Science vs Cancer.

The Lounge is for non-sport-related topics other than politics, war and religion. Order up your favorite beverage, kick back and enjoy the conversation! RATING: PG-13
Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:51 am
  • Well, I actually wasn't meaning to single out Steve, but I can see how he fell under my umbrella about ignorant people. My bad. Sorry.
    Rzzzzz...
    User avatar
    peachesenregalia
    * NET Starfish *
     
    Posts: 10628
    Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:29 am
    Location: Helm's Deep


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:04 am
  • RolandDeschain wrote:Sure, you can. Here, I'll do it right now.

    Your statement is ignorant, DTex. :)

    The rule is basically "attack the post, not the poster". I can even call your post utterly retarded.


    I just fail to see that he "attacked" anyone.

    Many are "ignorant" of many things they say on these boards, myself included, and saying so is different than calling someone "Stupid". IMO

    Thin skins. :stirthepot:
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4125
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:30 am
  • DTexHawk wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:Sure, you can. Here, I'll do it right now.

    Your statement is ignorant, DTex. :)

    The rule is basically "attack the post, not the poster". I can even call your post utterly retarded.


    I just fail to see that he "attacked" anyone.

    Many are "ignorant" of many things they say on these boards, myself included, and saying so is different than calling someone "Stupid". IMO

    Thin skins. :stirthepot:


    We're in the 'thin skin' part of the forum. I can't even make a generalized comment about pushy, aggressive Texans who won't back down, I don't think. Maybe I can, but I won't test the line.

    :thirishdrinkers:
    President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013
    User avatar
    JesterHawk
    * Smackmeister *
     
    Posts: 7011
    Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:56 pm


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:45 am
  • Here's hoping that cure proves fruitful. My understanding is that it's not just about killing the cancer cells, because any scorched-earth approach could do that, but finding something that leaves the patient healthy.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11247
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:59 am
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:Here's hoping that cure proves fruitful. My understanding is that it's not just about killing the cancer cells, because any scorched-earth approach could do that, but finding something that leaves the patient healthy.

    Yeah, it sounds like it uses the patient's own immune system to combat the cancerous cells. Still a little note there at the bottom where it is still hard to keep it from affecting healthy cells producing that protein, but hey, it sounds good.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 10040
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:07 pm
  • I don't generally as a rule think corporations are evil, but the ones that put profit ahead of healing people, are evil and need to be destroyed or at least exposed as vampires.
    "Are we rockin' and rollin' or what?!''

    -- Seattle coach Pete Carroll, celebrating with his coaches after the Seahawks pulled off a trade with the Jets, netting running back Leon Washington on Saturday, via Seahawks.com
    User avatar
    MLOhawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3217
    Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:35 pm
    Location: Seattle, WA - USA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:22 pm
  • Let's hope it isn't Monsanto that is developing this cure...
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10780
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:32 pm
  • We are a treatment culture, not a preventive culture. Best way to cure and prevent diseases is a healthy diet, like a legitimately healthy diet, not the "get more exercise while still buying meat and cheese from giant corporations that pump their food full of chemicals".

    There have been plenty of more efficient medical advances in the world that have not caught on in the US because of the lack of profitability.
    User avatar
    seahawk2k
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1612
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:41 pm


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:33 pm
  • seahawk2k wrote:We are a treatment culture, not a preventive culture. Best way to cure and prevent diseases is a healthy diet, like a legitimately healthy diet, not the "get more exercise while still buying meat and cheese from giant corporations that pump their food full of chemicals".

    There have been plenty of more efficient medical advances in the world that have not caught on in the US because of the lack of profitability.


    Like?
    SUPER BOWL 48 CHAMPIONS!!!!!!!!

    RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
    User avatar
    SonicHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7400
    Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:41 pm
  • You are actually going to make me go back and cite everything I read?

    Here's one that comes to mind(naturally), there is a much cheaper, safer, and more reliable method of performing a vasectomy that was discovered in India a few years ago and has met stiff resistance on the path to approval over here.

    There are others I'll have to dig up.
    User avatar
    seahawk2k
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1612
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:41 pm


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:52 pm
  • I love how so many self-proclaimed health experts use the word "chemicals" as a synonym for "food cancer". If it's a chemical, it's bad. End of story. :roll:
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 24817
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:12 pm
  • RolandDeschain wrote:I love how so many self-proclaimed health experts use the word "chemicals" as a synonym for "food cancer". If it's a chemical, it's bad. End of story. :roll:

    They type this while wearing synthetic clothing, walking on synthetic carpet, driving a half plastic car that spits pollutants into the air of the city they chose to live in, storing their food in cabinets made of glued together pressboard, and then freak out because somebody put wax on their apple.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10780
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am




It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:22 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE NET LOUNGE ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests