DARPA calls for antibiotic replacement

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
How is replacing anti-biotics with something inherently better a bad thing?

What does a replacement to antibiotic treatment currently in the research stage have to do with Morgellons?

Nothing.

You people are just connecting unrelated events based on nothing but a whim.


In any case, how is morgellons, one of the effects of which is skin lesions, forced or directed evolution? What evidence is there behind this theory?

None.

It doesn't even make sense. Why would they spend loads of money making nanotechnology that gives a very small amount of people skin lesions?

If you want people to actually pay attention to alternative topics then the first thing that needs to go is threads like this one that are only believed by a small circle of fellow theorists.

reply to post by Maxmars
 



We already know that commerce and profit override virtually all considerations they can dare to call an 'externality' in their practices; so I can't imagine what the story will be 20 years from now, when some people might be suffering from some unforeseen consequence of their 'industry.'

As usual it will be soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who will likely be the guinea pigs for exposure to this 'new and improved' technology..... it kind of reminds me of the wonders of DDT, Agent Orange, and more...

Or in other words you fear technological progress.

It kind of reminds me of why living standards when proper healthcare is in place are so high and are improving.

Are there risks? Yup. Do computer simulation and other forms of testing in order to minimize those risks.

But, what would you rather the world do? Stop all medical progress in fear that something might go wrong? You only mention the possible negative aspects of such technology. That viewpoint is highly dangerous.


Since silver has been used for, ohhhhhhh, about six thousand years now to fight infections, perhaps DARPA might like to stop pretending it doesn't exist

Because ohhhhhh silver cannot fight infections as well as nanotechnology could?

For the vast majority of human history, our life expectancy has been around 40. Is this also a good thing to you? Because we lived for 6000 years like that it's supposed to be better and OK?

Did you ever even think of that?
edit on 25/11/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
edit on 25/11/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
How is replacing anti-biotics with something inherently better a bad thing?


Its not... what is bad is that DARPA is doing it


You really thing they will use this tech on the average Jack and Jill?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by C0bzz
How is replacing anti-biotics with something inherently better a bad thing?


Its not... what is bad is that DARPA is doing it


You really thing they will use this tech on the average Jack and Jill?



DARPA throws the money out and some California University Professor will have a wild idea and use their funding. He will use it on Veterans. If it works....great....if it doesn't......oh well....He's still gonna make millions. Who cares if the Veterans die.

www.research.va.gov/news/research_highlights/toxins-010510.cfm

America doesn't.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 



reply to post by Maxmars


We already know that commerce and profit override virtually all considerations they can dare to call an 'externality' in their practices; so I can't imagine what the story will be 20 years from now, when some people might be suffering from some unforeseen consequence of their 'industry.'

As usual it will be soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who will likely be the guinea pigs for exposure to this 'new and improved' technology..... it kind of reminds me of the wonders of DDT, Agent Orange, and more...



Or in other words you fear technological progress.

It kind of reminds me of why living standards when proper healthcare is in place are so high and are improving.

Are there risks? Yup. Do computer simulation and other forms of testing in order to minimize those risks.

But, what would you rather the world do? Stop all medical progress in fear that something might go wrong? You only mention the possible negative aspects of such technology. That viewpoint is highly dangerous.


Perhaps you are unaware of, or thought to disregard my use of the word "externality."

The entire point of the problem I was raising was the very one you defended against.

When you reduce the matter to "minimal risk" YOU decide that there are an "acceptable" number of victims of the "progress" you defend.

The industry uses spreadsheets (actuarial tables) to determine if the liability of damage is "acceptable" too. You ever wonder how many losses have been acceptable thus far? I wish I could say, but I think it is a safe presumption that to those who lives were destroyed or diminished by this "acceptable" margin .. the tradeoff is not so 'equal.'

The only thing that mitigates the acceptability of "losses" is foreknowledge of risk.... care to ask the dead and dying about their foreknowledge? Perhaps the veteran community can better explain it.

There is a difference between being a risk-taker and being 'expendable.'

Operating under the shield of corporate protection from liability, these people get quite 'relaxed' about "acceptable risk."

I guess you are OK with this. I am not so OK with it. I yield to the practice with reluctance. And am not inclined to simply forget those who suffer for our "progress." Which is why I bring it up here. So others may "remember." It interferes with the apparent 'Utopia" some consider the status quo.
edit on 25-11-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join