Highscore wrote:
I think we are done here. You have deluded yourself into thinking you know everything about a subject which you have demonstrated no formal education in. Many of your arguments are just nothing more than a opinion. You think clinical research is just overdosing a test subjecting and seeing if it gets cancer or not.
You're the one falling back on random non sequitor links from Google or Wikipedia rather than using your supposed expertise to answer the questions asked of you. You denied Jubber's claim but didn't supply your own explanation as to research methodology or our level of understanding of carcinogens.
Highscore wrote:
You have failed to ever answer even one of my questions.
You came into this thread to answer, not ask, and wound up doing the opposite because you were unable to. In any event, this too is wrong, as we shall see.
Highscore wrote:
You have failed to provide any evidence to support your idea that data gathered from animal testing is irrelevant to humans.
If your supposed expertise was as profound as you talk it up to be, you wouldn't need an answer. But since you do, as it clearly is not, I will accommodate you.
Humans are significantly more complex than most other animals. Our chromosomes are a different size and configuration than those of other mammals. Our hemoglobin has a different structure. Our body temperature is different. The permeability of our skin and other membranes is different. Our life cycle is longer. Our digestive system is different and can handle things most animals' can't, and vice versa. Our immune system has different antibodies. Our cells' turnover rate is different.
All those factors are both individually and collectively relevant to cancer risk factors.
Highscore wrote:
You failed to provide any explanation why you think statistical data is weak evidence for finding the link between cancer and a carcinogen.
Choosing to pretend such a rationale wasn't presented only proves you are uninterested in serious discussion. See previous post.
Highscore wrote:
Your only citations are from 40 years ago and are no longer accepted.
Actually, I don't believe I made a citation at all. This is from the "random academic debate objection" generator.
Highscore wrote:
You have not read any of the articles I have linked. Your responses are often within 20 minutes of my posts which is no where near the amount of time it would take to even get past the first publication I linked.
Your "articles" are random crap off Google.
Highscore wrote:
You are confusing correlation with stereotypes. The example you provided with out any statistical data is just your uninformed opinion. You can go ahead think what ever you want on that but go ahead and try and get any serious journal to accept your idea that there is a correlation between people wearing them and beating their wives based on your opinions on wife beaters. You provide no supporting evidence from your self or other articles.
This isn't WoW General or the GameFAQs forums. Labelling a statement an "opinion" doesn't invalidate it, it's merely stating the obvious. But then again if you think something being an "opinion" makes it invalid, you obviously aren't much of an academic. And as I said, this also isn't a classroom where you have to put a bunch of random citations on your paper to get full credit. We're trying to have a serious discussion here. Or I hope so.
Highscore wrote:
Can you describe to me what causes cancer? How can a carcinogen interact with a cell to make it cancerous? How rapidly does cancer develop? Why would a researcher chose one model organism over the other? Why would they be interested in gene expression? Why would a researcher even start with a certain compound to begin with? What are the FDA's regualtions on new agents which will have high exposure to consumers? Where can a researcher gather clinical data on cancer? How can he sort the results to make them meaningful? What would invalidate these results? How can you determine if your results are biased and how can you correct for them?
Cancer is simply the uncontrolled division of cells. The rest of your questions vary in the particulars widely and the fact you even think they have hard and fast answers, or even nearly, only proves the totality of your ignorance. Some cancers can become immense in weeks. Others take years. What would make an appropriate test organism would depend on the nature of the carcinogen and what sort of cells it affects. Some cancers are typically benign. There are many cancer factors not regulated by the FDA so that question too reveals your ignorance. The last three questions are stock test questions out of context.
Highscore wrote:
Perhaps if you could provide an answer to these basic questions I would give you more credit, but currently you sound like someone who thinks what they read/hear about scientific findings in major news is in anyway an accurate representation of how science articles actually read.
You kept copping out of answering every question yourself, pleading lack of reading comprehension of all things, until you finally posted random shit from Google.
Seriously, gtfo.
