>> ^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"

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

>> ^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:
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?

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

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

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

That is awesome! Now genetically engineer them to stay that size.

This stuff cracks me up.

Scientific advancement in computing tech, nanotech, quantum mechanics, air and space flight, genetic engineering, new medicines, ag science...

But, put a remote control in someone's underwear, and they're cheering.

(The loudest, coming from the guy gettin' his cowboy on, are clearly the result of realizing he's getting to see some at a fashion show his wife dragged him to. "Yeehaw, couldn't talk the wife into the titty bar but this'll do!")

If the citizens hate the law against front yard gardens (yardens?) so much they should change it. Until then, if the law is proven to define no front yardens, then that's the law.

It's all a matter of degree, isn't it liberals? You're upset about THIS when your eco-fascism is now fully one-third of fedguv's laws...LOOK at the arbitrary power you've given your masters!

All of a sudden you're FOR private property rights? Out-RAGEOUS!



Here's some of the voices of reason of your heroes:

"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."

--Paul Elrich, Stanford University biologist and Advisor to Albert Gore

"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."

--Judi Barri of Earth First!

"Capitalism is a cancer in the biosphere."

--Dave Foreman, Founder, Earth First!

"The northern spotted owl is the wildlife species of choice to act as a surrogate for old-growth forest protection," explained Andy Stahl, staff forester for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, at a 1988 law clinic for other environmentalists. "Thank goodness the spotted owl evolved in the Pacific Northwest," he joked, "for if it hadn't, we'd have to genetically engineer it."

--Andy Stahl at a 1988 law clinic for environmentalists, staff forester, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

"Now, in a widening sphere of decisions, the costs of error are so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance. There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real."

--Jonathan Shell, author of Our Fragile Earth

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

--Richard Benedict, an employee for the State Department working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation

"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

--Stephen Schneider, Stanford University Professor and author Quoted by Dixey Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet (1990)


"More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crises until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one."

--Lynn White, Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," Science, (Mar. 10 1967), p 1206

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

--David Brower, Friends of the Earth

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."

--Keith Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."

--Earth First! newsletter

three weeks from that point on the bear would be slaughtering the child.

I like the video, makes me think of my grandchildren grandchildren if the world is so unlucky to bare them, by then bears will be domesticated and genetically engineered not to grow past a certain pubation period and keep the mindset of a cockerspaniel.


Yay future.

>> ^Calcul8r:

Bananas and cauliflower don't demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate intelligent design. Had the mutations not been specifically selected by the growers they would have disappeared, overwhelmed by the overall gene pool of the species.


You're right. For some reason the writer of the video choose 3 examples of selective breeding, then stopped.

To everyone saying selective breeding is a type of evolution, that just isn't how the word is defined. The utility and methods of selective breeding were well understood in Darwin's day, and were not controversial then or now. Educated people were well aware of how much selective breeding could change the form of an animal or plant. Darwin's great insight was that a similar process exists in nature, driven by survival of the fittest as well as sexual selection. He called it natural selection to distinguish it from the human-driven kind everyone was familiar with.

The science of evolution is the study of the natural process. Selective breeding and genetic engineering are ways of producing genetic change WITHOUT evolution.

EDIT: I was wrong. Sorry, I know it's irritating when people try to correct incorrectly. Scientists do consider artificial selection a type of evolution. However, it is good to keep in mind that the creationist position is not that selective breeding/artificial selection doesn't work. But they'd argue either that god is invisibly guided the development of animals, or that the earth is so incredibly young that animals were created virtually as they are today. They use the word evolution to mean only natural selection pressures. And here I thought that was the real definition.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Ya, Ok so bitch at the US for telling other countries what to do but then turn around and tell the US what they need to do. Define Irony.
You will always hit a brick wall when you try to tell others what they should be doing or thinking. I do find it rather offensive that people still think their opinion is worth much more then mine just because I'm from the U.S.
Yes, maybe there is something wrong with the U.S. but I honestly do not think its anymore broken than any other country. Ours just tend to be pointed out much more simply for being who we are.
Not long ago I had to go through Europe for some contract work. Almost everywhere I went if they found out I was from the U.S. I had to hear their Opinion on what the U.S. should be doing. Weather or not I wanted to hear it or not and they got extremely angry if I offered any type of difference of opinion. Hell at one point I actually got up in the middle of a restaurant told the waiter to please shut the hell up and get my check because frankly I was damn tired of it. I'm pretty sure I was more then likely labeled with the stereotype of the rude crass American and at that time I could of cared less.
As for genetically Engineered crops I currently have no opinion on it one way or another. Its not in my sphere of interest at this time.

Sorry quoting system here does not seem to agree with my computer. Still working out why posts garbage more often then not.... Edited and reedited.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^You barge in to defend the honor of the US, fully admitting you know nothing and care nothing about the specifics of the topic. It's this kind of entitled, self-important, blindly uncritical nationalism that probably causes people to dismiss you. That's my best guess as a fellow American.


I agree with daddy. Criticism is simple when looking in from the outside. I bitch about my government just like you guys. But why is it the only acceptable emotion we as Americans can show online shame? I agree our government makes many bad if not terrible decisions or oversights... but we do a lot and have the distinct honor of being the limelight. So when reading people standing on soap boxes making criticisms of the US almost willy-nilly like they know best and it's all just so simple I (and I believe other Americans like me) get a little defensive and a little upset.

Please understand - I'm not saying anyone is actually making unwarranted criticism. It's all about wording, tone, and acceptance of other people's points of view.

Ya, Ok so bitch at the US for telling other countries what to do but then turn around and tell the US what they need to do. Define Irony.
You will always hit a brick wall when you try to tell others what they should be doing or thinking. I do find it rather offensive that people still think their opinion is worth much more then mine just because I'm from the U.S.
Yes, maybe there is something wrong with the U.S. but I honestly do not think its anymore broken than any other country. Ours just tend to be pointed out much more simply for being who we are.
Not long ago I had to go through Europe for some contract work. Almost everywhere I went if they found out I was from the U.S. I had to hear their Opinion on what the U.S. should be doing. Weather or not I wanted to hear it or not and they got extremely angry if I offered any type of difference of opinion. Hell at one point I actually got up in the middle of a restaurant told the waiter to please shut the hell up and get my check because frankly I was damn tired of it. I'm pretty sure I was more then likely labeled with the stereotype of the rude crass American and at that time I could of cared less.

As for genetically Engineered crops I currently have no opinion on it one way or another. Its not in my sphere of interest at this time.


Sorry quoting system here does not seem to agree with my computer. Still working out why posts garbage more often then not.... Edited and reedited.