What can beat AIDS? AIDS!

[AntiVirus]

They could make up some bogas treatment for cancer that makes perfect sense to the uneducated person; that doesn't mean it's going to work or that it's even a viable proposal for a treatment.

I think you should treat AIDS, AntiVirus. ;D

I know they can make up some bogas treatment, that's why I said, "I just hope it works out well".   And as for me treating AIDS, I am already on it!  I have so already come up with strans of DNA that if implemented in children at birth, they are amune to AIDS. 

^^

[Joe]

They could make up some bogas treatment for cancer that makes perfect sense to the uneducated person; that doesn't mean it's going to work or that it's even a viable proposal for a treatment.

I think you should treat AIDS, AntiVirus. ;D

I know they can make up some bogas treatment, that's why I said, "I just hope it works out well".   And as for me treating AIDS, I am already on it!  I have so already come up with strans of DNA that if implemented in children at birth, they are amune to AIDS. 

^^

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Placebo

The placebo pill. A piece of chocolate! Take this, it'll cure your cold.

The effect is that you trust doctors, and that what the doctor will say is right (you trust him), so you mentally get rid of the cold. It's cool. :)

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=7807.msg97836#msg97836 date=1162964574]
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Placebo

The placebo pill. A piece of chocolate! Take this, it'll cure your cold.

The effect is that you trust doctors, and that what the doctor will say is right (you trust him), so you mentally get rid of the cold. It's cool. :)

I'm very confident that everyone here knows what a placebo is and what is implied when it "works."

I don't know why you brought this up.  AIDS and cancer are hugely destructive illnesses.  Injecting a false sense of optimism will never directly cure them.

[Joe]

You have cancer cells, and I have cancer cells. Cancer is simply deformed cells. "Cancer", the un-normal disease, develops when those cancer cells overpower the non-cancer cells and everything starts becomming deformed. In minor cancer a false sense of optimism could indeed encourage you to kill enough cancer to get over it, but other than that, yes.

And I wasn't sure if AntiVirus knew what a placebo was. I kinda suck at knowing what things are common knowledge or not, as I would definately consider myself to know some things beyond common knowledge.

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=7807.msg97845#msg97845 date=1162965634]
You have cancer cells, and I have cancer cells. Cancer is simply deformed cells. "Cancer", the un-normal disease, develops when those cancer cells overpower the non-cancer cells and everything starts becomming deformed. In minor cancer a false sense of optimism could indeed encourage you to kill enough cancer to get over it, but other than that, yes.

And I wasn't sure if AntiVirus knew what a placebo was. I kinda suck at knowing what things are common knowledge or not, as I would definately consider myself to know some things beyond common knowledge.

There are times that I question your intelligence, Joe.  This is one of those times.

A cancerous cell is not any cell with some arbitrary mutation.  As I already stated, it's a cell with a mutation of any gene responsible for a protein that controls cellular mitosis:

Exactly as iago said: cancer isn't a virus.  It's a strain of cells that have mutated in such a way that the mechanism which "aborts" duplication during mitosis if any genetic mutation is "detected"

And as wikipedia will confirm, you're wrong.

The unregulated growth that characterizes cancer is caused by damage to DNA, resulting in mutations to genes that encode for proteins controlling cell division. Many mutation events may be required to transform a normal cell into a malignant cell. These mutations can be caused by chemicals or physical agents called carcinogens, by close exposure to radioactive materials, or by certain viruses that can insert their DNA into the human genome. Mutations occur spontaneously, and may be passed down from one generation to the next as a result of mutations within germ lines.

Simply making a person believe they can defeat cancer by the mere implantation of the idea that it's possible doesn't mean that cancerous cells will spontaneously begin to perish or cease reproducing.  I said "directly" for a reason.  Lance Armstrong defeated cancer because he physically strained himself while he was diagnosed (there's further medical explanation for the reason it disappeared, but I don't think anyone here is qualified to attempt to guess what it is), not because he was telling cancer to beat it.

Like I said, I would be surprised if anyone here didn't know what a placebo is.

Incidentally, this isn't an ordinary vaccine, like your hepepatitus shots (or other vaccinations we get).  If you read the article, it says that they genetically engineered a strain of AIDS that can fight other AIDS viruses. 

I wouldn't really even consider it a vaccine. A vaccine prevents disease while an antidote cures a disease.

