IP-6 & Inositol

[[KMA]Avenger]

as far as cures for cancer go...this is all i have to say: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0306000271

watch it or don't, its obviously up to you, BUT, i don't think you will be disappointed if you do

[Juliette]

"Smoke pot and you won't get cancer."

Well.. that IS an interesting hypothesis. Not that the one single documented case is anything even worth considering logically, but I can imagine people take hope from what that vid says. In any case. Giving false hope, in my opinion, is an even worse thing to do as tell these people there is no cure, only temporary patches.




Personally.. well, what is it? You all know what I am going to say will be cruel, inhumane, but a definitive solution, right? Genetic diseases, there's an easy cure for them. Start with the worst, or the most renowned. HIV. 33 million dead, 15 million infected. Okay, so here's a hypothetical, we eliminate 20 million infected / suspected of being infected, and we have erased HIV from the human population. One down, about 20.000 more to go. Next up, trisomy. No eliminations here, just sterilisations and birth control. Not even abortions.. no, the currently pregnant trisomous women can carry their term (in a completely monitored environment), but their children will be sterilised upon birth. Another one Down, pardon the pun. Next? Huntingtons. Similar treatment as the trisomy story. Carriers need not be sterilised, but closely monitored and, in the case of a failed (read: diseased) pregnancy, situation-specific countermeasures need be applied. Knocked out that one too, next.. Alzheimers. Elderly showing symptoms are offered counseling and are guided towards accepting euthanasia before they lose control of most brain functions.
And so on.. and so on.




In any case: Poisoning one's body with the intent of prolonging one's already deteriorating life is folly. Rather, when decline becomes evident, poison oneself correctly and in the full knowledge that you have had the time to achieve what you set out to achieve. If you have not, then relax. The goals you set were obviously not realistic given your condition. Adapt. Then die.

In anticipation of emotional responses, if any: Do not worry. You are all quite safe. My voice changes about as much as Avengers' does.. and neither of us is likely to end up in a position of sufficient power to exercise our great ideas.

[Legendary Apophis]

Personally.. well, what is it? You all know what I am going to say will be cruel, inhumane, but a definitive solution, right? Genetic diseases, there's an easy cure for them. Start with the worst, or the most renowned. HIV. 33 million dead, 15 million infected. Okay, so here's a hypothetical, we eliminate 20 million infected / suspected of being infected, and we have erased HIV from the human population.

(..)

In anticipation of emotional responses, if any: Do not worry. You are all quite safe. My voice changes about as much as Avengers' does.. and neither of us is likely to end up in a position of sufficient power to exercise our great ideas.

Humanity gives itself the right to kill people when they killed other people, or did something as worse (well in some countries death penalty is over abused, not the subject though). We punish those who crossed the line by also protecting ourselves. Get rid off the rotten apples. The way to do it can be discussed. Trapping them for life, or executing them. These people being guilty of what they did. They intended to do it.

Now...talking about killing people because of what they carry on isn't right. (excepted if we were to find people who knew they had the disease and wanted to spread it as much as they can, those would deserve to be executed). If they don't use it as a "weapon" knowingly to hurt and contaminate other people, we can't really blame them to a level where we would decide to kill them.
Well...there would be more acceptable ways that wouldn't revive the former mistakes of the XX th century.

Get a more modern view for the Christian Church would be one alternative and much more acceptable solution. Convince them to stop saying that contraception is evil and unacceptable for a believer. If it can avoid the spreading of this plague, they must stop to antagonize something that isn't even against "nature". (Seriously, nobody is "killed" like with abortion or euthanasia).
That is pure nonsense and decreases religion's popularity much, which isn't good in the end. But well it's again not the subject!

