This Week In Science. Found this on facebook and didn't know if it was already posted or not. sorry if it is! also check out this guys facebook page he posts a  This Week In Science Found this on facebook and didn't know if it was already posted or not sorry is! also check out guys page he posts a
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (118)
[ 118 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
73 comments displayed.
#1 - worshippingbensho
Reply -27
(09/09/2013) [-]
''Scientists Confirm Existence of Largest Single Volcano on Earth''...

so... your mom after taco-bell??
#28 to #1 - anon
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
LEL
#72 to #1 - adu
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
TFW
TFW
#74 to #72 - worshippingbensho
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
pretty much...
#6 to #1 - worshippingbensho
Reply +112
(09/09/2013) [-]
well... this just proves that i either need to work on my jokes... or i need to work in what way i present them....
#42 to #6 - tittylovin
Reply +3
(09/10/2013) [-]
Lawerancearm is right.
your mom jokes haven't worked since middle school.
For some reason, making a joke personal and hyperbolic works really well.
My theory is that nobody wants to be insulted, and I gaurantee nobody wants to picture their moms diarrhea asshole.
But the fact that it happened to someone else, someone they don't know, THAT'S funny.

#52 to #42 - minnten
Reply +1
(09/10/2013) [-]
why do people even find the taco bell joke funny anymore? For the first 30 years sure... but god damn it's not like it's anything new.
#53 to #52 - tittylovin
Reply +1
(09/10/2013) [-]
That's what I thought until I tried the new beefy nacho griller with lava sauce.
That was over a week ago and I'm still having intestinal problems.
8/10 would do again, wish the nachos were crispier.
#25 to #6 - lawerancearm
Reply +2
(09/10/2013) [-]
It would have been funnier if you said that it was you after Taco-Bell.

Your mom jokes on FJ are about as funny as Chuck Norris jokes well... anywhere.
#100 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
I laughed at your response
nice man
#99 to #6 - baconrainbow
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
#93 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
**** you for getting a lot of green pinkies
#95 to #93 - worshippingbensho
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
it is that easy to find a sex partner? WTF HAVE I BEEN DOING WITH MY SORRY VIRGIN LIFE IF THIS IS THE DAMN REALITY?!?!?!
#21 - Crusader
Reply -25
(09/10/2013) [-]
You can't vaccinate against cancer.
Cancer is already inside you, the cells are almost impossible to differentiate from normal cells, unless they are tumours.
#35 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
But it is not about cancer is it?
#47 to #21 - mothertrollbegood
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
good point, though this does lead to future creations, just like anything that fails. It is used to succeed elsewhere / later on.
#60 to #21 - OOOnelsonOOO ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
Actually no, Cancer is a deformation of cells that happens during cell reproduction. A vaccine would prevent/lessen the chance of deformations - therefore preventing cancer.
#118 to #60 - Crusader
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
Yes, so genetically they are almost identical, a vaccine that would target them, would also target normal cells, essentially the same as what Chemo Therapy does.
#122 to #118 - OOOnelsonOOO ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/11/2013) [-]
There are two current "vaccine ideas"
1) Prevent ALL cells from mutating - That means, yes, target all cells, BUT DON'T kill them.
2)When they become cancerous they create "markers" that differentiate between them and the healthy cells. Stop them from multiplying.

(there is not "attack everything plan", as that would be a cure and not a vaccine.
#22 to #21 - EnergizierAnon
Reply +57
(09/10/2013) [-]
and yet, they did it.
#31 to #23 - Katzie
Reply +3
(09/10/2013) [-]
I think a better statement would be "And yet a lot of very smart people believe it to be possible". When I read that, it didn't make sense to me, but after a couple of minutes of googling I belatedly realized it was too complex for an armchair scientist to make judgement on.
#119 to #31 - Crusader
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
They can think it can be done, but it hasn't been done, since the very vaccine that it talks about in the post, is the one featured in the article I showed, and it doesn't work.
You can't create a vaccine against cells because they are almost identical the real cells, it would essentially be the same as chemo therapy.
If they did manage to create something that could target the small genetic variation between cancerous and non-cancerous cells, then it would be too dangerous to use, because then it's literally just a game of figuring out what to change to have something like the Blacklight Virus from Prototype, where they can use it to target a specific gene mutation, and wipe out that gene from existence.

