If you can get an unmetered amount of funding to set up a business that you will need to get up and running within a few years what business would you set up? Why? What are your goals?



Myself I want to set up an Opera Hall. o_O. Unique building design, beautiful inside design, a few sky boxes, all seats with a great view. Perhaps only 250 - 500 seats. The stage of course, large, and a large backstage with several storage rooms, and break rooms, etc.

Not only the opera hall will only be for plays and opera, I feel it should be a centre for the Classical Arts of the world. It may not be world renowned, but a figure of culture, a lost culture. I even tried to start websites and forums on the classics before to see them all fail and people laugh because they say the classics are dead.

I have a huge amount of respect for the classics, and I feel this may be one of the best ways to show the world it. But most opera halls charge a large amount for their tickets. o_O.

So if I use a base of 75 dollars for a basic ticket, average of three shows a week, this brings in 5850000 flat. If I have eighty employees and pay them an average salary of 50000 a year this leaves me at 1850000; budgets for customes, etc, so about a million left. This can be invested in other things. Now I'm thinking of the possibility of having them all serve food in the lobby during intersessions, etc. If I drop the price further down, bring in advertisers if anyone is interested.

A lot of classical art halls cost a fortune to get attendance to, I would like to change that.

Research Lab tbh.

I'm interested in Health sciences, so, if I conducted a lab with every facility required, then, paid a team of 10 scientists + myself to conduct research into viruses, then we could cure a lot of the viruses out there.

If you don't know, there are 4 types of things that cause disease, only a few have cures:

Prions - No cure
Virus - No cure
Bacteria - Partial Cure
Macroparasite + Fungi - Cures.

So, for instance, the common cold is a Virus. It's incurable, so, if I could develop the cure for the common cold, make it so that it only lasts 1 year before you have to get another one, charge $1 per person..

theres 6billion people in the world WHO (World Health Organistion) would immunize those in developing countries, so... $6,000,000,000 /year sounds nice to me

Posted By Sven on 29th Jul 08 at 8:57am

 

Research Lab tbh.

I'm interested in Health sciences, so, if I conducted a lab with every facility required, then, paid a team of 10 scientists + myself to conduct research into viruses, then we could cure a lot of the viruses out there.

If you don't know, there are 4 types of things that cause disease, only a few have cures:

Prions - No cure
Virus - No cure
Bacteria - Partial Cure
Macroparasite + Fungi - Cures.

So, for instance, the common cold is a Virus. It's incurable, so, if I could develop the cure for the common cold, make it so that it only lasts 1 year before you have to get another one, charge $1 per person..

theres 6billion people in the world WHO (World Health Organistion) would immunize those in developing countries, so... $6,000,000,000 /year sounds nice to me

So you're saying if you could develop cures for diseases that would last a lifetime you'd dumb down the effects to only last one year, for nothing more than personal gain?

Sounds evil to me...


Personally, I would start a charity. Well, I suppose if I had unlimited funds I wouldn't really need to; I would just drop billions of dollars all over the world, especially in the countries that need it, as well as sending people along to teach those in the struggling countries about economics and house building, etc. so that rather than us helping them each other and them becoming dependant, we teach them to become independent and create comfortable lives for themselves with the knowledge of how to do it.

Posted By Marc on 29th Jul 08 at 7:58pm

 

Posted By Sven on 29th Jul 08 at 8:57am

 

Research Lab tbh.

I'm interested in Health sciences, so, if I conducted a lab with every facility required, then, paid a team of 10 scientists + myself to conduct research into viruses, then we could cure a lot of the viruses out there.

If you don't know, there are 4 types of things that cause disease, only a few have cures:

Prions - No cure
Virus - No cure
Bacteria - Partial Cure
Macroparasite + Fungi - Cures.

So, for instance, the common cold is a Virus. It's incurable, so, if I could develop the cure for the common cold, make it so that it only lasts 1 year before you have to get another one, charge $1 per person..

theres 6billion people in the world WHO (World Health Organistion) would immunize those in developing countries, so... $6,000,000,000 /year sounds nice to me

So you're saying if you could develop cures for diseases that would last a lifetime you'd dumb down the effects to only last one year, for nothing more than personal gain?

Sounds evil to me...


Personally, I would start a charity. Well, I suppose if I had unlimited funds I wouldn't really need to; I would just drop billions of dollars all over the world, especially in the countries that need it, as well as sending people along to teach those in the struggling countries about economics and house building, etc. so that rather than us helping them each other and them becoming dependant, we teach them to become independent and create comfortable lives for themselves with the knowledge of how to do it.

/clap 'teach' wise choice. We should teach them how to fish instead of giving them to fish. That is the only reason I hate charities on the most part, they just "give" when we could be teaching them to be a modern country.

When I graduate I'm actually planning on starting one.

Giving them food doesn't help them, just prolongs their suffering. Giving them houses doesn't help them, it just gives them more places to run down.

Teaching them how to grow food helps them, teaching them how to get the materials for houses and then build them helps them, teaching them about the economy and trading helps them.

Teach them how to survive comfortably in today's world, then give them the resources such as money so that they can get themselves started.

Giving them things is actually detrimental... I find from personal experience, that when people are given things, they end up more screwed up than the people that have to work for what they get.

That sounds harsh, I know, these people need help, but as was said - giving doesn't help..

Posted By Sven on 30th Jul 08 at 9:53am

 

Giving them things is actually detrimental... I find from personal experience, that when people are given things, they end up more screwed up than the people that have to work for what they get.