Taking the problem on its roots, instead of murdering people because they had the misluck to be contaminated. Preferring prevention, instead of doing extermination. (There has always been diseases in this world, I don't see why getting rid of them completely thru violence is any form of positive thing. I might appear nasty, but with how population is growing on certain areas...such diseases do more or less, a sort of stop into the massive growth of people, what I said earlier would be a much more acceptable "stop". As a "stop" of growth with diseases is far from being the best way, we see people dieing, many of them being innocent, and that isn't cool). Much better image given, in this world and on the other, probably. After all, people contaminated by aids aren't only poor low educated people...now it's not good either to determine life's value from person skills/intelligence etc...but it's just to say.
We would get rid of plenty "useful" people by doing so. Not to mention we are civilized people...that wouldn't be civilized to act with mass killing. That would mean we don't have value of people's life. Now, why would punishing criminals would be different? They act against society/community and are a threat to others. But, they are guilty from their actions. Someone being a threat not his/her fault, we isolate them and treat them. We don't kill them. Foolish people being guilty of murders and other things, in my books, have no excuse for their acts. Double standards? Probably. Not really minding though.

There's a limit with acceptability and unacceptability regarding executions, crossing it and you likely lose credibility, because more you get away from it by crossing it, more you appear yourself as well as a threat to humanity and cause fear, no matter what your intentions were in the start. Determining said limit varies upon people/cultures positions, but still that there are limits that most would agree with. Limits have to be drawn to prevent anarchy. Or excessive reaction.
Is there emotion with siding things as acceptable and unacceptable? Probably. Likely. Surely. But... aren't emotions, to some extent, when not abused, a positive parameter of humans? There is a need for emotions. But, as I said, not in excess. Does as much damages as none.


Who knows, there might be people suffering from aids in this game/forums?

[Juliette]

Personally.. well, what is it? You all know what I am going to say will be cruel, inhumane, but a definitive solution, right? Genetic diseases, there's an easy cure for them. Start with the worst, or the most renowned. HIV. 33 million dead, 15 million infected. Okay, so here's a hypothetical, we eliminate 20 million infected / suspected of being infected, and we have erased HIV from the human population.

(..)

In anticipation of emotional responses, if any: Do not worry. You are all quite safe. My voice changes about as much as Avengers' does.. and neither of us is likely to end up in a position of sufficient power to exercise our great ideas.

Humanity gives itself the right to kill people when they killed other people, or did something as worse (well in some countries death penalty is over abused, not the subject though). We punish those who crossed the line by also protecting ourselves. Get rid off the rotten apples. The way to do it can be discussed. Trapping them for life, or executing them. These people being guilty of what they did. They intended to do it.

Now...talking about killing people because of what they carry on isn't right. Doing a genocide for that isn't right either at all, it's just barbarism if you ask me. (excepted if we were to find people who knew they had the disease and wanted to spread it as much as they can, those would deserve to be executed). If they don't use it as a "weapon" knowingly to hurt and contaminate other people, we can't really blame them to a level where we would decide to kill them.
Well...there would be more acceptable ways that wouldn't revive the former mistakes of the XX th century.

Get a more modern view for the Christian Church would be one alternative and much more acceptable solution. Convince them to stop saying that contraception is evil and unacceptable for a believer. If it can avoid the spreading of this plague, they must stop to antagonize something that isn't even against "nature". (Seriously, nobody is "killed" like with abortion or euthanasia).
That is pure nonsense and decreases religion's popularity much, which isn't good in the end. But well it's again not the subject!

Taking the problem on its roots, instead of murdering people because they had the misluck to be contaminated. Preferring prevention, instead of doing extermination. (There has always been diseases in this world, I don't see why getting rid of them completely thru violence is any form of positive thing. I might appear nasty, but with how population is growing on certain areas...such diseases do more or less, a sort of stop into the massive growth of people, what I said earlier would be a much more acceptable "stop". As a "stop" of growth with diseases is far from being the best way, we see people dieing, many of them being innocent, and that isn't cool). Much better image given, in this world and on the other, probably. After all, people contaminated by aids aren't only poor low educated people...now it's not good either to determine life's value from person skills/intelligence etc...but it's just to say.
We would get rid of plenty "useful" people by doing so. Not to mention we are civilized people...that wouldn't be civilized to act with mass killing. That would mean we don't have any value of people's life. (Imagine telling someone who is victim from a disease they will be killed for having it.) Now, why would punishing criminals would be different? They act against society/community and are a threat to others. But, they are guilty from their actions. Someone being a threat not his/her fault, we isolate them and treat them. We don't kill them. Foolish people being guilty of murders and other things, in my books, have no excuse for their acts. Double standards? Probably. Not really minding though.

