Genetic Engineering and Ethics.

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

I just meant it has two very different meanings. One is to enrol in the army and the other is to provide clear evidence of something.

Yeap I'm lucky to have the wife I do, and kids I have. #blessed.

Hi Dany

My respect to you for not giving up and best wishes.

jmccr8

[+Sherapy]

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's really fascinating, are you sure those sources are accurate though? This link states its a 20% response rate, although those who respond do so impressively. 

“When (immunotherapy) works, it works,” Luke said.  For most cancers, the response rate is about 20 percent, but the patients who do respond to immunotherapy, do really well, he said. “We’re beginning to see patients from early clinical trials — those who started therapy four or five years ago and have been off treatment for a year or more — without a recurrence.”

 

https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/immunotherapy-articles/immunotherapy-using-the-bodys-immune-system-to-fight-cancer

 

Don't get me wrong, if there is a cure for cancer, that's amazing, astounding but medical discoveries I find are often exaggerated by the press. 

In any case thanks for posting that, it's more than interesting. 

My mom was part of a clinical trial for breast cancer she was in the second phase, she got cancer again and so did the other trial participants after 10 years all the participants died from cancer. 

 

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dany

My respect to you for not giving up and best wishes.

jmccr8

Ditto, I wish Dan the best in his recovery. 

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Sherapy said:

My mom was part of a clinical trial for breast cancer she was in the second phase, she got cancer again and so did the other trial participants after 10 years all the participants died from cancer. 

 

That's what I mean, if it was a 100% effective  I'd have thought that would be very big news. Interesting, sure, but I suspect perhaps somewhat exaggerated 

[Mr Walker]

29 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's what I mean, if it was a 100% effective  I'd have thought that would be very big news. Interesting, sure, but I suspect perhaps somewhat exaggerated 

Australian scientists developed a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer.  it is now given to all Australian adolescents  This will result in the  almost total  elimination of cervical cancer in about 40 years in Australia   I wonder though, just how many people know about this It should be big news, but that  doesn't mean it is. 

Cervical cancer could be effectively eliminated in Australia within the next four decades, medical experts say, after new data revealed infection rates had plummeted to just 1 per cent in young women.

Cervical cancer:

• Cervical cancer is the growth of abnormal cells in the lining of the cervix
• One woman dies every two minutes globally from cervical cancer
• An estimated 930 new cases will be diagnosed in Australia in 2018

 

Research published by the International Papillomavirus Society, lead by doctors in Melbourne, showed a dramatic decline in the rate of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in women aged up to 24.

The data revealed infection had fallen from 24 per cent to just 1 per cent in that age group in the last decade.

Researchers said the decline was due to the roll-out of the national immunisation program for boys and girls, which began in 2007.

Professor Suzanne Garland, the director of the Centre for Women's Infectious Diseases at the Royal Women's Hospital, said she expected the number of cases each year would drop from about 1,000, to just a few, thanks to the vaccination and the new DNA screening test.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-04/cervical-cancer-may-be-eliminated-in-australia-40-years-experts/9507050

HPV (human papillomavirus) is a sexually transmitted infection that causes 99.9% of cervical cancers. In 2007, the federal government began providing the vaccine for free to girls aged 12-13 years, and in 2013, it extended the program to boys.

 

 

 

 

 

Read more

Girls and boys outside those ages but under 19 can also access two doses of the vaccine for free. In 2016, 78.6% of 15-year old girls and 72.9% of 15-year old boys had been vaccinated.

As a result, the HPV rate among women aged 18 to 24 dropped from 22.7% to 1.1% between 2005 and 2015.

Immunisation rates have risen further since 2015, and Garland said high coverage was creating a herd protection effect. “You’re getting herd protection in males, just from the female program,” she said. “That’s pretty amazing.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/04/australia-could-become-first-country-to-eradicate-cervical-cancer

[spartan max2]

I am morally fine with genetic engineering. It could do alot of goos.

My only cavet is that it would need to be free and accessible to all people or else we would literally began to have diffrent species based on income level. 

