidily explains why scientists are atheist quite commonly.

The fact these people are worthless outside their tiny enclaves of study escapes them.
That's pretty bold.

Scientists are not superheroes and from what I've read of your highly entertaining blog entries (visit Morm's blog btw.) they're as prone to error and illogical thinking as anyone else.
Since we are on the topic, anyone reading my blog will be met with bold assertions- each and every one of them backed by data, evidence and objectivity as best as I can muster. I even consult with experts! (thanks for the plug, DK lol). Any scientist is prone to error, every single one worth even a shred of his degree should accept that. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A PEER REVIEW PROCESS TO MITIGATE HUMAN BIAS AND ERROR.

Moreover I submit to you that if you look at it from a scientific perspective, those societies that eschew religion are on a demographic course to irrelevance (nonexistence is perhaps the truest form of social stagnation).
japan is pretty relevant in the american economy.

I don't really care how enlightened Europe proper thinks it is when they're only creating 1.3 children per couple while their Muslim immigrant counterparts are having 4 or 5.
Having more kids per family is a malignancy on this planet with our standing population. It is selfish and irresponsible.

The survival instinct has been completely bred out of them. It's a rather sad state of affairs when the most likely branch of science to study your civilization will soon be anthropology.
No, they are thinking about the SPECIES and longevity of it, not just how many kids they can crank out in a short time. The number of children they have, for the record, has the opposite effect as you impose on their survivability. Having kids reduces the specific success of the individual in EVERY case, creating both competition and a short (9 months in our case) burden on resources.

Oh, and sorry for going off on you earlier.
I forgive that post

Got a bit carried away again.
and this one too. Deck, honestly and with no offense intended: you are completely scienfically illiterate and absolutely sheltered and riddled with bias. I know you well enough at this point that beseeching you to educate yourself would be fruitless, but it doesn't mean I won't oppose your malignant line of thinking until I die. As much as I hate humanity, I work to improve it. At least cong will be entertained with our banter, eh?
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Can someone answer my question about how adding cells can get rid of a virus (it's not like the other cells suddenly take on the DNA and structure of the added ones, no?)?

k thanks
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Almost every single founding father was atheist.
You really don't know much about deism do you?

EDIT: Also Turkey is a wonderful country that celebrates its religion (and religious diversity in some areas) while still strictly separating religion from government. And I'm sure they are working hard on that whole human rights issue, seeing as they wish so much to be part of the EU.
 
Can someone answer my question about how adding cells can get rid of a virus (it's not like the other cells suddenly take on the DNA and structure of the added ones, no?)?

k thanks
I think the idea is that with HIV, the problem is the infected cells. By killing off a lot of them with the immunosuppressants, then providing a huge boost of healthy white blood cells they can eliminate the remaining infected cells faster than the virus can spread.
 

Bad Ass

Custom Title
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis the 2nd Grand Slam Winneris a Past SPL Championis a Three-Time Past WCoP Champion
I believe the only reason atheism has taken hold in the scientific community is because they think we're now technologically advanced enough to call ourselves Gods, and as they consider themselves deities, the rest of us unscientific peons can pound sand. The fact these people are worthless outside their tiny enclaves of study escapes them. Scientists are not superheroes and from what I've read of your highly entertaining blog entries (visit Morm's blog btw.) they're as prone to error and illogical thinking as anyone else.
This is why I can't take you seriously. We are atheists because we don't support believing in something that, you know, hasn't proven to be existed? Everyone is prone to illogical thinking -- take religion for example.
 
You really don't know much about deism do you?

EDIT: Also Turkey is a wonderful country that celebrates its religion (and religious diversity in some areas) while still strictly separating religion from government. And I'm sure they are working hard on that whole human rights issue, seeing as they wish so much to be part of the EU.
I know enough to know that most of the were secular. How you split those hairs is up to you. If my knowledge is failing it's in US founding father specific personal beliefs. I read Dawkins' book too, preachy to the choiry as it was.

Turkey is more socially progressive than the states in some respects I'd imagine.

This is why I can't take you seriously. We are atheists because we don't support believing in something that, you know, hasn't proven to be existed? Everyone is prone to illogical thinking -- take religion for example.
ANYONE can regress to the data. Thanks for having my back, at least in pricinple. Still, it doesn't need PROOF. It needs ANY SINGLE SHRED OF QUALIFIABLE EVIDENCE. THIS MEANS IT NEEDS MORE THAN A HAND PICKED SET OF GOSPELS AND OTHER STORIES THAT ARE ENTIRELY PRONE TO THE 'PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER' EFFECT ALONG WITH A FEELING IN YOUR HEART to be taken even remotely seriously.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I know enough to know that most of the were secular. How you split those hairs is up to you.
I'm secular. My best friend recently converted to Christianity and I can safely say he's secular. The founding fathers were secular. But they were also deists and that's the exact opposite of an atheist, no splitting hairs about it. Many deists don't believe in any specific god, which is not the same thing as not thinking there is a god. However, you can be a deist and follow a mainstream religion. Several founding fathers were not fans of organized religion or the bible but expressed an adherence to certain Christian philosophies.
 

Huy

INSTANT BALLS
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
Can someone answer my question about how adding cells can get rid of a virus (it's not like the other cells suddenly take on the DNA and structure of the added ones, no?)?

k thanks
The way HIV works, it mutates so rapidly that normal white blood cells can't mount an effective immune response against it so they continually get infected by a new 'strain' of the virus, so to speak.

The new cells that are being added are immune to HIV infection because it doesn't have the CCR5 or the CXCR4 receptor cells present on the membrane that allow HIV to infect the cell.

Your old white blood cells end up dying, but these new cells in a sense replace your old ones and end up forming a sort of 'new immune system'
 
I'm secular. My best friend recently converted to Christianity and I can safely say he's secular. The founding fathers were secular. But they were also deists and that's the exact opposite of an atheist, no splitting hairs about it. Many deists don't believe in any specific god, which is not the same thing as not thinking there is a god. However, you can be a deist and follow a mainstream religion. Several founding fathers were not fans of organized religion or the bible but expressed an adherence to certain Christian philosophies.
How exactly can you be secular. Do you mean you support a secular state?

I don't exactly see how you could claim to keep your religious and political beliefs separate, unless you have two different personalities. A state is able to do this because it is made up with many different individuals with different beliefs.

I'm not sure how you could claim the founding fathers are deist (or atheist) as either is simply speculation. Unless they explicitly claimed they were atheist (which I have never heard of happening) then there's no solid proof, and trying to delve into the mind of people who have been dead for 200 years isn't the most precise science. If they claimed they were deist that may have just been a cover for their atheism, which I don't believe was acceptable back then. (Hell, even now people have bigoted views in regards to atheism.)

Also adherence to christian beliefs means nothing. I don't think there's a single person that is completely opposed to everything the bible says, some of it is actually reasonable, if for the wrong reasons.

Back on topic, it's good news and it's a start. Maybe it will push for more acceptance of stem cell research. Bush's blockade of stem cell research has really pushed science back a fair bit, it's no surprise that this breakthrough came out of Europe.
 
But they were also deists
show me

and that's the exact opposite of an atheist
Not according to Dawkins's quote, that we are all atheist but you just believe in one more God than I do.

Many deists don't believe in any specific god
Believe or don't, don't be noncommittal about it. Either there is a God, of specific quality, or there isn't. No reason to be a hippie and say "I believe there is something out there" without saying what it is. That is NOT how the human mind should work. Idea with cause, not idea end of discussion.

which is not the same thing as not thinking there is a god
Good point but still noncommittal.

However, you can be a deist and follow a mainstream religion
See what I mean? Explaining everything that is non-atheist yet nothing of relevance, brilliant, it absolves the believer from having to justify anything.

Several founding fathers were not fans of organized religion or the bible but expressed an adherence to certain Christian philosophies
Probably has more to do with the country they were founding more than anything...qualified people shouldn't even bother to run in the USA without identifying with a party. Hell, many people there base a vote on common belief than common goal. I want some sources to educate myself, please.

billymills said:
I don't exactly see how you could claim to keep your religious and political beliefs separate, unless you have two different personalities. A state is able to do this because it is made up with many different individuals with different beliefs.
Yet in the states it is permissible to provide STATE money to 'rebuild' the ark while at the same time denying atheists a lobby group. Freedom of religion and state is a joke in the USA.

Also adherence to christian beliefs means nothing. I don't think there's a single person that is completely opposed to everything the bible says, some of it is actually reasonable, if for the wrong reasons.
It is personal, so you can't touch it without offending. There is ZERO baseline. Hell, every single protestant believes what they do because a King in England wanted a divorce but Catholicism wouldn't allow it so he changed the game. The only thing reasonable is morality and that was hijacked from Hammurabi, Babylonian leader, from way before even Judiacism and Jaweh were a twinkle in the eye of humanity. It's called "Code of Laws", there is some understandable different (as back then, they let cultural ideas evolve with time), but the idea of punishment for crime and some of the basic other concepts holds true.

This seems an appropriate time, if you've not seen it, to throw this down. Either everything in the bible is law or nothing is. Don't pick and choose.
 
