Ringer

Using fake sciencey sounding marketing isn't new. Personally I don't expect the marketing technique to change, what's more important is people being educated enough to be skeptical of the claims made by companies.

By the measure that I specifically mentioned earlier. You know, that the circulatory system is necessary because the body is hypoxic. So most of the human body You have implied, and stated in passing, that it will be bacteria. Either way, what will keep the bio-agent from becoming resistant? Then you should probably actually explain things better. If a group of people that have experience in the field of biology are all having similar 'misinterpretations' of what you mean it's probably a problem with the message. Sadly you have eliminated any immune reaction to the bio-agent so you don't have to worry about that. Again, when the misunderstandings are consistent you should probably rework how you are writing. you didn't say this "Oh my approach doesn't require "modifying" bacteria. My OP didn't mention "modification" of bacteria to do anything other than what comes natural to bacteria"? You should probably not grossly misunderstand a simple point when you are accusing everyone else of not being able to understand this area. They should be fine with it.

You could use your analogy if you had any idea how phase 2 would work, but you don't. You have an overview of how you think something might work (that would kill your patient). So literally the only thing you brought was an already existing treatment and talk of hypothetical wonderdrug. Really? You won't even try to talk about it in context? FFS man, the point is that the bacteria will be uncontrolled because this wonderous hypoxic environment is the entirety of the human body. If that were true, how would you expect to cure a cancer of the digestive tract? So you're just making stuff up? People here have already tried to help fill in the details that your idea doesn't work very well, and you just repeat that everyone else is wrong. Yeah, but that transplant has a higher reward than risk factor. Your treatment will kill way before a cancer does, so the analogy is moot. 1.) What does the diversity of species in gut bacteria have to do with the fact that your bio-agent kills anything in a hypoxic environment and the gut is a hypoxic environment? 2.) People won't have an active immune system because halting cell division has ended in new anti-bodies being produced so your bio-agent will overrun the body And it would still by meaningless to the question I have asked. So it's no longer a cure for cancer but a treatment for a specific type? Also, wouldn't it be easier to force apoptosis? since your drug is hypothetical you should probably go for the most effective thing. So you have no idea how your treatment would work? Scientists, engineers, and physicians already have plenty of overviews of viable ways they can treat cancers. What they don't need is someone trying to reinvent the wheel and expecting them to do all the work to see if it is even a viable possibility without so much a doing research on the ongoing progress of the field. Really? I can't even respond to this.

So you had a Eureka moment that you deserve a prize for because you brought someone else's idea to this forum? Since you're not modifying the bacteria because it already exists for the reason you want to use it for how is that novel? Here's the problem, the reason we need a circulatory system is because the majority of your internal system is hypoxic to the extent that cells don't have enough molecular oxygen to use is cellular respiration. So they have no specificity other than 'there's no oxygen let's kill everything'? That seems like it would kill your digestive system way before it killed anything else. Thank you, but I know what an obligate anaerobe is. This is not a mechanism, at best this is an overview. This is not a mechanism, at best this is an overview. So your answer to this problem is, 'yeah, it will definitely do damage, but someone else can take care of that'? Also, how will the bio-agents not kill the internal bacteria? It's a hypoxic environment and they are not targeting anything specific. That might as well say, 'with fostacamiticas drugs' because it has the exact same amount of specificity. This is not a mechanism, at best this is an overview. Well, if that were true then naked mole rats should get cancer. Because the currently held idea is that cancer is halted by a control mechanism in the body. I'll go ahead and assume this was a joke, because I'm sure you know that saying growth factor metabolic pathways is pretty much the same as saying cellular division pathways. I'll assume you also know that since I said specific pathways I meant EXACTLY what proteins will this interact with on what SPECIFIC pathways and using what EXACT mechanism. Will it be inhibition of an enzyme, and if so what kind of inhibition. Will you halt the transcription of certain proteins, and if so what methods will you use and what proteins will you halt? etc. etc. etc. Since you know all that I'll assume you are more specific below. This is not a mechanism, at best this is an overview. This is not a mechanism, at best this is an overview. You know that every blood cell isn't replaced on the same day right? It is a continuous process. Do you expect the patient to be completely cured in a week?

That can be answered rather simply, evolution doesn't care about absolute efficiency. Asking why there isn't something that would do a better job in a living system is like asking why the naturally made path down a mountain isn't the most efficient way.

Alright then, since you have a better idea about how these things work than we do, please do tell how you will modify these bacteria to only attack cancer cells. Not just the 'anaerobic' thing, but the specific mechanism that can be used to recognized the anaerobic environment, if you are using a drug, bacteria, or virus and what mechanisms they will use to disrupt the cancer without killing the internal flora of the patient. Though I may not know as much about it as you, I am familiar with cellular biology and metabolism so feel free to use big words. Also, How do you propose to halt ALL cellular division of healthy cells, again I would like to hear the specific metabolic pathways and proteins that one would disrupt to halt cell division and not kill the person.

This question really depends on how you define life.

Sadly there is a large portion of replications that never get published because it's not as 'interesting'. Though I'm not sure if that's due to peer review.

In addition to dying due to halting cellular division, you have also killed your patient by killing all of their internal flora.

