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

One of two of my favourite Arnold videos where he talks about tumours. Sift of the Week.

They're actually thinking of moving devils to Victoria on the mainland to isolate them from the tumour infected devils.

Yeah, 'cos I'm sure she and her family just gave up immediately....

Once again, there is no solid evidence that cannabis cures cancer. There are a number of promising studies that show that cannabinoids might inhibit tumour growth, but that's a world away from "curing cancer".

No, you'd be remiss if you opined blatant misinformation.

While there is a possibility that cannabinoids can inhibit tumour growth, there is nothing even close to a solid evidence base to show that "cannabis cures cancer".

@Yogi

How can you prove a negative? Studies have consistently found no harm from commercially available GM foods. The one study to the contrary (Séralini, tumours in mice) was found to be fraudulent and retracted.

Even if the effects are not immediate, GM foods have been available since the mid 90s, you would expect after 20 years, for there to be a discernible harmful effect, if there is one.

@billpayer

One of the main benefits GM foods can provide is increased longevity and shelf, which help to reduce wastage.

GM yields in a Mediterranean climate for common western crops are not hugely improved. However, the benefits in harsh conditions to say drought and flood resistance are substantial.

This is particularly why it's so detrimental that the EU has rejected GM foods so universally. Domestic farmers may not see huge benefit, but African producers are forced to use substandard non-GM crops for both domestic and international markets.

This is because GM crops cannot be exported to the EU market and different crop types cannot be effectively segregated. This limits their yields, in turn raises prices in a region of the world with an unsustainable, rapidly growing population and increasingly harsh conditions from climate change driven desertification.

"There are dinosaur bones with brain tumours."

This is a false or misleading statement. The reasons for some Canadians having to wait or not being able to have a doctor are different. Canada has had a terrible drain on it's medical system with doctors and nurses going down to the US, because they make more money there. This has lead to new programs to entice them to stay in Canada. It looks like they have been working, but it's a 10 year study and we need to see the numbers.

As a Canadian who has been though the healthcare system in Ontario, and had family members who've had been through health care in Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Halifax and Newfoundland.Labradour, I can tell you the parts that work and the parts that don't.

I'm a type I diabetic and I've had cancer twice. I've had a sarcoma in my saliva gland and as a result of radiation therapy, I've had melanoma skin cancer crop up on my body as well. I've had four major surgeries on my body. Two of them were serious complicated nervous system surgeries or lymphatic resecctions. I've been through my fair share of Canadian health care.

First things first. It's not a national healthcare. Anyone saying national healthcare doesn't know what they're talking about. The provinces and territories have their own health care. Granted, the territories get a lot more help from the Federal Gov't, but the health needs of people in Ontario are different from those in Manitoba.

Let's get into the brass taxes. I've had the nerve surgery and radiation therapy that was done on my face evaluated at a hospital in West Virgina as part of a study to compare American HC vs. Canadian HC. For my first surgery, I got to choose my doctor, I was given a list. They recommended one doctor, who was an expert in North America for nerve surgery, but he was recovering from a surgery of his own. They suggested I wait for him to be ready, but if I wanted to proceed, I could wait if I wanted.

I waited and surprise, no facial paralysis. I then had to do 30 days of intense radiation therapy in my parotid bed, to make sure they got it all.

I paid a total of $300 dollars in parking. I also have private health insurance for diabetic supplies, which means any medication I had to get to deal with the after effects of radiation had an 85% payback.

Years later when the effects of radiation had settled and I had a tumour form from the radiation, I had gone to my family doctor, saw a specialist the next day and then within the week I had an excision done. It came back positive and within a week of that, I was given a sentinel node biopsy to see if it had spread.

It had.

Within a month of the first examination, I had a full lymphatic ressection of my left leg and groin done. This wasn't as complicated as the facial nerve surgery, so I got a list and a suggestion of who to do the surgery.

That came back clean, but I now deal with a lot of complications from that.

That surgery cost me nothing.

In West Virgina at a hospital (they didn't tell me which one they used.) The total for all the exams (CT, MRI, etc.) the surgery and the radiation therapy came out to $275,000. Give or take.

This is why it drives me nuts when I see people get things wrong about Canada. We have problems, oh yes we do. For example, don't be over the age of 65 in BC or Quebec. The diagnostics training in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland if pretty terrible. But, I got to choose my doctor, and I saw everyone really quick. Why? Because you don't fuck with melanoma.

So, I'm sorry Trancecoach, I saw that video you linked. The guy lost a lot of credibility at "Communist State of Canada." You're already skewing your message to say something. You are just plain wrong about health care in Canada, the way you talk about. I am living proof of how well it works.