Antidotes treat poisoning, not any and every form of illness.  They are generally created by injecting an animal with the substance (ie, cobra venom) and extracting antibodies from the animal's blood.  If you inject foreign antibodies into an immune system, it will help fight off the poison, but that doesn't mean they've become eternally immune to the toxin.  The antibodies don't stay in the blood forever; they'll eventually flush out.  Antidotes are immediate treatments for dire cases of poisoning.

A vaccine is a weakend, dead or inactive dose of microorganisms.  It is used to stimulate the production of antibodies in a patient, which hopefully leads to immunity against the specific strain of microorganism that the vaccination targets.

You're right that the idea behind this is far from the inner works of a vaccine (which is what I think iago was saying in the first place...), but your reasoning and clarification was utter nonsense.  If anything, you confused the two terms.  Even then, though, you still need to remember that antidotes specifically treat poisons.

This is neither an antidote nor a vaccine.  It's a treatment.

[rabbit]

I think I was misunderstood, but the arguments against what I said still make sense.  AIDS vs Cancer, not Cancer vs Cancer.  Anyway, I think that one of the reasons Armstrong doesn't have cancer anymore is that he had the cancerous cells surgically removed.

[Armin]

Incidentally, this isn't an ordinary vaccine, like your hepepatitus shots (or other vaccinations we get).  If you read the article, it says that they genetically engineered a strain of AIDS that can fight other AIDS viruses. 

I wouldn't really even consider it a vaccine. A vaccine prevents disease while an antidote cures a disease.

Antidotes treat poisoning, not any and every form of illness.  They are generally created by injecting an animal with the substance (ie, cobra venom) and extracting antibodies from the animal's blood.  If you inject foreign antibodies into an immune system, it will help fight off the poison, but that doesn't mean they've become eternally immune to the toxin.  The antibodies don't stay in the blood forever; they'll eventually flush out.  Antidotes are immediate treatments for dire cases of poisoning.

A vaccine is a weakend, dead or inactive dose of microorganisms.  It is used to stimulate the production of antibodies in a patient, which hopefully leads to immunity against the specific strain of microorganism that the vaccination targets.

You're right that the idea behind this is far from the inner works of a vaccine (which is what I think iago was saying in the first place...), but your reasoning and clarification was utter nonsense.  If anything, you confused the two terms.  Even then, though, you still need to remember that antidotes specifically treat poisons.

This is neither an antidote nor a vaccine.  It's a treatment.

It's not that I mixed them up, it's just my definition for antidote was wrong. I was basically trying to get across the idea that this is not a vaccine, which I did fine in.

[Sidoh]

I think I was misunderstood, but the arguments against what I said still make sense.  AIDS vs Cancer, not Cancer vs Cancer.  Anyway, I think that one of the reasons Armstrong doesn't have cancer anymore is that he had the cancerous cells surgically removed.

I don't think that was fully possible.

On October 2, 1996, Armstrong was diagnosed with stage three testicular cancer that had metastasized, spreading to his lungs, abdomen, and brain. His doctors told him that he had less than a 40 percent chance of survival. After his recovery, one of his doctors told him that his actual odds of survival had been considerably smaller (one even went as far as to say three percent), and that he had been given the estimate primarily to give him hope.

sure, you can remove tumors, but that doesn't mean every single cancerous growth was gone.

The proposed idea is that mutated AIDS viruses are combatting and killing other AIDS viruses, not cells.  Cancer and AIDS are nothing alike.  AIDS targets cells of the immune system.  Cancer is potentially present in any type of cell in the body.

It's not that I mixed them up, it's just my definition for antidote was wrong. I was basically trying to get across the idea that this is not a vaccine, which I did fine in.

Vaccines attempt to instill immunity.  Antidotes are a temporary remedy.  You said the opposite.

And no, the only thing you did was say this isn't "really" a vaccine.  You proved nothing.

[Armin]

It's not that I mixed them up, it's just my definition for antidote was wrong. I was basically trying to get across the idea that this is not a vaccine, which I did fine in.

Vaccines attempt to instill immunity.  Antidotes are a temporary remedy.  You said the opposite.

And no, the only thing you did was say this isn't "really" a vaccine.

...

I wouldn't really even consider it a vaccine. A vaccine prevents disease while an antidote cures a disease.