That sounds harsh, I know, these people need help, but as was said - giving doesn't help..

I actually was thinking kind of like the flu vaccine, it has to be updated every year due to evolving strains. XD

I'm working on one at the moment, trying to get a foundation laid. It's a free association of writing forums and e-communities that team up to give back. They sponsor events to benefit a group of carefully chosen charities.

I had an idea for the main event of the organization, a yearly fundraiser in which 24 hours of literary entertainment, including writing workshops with published authors and prominent members of the literary community, contests, and other similar fun.

I'm hopelessly idealistic.

~Artemis

to be honest. the best way to solve most poverty is to build a damned factory or something in the country. They work to build it - getting paid or supplies in return. They then use the factory. That means they have jobs, and can work for things. Who knows, perhaps they could PRODUCE the fishing rods?

Meh.

I have lots of ideas - some that will come to fruition!

If I had UNLIMITED funding I'd have 2 businesses.

My first one would be small design business. Most of the money would be able to be spent once, and then saved. All that would really be needed would be a nice, somewhat big building, plenty of room, and offices. Desktops, and laptops. Software, and hard ware. Just the needed stuff. Probably other random stuff like a break room and what ever as well Also on the side, I'd offer lessons in designing and what not. If not very cheap, they'd be free.

The second would be something in the music industry. I'd probably have a recording room for either my own personal use, or to put out other people. Most of the funds, like last time would pretty much be spent all at once then saved.

A datacenter with subdivisions for different types of hosting and markets. 1000's of servers, racks, cables, computers, it makes me excited thinking about it now I hope to one day be able to start my own datacenter but it's ridiculously expensive.

Posted By Sven on 29th Jul 08 at 8:57am

 

So, for instance, the common cold is a Virus. It's incurable, so, if I could develop the cure for the common cold...

First off, members of the Picornaviridae and Coronaviridae mutate rapidly, generating tons of different strains. How would you cure it? Also, the common cold is usually fought off within 3-4 days in a healthy adult so its not really a big deal. I think a vaccine would be a better thing to figure out than a cure.

I'd love to have a research lab to work on cancer, leukemia to be precise. I plan to start my PhD next year so hopefully I'll be on my way.

Other than that, I would love to own a chain of music retail stores selling CDs and DVDs and stuff.

Note the common cold, I'm aware that viruses do mutate rapidly, though, thats not the reason why they are incurable.

They are incurable because they aren't actually alive. You require 5 things to be alive, transpiration, respiration, reproduction, eating and excreting... A virus only reproduces so at the moment, everything that people throw at viruses is to stop them reproducing.

However, that is the plan for curing a virus. If they are mutating, the genetic sequencing in their coils of DNA that float around within the stupid procaryotic cell would have to be similar. Thus, there would have to be a common polypeptide/neucleotide that would be susceptible to something that we can throw at it.

Besides, if you do have your masters/honours in whatever, then you would realise that you can't define what a healthy human being is (as you attempted to do so in your post!) as health is dependant upon the person's normal state of being which may be what you would consider unhealthy.

The cure for the common cold would be fantastic, I know from personal experience that it takes up to 3 weeks to shake it, thats probably because I'm under a fair amount of stress with my HSC upcoming etc, I'd hate to think how stressful you would be with a mortgage to pay off, a family to take care of etc, etc. The stress making the immune system depressed so that the response time taken on your T-Cells and B-Cells is severely lacking - hence, when a NORMAL (not healthy) adult contracts the viral strain of the common cold, it can take months for them to shake it fully.

So, instead of trying to supress the reproduction of the virus, I think that if there was some way to break it down as well as neutralising the anti-gen it produces (even when it's dead) would be handy. If you look at the structure of the T-cell (m) and the phagocytes that neutralise the cold, you could work out how these critters kill it, I mean, the phagocyte engulfs it - then it just dies. So maybe, if you could look at the chemical reactions occuring as the phagocyte neutralises the virus before exctretion, you could somehow replicate that in the form of a tablet that would contain billions of T-Cell (m) that have been exposed to the common cold strand with a bunch of molecules or ionic structures that replicate what the phagocyte does.

Once the drug for the common cold is found, then you could just replicate the process with the other strands. If you are really intelligent then you could possibly predict future strands.

Theres a Thesis for your phD Take it before I start mine and I'll slit your throat lol.

Posted By slip on 2nd Aug 08 at 7:06am

 

Posted By Sven on 29th Jul 08 at 8:57am

 

So, for instance, the common cold is a Virus. It's incurable, so, if I could develop the cure for the common cold...

First off, members of the Picornaviridae and Coronaviridae mutate rapidly, generating tons of different strains. How would you cure it? Also, the common cold is usually fought off within 3-4 days in a healthy adult so its not really a big deal. I think a vaccine would be a better thing to figure out than a cure.

I'd love to have a research lab to work on cancer, leukemia to be precise. I plan to start my PhD next year so hopefully I'll be on my way.

Other than that, I would love to own a chain of music retail stores selling CDs and DVDs and stuff.

Isn't the cure rate of leukemia over 95% now? Medical technology now compared to what it once was is simply amazing.

Depends on what type you are talking about. The leukemia isn't actually cured. It is removed from the body. As Leukemia affects the bone marrow (and essentially your blood) to survive it requires a total bone marrow transplant which is excruciatingly painful!