There's a limit with acceptability and unacceptability regarding executions, crossing it and you likely lose credibility, because more you get away from it by crossing it, more you appear yourself as well as a threat to humanity, no matter what your intentions were in the start. Determining said limit varies upon people/cultures positions, but still that there are limits that most would agree with. Limits have to be drawn to prevent anarchy. Is there emotion with siding things as acceptable and unacceptable? Probably. Likely. Surely. But... aren't emotions, to some extent, when not abused, a positive parameter of humans? Therefore, the harbored flag of emotions possibly used against some parts of my arguments, would be countered by previous statement. There is a need for emotions. But, as I said, not in excess. Does as much damages as none.

Who knows, there might be people suffering from aids in this game/forums?

Notice the part in italics, which I find to be an overly emotional, utterly ridiculous and ultimately, unnecessarily inciting remark.


Moving on. You would rather leave a disease that mutates faster as we can find a cure for it roaming freely among the population? Leave billions of otherwise healthy people at risk of exposure to certain death? And you call me the genocidal maniac. How ironic.
Do we not kill rabid dogs, because their bite can infect our children, other dogs, and in bad cases even ourselves? Why would we treat infectuous humans otherwise? I find the notion of keeping threats to humanity alive because 'it would suck to be them' to be a particularly shortsighted idea.

What is even more ironic is the apparent trust you place in emotions as a guiding rule for the survival of the human race.
If you were aware of a cancer in your thigh muscle, would you not rather the cancer be surgically removed, rather as leaving it be 'because it would suck to be that cancer'? Do you think that cancer will give you any brownie points for keeping it alive? No, it is more likely to stay or become malign, infest your entire body, and kill you. Does the cancer feel bad for you? Hell no. If it did, it would not exist.
Now let us do a little game called 'substitution'.
If you were aware of an infectuous, incurable disease among part of your population, would you not rather the disease be surgically removed, rather as leaving it be 'because it would suck to be one of them'? Do you think the people you leave alive will give you any brownie points for doing so? No, it is more likely they will wither and die anyway, regardless of you keeping them alive, infecting a few others before their death. Do these people feel bad for the rest of the population? Hell no. If they did, they would commit mass suicide.



Explain to me how you would justify indirectly killing your own offspring (which is the most insane idea I have ever heard) by exposing them to the virus? You do this by not taking action where you should.



Is the 'over the top' part of your message in regards to my mentioning 50 million people who would die? Your idea would kill billions. Then again, since that is beyond your imagination, I can quite imagine it is so much more comfortable to consider killing millions murderous, genocidal and maniacal, while billions.. would merely be statistics to you. Then again, you probably have absolutely no consideration at all for future generations (of which you should hope many include your genetic material to serve as your own legacy to the human race), but are very considerate to the current population. It is another way. Your perspective will be very positively received for the first 10 years. I promise you, (because the world leaders are right now doing exactly what you are saying) in 10 years, you will all BEG for a chance to go back in time and eliminate every last living carrier of HIV on the planet. When your children lie screaming, spots appearing all over their bodies and their immunity systems shot beyond repairs, you will remember. You will remember your choice. Then be the man you are now, and say "Thank God we saved those poor HIV infected people back in 2009."

But don't you dare interfere, even hypothetically, with the quality of life for my progeny while preaching the gospel of all-togetherness.

[Legendary Apophis]

You didn't convince me to change my opinion on this subject. Not like I never thought of possible counter arguments to my position, which some appeared in your post. Counting pros and cons, I still prefer my opinion..

I have few people from my family who suffere(ed) from this one.
Explaining to diseased people why they should die (afterall, we explain to people that murdering is against law, also can cause them to end in jail or/and death row, so why not do the same there for diseased people?)...you would have to explain them. And convince them. That's the hardest part. But would have to be done. Which is why leaders didn't take that decision.
As world isn't just about theory on paper, well, let's not forget that for projects, there's theory, and practice.