I may have been a bit too vague. I agree with what you're saying 100%, I was only focusing on that people in general are only seeing a single problem and trying to show how the party they agree with isn't at fault (or, more often, do mental gymnastics to show the other people are at fault). Solving a problem doesn't matter, so long as you look good doing it many voters don't give two *excrement* what actually happens. There was an interview between Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart where Stewart made this same point quite well. If finger pointing actually got some result I would agree. The fact is, sadly, our the people in our government are not held accountable for what they screw up, even if it is criminal.

And that is the exact problem with American politics. It's a huge cognitive bias finger pointing game. No one cares about actual results. IMO who started this fuster cluck doesn't matter (though it's obvious who's at fault) the problem is those who started this mess refuse to look past their own d*cks (or t*ts) to see they're making everything worse because they listen to the loudest.

The supposed DNA samples they had were fragmented because nuclear DNA in samples of hair and skin does degrade. Bigfoot has been hunted for for a very long time, so your argument doesn't hold much water. But the papers they've put out have shown that the ones they could get sex chromosomes from were had an X or Y chromosome, and since all of them had human mitochondrial DNA (human mother) any with XX or XY would have to be human if bigfoot is a separate species of hominid. So all the paper really says is that they have human DNA that has been degraded or contaminated.

For those thinking it doesn't affect anything important, here is a small sample of affected areas: http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/science-is-a-non-essential-government-function-apparently

Honestly the only answer that we can give you is that we don't know enough about brain activity and structure to give you a satisfactory answer. This answer works for virtually any cognitive ability and structure correlation, with the exception of what happens when some specific areas are completely removed.

Actually I'm not assuming that at all. What I am saying is that throughout history and continuing into modern times the vast majority of people are superstitious. Two things, first you don't know what my opinion is. Second, almost all religious texts can be considered books of rituals, so saying that doesn't make the book not about magic and incantations.

That's even less informative.

There are two very large misconceptions in the OP. First is that we know what the entire structure of the average person's brain is, and second is that we know enough about intelligence to define what differences in that structure are meaningful. The first one is fairly self explanatory, but I feel I may need to discuss the second. Intelligence is not a well defined concept, I believe the current consensus is that there are differences in types of intelligence. There is the concept of general intelligence, but even that is ill defined. Ignoring those problems we still have the major problem of what the structural differences would be DUE to the differences in intelligence. It would be difficult to say whether a structural difference in, for example, the occipital temporal fissure is due to a better ability to recognize patterns (something this brain area is believed to play a large part in) or because the person does things that use that brain area more than average. So it may just be a correlated structural difference and not a causal structural difference. And because of neuronal plasticity there can be large structural differences in the brain of a single person when they are 30 when comparing it to when they are 40.

Due you happen to have a reliable poll saying that is the case? Since it was Obama who introduced the bill you would think all that outrage would have affected him as well. It's always nice when purposeful sabotage of public health is willingly accepted to prove a point. We can already make a prediction about how well it may do. Look at other industrialized nations with national healthcare. They don't seem to be doing quite as bad as one would think with an apparently failing healthcare system

It's not really as simple as sticking a neuron in a head then giving high-fives at a job well done. There are many supporting cells that are essential for neuronal functions, as well as many developmental cues that allow axonal migration at early stages of development. There is also a problem with implanted neural tissue being attacked by immune responses just like any other organ introduced into the body. There is continual study going on in these areas, so don't think I'm saying that something like that is impossible, but any biological system is more complicated than one may imagine. As a side note that may be brought up anyway, there have been heart cells cultured from a patient then implanted into the patient's heart. But, as far as I'm aware, when they examined the implanted cells they worked independently from the cells in the heart. Meaning that they just kind of contracted on their own and didn't really help with heart contractions for pumping the blood. So analogous things are being attempted, but we're having difficulty with successful implementation for heart muscles so it's doubtful that the same thing would work for neurons.

This statement Leads to this exact same conclusion.

I seem to remember in organic chemistry something about the highest observed molecular orbital do back attacks. Shortened to HOMOs attack from behind

Proteins that regulate branching, growth, etc. of dendrites, neurotransmitters and their precursors, receptors, etc.

Another great way smell test is to look at the ratio of how many times they cite themselves vs anyone else. Also if, say, they're trying to sell you something that is clinically shown to work, but the only clinical trials were in their lab which you have to e-mail the company for the manuscript because they didn't publish it.

In what way did the doctor say it was worse? Fructose is probably absorbed faster than sucrose since sucrose is a glucose-fructose disaccharide, but there are a lot of ways something can be worse for you than something else. Context is important.

While I agree with you for the most part, sometimes even when not pushing agendas that affect non-believers can be detrimental. While I don't have a problem with faith or belief in god(s) in itself, some belief systems are detrimental to the believers themselves (for example not allowing blood transfusions). While an adult can make this decision to die on faith and I wouldn't bat an eye, if a child who may only be part of this faith system due to circumstance is pretty much negligently killed intolerance of faith rears its ugly head. It can easily be argued that this sort of thing isn't the norm for faith based systems anymore, it's still enough of a problem that those who argue against faith based claims tend to have those examples in mind when arguing against faith. After writing all that I have to say that it is largely off topic as I seem to be almost every time I post on this thread, so I'll return to my self imposed exile from this thread