Posted By Sven on 2nd Aug 08 at 7:34am

 

Note the common cold, I'm aware that viruses do mutate rapidly, though, thats not the reason why they are incurable.

They are incurable because they aren't actually alive. You require 5 things to be alive, transpiration, respiration, reproduction, eating and excreting... A virus only reproduces so at the moment, everything that people throw at viruses is to stop them reproducing.

However, that is the plan for curing a virus. If they are mutating, the genetic sequencing in their coils of DNA that float around within the stupid procaryotic cell would have to be similar. Thus, there would have to be a common polypeptide/neucleotide that would be susceptible to something that we can throw at it.

Besides, if you do have your masters/honours in whatever, then you would realise that you can't define what a healthy human being is (as you attempted to do so in your post!) as health is dependant upon the person's normal state of being which may be what you would consider unhealthy.

The cure for the common cold would be fantastic, I know from personal experience that it takes up to 3 weeks to shake it, thats probably because I'm under a fair amount of stress with my HSC upcoming etc, I'd hate to think how stressful you would be with a mortgage to pay off, a family to take care of etc, etc. The stress making the immune system depressed so that the response time taken on your T-Cells and B-Cells is severely lacking - hence, when a NORMAL (not healthy) adult contracts the viral strain of the common cold, it can take months for them to shake it fully.

So, instead of trying to supress the reproduction of the virus, I think that if there was some way to break it down as well as neutralising the anti-gen it produces (even when it's dead) would be handy. If you look at the structure of the T-cell (m) and the phagocytes that neutralise the cold, you could work out how these critters kill it, I mean, the phagocyte engulfs it - then it just dies. So maybe, if you could look at the chemical reactions occuring as the phagocyte neutralises the virus before exctretion, you could somehow replicate that in the form of a tablet that would contain billions of T-Cell (m) that have been exposed to the common cold strand with a bunch of molecules or ionic structures that replicate what the phagocyte does.

Once the drug for the common cold is found, then you could just replicate the process with the other strands. If you are really intelligent then you could possibly predict future strands.

Theres a Thesis for your phD Take it before I start mine and I'll slit your throat lol.

All living things also respond and adapt to their environment. According to my last 11 years in school, something's scientifically not considered alive without that point.

Posted By Sven on 2nd Aug 08 at 7:34am

 

Note the common cold, I'm aware that viruses do mutate rapidly, though, thats not the reason why they are incurable.

They are incurable because they aren't actually alive. You require 5 things to be alive, transpiration, respiration, reproduction, eating and excreting... A virus only reproduces so at the moment, everything that people throw at viruses is to stop them reproducing.

However, that is the plan for curing a virus. If they are mutating, the genetic sequencing in their coils of DNA that float around within the stupid procaryotic cell would have to be similar. Thus, there would have to be a common polypeptide/neucleotide that would be susceptible to something that we can throw at it.

Besides, if you do have your masters/honours in whatever, then you would realise that you can't define what a healthy human being is (as you attempted to do so in your post!) as health is dependant upon the person's normal state of being which may be what you would consider unhealthy.

The cure for the common cold would be fantastic, I know from personal experience that it takes up to 3 weeks to shake it, thats probably because I'm under a fair amount of stress with my HSC upcoming etc, I'd hate to think how stressful you would be with a mortgage to pay off, a family to take care of etc, etc. The stress making the immune system depressed so that the response time taken on your T-Cells and B-Cells is severely lacking - hence, when a NORMAL (not healthy) adult contracts the viral strain of the common cold, it can take months for them to shake it fully.

So, instead of trying to supress the reproduction of the virus, I think that if there was some way to break it down as well as neutralising the anti-gen it produces (even when it's dead) would be handy. If you look at the structure of the T-cell (m) and the phagocytes that neutralise the cold, you could work out how these critters kill it, I mean, the phagocyte engulfs it - then it just dies. So maybe, if you could look at the chemical reactions occuring as the phagocyte neutralises the virus before exctretion, you could somehow replicate that in the form of a tablet that would contain billions of T-Cell (m) that have been exposed to the common cold strand with a bunch of molecules or ionic structures that replicate what the phagocyte does.

Once the drug for the common cold is found, then you could just replicate the process with the other strands. If you are really intelligent then you could possibly predict future strands.

Theres a Thesis for your phD Take it before I start mine and I'll slit your throat lol.

1. A virus is not classified as a prokaryote. Only Bacteria are. According to Linnaen taxonomy, the viruses are not classified into either of the 2 domains: eukaryotes or prokaryotes.

2. the 5 things you mentioned do not necessarily define "life". A bacteria does not transpire or respire in the classical sense as some higher organisms might. A virus is not "alive" outside of a host. Inside a host, it begins to multiply and therefore is considered "active".

3. I have not defined a healthy human being anywhere in my post. I simply stated that it takes less than a week for an average healthy adult to fight off the common cold. Which is true. I've never had a cold for more than 4 days at a stretch. And by healthy I meant a normal adult who is totally homeostatic and immunocompetent.

4. Viruses mutate rapidly. While in theory some part of their genetic structure might be common enough for us to devise some form of treatment against them, we still have a long way to go for it in case of most viruses. But yea I'll give you that - its certainly feasible.