I promise you, (because the world leaders are right now doing exactly what you are saying) (...)

But don't you dare interfere, even hypothetically, with the quality of life for my progeny while preaching the gospel of all-togetherness.

Well, those in office will probably keep same line on the subject...
Even if you convinced me to think like you, that wouldn't change how things work in the world, as I am just one person among billions. You would have to convince ALOT of people to prevent said issues of future.

[[KMA]Avenger]

:-k "Smoke pot and you won't get cancer."

it has nothing to do with "pot"

In anticipation of emotional responses, if any: Do not worry. You are all quite safe. My voice changes about as much as Avengers' does.. and neither of us is likely to end up in a position of sufficient power to exercise our great ideas.

in your case...THANK GOD FOR THAT!

[Legendary Apophis]

Explain to me how you would justify indirectly killing your own offspring (which is the most insane idea I have ever heard) by exposing them to the virus? You do this by not taking action where you should.
(...)
Then again, you probably have absolutely no consideration at all for future generations (of which you should hope many include your genetic material to serve as your own legacy to the human race), but are very considerate to the current population.

To prove you that I have alot of consideration for the future generations, I will make sure to have minimal "offspring" (not more than one child), if any. Favorising more an attempt of limiting world population growth at my scale, over my "own legacy" (thus making sure to "produce" least offspring as I could in humanity's "interest", numbers wise).
Sacrifying my potential succession in a desperate and insignificant-by-size attempt to avoid the collapsing of humanity...that might be silly decision from me: win in quantity, but loss in quality (if I am an intelligent person, it could be a loss to see few less "smart people" in the future world).
But, there is a need of people deciding to do it. And since most people don't want to do so (Rightly or unrightly deciding so, is NOT my point)...some need to do the sacrifice!


PS: I don't have any form of disease...to make sure people don't think that I would do that to avoid creation of "monsters"! (we never know how posts can be interpreted!)

[agapooka]

Universe, I'd much rather create isolated colonies for individuals whose infections require action under the hypothetical future Controlled Diseases Act.

It allows the humans to live their lives without spreading their diseases to uninfected individuals. This is why islands exist. Alternatively, create a comatose state in them and introduce an alternative, albeit virtual reality that they can believe and which will make them happy. After this point, they can be kept in small bubble cells in a manner that is reminescent of the Matrix.

Agapooka

[[KMA]Avenger]

hmmm...we've gone from debating the benefits (if any) of IP-6 & Inositol, and i spose cancer and cures in general (again, if any) to eugenics....

@Universe, i'ts blatantly and painfully obvious you are in full support of eugenics, so how bout YOU make a topic about it and we'll all mosey on over and chat about it?


btw, i cant speak for others, but i promise to keep the emotions to a minimum

[ramen07]

Back on topic....

I think that, at this point, we (anyone who is able to) should try any possible cures. Yes, it is poisoning the body, but don't we all technically poison our bodies with booze, burgers and chips? Not to mention the doctors that prescribe marijuana to certain patients...

[[KMA]Avenger]

Marijuana is a poison???

any evidence?

[Juliette]

@ dr. A.G.A. Pooka: As always, the voice of reason. Thank you for that wonderful mellowing post. Very well put.

@ Avenger: I did, and it was not visited. I have since learned.. this works better. All the same, it doesn't take a leap of faith to go from this to that, or the reverse.

@ Jim:

Sacrifying my potential succession in a desperate and insignificant-by-size attempt to avoid the collapsing of humanity...that might be silly decision from me: win in quantity, but loss in quality (if I am an intelligent person, it could be a loss to see few less "smart people" in the future world).
But, there is a need of people deciding to do it. And since most people don't want to do so (Rightly or unrightly deciding so, is NOT my point)...some need to do the sacrifice!

Quantity over quality?! Damn that. The human race is degenerating (genetically, I will not include a moral judgment of that magnitude in this thread), mainly because the defective, disease-ridden part of the population is stimulated to reproduce at insane rates.. 'having children is their only source of income and a guarantee of care, for when they are old'. Insanity, I tell you. OMG yes! We can feed BILLIONS. Why do we even NEED billions of people. We have functioned properly for thousands of years with just over 200 million. Makes -with the current population- for about 6 billion redundant people. Imagine the chance for betterment of the human race we are having here!

