Also kills people...

Seriously though, this is what I've been telling prostitutes forever.

/handsonhips
/headtilt
Oh Gwiz!

On a serious note though, they had better be damned careful or they are gonna end up creating superAIDS... remember a spoonful of that shit will kill you!

This needs a five second films "fuck yea" at the end.

Its not rare for poison to be the cure. Often the difference is the dose. I mean, we've been fighting Cancer cells with ionising radiation, if that doesn't seem counterproductive to you then neither should using a virus.

Still, I am skeptical. Hopefully this really is a breakthrough, but with a sample size of only 3 its much much too early to say anything for sure.

"Hey doc, what're you so happy about?"
"Oh nothing,... just cured cancer with AIDS!"
"Fuck Yeeeah" (high-fives)

>> ^ghark:

This needs a five second films "fuck yea" at the end.

Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.

I'm a bit skeptical though.

1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.

2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

Isn't this how "I Am Legend" started?

On a related note...

http://xkcd.com/938/

It's like a human plague cage match!

It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.

I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.

>> ^marbles:

Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

>> ^bamdrew:

"Hey doc, what're you so happy about?"
"Oh nothing,... just cured cancer with AIDS!"
"Fuck Yeeeah" (high-fives)
>> ^ghark:
This needs a five second films "fuck yea" at the end.



That's a fine script right there if I do say so myself.

Can you see now, homophobes? God didn't create HIV because he "hates fags". Rather, these people are God's chosen ones to finally deliver the cure for cancer. Suck on that, haters!

Burzynski's evidence (or more like lack thereof) up 'till now suggests that he is a quack. A well-intentioned one at best, a fraudulent one at worst.

>> ^marbles:

Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

Well, I found out rat poison kills cancer too, but you don't see me bragging!

SCIENCE BE PRAISED!!!

Good news: Cancer is Gone
Bad news: You have AIDS now.

The good news is we've cured your cancer. The bad news is you now have AIDS.

>> ^messenger:

Can you see now, homophobes? God didn't create HIV because he "hates fags". Rather, these people are God's chosen ones to finally deliver the cure for cancer. Suck on that, haters!

You know gay people didn't invent HIV, right?

1. the real money is in managing chronic conditions and not chemotherapy, and as they say, dead patients don't pay the bills.

2. Antineoplastons sounds like a scam to me simply because it's not been in the news before and as the wikipedia article states - "A 2004 medical review described this treatment as a disproven therapy".
If it was as good as it claims then it would have no problem proving it scientifically.
So go right ahead and use that if you get cancer, you might even want to throw in a bit of homeopathy while your at it.
But i will stick with science.
>> ^marbles:

2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

>> ^blankfist:

The good news is we've cured your cancer. The bad news is you now have AIDS.


>> ^sme4r:

Good news: Cancer is Gone
Bad news: You have AIDS now.


The good news is: Videosift can be fun!

The bad news is: everyone's a comedian.

The good news is we've cured your cancer. The bad news is you now have AIDS.

Good news: Cancer is Gone
Bad news: You have AIDS now.

How did @Peroxide manage to apparently quote @blankfist and @siftbot before they posted their comments? As of now, Peroxide's comment appears to have been made 2 hours 24 minutes 3 seconds ago, while bf's comment came 1 hour 48 minutes ago, and sifty's 18 minutes 21 seconds ago.

Do you want the good news or... the bad news?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

it's the robopocalypse. Meet me at Gray Horse, OK. Siftbot is a Big Smiley.

...Because the good news is that we've cured your cancer.

Actually, trading cancer for AIDS would probably be a trade most people would make in their late stages... 6 months to live, or 20+ years more on aids meds?

The bad news?

You have spinal meningitis.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Worst Oregn Trail ending, ever.>> ^kymbos:

You have spinal meningitis.

Full volumetric MRI mapping and nano swarm injection will be the real cure.

The good news is we've cured your cancer.

The bad news is you now have AIDS.

they use HIV viruses that have been "neutered" and will not infect you.

Also hundreds of studies and experiments show cannabis cures cancer but companies are truly not interested in cures they cannot patent. It is not a cynical viewpoint it is the truth. Even the pink ribbon organization has officially stated they do not wish to endorse or even mention a cure when asked about the studies that show that cannabis cures cancer. There is a cure that the AMA and american cancer society has acknowledged since the 1970's yet people continue to suffer through chemo and radiation therapy and continue to die simply because Nixon was so anti-cannabis and the corporations would loose money if people could be cheaply cured. I am the least cynical person you are likely to find, there is just tons of evidence I found and keep finding that is incredibly sad when it comes to this issue.

-Karl

ps. If you know about this stuff it is actually quite reassuring in a personal way since cancer, diabetes, nerve damage, etc. are successfully treated with cannabis but it is very sad to think of all the people suffering needlessly.

>> ^messenger:

How did @Peroxide manage to apparently quote @blankfist and @siftbot before they posted their comments? As of now, Peroxide's comment appears to have been made 2 hours 24 minutes 3 seconds ago, while bf's comment came 1 hour 48 minutes ago, and sifty's 18 minutes 21 seconds ago.


...uh... cuz he quoted the FIRST time they posted those comments, not the second time, or the third, or the fourth...