5. When the common cold infects the body, cytokines are generally produced as soon as symptoms manifest. Cytotoxix T cell lines will begin to invade the viral agents within a few days, with phagocytes taking the lead in inflamed areas. Phagocytosis will usually involve some form of lysozymal enzyme that physically digests the viral and infected body cells. Usually if you catch the same strain of the common cold then you don't show any symptoms because the memory B cells will automatically produce antibodies and kill them. If its a new strain, then there's not much that B cells can do. They dont need to really. The cell-mediated response regulated by the T(H) cells will clear the entire viral load within 10 days in an immunocompetent individual. The need for a vaccine is more important than a cure. If we can develop a global cure for all possible strains then awesome! But what is more likely at the current stage of medical technology is devising a vaccine, which lets say, could prevent the viral cells from infecting body cells in the respiratory tract. Perhaps cause a change in one of the protein pathways in the virus so that they are unable to enter body cells to replicate. That sounds most feasible.

6. Once the viral particles have been phagocytosed, they do not function as antigens any longer. Not those causing a common cold. A normal adult is able to get rid of whatever common cold strain you throw at him/her without the need for medication. Like I said before, finding a way to neturalize the virus would indeed be a golden opportunity. But its gonna take time to figure that out. Preventing the virus from replicating is the most efficient way of stopping the common cold. There's already hundreds of papers out there - scientists trying to figure out just that.

---

Leukemia at an early stage might be treatable via chemotherapy and radiation treatment, but I want to work on the interactions between the immune system and the cancer - the enzyme cascade pathways that are involved. Getting the immune system to fight off the cancer is the best chance we have. There would be no second or third stage of cancer when we do find that out.

Posted By Marc on 2nd Aug 08 at 7:15pm

 

Posted By Sven on 2nd Aug 08 at 7:34am

 

Note the common cold, I'm aware that viruses do mutate rapidly, though, thats not the reason why they are incurable.

They are incurable because they aren't actually alive. You require 5 things to be alive, transpiration, respiration, reproduction, eating and excreting... A virus only reproduces so at the moment, everything that people throw at viruses is to stop them reproducing.

However, that is the plan for curing a virus. If they are mutating, the genetic sequencing in their coils of DNA that float around within the stupid procaryotic cell would have to be similar. Thus, there would have to be a common polypeptide/neucleotide that would be susceptible to something that we can throw at it.

Besides, if you do have your masters/honours in whatever, then you would realise that you can't define what a healthy human being is (as you attempted to do so in your post!) as health is dependant upon the person's normal state of being which may be what you would consider unhealthy.

The cure for the common cold would be fantastic, I know from personal experience that it takes up to 3 weeks to shake it, thats probably because I'm under a fair amount of stress with my HSC upcoming etc, I'd hate to think how stressful you would be with a mortgage to pay off, a family to take care of etc, etc. The stress making the immune system depressed so that the response time taken on your T-Cells and B-Cells is severely lacking - hence, when a NORMAL (not healthy) adult contracts the viral strain of the common cold, it can take months for them to shake it fully.

So, instead of trying to supress the reproduction of the virus, I think that if there was some way to break it down as well as neutralising the anti-gen it produces (even when it's dead) would be handy. If you look at the structure of the T-cell (m) and the phagocytes that neutralise the cold, you could work out how these critters kill it, I mean, the phagocyte engulfs it - then it just dies. So maybe, if you could look at the chemical reactions occuring as the phagocyte neutralises the virus before exctretion, you could somehow replicate that in the form of a tablet that would contain billions of T-Cell (m) that have been exposed to the common cold strand with a bunch of molecules or ionic structures that replicate what the phagocyte does.

Once the drug for the common cold is found, then you could just replicate the process with the other strands. If you are really intelligent then you could possibly predict future strands.

Theres a Thesis for your phD Take it before I start mine and I'll slit your throat lol.

All living things also respond and adapt to their environment. According to my last 11 years in school, something's scientifically not considered alive without that point.

So humans are dead? You may not realise it, but humans don't adapt to their surroundings... the surroundings adapt to us, thats what sets humans apart from the rest of the hominoidea class that we belong to.

Also, in response to slip, finding a vaccine sounds as hopeless as finding a cure tbh. If you find the vaccine for a virus, then it just mutates rapidly.

I mean, there are already vaccines for them! Look at the influenza vaccine. I mean, influenza is a virus, yet we can vaccinate against it. As you say, the cold strain of virus mutates rapidly, hence, if you can find the vaccine it would have to be common to all, which would in turn lead to a rapid discovery of the cure for it. Hence, why bother with the vaccine when you have the cure?

BTW: Vaccinating against the cold could more than likely be easy enough. Find a non-virulent strain, pasteurise it or something else.

Quote:

Phagocytosis will usually involve some form of lysozymal enzyme that physically digests the viral and infected body cells

Why not simply inject the ezymes into the body? While it may not be a total cure, you could say it well and truly is if the body can kill it. It's like, recently, they injected billions of anti-bodies into a cancer patient, and he cured the cancer. Humans have a natural immunity to cancer, that is why the majority don't develop until later life (when your immune system starts going downhill).

Besides, there is a lot of ethnicity problems with finding the cure for cancer. I have my reasons for saying that I don't wish for the cure to be found. (I have lots of family members loose their lives to cancer, I myself am a high risk patient for it with a family case of bowel cancer).

TBH, while they are so close to the cure for cancer, after discovering that humans have a natural immunity to it, they just have to work out a few other things etc, etc. I have no idea about the research into cancer - so I can't say much more than that .