The founding fathers' religions were at best irrelevant. The fact that they are Christian or atheist does not mean that they were right, and it frankly should have no bearing on the modern society, because in the era in which they founded the country was one where nonreligion was heretical, or at least served as enough of a sociopolitical barrier to prevent the education or ascension to the relevant position.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
The way HIV works, it mutates so rapidly that normal white blood cells can't mount an effective immune response against it so they continually get infected by a new 'strain' of the virus, so to speak.

The new cells that are being added are immune to HIV infection because it doesn't have the CCR5 or the CXCR4 receptor cells present on the membrane that allow HIV to infect the cell.

Your old white blood cells end up dying, but these new cells in a sense replace your old ones and end up forming a sort of 'new immune system'
Wow, that's cool. So the new added cells, being white blood cells, dive in and actively hunt down and destroy the virus.

That's cool
 
Chou- as I said before, it's a retrovirus. So it uses RNA instead of DNA. RNA is DNA's older and less table sibling, our cells use it even to this day. They have short codes, they are arguably not alive (depending on whose definition you wish to use) and as a result of using RNA, they mutate at a RIDICULOUS rate. Huy basically described any infection- WBC's can't mount an adequate offensive probably because antibodies haven't been made to activate T-cells to come and eat the shit out of them. Huy also neglected to mention that HIV (by definition) tends to hit the immune system, so having an immune system immune to attack from them is novel. If you don't know how viruses operate, you should check out basic info on wikipeida. They are literally the pirates of the biological world.

Just because one strain of HIV was potentially thwarted by a lack of receptors in cells it doesn't mean that will stop all strains of HIV from hijacking any other similar receptor. It just takes one novel mutation in one infected person transferring said novel infection to a "normie" and BOOM.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
How exactly can you be secular. Do you mean you support a secular state?

I don't exactly see how you could claim to keep your religious and political beliefs separate, unless you have two different personalities. A state is able to do this because it is made up with many different individuals with different beliefs.

I'm not sure how you could claim the founding fathers are deist (or atheist) as either is simply speculation. Unless they explicitly claimed they were atheist (which I have never heard of happening) then there's no solid proof, and trying to delve into the mind of people who have been dead for 200 years isn't the most precise science. If they claimed they were deist that may have just been a cover for their atheism, which I don't believe was acceptable back then. (Hell, even now people have bigoted views in regards to atheism.)

Also adherence to christian beliefs means nothing. I don't think there's a single person that is completely opposed to everything the bible says, some of it is actually reasonable, if for the wrong reasons.
I'm kind of replying to both billy and kitten here, so if I say something that doesn't apply to what you said ignore it.

I have one core philosophical belief that in my eyes admittedly isn't the driving point of Christianity in the eyes of the majority today and throughout history but really should be. Good will, even extending to those you can logically call your enemies, is everything to functioning society, and that requires forgiveness. If I can forgive a man for committing a crime and still believe he needs to be rehabilitated for it, then that crosses off a rather short list of potential religious/political conflicts. My newly Christian friend on the other hand is just very liberal.

As for claiming the founding fathers are deists, it is a rather loaded claim I admit if only because I'm lumping a large group of people together, none of which were perfect and many which I don't personally care for. But you can't just say deism is a cover for atheism because that's downright silly. It is, like I said, the exact opposite and I don't give two fucks what Dawkins (an atheist) says about that. Deism, as in deity. Most religions are Deisms, but people who identify themselves as Deists usually do it because they reject a religious text or organization (and keep that in mind, I never said I believe the bible is a work of god, in fact I've rejected aspects of the bible on this forum before). There's nothing noncommittal about thinking the world is artificial (which isn't the same thing as thinking that something is out there, that's actually approaching the question from a rather limited perspective no doubt influenced classic religion), at least, how is it any less committal than atheism? In short, I have humanistic philosophies and philosophies regarding existence and actually only about a year ago was I able to see that they didn't have to be mutually exclusive. Ergo, I consider myself a Christian Deist and if I met someone else who did that'd probably mean something entirely different to them but that's ok, I like to see differing viewpoints. I just don't think you like to as much.
 

cim

happiness is such hard work
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Or we can argue that the religion of the Founding Fathers has absolutely no effect on whether or not AIDS is cured or if stem cell research should be legal at all... I mean seriously, who cares? The Constitution says what it says regardless of what kind of people the authors were.
 
So you're generalizing and then don't back up your claim that I asked you to back up while piggybacking it. An atheist can make an observation on what deists believe so long as it's subjective and reasonable, it seems like you wrote off Dawkins because of his lack of faith...I simply hate him because he's a prick who preaches to the choir of atheists.