Instilling immunity is preventing the disease from occurring.

You proved nothing.

Even if I didn't happen to prove anything, you wouldn't need to be a complete fucking jackass about it. Like I told rabbit earlier, get over whatever the fuck you have against me.

[Sidoh]

You didn't prove anything.  I don't care if you think my corrections make me a jackass nor do I care if you think I have anything against you.

[Armin]

You didn't prove anything.

I proved that this treatment is not a vaccine, because vaccines prevent diseases while this treatment is used to fight the disease. If I did not prove that, then feel free to show how I didn't.

I don't care if you think my corrections make me a jackass nor do I care if you think I have anything against you.

Think to yourself, if iago said exactly what I said, would you still say the exact same thing back? No. I'm not even sure if you don't like me personally, possibly just because I don't have as power like you. Anyways, I know you don't like, and you know I don't like you. Cut the crap.

[Sidoh]

I proved that this treatment is not a vaccine, because vaccines prevent diseases while this treatment is use to fight the disease. If I did not prove that, then feel free to show how I didn't.

Your lack of knowledge in this area proved that you were incapable of proving that this wasn't a vaccine.  How can you prove something is or is not a vaccine when you don't know what a vaccine is?  You stated that it is not a vaccine, but your reasoning was highly fallable.

Think to yourself, if iago said exactly what I said, would you still say the exact same thing back? No. I'm not even sure if you don't like me personally, possibly just because I don't have as power like you. Anyways, I know you don't like, and you know I don't like you. Cut the crap.

It's much more impersonal than that.  I don't like idiots or idiotic ideas.  Power has absolutely nothing to do with it.  If someone else that I was more friendly with would have said the same thing, my reaction would have been less volatile, but it would have been equally solid.

[Armin]

I proved that this treatment is not a vaccine, because vaccines prevent diseases while this treatment is use to fight the disease. If I did not prove that, then feel free to show how I didn't.

Your lack of knowledge in this area proved that you were incapable of proving that this wasn't a vaccine.  How can you prove something is or is not a vaccine when you don't know what a vaccine is?  You stated that it is not a vaccine, but your reasoning was highly fallable.

It's not that I mixed them up, it's just my definition for antidote was wrong. I was basically trying to get across the idea that this is not a vaccine, which I did fine in.

I wasn't trying to prove anything, yet I was simply casually contributing to the conversation by giving the idea out that this treatment is not a vaccine, which once again, I did fine in. I also don't know how many times I've said this, yet I never gave out a false definition of what a vaccine is. Yes, I didn't give out the right definition antidote, but that was barely relevant to what I said.

Think to yourself, if iago said exactly what I said, would you still say the exact same thing back? No. I'm not even sure if you don't like me personally, possibly just because I don't have as power like you. Anyways, I know you don't like, and you know I don't like you. Cut the crap.

It's much more impersonal than that.  I don't like idiots or idiotic ideas.

...My idea was solid, I just mixed up the definition of "antidote" with something else.

Power has absolutely nothing to do with it.  If someone else that I was more friendly with would have said the same thing, my reaction would have been less volatile, but it would have been equally solid.

That's exactly what I was saying, and most people would consider that habit to be a huge flaw in a person's character.

[Sidoh]

I wasn't trying to prove anything, yet I was simply casually contributing to the conversation by giving the idea out that this treatment is not a vaccine, which once again, I did fine in. I also don't know how many times I've said this, yet I never gave out a false definition of what a vaccine is. Yes, I didn't give out the right definition antidote, but that was barely relevant to what I said.

You implied that this treatment is an antidote, which it is clearly not.  I think it's fully relevant to what you were saying.

...My idea was solid, I just mixed up the definition of "antidote" with something else.

No, it was a false statement which, coincidentally, happened to have one member which was true: "this is not a vaccine."

That's exactly what I was saying, and most people would consider that habit to be a huge flaw in a person's character.

I don't care (nor do I think I should care) about your completely subjective view of what you or anyone else consider "good" in a person's character.

[iago]

Think to yourself, if iago said exactly what I said, would you still say the exact same thing back? No. I'm not even sure if you don't like me personally, possibly just because I don't have as power like you. Anyways, I know you don't like, and you know I don't like you. Cut the crap.

Yes, Sidoh and me frequently have arguments here.. it's all in good fun, with Sidoh. :P