However, finding the cure for one virus, surely, able to replicate that to all viruses. I mean, Louis Pasteur did that with Rabies and Anthrax (That's what Robert Koch discovered wasn't it?). So why not do that with the common cold.

+ You are also talking about the developed countries average adult. What about those in 3rd world? Surely WHO would spend money to cover these people so that they can enjoy an increased life expectancy?

On that note, a cure for HIV/AIDs would be handy

Posted By Sven on 3rd Aug 08 at 8:49am

 

Quote:

All living things also respond and adapt to their environment. According to my last 11 years in school, something's scientifically not considered alive without that point.

So humans are dead? You may not realise it, but humans don't adapt to their surroundings... the surroundings adapt to us, thats what sets humans apart from the rest of the hominoidea class that we belong to.

Also, in response to slip, finding a vaccine sounds as hopeless as finding a cure tbh. If you find the vaccine for a virus, then it just mutates rapidly.

I mean, there are already vaccines for them! Look at the influenza vaccine. I mean, influenza is a virus, yet we can vaccinate against it. As you say, the cold strain of virus mutates rapidly, hence, if you can find the vaccine it would have to be common to all, which would in turn lead to a rapid discovery of the cure for it. Hence, why bother with the vaccine when you have the cure?

BTW: Vaccinating against the cold could more than likely be easy enough. Find a non-virulent strain, pasteurise it or something else.

Quote:

Phagocytosis will usually involve some form of lysozymal enzyme that physically digests the viral and infected body cells

Why not simply inject the ezymes into the body? While it may not be a total cure, you could say it well and truly is if the body can kill it. It's like, recently, they injected billions of anti-bodies into a cancer patient, and he cured the cancer. Humans have a natural immunity to cancer, that is why the majority don't develop until later life (when your immune system starts going downhill).

Besides, there is a lot of ethnicity problems with finding the cure for cancer. I have my reasons for saying that I don't wish for the cure to be found. (I have lots of family members loose their lives to cancer, I myself am a high risk patient for it with a family case of bowel cancer).

TBH, while they are so close to the cure for cancer, after discovering that humans have a natural immunity to it, they just have to work out a few other things etc, etc. I have no idea about the research into cancer - so I can't say much more than that .

However, finding the cure for one virus, surely, able to replicate that to all viruses. I mean, Louis Pasteur did that with Rabies and Anthrax (That's what Robert Koch discovered wasn't it?). So why not do that with the common cold.

+ You are also talking about the developed countries average adult. What about those in 3rd world? Surely WHO would spend money to cover these people so that they can enjoy an increased life expectancy?

On that note, a cure for HIV/AIDs would be handy

O man what are you talking about??

1. Surroundings adapt to us? Well they would for Mary Poppins maybe but where else? You mean to imply that if I am feeling hot in 45 degrees C then all of a sudden the sun goes down and its cool again? No. I will go and find air conditioning or shade inside a house. That's humans adapting to whatever environment they are put it. Thats what sets us apart from other animals who may not be able to figure such stuff out.

2. No vaccine and cure are not the same thing. A vaccine ensure you won't suffer from the Naso-pharyngitis at all (common cold). Why wait to suffer and get a cure when you won't need to suffer at all. When a member of a virus family mutates, the entire RNA sequence does not change. If it did, then it wouldn't be the same virus at all. A large number of sequences mutate but some remain constant. Incuding the ones that write the proteins needed for cellular entry into host cells. That can be blocked. Research is already happening on that front.

3. Pasteurise to find a vaccine? You gotta be kidding right? Also almost none of the common cold viruses are virulent to humans. Influenza is not the same as "common cold". Members of Adenoviridae cause influenza. Members of Coronoviridae and Picornaviridae cause the common cold.

4. Pump enzymes into the body? What would that accomplish? Other than digest the body from inside out literally. Phagoocytosis with Lysozymes occurs at the sub-cellular level.

5. Billions of antibodies into the cancer patient could work if they can be produced in that amount, target the cancer antigens specifically, and can be ported to the target cells. Sounds easy enough, hasn't been perfected practically. Research is going on.

6. Humans don't have a natural immunity to cancer. Some people are genetically more susceptible to developing cancer than others. It's all in the genome. Faulty genes will transcribe faulty mRNA which will translate faulty proteins.

7. Cancers can occur at any stage of life. There is no reason for it to occur only at 50 plus.

8. You said you've lost people to cancer and yet you dont want a cure to be found? I don't follow.

9. Finding the cure for one virus can, in no way, allow you to extrapolate that cure to another virus. It is essentially because viruses mutate much more frequently than other micro-organisms. Even within the same virus family, you cannot really have a global cure or treatment at the current level of medical technology.

10. No I am talking of an average healthy adult right here in the third world - case in point = India. I've never, in my 24 years of existence, seen somebody suffer from a common cold longer than 1 week.

11. Yep frakking the bloody li'l HIV would be really good.

@Sven saying our surroundings adapt to us -- No, they don't. Clouds don't magically appear every time the sun is annoying us. What do we do? We sweat, and usually try to find shade under a tree or something else nearby.

We get dirty and cold in the open, so what do we do? We cut down trees and build houses for us to live in.

Also, I come from a very hot part of the world, where it never even snowed. Everyone would need to wear a winter jacket when it was 10 degrees out because they found it so cold. Then I moved to Canada, and experienced temperatures of -20, -30, sometimes more in the winter. Those first few winters were unbearable, but now, 11 years later, I can go out in nothing but a light jacket when it's -5 and be fine. While I may not be able to give you the exact things my body did to overcome it, my body adapted to the colder weather and as such is not as susceptible to the cold.

