Not necessarily. There's nothing to say that the genes which grant the naked mole rat their seeming invulnerability to cancer would be useful (or possible) in humans. In humans, the p16 gene could do something horrific. And at any rate, this is a gene that occurs naturally in the naked mole rat. It doesn't exist in humans, so humans would still get cancer, unless we were going to go the genetic engineering route and eradicate cancer that way (which would involve ethical problems we're not even close to addressing.)

But okay, granted. If we did genetically engineer human beings, a la Brave New World, then sure, cancer (among other nasty diseases) could be eradicated, with lots of good luck. But it's a practical impossibility. Look at the problems we have getting people to do something as simple as getting their kids vaccinated. We'd have exponentially greater problems getting people to sign on to a breeding/genetic engineering program.

You spoke up in support of "homeopaths, Chinese doctors, nutritionists and spiritual healers", and (just as importantly) against "huge pharmaceuticals and the legions of sheep that take their drugs". That's essentially the same thing (i.e., defense of con artists).

Let me explain to you how it works: Double blind, randomized controlled trial, or the effect didn't happen.

And here's how we know there's no quantum entanglement going on: There's nothing to get entangled. Once you get it diluted to the point we're talking about in homeopathy, there's nothing of the original substance left in the mixture. Molecules can only be so small.

Want to know how effective homeopathy is? Ask Steve Jobs. (I hope you have your Resurrection spell handy.)

Oh, and to your quantum entanglement theory:

I suggest you start .

You actually didn't say much. I was responding mostly to your support of con artists in opposition to legitimate, evidence-based science. (And by the way, your ad hominem has nothing to do with what I said.)

Did you read the article? The treatment is novel. The fact that a virus exists which can fight certain types of cancer cells means absolutely zero if you can't find a way to deliver the treatment. That's the treatment. Randomly infecting yourself with the virus isn't going to work. That's where the research comes in.

For the record: There are many, many examples of pharmaceutical drugs based on natural compounds. The novel parts of these compounds are their concentrations, what they're combined with, how they're administered, etc. It's why pharmaceutical companies exist: The stuff you dig up out of the ground can be, but often isn't, as effective as what you can synthesize if you know what you're doing with chemistry and biology.

I'm not really certain what your first sentence means here. If it's a novel treatment, it's patentable. If the researcher already produced results that showed a treatment was possible with a certain compound, and he didn't use the compound somehow for his company, then just what were they paying him for? The whole point of research is to find these things out.

The system is, to a degree, self-correcting, in that sense. You can modify existing drugs and renew patents to a certain degree, but they give diminishing returns until the next breakthrough drug -- especially as patents run out on the original compound. Example: Tylenol is still a big drug, but not as big as before every major pharmacy had a generic brand of acetaminophen they sold.

Pain is one of those things that demonstrates my larger point, though: You've got lots of drugs to treat pain, but there's still a huge market for it. No "cure for pain" has decimated the market.

Actually, I do know how it works. That's why I was charitable enough to say "marginally useful ingredient", rather than "random shit", as one of the more blunt posters said below.

Do yourself a favor and look at the studies. Not just the favorable ones, but all the studies, including the meta analysis of multiple studies. PubMed is a good start.

The reason I know this is because I've been pulling information on studies from databases for almost 14 years now as part of my job. I know how to look this stuff up and weigh the evidence. I also know a thing or two about routes of administration and mechanisms of action. When you don't have a single molecule of the active ingredient left, there's no viable mechanism of action, and no administration whatsoever.

Oh, and in regards to flight: When the Wright Brothers flew, they didn't chalk it up to magic. They understood the basics of what was keeping them aloft, even if they didn't yet understand aerodynamics the way we do today. Homeopathy rejects basic physical principles we know today, in favor of faulty reasoning. It's not quite at the level of alchemy or astrology on the Bullshit Meter, since there are at least some observations (albeit incorrectly interpretted) behind it, but it's pretty close.

Please don't tell me you're one of those "drug companies want people to have cancer" idiots.

Read the following slowly, so that you'll understand it completely:

Cancer isn't one thing. It's many things, under one umbrella term.

Colon cancer isn't the same as lung cancer or skin cancer. There's no such thing as a "cure for cancer", and there never will be. There are treatments that can cure cancer for individual patients when it rears its ugly head, but there's no such thing as, "Wow! Look at this drug! No more cancer for anyone, ever!!".

A 100% effective treatment for a specific cancer would be a multi-billion dollar a year drug, and would earn that revenue for years to come. (Yes, patents expire, but there are different routes of administration and different formulations to patent.)

On the other side of the ledger, you have homeopathic "cures", that do absolutely nothing but drain people's wallets. Homeopathic drugs are nothing but really expensive water -- by design. You dilute some marginally useful ingredient many, many, many times over, and then sell people on magical bullshit.

In most jurisdictions in the U.S., marriage under the age of 18 requires parental consent. The marrying age being lower than the drinking age has at least one benefit: You're less likely to show up drunk for your wedding. ;)

I think it's much more of a scandal that the driving age is lower than the drinking age. I would rather kids get some experience with alcohol's effects (moreso than just sneaking alcohol from their parents' liquor cabinet) before they started driving. It seems like a bad idea to me to have kids driving around without experience of how alcohol can affect them if they decide to get behind the wheel.

Regardless of what the legal drinking age is in your country, why wouldn't you expect that to be verified?

Yep. Looks like they're covering all their bases. :)

Shouldn't be an issue, because they don't ship to Texas. :)

I just checked. There are 12 states and DC that Amazon has on the "Ship To" list.

I wouldn't expect that in this case. FedEx knows who delivers what. They could be liable for providing alcohol to minors, if that particular package gets in the wrong hands. Not to mention the possibility of lawsuits, etc.

You have to be 21 to buy alcohol. Why wouldn't you get carded?

And how does that prevent the toad from interfering with other species?

If that's the concern, they shouldn't introduce the toad back. What about the other species that were doing just fine when the toads were removed and/or better off without the toads?

It's simply not possible for us to "help" one species without impacting another. Attempts like this, unless they're done in the spirit of "just because we can" (which would at least have scientific value, to see if it can be done) are silly, at best, and possibly reckless.

Humans impact our environment, just like any other species. We should stop trying to undo what impact we have, because our attempts are probably only going to make things worse. Unlike natural selection, which works reliably, we have no idea WTF we're doing.