Also I accept that as with every tech advance tech throughout history there will be a string of unintended consequences along with it 

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's what I mean, if it was a 100% effective  I'd have thought that would be very big news. Interesting, sure, but I suspect perhaps somewhat exaggerated 

As you, I stay away from info provided from some posters because of the exaggeration factor. 

Yet, with that being said he is talking about the HPV vaccination and this is a much better resource.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

As you, I stay away from info provided from some posters because of the exaggeration factor. 

Yet, with that being said he is talking about the HPV vaccination and this is a much better resource.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents

 I cant say if it is a better source as it has no date on it .

The new Australian developed vaccine basically eliminates the virus, and thus cancer,  with possibly a 1 %    remnant which will disappear because of the effect of herd immunity.

Australian authorities have said that we will eliminate cervical cancer in Australia within 40 years  Your source gives much higher failure rates, and i suspect is talking about much older and less effective vaccines, but without a date on it one cannot tell. 

The sources i gave came from this year and were authoritative

Research published by the International Papillomavirus Society, lead by doctors in Melbourne, showed a dramatic decline in the rate of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in women aged up to 24.

The data revealed infection had fallen from 24 per cent to just 1 per cent in that age group in the last decade.

 

 

 The  free immunisation programme began about 10 years ago and those results are a consequence of most Australian teenagers now being vaccinated   (currently over 80% of boys and girls) 

Furthermore

An improved version of the Gardasil vaccine will be available to all 12 and 13-year-olds across the country this year, 

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 I cant say if it is a better source as it has no date on it .

The new Australian developed vaccine basically eliminates the virus, and thus cancer,  with possibly a 1 %    remnant which will disappear because of the effect of herd immunity.

Australian authorities have said that we will eliminate cervical cancer in Australia within 40 years  Your source gives much higher failure rates, and i suspect is talking about much older and less effective vaccines, but without a date on it one cannot tell. 

The sources i gave came from this year and were authoritative

Research published by the International Papillomavirus Society, lead by doctors in Melbourne, showed a dramatic decline in the rate of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in women aged up to 24.

The data revealed infection had fallen from 24 per cent to just 1 per cent in that age group in the last decade.

 

 

 The  free immunisation programme began about 10 years ago and those results are a consequence of most Australian teenagers now being vaccinated   (currently over 80% of boys and girls) 

Furthermore

An improved version of the Gardasil vaccine will be available to all 12 and 13-year-olds across the country this year, 

 

 

https://sites.umuc.edu/library/libhow/credibility.cfm

.gov are generally the most credible sites. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Sherapy

[Truthseeker007]

Everybody may be different here and maybe I missed something. When I see something coming from a government website I tend not to trust it and I run the other way.lol! I really don't trust the government when it comes to people's lives and I steer clear of any kind of information coming from any government.

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Everybody may be different here and maybe I missed something. When I see something coming from a government website I tend not to trust it and I run the other way.lol! I really don't trust the government when it comes to people's lives and I steer clear of any kind of information coming from any government.

Of course, if it is anything political one should be leery. 

This is about the HPV vaccination for cervical cancer. 

 

[Aquila King]

3 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Everybody may be different here and maybe I missed something. When I see something coming from a government website I tend not to trust it and I run the other way.lol! I really don't trust the government when it comes to people's lives and I steer clear of any kind of information coming from any government.

I'm not one to be a conspiracy theorist that's constantly paranoid about the 'evils of the government', but I will agree that I am far more skeptical of government-cited content then I am non-profit groups and the like.

[Aquila King]

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 5:32 AM, davros of skaro said:

For every second I look at this pic I feel a little less straight.

[Merc14]

On 4/28/2018 at 11:13 AM, danydandan said:

I was listening to a debate on the radio earlier today regarding the ethics of genetic engineering on humans.

The debate swung back and forth, but it got me thinking what religious minded people thought of the ethics of genetic engineering in humans.