Wow, you take what I said with environment adapting us too far. We don't change to the environment, one thing that you should learn even at year 11-12 biology. If you look at it, we will NEVER be a common ancestor as we don't experience environmental pressure - resulting in a continous stable equilibrium effect. The only way for animals to evolve is to have either environmental pressures or chemical pressures, which, humans don't experience either.
The environment does adapt to how we want it to - or rather, to rephrase what I posted earlier, we manipulate it. If it's hot, we find air conditioning to cool us down - thus, WE (humans) change the air temperature which is an abiotic feature of the environment we live in, thus, we changed the environment to suit us. We cooled it down, we change the environment, it conforms to how we want it to.

Vaccine and cures are not the same thing, as you stated. However, if you can find a way to make a virus non-virulent to humans, in the way of the vaccine by treating it chemically as they do with the pneumonia vaccines (and other bacterial ones), then surely you can apply that to a cure. Besides, vaccines don't always work. It is mandatory (in Australia anyway) to be vaccinated against Chicken Pox BEFORE you start school, however, plenty of school age kids still get Chicken Pox. The vaccine prevents it, but you are still susceptible to it - it just becomes less of a threat and more an annoyance, but damn, a cure would be hot wouldn't it?

And influenza is not the same as the common cold, I never suggested that, otherwise they wouldn't be called different things would they? Influenza is a virus though, as anyone could tell you using basic knowledge. Therefor, as it is a virus, it would carry a likeness, something in common with the common cold viral strain. Therefor, if you can find the cure for either, there would have to be a similarity that you could strike upon and find the universal cure for all viral cell make-ups.

There HAS to be something that is common to all, some part of the DNA sequencing would have to be the same! If there wasn't then they would all be completely differently structured and all the viruses, would no longer be viruses as they are classified genetically based on their cellular structure. Like, what seperates plants for animals? The cell wall and the chloroplasts within the cells, there is a genetic difference in the sequencing that tells one cell to make chloroplasts and one not to. They can't spontaneously generate as that was proven to be incorrect... a long time ago.

Why not pasteurise a vaccine? It's how the majority of them were made. The cure for small pox is a pasteruised version of the pathogen. Why not pasteurise a cold virus? You probably understand why not to, I haven't done any form of degree in this area - but I am aiming to do so in the future.

In answer to number 8, I would rather not make my view public as it's pretty Right Wing and confronting as to why I don't want the cure for cancer to be found. But you would have some idea as to ethical issues with biological studies, surely.. I mean, nearly everything we eat has been genetically modified in some way. I mean, every carrot that I've ever seen has been modified (carrots are naturally white for those that are reading but don't know). They were engineering orange some years back (can't give exact dates) to be orange..

Also, India is HARDLY a third world country. India would be pretty much fully developed, in consideration to the fact that it's one of the largest (must be able to support a high population) and it's economy is booming at the moment. India is NOT a 3rd world country in any degree of the sense.

A third world country is something like Ethiopia or Zimbabwe, which isn't REALLY a 3rd world country, but is bloody poor.

I'm also aware that cancer can occur at any age of life, hence the words USUALLY, which it is. If cancer could occur at anytime, then, why is it only a recent medical problem? Since the life expectancy has jumped dramatically over the years, from 45 being like super old, to 45 being mid - life in the space of about 100 years, cancer has only become a recent issue.
I'm not sure how closely you follow the cure for cancer research, but when, a Melanoma patient was injected with anti-bodies, they were able to fight of the cancer, they proclaimed that humans do have a natural immunity to cancer. While it may be a mRNA problem, humans don't have the structure to have it occur frequently. With Melanoma, it's to do with exposure to UV Rays which cause the mutation as it puts it under a pressure, I mean, the body has a resistance to it, not total immunity..

Regardless, if I could, the cure for the common cold and viruses would be my ultimate aim (to kinda bring it on topic)

So Sven, I see you completely ignored my other comment...

Humans sweat when it's too hot because the water disperses the heat, humans shake when they're cold because the movement makes us warmer, certain body parts shrink when it's cold, hair gets lighter in the summer months because lighter colours don't absorb as much heat (my hair goes from almost black to a light brown/blond colour in the summer, as do a lot of my friends; I've done research on it), and here's one for adapting to our surroundings in general rather than the environment: when I play guitar often within a few day period, I get calluses on the pads of my fingers, then when I stop playing for a while, they go away.

Posted By Sven on 4th Aug 08 at 6:28am

 

Wow, you take what I said with environment adapting us too far. We don't change to the environment, one thing that you should learn even at year 11-12 biology. If you look at it, we will NEVER be a common ancestor as we don't experience environmental pressure - resulting in a continous stable equilibrium effect. The only way for animals to evolve is to have either environmental pressures or chemical pressures, which, humans don't experience either.
The environment does adapt to how we want it to - or rather, to rephrase what I posted earlier, we manipulate it. If it's hot, we find air conditioning to cool us down - thus, WE (humans) change the air temperature which is an abiotic feature of the environment we live in, thus, we changed the environment to suit us. We cooled it down, we change the environment, it conforms to how we want it to.