Let me spoonfeed you this logic: If you are claiming there is a god, I want to know its properties. I want to know its intents and, assuming you are like every other sap on this planet, I want to know its personality as you are bound to anthropomorphize it in order to identify with it. Atheism, on the other hand, utilizes both commitment AND Occam's Razor or Parsimony. Philosophy holds no ground with me, that is a means to an end and that end is justifying things with rhetoric. Present some data.

FYI: If you are a Christian Deist you are a Christian. To hold convictions such as yours and say that anyone else believing something different is okay means you accept that there isn't absolutism to it which casts a serious doubt and a bit of a parody upon your rhetoric about commitment to an idea. Either shit or get off the fucking toilet.

CIM, honestly, the founding fathers AND constitution aside...any kind of advanced medical research like this will have opposition as foundationless religious rhetoric unless that opposition happens to get aids.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Let me spoonfeed you this logic: If you are claiming there is a god, I want to know its properties. I want to know its intents and, assuming you are like every other sap on this planet, I want to know its personality as you are bound to anthropomorphize it in order to identify with it.
I want that too. Its why I use science to understand more about the world and the way it works.

I'm not writing Dawkins off because he's an atheist, I'm writing him off because he's not a deist. You seemed to be mistaken about deism, I'm trying to explain what deists, not Dawkins, believe.

Why wouldn't people believing other things not be okay? Does it prevent me from showing good will towards them? Does it prevent me from forgiving them if they do wrong? For some Christians it might, and that's sad. But not me. So why does it matter? You know what I think KB, I think you know one kind of Christian and are only prepared to debate on their level, which is why you keep bringing up things like "my convictions" and "the bible". You say believe every bit of the bible or nothing. Well, here's a bit, forgiveness is good. Agree or disagree. But remember, if you agree, you are also agreeing with slavery and homophobia.

EDIT:
Oh also if there's an AIDS cure that is good. And actually I'm not sure what relevance this all has to AIDS as I came in mid argument, but its a civil argument about the nature of religion and by god I'll take that when and where I can get it.
 
If this is true then antoher disease will come out of the blue and be much worse (humankind has horrible luck like that.) But I wanna see more testing to check if this isnt just a fluke.
 
You will never be able to functionally eradicate disease. As you combat some of them it will only drive up selection factors and therefore evolutionary rates within them.
 
Then you have prion diseases which appear to come from nowhere in isolated incidents when proteins mutate. Even in a closed, healthy environment, they can still happen.
 
This is great and all, but it's a bit uhh crude I guess. I don't see this type of procedure really being replicated, but it's great progress. They have been able to apply one, not so efficient, procedure so hopefully with stem cell research and this in mind we can get closer to a cure (or even vaccine).

What I don't get is how stem cells can cure someone of a viral infection.

Hadn't the virus already immersed itself within cells throughout the man's body? How does adding more cells in a specific area fix the infections throughout the body? That makes no sense to me.
From what I gather: This man had leukemia (cancer of white blood cells, which are the targets of HIV) so he was put under chemotherapy and the therapy essentially ravaged his immune system. He went under a transplant to receive more WBCs to essentially replenish his immune system. These WBCs lacked a protein receptor (It's what the virus latches onto during infection) that the HIV strain could recognize.

I'm not so sure, but I think the new WBCs may have then been able to counter-attack the HIV... so, thus far, they haven't been able to detected any virus in his blood stream or find infected cells.

Then you have prion diseases which appear to come from nowhere in isolated incidents when proteins mutate. Even in a closed, healthy environment, they can still happen.
Especially considering all prion related diseases are all essentially fatal and there is limited means to combat the disease. And on top of being a bit random, they are also infectious. Oh and hereditary. Prions suck.
 
one is progressive, the other has a rich history of impeding progress. I see a problem right there. I was excited to talk about this publicly with you, not trolling you. It wasn't a challenge or anything.
For crying out loud! Read your history book a couple more times before you utter this pile of trash. Religion has a rich history of progress in the sciences. Mr. Roger Bacon, the man who came up with the Scientific Process, was a Christian. Islam has a history with Medicine and Mathematics attempts at advancement. Quit it with these archaic and outdated beliefs.



Anyways, my thoughts on this: I think it's ethical for research of stem cells insofar that human life is not being destroyed. I am thrilled with the fact that science (which never has had to conflict with religion, only those scientists with uniformitarian belief have found that conflict) has advanced to this point. I'm pretty happy with the development (in the story) of the effectiveness of Adult Stem Cells. Just my two cents.
 
Someone is backing up religion and calling ME outdated and archaic? Delicious irony.

The methodology of science is independent of religion, if christians or muslims participate it is purely coincidental.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top