I'm a self employed photographer and the most I've ever had to pay was for parking at the hospital. That was the $300 dollars. I paid my taxes and that paid for my health care. If I didn't, and if other Canadians didn't, I would not be here, as with many other Canadians.

Critique us for the things we do shitty, but I have yet to see anyone do that. I see talking points and misinformation from people just spreading false info.

Get your facts straight. I know how it works in Ontario the best. But, I also know for a vast majority of the other country. I can tell you Saskatchewan has had an exodus of nurses, but that's not bad health care system. That's a gov't system that can't keep nurses in the province. If we can keep doctors and nurses, the system works great.

The guy you linked to, most of his sources for data are absolute crap and he misleads a lot of his talking points. This stupid lottery doctor that happened was because it was an isolated town in the wilderness and there was only one doctor left after the other passed away. So yes, he had to do a lottery for people so he wouldn't get swamped, unless it was an emergency. It was a town, I believe about 10,000 people, but I'm not sure on that.

Id like to see these guys in 9 months time.....how many tumours they got?

@ReverendTed
Many issues to address here, but first, some clarifications. My analogies (wonky as they are) were to point out the immorality of the “you’ve got to live with the consequences” stance, they were not about who’s harmed. But speaking of harm, it would be more ethical to let the two analogical characters “suck it up” than to demand of a woman she bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. In the first cases, there is only one victim, but in the latter there are two. When I say abortion is “punishment enough”, what I mean is that it is already a disagreeable outcome of mistake-making/poor-choice-making, while obliging a woman to give birth to (and raise) an unwanted child not only negatively affects the mother’s life, but that of the child as well; it is a disproportionate price to pay for the former and completely unfair for the latter. Hence, imo, abortion is by far the lesser of two “evils”.

Adoption instead of abortion is “a non-solution and worse” for several reasons. First, there are already more than enough children already alive who need parents, and you know very well that most people prefer making their own than adopting, so many of these will never have a family (not to mention the often inferior care-giving in foster homes and social centres). Now imagine that every abortion is replaced with a child given up for adoption; can you not see the horror? It’s that many more neglected lives, not to mention the overall problem of overpopulation.

I’m going to go on a slight tangent, but a relevant one. I have a certain amount of experience with humanitarian aid in Africa, and one thing that causes me no end of despair is the idiotic, selfish way much of it is performed. Leaving aside corruption, proselytization, etc., the “West” pours food and medicine into Africa with that whole “life is sacred” “feed the poor” mentality – good intentions of course – but with disastrous results because education and contraception (not to mention abortion) are almost always left out, even discouraged, with the support of the usual religious suspects (remember the pope on condoms causing aids?). The result is simple, and simply appalling: despite aid and funds increasing globally every year, starvation and child mortality continue to rise. Why? Because the people being barely maintained keep making kids who grow up to starve and die in turn, instead of focusing on the education of one or two children to get them out of the vicious cycle (there is another argument to be made about the education of women, but I’m ranting enough as is).

The point of this digression is to show that the non-pragmatic “all life is sacred” stance is terribly counter-productive, and the same holds for abortion (viz: on adoption above). As for lack of pragmatism, the same goes for your comment on abstinence:
I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.
What you’re saying basically is “people shouldn’t have sex unless they’re ready for childbearing/-raising”, which is absurd when one considers human nature and human relations.

All of the above arguments weigh into the question of the “ball of cells” vs “human being/identity”. The “sacred life” stance is one of quantity over quality, and in the long run devalues human life altogether. To quote Isaac Asimov on overpopulation: “The more people there are the less one individual matters”. In the abortion debate, what we have is one side so intent on protecting the abstract “life” that they disregard the lives of the two individuals in question, namely the “individual who is” (the mother) and the “individual who might be” (the child). The former is already a human individual, with memories, relationships, a personality, etc. The latter is not. The abortion question takes into account the future quality of life not only of the mother but of the would-be child as well, something the anti-abortion stance does not. Abortion doesn’t end an individual’s life, it prevents a ball of cells from becoming one. Here is where the religious aspect is crucial, because while embryologists see a complex mass of cells with no capacity for cognition/sensation, superstitious people assign an individual “consciousness” or “soul” to it, thus making abortion feel like murder instead of like the removal of a tumour. The question of potential is an emotionally manipulative one that does not hold up to criticism, because as @packo sarcastically (and the Monty Python brilliantly ) point out, you can go a long ways up the stream of potential.