Vaccine and cures are not the same thing, as you stated. However, if you can find a way to make a virus non-virulent to humans, in the way of the vaccine by treating it chemically as they do with the pneumonia vaccines (and other bacterial ones), then surely you can apply that to a cure. Besides, vaccines don't always work. It is mandatory (in Australia anyway) to be vaccinated against Chicken Pox BEFORE you start school, however, plenty of school age kids still get Chicken Pox. The vaccine prevents it, but you are still susceptible to it - it just becomes less of a threat and more an annoyance, but damn, a cure would be hot wouldn't it?

And influenza is not the same as the common cold, I never suggested that, otherwise they wouldn't be called different things would they? Influenza is a virus though, as anyone could tell you using basic knowledge. Therefor, as it is a virus, it would carry a likeness, something in common with the common cold viral strain. Therefor, if you can find the cure for either, there would have to be a similarity that you could strike upon and find the universal cure for all viral cell make-ups.

There HAS to be something that is common to all, some part of the DNA sequencing would have to be the same! If there wasn't then they would all be completely differently structured and all the viruses, would no longer be viruses as they are classified genetically based on their cellular structure. Like, what seperates plants for animals? The cell wall and the chloroplasts within the cells, there is a genetic difference in the sequencing that tells one cell to make chloroplasts and one not to. They can't spontaneously generate as that was proven to be incorrect... a long time ago.

Why not pasteurise a vaccine? It's how the majority of them were made. The cure for small pox is a pasteruised version of the pathogen. Why not pasteurise a cold virus? You probably understand why not to, I haven't done any form of degree in this area - but I am aiming to do so in the future.

In answer to number 8, I would rather not make my view public as it's pretty Right Wing and confronting as to why I don't want the cure for cancer to be found. But you would have some idea as to ethical issues with biological studies, surely.. I mean, nearly everything we eat has been genetically modified in some way. I mean, every carrot that I've ever seen has been modified (carrots are naturally white for those that are reading but don't know). They were engineering orange some years back (can't give exact dates) to be orange..

Also, India is HARDLY a third world country. India would be pretty much fully developed, in consideration to the fact that it's one of the largest (must be able to support a high population) and it's economy is booming at the moment. India is NOT a 3rd world country in any degree of the sense.

A third world country is something like Ethiopia or Zimbabwe, which isn't REALLY a 3rd world country, but is bloody poor.

I'm also aware that cancer can occur at any age of life, hence the words USUALLY, which it is. If cancer could occur at anytime, then, why is it only a recent medical problem? Since the life expectancy has jumped dramatically over the years, from 45 being like super old, to 45 being mid - life in the space of about 100 years, cancer has only become a recent issue.
I'm not sure how closely you follow the cure for cancer research, but when, a Melanoma patient was injected with anti-bodies, they were able to fight of the cancer, they proclaimed that humans do have a natural immunity to cancer. While it may be a mRNA problem, humans don't have the structure to have it occur frequently. With Melanoma, it's to do with exposure to UV Rays which cause the mutation as it puts it under a pressure, I mean, the body has a resistance to it, not total immunity..

Regardless, if I could, the cure for the common cold and viruses would be my ultimate aim (to kinda bring it on topic)

1. Evolution and adaptation are totally different concepts. Evolution is taking place within the human genome. Its just too slow to be noticeable right now. Adapting to the environment would kinda fit the bill when you say "we manipulate our environment". How do you think we do that? We think and we figure out a way to make it work. aka we adapt. Switching on air-conditioning has more to do with us being clever than the environment changin for us. The outside temp doesn't drop cos I am hot. I find a room with air conditioning to cool down.

2. How are you extrapolating one thing to other? And how are you sure about this and that? Things are way more complicated that what you imply. Making a virulent strain non-virulent takes recombinant DNA technology - not so difficult really. But finding a vaccine that works is pretty tricky. And what's that about chemical treatments in the pneumonia vaccine? The pneumococcal vaccines being used worldwide today carry antigens for only 23-25 out of over 80 strains of the pneumococcus bacteria - so our body produces antibodies for only those strains. We're not vaccinated against all yet. And the reason why chicken pox still happens in some vaccinated kids is because they've been infected with strains of the varicella virus that are not included in the vaccine. Hell if all possible strains could be vaccinated against then chicken pox could be eradicated. pretty much like how smallpox was. or would you rather have people still suffer from it and try to hunt a cure.

3. And no Adenoviruses that cause influenza are completely different from Picornaviruses and Coronaviruses that cause the common cold. Obviously all viruses will have a common genetic structure because of which those organisms are called viruses. But not every single variable in the viral genome can actually be used in genetic research. There's tons of junk in there aside from sections that continue to mutate.

4. pasteurization was done in the early years of medical technology. Today, fortunately, pasteurization is not used for creating vaccines. It is after all a much more primitive method.

5. Ethical issues? Saving human lives comes above and beyond any morally grey area. What the hell are doctors and medicine and research doing otherwise if not to work towards eliminating all diseases one day.

6. Cancer has recently been recognized as a major problem. It has been around for as long as the common cold has been. its not as if human cells suddenly started developing proto-oncogenes that are needed for tumorigenesis.

7. Humans don't have immunity to cancer. Its all in the genetic structure of each individual. Its broken down to enzymatic cascades that get disrupted for cancer to develop. The B-RAF gene for example is highly mutated in pre-cancerous conditions. Like I said before some people are susceptible to certain forms of cancer, others aren't. And of course there are external carcinogenic agents including asbestos and radiation poisoning.