If the cessation of the rapid breeding these degenerates do is impossible, or immoral, then the only alternative is to outbreed them. A superior subpopulation with a healthy growth rate will always prevail over degenerate rabbits.


Also:

You didn't convince me to change my opinion on this subject. Not like I never thought of possible counter arguments to my position, which some appeared in your post. Counting pros and cons, I still prefer my opinion..

I do not need to convince you. In fact, I do not need to convince anyone. I will try, to an extent. However.. my main points, arguments and such will be available through other channels, more suited to reach a larger audience more quickly. Ha yes, online petitions for the win! Everyone loves the Cure for Almost Everything.







And to join Ramen back on the topic:
It is said that making a cut in your arm and draining 3 litres of blood has a cleansing and healing effect. Perhaps you would want to return to the medinical prescriptions of Galen and Hippocrates? After all.. we have to try every cure there is!

At least with this pot-solution, you'll feel a little better, higher, stronger. Whether it cures anything or not, nothing but the story of one guy to support that. Hey, I can write stories and make youtube/google/yahoo/... vids too. Maybe I can give more people false hope, like the idiots who want to make money over the backs of bigger, more naive idiots. Big win.

[[KMA]Avenger]

@ Avenger: I did, and it was not visited. I have since learned

eh?

link please, or post on it to bring it up and i'll make a contribution

[Legendary Apophis]

@ Jim:

Sacrifying my potential succession in a desperate and insignificant-by-size attempt to avoid the collapsing of humanity...that might be silly decision from me: win in quantity, but loss in quality (if I am an intelligent person, it could be a loss to see few less "smart people" in the future world).
But, there is a need of people deciding to do it. And since most people don't want to do so (Rightly or unrightly deciding so, is NOT my point)...some need to do the sacrifice!

Quantity over quality?! Damn that. The human race is degenerating (genetically, I will not include a moral judgment of that magnitude in this thread), mainly because the defective, disease-ridden part of the population is stimulated to reproduce at insane rates.. 'having children is their only source of income and a guarantee of care, for when they are old'. Insanity, I tell you. OMG yes! We can feed BILLIONS. Why do we even NEED billions of people. We have functioned properly for thousands of years with just over 200 million. Makes -with the current population- for about 6 billion redundant people. Imagine the chance for betterment of the human race we are having here!

Yes, quantity over quality, damn that. It's exactly what I meant there. Not contributing to it by sacrifying my potential offspring. Not participating in the growth of population. My children will not exist, and therefore not live the day when it will collapse.
EDIT: So yes, sort of "win" in quantity, but not more people in quantity, I meant a small victory for quantity parameter (which means for me, not adding more people). Few less people to be added on the list of population. I counted that as a win. Loss in quality, if my child(ren) were to be important people that was.

Edit: nevermind ><

If the cessation of the rapid breeding these degenerates do is impossible, or immoral, then the only alternative is to outbreed them. A superior subpopulation with a healthy growth rate will always prevail over degenerate rabbits.



Also:

You didn't convince me to change my opinion on this subject. Not like I never thought of possible counter arguments to my position, which some appeared in your post. Counting pros and cons, I still prefer my opinion..

I do not need to convince you. In fact, I do not need to convince anyone. I will try, to an extent. However.. my main points, arguments and such will be available through other channels, more suited to reach a larger audience more quickly. Ha yes, online petitions for the win! Everyone loves the Cure for Almost Everything.

I'm sorry to tell you, but online petitions rarely work...if ever.

[Juliette]

Just.. whatever Jim.. whatever.

Seriously, could people please learn to understand the concept of NUANCES before being obnoxious fools replying to EXAMPLES instead of the PRINCIPLES behind the post..
Why the bloody hell do I even bother using analogies for if you people are going to blatantly ignore the points behind them.



This is so true:
[spoiler]
I would have used that other one we all know if it would not be so very offensive.[/spoiler]