I like the first half of @gorillaman’s tomato analogy for that reason (the second half is hyperbolic absurdity), that it underlines what is important in the debate: the living “thing”’s capacity for sensation/cognition/interaction. If you grew up with a tumour on your body which giggled when you tickled it and cried when you hit it, you would probably think twice before getting rid of it. That does not mean I’m categorically against late-term abortions, but for me the scale seriously tips between the 20-25th weeks when the nervous system of the foetus centralises. Of course, it is preferable that should an abortion take place it would be before the foetal stage, for the sake of medical and psychological comfort, but unfortunately one cannot always know so soon that one is pregnant.

I didn't want to join this tired discussion but decency requires someone oppose the appalling 'birth is magic - never kill a newborn' consensus. This is superstitious nonsense; wads of animal meat aren't supernaturally imbued with humanity by being shoved through a cunthole.

There's confusion and arbitrariness everywhere on this simple topic because nobody bothers to ground their moral sense in any kind of rational foundation. They look at a cute baby and their instincts and emotions destroy any hope of intelligent thought. Forget abortion, stop thinking about babies and heartbeats, it's moronic; go back and work on your basic understanding of ethics.

Why don't we kill people? Is it because we haven't been given a mandate; that there's no explicit cosmic distinction to separate one lump of matter from another, giving one the right to disrupt the other? Then we're all just bits of physics bumping into each other, and there's still no reason to prefer a foetus to its host; no more than a cancer sufferer to their tumour or indeed the whole of humanity to a grain of sand.
Is it because they're alive? Then we'd better learn to photosynthesise, because our existence requires the daily destruction of life. Life has no inherent value. It's just one peculiar way that our universe is shaped by its bizarre physical laws, with no mystery or significance - unapprehending molecules forced into the illusion of purpose.
Is it because they're human? Why do we value that species, is it only that it happens to be our own, or is there some particular quality of humanity beside their kind that requires moral treatment? There must be, or else to be consistent we would say that when a rock shatters another it commits a terrible crime among rocks, because one may not harm ones own kind.
Isn't it that we don't kill people because we recognise that the aggregation of their perception and understanding of reality, their cognitive excellence and continuity of personal identity gives rise to the new phenomenon of Mind - I give Mind a capital letter in that silly and somewhat religious way because it is the absolute centre and cause of moral necessity; without it there is simply no reason to be moral. Only by the application of Mind can there be a reality to be moral in. Mind is the universal source of all meaning.

So the question you ask yourself when considering the rights of a creature is 'what is the condition of its intellect; to what extent is it conscious; is it Mind?'

Everybody already agrees with me if they had the sense to see it. If I could produce a tomato with a mind equivalent to a human, which I was able to demonstrate could think and talk and feel and reason like any one of us, would we be happy to chop it into a salad? What about a human with the mind of a tomato? Well they already exist; they're called babies.

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

Though truthfully - it's probably getting a fair bit of publicity already:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176888/Father-Mike-Masse-posts-touching-rendition-Let-It-Be-You-Tube-raise-money-year-old-son-brain-tumour.ht
ml

They did a similar thing to operate on a brain tumour close to some guys speech centre I think. Had him talking and asked him to correctly identify shapes etc throughout so that they knew what they had to cut and what had to stay. If I remember correctly he went into a coma after the op but made a full recovery. Pretty amazing.

Also fuck flying cars, we have cyborgs right now.

The Hadooken was just something that can happen when your force tumours get too out of hand. Someone should cure these people of the mediclorean scourge that plagues them all =)

*promote

RIP

Dio passed away from complications due to Stomach Cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_James_Dio

On 25 November 2009, his wife/manager announced that Dio was diagnosed with stomach cancer:[13]

"Ronnie has been diagnosed with the early stages of stomach cancer. We are starting treatment immediately at the Mayo Clinic. After he kills this dragon, Ronnie will be back on stage, where he belongs, doing what he loves best, performing for his fans. Long live rock and roll, long live Ronnie James Dio. Thanks to all the friends and fans from all over the world that have sent well wishes. This has really helped to keep his spirit up."

On 14 March 2010, Dio's wife and manager Wendy posted an online update on his condition:

"It has been Ronnie's 7th chemo, another cat scan and another endoscopy, and the results are good – the main tumour has shrunk considerably, and our visits to Houston (cancer clinic in Texas) are now every three weeks instead of every two weeks."

On 4 May 2010, Heaven and Hell announced they were cancelling all summer dates as a result of Dio's ill health.[14]

Dio died at 7:45am (CDT) on May 16, 2010, according to official sources. [15][16][17]

Wendy Dio said on Ronnie's official site:[18][19]

"Today my heart is broken, Ronnie passed away at 7:45am 16th May. Many, many friends and family were able to say their private good-byes before he peacefully passed away. Ronnie knew how much he was loved by all. We so appreciate the love and support that you have all given us. Please give us a few days of privacy to deal with this terrible loss. Please know he loved you all and his music will live on forever."