As you keep telling me in my posts that I can't extrapolate... why not? Isn't that what research is about? Setting up a Hypothesis via extrapolating the data set that they have and then trying to prove or disprove it!

Look, by telling me that I can't extrapolate based on my current knowledge (you may forget that I'm only in year 12 at the moment) means that you could potentially not try it. Why not try and find the common structure of all viruses and then to extrapolate the evidence that you have? It's better than interpolating - which gets you nowhere in the end.

It's how Mendeleev did what he did, and look, he got 70% of his predictions correct - if I set up my thesis the way that tries to look at the similarities of viruses and how to exploit that to my advantage, then, one thing will get proven - either, I'm wrong, or I'm right.

You need to be open to suggestions on things like that, rather than just turn the suggestion down without trying.

Besides, maybe diseases are part of the human race and life in general. What happened when we can no longer die? Do we stop having children? Do we still retire at 65 and cause the working class to loose money as we are 140+ sitting at home sucking up resources from a dying economy?

The body physically cannot cope with work at age 100+, so what does that mean for the society that is over 100 but still have like another 100 years left? Or they are immortal? The earth will get trashed, we will loose the ability to make Di hydrogen Monoxide, causing life to cease..

Even if we did manage to terraform the moon, or Mars, where does that leave us? The ice they think they found on Mars is likely to be solid Ammonia - which, unfortunately is toxic to humans in large quantities.

That's one of my reasons against finding the cure for all diseases, diseases like Cancer obviously occur for a reason - without them, the human race becomes immortal which would results in its inevitable destruction.

Posted By Sven on 5th Aug 08 at 6:32am

 

As you keep telling me in my posts that I can't extrapolate... why not? Isn't that what research is about? Setting up a Hypothesis via extrapolating the data set that they have and then trying to prove or disprove it!

Look, by telling me that I can't extrapolate based on my current knowledge (you may forget that I'm only in year 12 at the moment) means that you could potentially not try it. Why not try and find the common structure of all viruses and then to extrapolate the evidence that you have? It's better than interpolating - which gets you nowhere in the end.

It's how Mendeleev did what he did, and look, he got 70% of his predictions correct - if I set up my thesis the way that tries to look at the similarities of viruses and how to exploit that to my advantage, then, one thing will get proven - either, I'm wrong, or I'm right.

You need to be open to suggestions on things like that, rather than just turn the suggestion down without trying.

Besides, maybe diseases are part of the human race and life in general. What happened when we can no longer die? Do we stop having children? Do we still retire at 65 and cause the working class to loose money as we are 140+ sitting at home sucking up resources from a dying economy?

The body physically cannot cope with work at age 100+, so what does that mean for the society that is over 100 but still have like another 100 years left? Or they are immortal? The earth will get trashed, we will loose the ability to make Di hydrogen Monoxide, causing life to cease..

Even if we did manage to terraform the moon, or Mars, where does that leave us? The ice they think they found on Mars is likely to be solid Ammonia - which, unfortunately is toxic to humans in large quantities.

That's one of my reasons against finding the cure for all diseases, diseases like Cancer obviously occur for a reason - without them, the human race becomes immortal which would results in its inevitable destruction.

Even if there were no diseases, we would still die because our bodies would simply wear down. It would just take longer.

I don't see what the problem with living to 200 or 300 would be; a few hundred centuries ago, if someone died at the age of 30 they would've been considered to have lived a long life. We're now living to more than 3 times that length.

Our bodies don't particularly wear down, the only thing that cannot be replaced now is the brain - and if there were no diseases the brain would not wear out.

Thus, we would all eventually become cyborgs..

Posted By Sven on 6th Aug 08 at 9:42am

 

Our bodies don't particularly wear down

Surely they do though? As people get older, they become more frail and less able to fight illnesses that younger people can. Also, it's common for people to die of heart/liver/kidney failure etc even by substance abuse/poor lifestyle etc.

maybe I should have reworded the post better.

In a situation of no disease, where every part of the body could be replaced because there would be no risk of infection/contamination, no risk of rejection by the body tissues.

Then the body wouldn't wear down

Make better sense?

BTW: Just picked up something in marc's post.. a few hundred centuries? Wow... several thousand years - It was only until the late 1800s early 1900s that 30 became roughly midlife. Though, during that time was industrialization so many people died at work

Posted By Sven on 6th Aug 08 at 12:00pm

 

maybe I should have reworded the post better.

In a situation of no disease, where every part of the body could be replaced because there would be no risk of infection/contamination, no risk of rejection by the body tissues.

Then the body wouldn't wear down

Make better sense?

BTW: Just picked up something in marc's post.. a few hundred centuries? Wow... several thousand years - It was only until the late 1800s early 1900s that 30 became roughly midlife. Though, during that time was industrialization so many people died at work

It's a typo, you've made them before too.

Posted By Marc on 6th Aug 08 at 12:56pm

 

Posted By Sven on 6th Aug 08 at 12:00pm

 

maybe I should have reworded the post better.

In a situation of no disease, where every part of the body could be replaced because there would be no risk of infection/contamination, no risk of rejection by the body tissues.

Then the body wouldn't wear down

Make better sense?

BTW: Just picked up something in marc's post.. a few hundred centuries? Wow... several thousand years - It was only until the late 1800s early 1900s that 30 became roughly midlife. Though, during that time was industrialization so many people died at work

It's a typo, you've made them before too.

I know, I'm just an asshole