My wife is an Evangelical Christian, she was siding on the, it's against nature or God's will. So I asked a simple question. If there was a way we could ensure our two daughters never get sick would you do it or would you let either of them get sick, possibly die, because it's Gods will?

This changed her mind, I think every parent would love to ensure their children never get sick.

I know genetic engineering is in it's infancy and testing is obviously troublesome as we can't predict what the changes might do in the long run. But if it was proven your children wouldn't get cancer, Parkinson's, ALS, Hutchinson etc etc would religious people allow genetic engineering to be carried out on the children?

Hope the best for your cancer, terrible disease, and my brother is dealing with it now, simply horrible and changes all our lives.   

You offer up a very complex issue that, I believe, has no god answer.  Personally, I think that we believe ourselves, at least at this time, to  think we are far less clever than we believe and these designer genes are a ticking time bomb.  You don't  change one gene without affecting other systems and I honestly don't think we know enough at this time to understand all the implications.  I have seen two brilliant people give birth to a moron.  Nurture or nature?  Who knows.   As a parent I understand the reality of actually raising a child as compared to actually doing it. 

Case in point, when I was a young single guy I thought "She should spank that kid." when I saw a screaming temper tantrum in the store and then I had my son and realized that I could no more spank him than I could cut my finger off.  OK, I am lucky and have a really great kid but what about parents with monsters? Also, are these two opposites nature or nurture?  Lesson two of being a parent is be careful before you judge. 

Back on topic, we won't know for twenty or thirty years what these designer kids actually are and if this "tinkering" made a better human or a severely damaged human.  My point with the above is there are no guarantees when you roll the genetic dice and 7's (I think that is good, don't play craps so let me know) your raising of the child could unravel all that. 

[jmccr8]

27 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Hope the best for your cancer, terrible disease, and my brother is dealing with it now, simply horrible and changes all our lives.   

You offer up a very complex issue that, I believe, has no god answer.  Personally, I think that we believe ourselves, at least at this time, to  think we are far less clever than we believe and these designer genes are a ticking time bomb.  You don't  change one gene without affecting other systems and I honestly don't think we know enough at this time to understand all the implications.  I have seen two brilliant people give birth to a moron.  Nurture or nature?  Who knows.   As a parent I understand the reality of actually raising a child as compared to actually doing it. 

Case in point, when I was a young single guy I thought "She should spank that kid." when I saw a screaming temper tantrum in the store and then I had my son and realized that I could no more spank him than I could cut my finger off.  OK, I am lucky and have a really great kid but what about parents with monsters? Also, are these two opposites nature or nurture?  Lesson two of being a parent is be careful before you judge. 

Back on topic, we won't know for twenty or thirty years what these designer kids actually are and if this "tinkering" made a better human or a severely damaged human.  My point with the above is there are no guarantees when you roll the genetic dice and 7's (I think that is good, don't play craps so let me know) your raising of the child could unravel all that. 

Hi Merc

That is what I have been thinking as well and would those genetic modifications create some sort of mutation in later generations.

Although the entrepreneurial side of me thinks that there would be good money in engineering chickens with a dozen wings.

jmccr8

 

[Merc14]

10 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Merc

That is what I have been thinking as well and would those genetic modifications create some sort of mutation in later generations.

Great point!   How horrible if your kids were all born with some debilitating or fatal abnormality due to some unforeseen mutation.  How about if your designer kid's genes are studied and it is determined his or her children would all be born with a debilitating disease?

10 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Although the entrepreneurial side of me thinks that there would be good money in engineering chickens with a dozen wings.

 

Hmmm, now you have me thinking!!!

[Truthseeker007]

11 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I'm not one to be a conspiracy theorist that's constantly paranoid about the 'evils of the government', but I will agree that I am far more skeptical of government-cited content then I am non-profit groups and the like.

I really don't even like the term conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. I like asking questions and most people don't seem to do that and believe whatever the government tells them. When you look at history the governments of the world killed more humans then anything. So whatever a government says I take with a grain of salt and do my own research. Which is what we should all do.