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

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

You have spinal meningitis.

Yes. I was trying to reinterpret the "God-hates-fags-so-he-gave-them-AIDS" line with something just as scientifically rigorous in light of the new evidence, and which stays well within religious wingnut logic.

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^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?

well now i feel like a dick for promoting.
but it DOES beg the question on funding for alternative methodologies and possible positive results.
a good example is that in 2004 (i forgot the companies name) raised the HIV treatments by up 350% citing costs for research and development and the fact that many countries have universal health care and are price locked.
the thing that makes this seemingly reasonable request so fucking heinous is that the R&D was government funded i.e:the american taxpayer actually paid for it.

ok..i shall end my feeble excuse for my promote by saying "good work hpqp".
the more you know...
/cue rainbow

>> ^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.

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

>> ^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?

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

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!

Your video, HIV Kills Cancer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

>> ^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.

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

"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.

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

I don't think it's the right thing to do now - but maybe in biblical times when hygiene was a real issue, it was a way to give a male offspring a head start against the many ailments that were around at the time. I don't think it's a practice that was just pulled out of a hat- it has some practical background, just like dietary laws. >> ^hpqp:

@dag and @lucky760
Don't be fooled by the studies saying circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV etc. Several factors render those studies' results doubtful and/or moot. For one, many of them concern 3rd world countries where simple hygiene is still an issue (e.g. Kenya). The odds ratios are very low. I would also add (with reserves though) that cultural bias may play a role in some of those studies (look at the names).
Most doctors and doctor associations disprove of neonatal circumcision btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision.
But even if circumcision were proven to drastically reduce the transmission of STDs and/or penile cancer, I would still be against it. How many kids have sex when they're babies? Can't they be given the choice when they reach their teens? As for penile cancer, it tends to develop in old age (60 and on), so plenty of time for a "preventive" chop if one chooses to do so to one's own body.

@dag and @lucky760

Don't be fooled by the studies saying circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV etc. Several factors render those studies' results doubtful and/or moot. For one, many of them concern 3rd world countries where simple hygiene is still an issue (e.g. Kenya). The odds ratios are very low. I would also add (with reserves though) that cultural bias may play a role in some of those studies (look at the names).

Most doctors and doctor associations disprove of neonatal circumcision btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision.

But even if circumcision were proven to drastically reduce the transmission of STDs and/or penile cancer, I would still be against it. How many kids have sex when they're babies? Can't they be given the choice when they reach their teens? As for penile cancer, it tends to develop in old age (60 and on), so plenty of time for a "preventive" chop if one chooses to do so to one's own body.