The good news is, they cured my cancer.
But the bad news is, I now have no short-term memory.
But the good news is, they cured my cancer.
But the bad news is, etc...

Does this seem reminiscent of Australia's introduction of cane toads to eradicate cane beetles?

What I'd like to know is, why HIV specifically?

On paper it is actually quite easy to cure cancer with a virus. Cancer cells differ from healthy cells in that they lack a specific protein on the exterior of the cell that tells the cell to stop dividing when it is touching other cells. If we can manipulate a virus into attacking only cells without that protein then we can cure cancer. It seems to me that having a common cold or flu virus with this modification would work just fine. So why HIV?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

*findthumb

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by dag.

>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business



If you had cancer and all your doctor needs to do is prescribe some medication to you and you'll be fine, what happens to the entire oncology industry? From oncologists to companies that make expensive chemotherapy treatments, entire industries would cease to exist practically overnight.

Since corporations in the USA are required by law to maximise profits, isn't it fair to be a bit cynical and consider that those businesses that could be affected would want to protect their highly profitable corner of the market?

Then I guess we won't be curing anything that is a long term debilitating disease.

Well the good news is that if you wear this informative sign, you will never get raped again.

Bad news: you have HIV
Good news: 'HIV Kills Cancer' (high-five)

>> ^heropsycho:

It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business



It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.

You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?

But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.

I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."

Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

hpqp's arrogance (or more like the abundance thereof) up 'till now suggests that he/she is a tool. An ignorant one at best, a state owned one at worst.

>> ^hpqp:

Burzynski's evidence (or more like lack thereof) up 'till now suggests that he is a quack. A well-intentioned one at best, a fraudulent one at worst.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

>> ^hpqp:

oh @marbles darling, did I touch a nerve?
I already told you, I am a program run by the New World Order to scour the Sift for renegade truth-bearers such as yourself. Don't you think you should stop trying to attract your worst enemy's attention? Tin foil hats cannot stop predator drones you know.
>> ^marbles:
hpqp's arrogance (or more like the abundance thereof) up 'till now suggests that he is a tool. An ignorant one at best, a state owned one at worst.
>> ^hpqp:
Burzynski's evidence (or more like lack thereof) up 'till now suggests that he is a quack. A well-intentioned one at best, a fraudulent one at worst.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business





Oh, I get it. So you mimic government propaganda then. Maybe that explains why you're using Obama's tasteless predator drone joke.

Alex Pareene: "Hah! It's funny because predator drone strikes in Pakistan have killed literally hundreds of completely innocent civilians"

So much for civil discourse.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

>> ^heropsycho:

So much for civil discourse.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner



??? care to point out where I was uncivil in my reply towards you? What a pathetic cop-out.

Dude, seriously? I'm thinking accusing someone of having a "re-occuring reading comprehension problem" is pretty douchey, especially when I had only responded to you once. You then called someone else a state-owned or ignorant "tool" (your idea I guess of being civil is saying it's either/or, not both) who is also very arrogant, for, oh horror of horrors, disagreeing with you.

Probably doesn't help with a follow up that you think me calling you out for this is a "pathetic cop-out".

I really can't see how any of that would be considered civil discourse outside of an episode of Jerry Springer.

>> ^Skeeve:

What I'd like to know is, why HIV specifically?
On paper it is actually quite easy to cure cancer with a virus. Cancer cells differ from healthy cells in that they lack a specific protein on the exterior of the cell that tells the cell to stop dividing when it is touching other cells. If we can manipulate a virus into attacking only cells without that protein then we can cure cancer. It seems to me that having a common cold or flu virus with this modification would work just fine. So why HIV?


HIV is a retrovirus that places genes into our DNA. The genes introduced into the white blood cells then cause the blood cells to produce proteins which kill the cancer cells.

@hpqp: "I already told you, I am a program run by the New World Order."

Highly Problematic Quantum Philosopher?

>> ^heropsycho:

Dude, seriously? I'm thinking accusing someone of having a "re-occuring reading comprehension problem" is pretty douchey, especially when I had only responded to you once. You then called someone else a state-owned or ignorant "tool" (your idea I guess of being civil is saying it's either/or, not both) who is also very arrogant, for, oh horror of horrors, disagreeing with you.
Probably doesn't help with a follow up that you think me calling you out for this is a "pathetic cop-out".
I really can't see how any of that would be considered civil discourse outside of an episode of Jerry Springer.


Well, if you want to have any discourse at all it might help to tag who you are talking to or use the reply function. This is a re-occurring problem you have also.

If you're not having problems understanding what you are reading then you're repeatedly making straw-man arguments on purpose. That's what I call pretty "douchey".

And I was right. pathetic cop-out.

>> ^heropsycho:

You then called someone else a state-owned or ignorant "tool" (your idea I guess of being civil is saying it's either/or, not both)

reading comprehension fail or straw-man argument? 🤦

I think you're catching on to me not wanting any discourse with you. Congrats!

>> ^heropsycho:

I think you're catching on to me not wanting any discourse with you. Congrats!


And yet you were crying about lack of "civil discourse".

Sounds like another cop-out to me. This time out of fear of an informed response.