I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory and i'm a nutcase who plays too many video games, but honestly, if there were some sort of drug/chemical that could kill of something so close to something healthy, it would be on a genetic level, and the government would use it.

Not to mention very few people with power want to cure anything, they want to treat symptoms, not cure people.
#24 to #23 - EnergizierAnon
Reply +1
(09/10/2013) [-]
ah, i see. i shall see myself out then.
#70 to #22 - bigmanblue ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
well they clearly didnt because you cant vaccinate against cancer
its simply imposible
vaccines allow the immune system to fight virus' and cancer isnt a virus
cancer is the rapid uncontrolled devision of our own cells its impossible to vacinate against that

whats more there are like 2000 forms of cancer
#4 - anon
Reply 0
(09/09/2013) [-]
Did no one see I Am Legend? I dont want to go down that road...
#17 to #4 - toosexyforyou
Reply +46
(09/10/2013) [-]
yeah lets just stop trying to cure any disease because of a movie.
#27 - fuckinfuckinfuck ONLINE
Reply +25
(09/10/2013) [-]
"Scientists Confirm Existence of Largest Single Volcano on Earth"

So they found at that the largest volcano exists? Was there ever really any doubt? I mean, some volcano somewhere had to be the largest, right?
#43 to #27 - sketchE
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
likely they had a theory of which was the largest then they actually went out and measured everything and confirmed it
#89 to #27 - anon
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
They confirmed speculations that this particular volcano is the largest.
#54 to #27 - metalmind
Reply +3
(09/10/2013) [-]
No, it's an underwater volcano that is inactive since about 140 million years.
But not much of the sea floor is cartographed yet.
#2 - betesta
Reply +15
(09/09/2013) [-]
We just got one step closer
#37 - commandershit
Reply +13
(09/10/2013) [-]
Some day this will be relevant
#61 to #37 - kingron
Reply +1
(09/10/2013) [-]
yeah you could say "whoa there goes my virginity"
#66 to #61 - senorfrog
Reply +1
(09/10/2013) [-]
or "can never touch my virginity now."
#3 - anon
Reply 0
(09/09/2013) [-]
>Implying there isn't already a cure for cancer that's constantly being buried by pharmaceutical companies because it's cheaper than chemo
>Implying there aren't already methods to increase human lifespan that only really powerful people in the world have access to
#5 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(09/09/2013) [-]
Yea, like Steve Jobs!
#12 to #5 - militarybus
Reply +11
(09/10/2013) [-]
oh....wait..
#34 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
Implying they are talking about cancer..
#39 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
FOUND THE LIBERAL
#58 to #3 - DJstar
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
i've actually read somewhere there is a cure for cancer. but it's kept under wraps because it's really expensive to create so there's no way to wildly distribute.
#77 to #3 - specialone
Reply +1
(09/10/2013) [-]
Implying cancer is a disease in itself and not just a way of describing uncontrolled cell proliferation and migration from the host tissue, which by the way is found all over the body and each case has varying mediators which lead to cancerous cells.
#19 to #3 - psykobear ONLINE
Reply +2
(09/10/2013) [-]
>implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying >implying
#59 to #3 - OOOnelsonOOO ONLINE
Reply +2
(09/10/2013) [-]
No matter the cost to make a cure for cancer, it would create a profit. You get 12 years on medicine where you are the ONLY one who can make it. Therefore, if you create it, you an price it ***************** you want, and insurances companies with "unlimited" limit are forced to pay it. Therefore you can cover your cost, and make substantial profit, while going down in history as the man who cured cancer. Few people would pass at that, and if someone does, someone else will find either his notes, or the cure himself.

If there was a cure before now, it would have made it to the public. The "the government can do it, they just want us to die" theory is ********, and ANY (reputable) economist/businessman/scientist would tell you so.
#29 to #3 - willindor
Reply +9
(09/10/2013) [-]
>Implying that scientists will not screw over their employers to go down in history as the person who cured cancer.
>Implying that scientists will not screw over their employers to go down in history as the person who cured cancer.
#33 to #29 - anon
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
>Implying those scientist won't be assassinated.
#36 to #33 - willindor
Reply +1
(09/10/2013) [-]
Before or after coming clean? If you do it right then there is no chance that you'll go horizontal before you show your research to the media.
#20 to #3 - saxong
Reply +12
(09/10/2013) [-]
#68 - saltycat
Reply -7
(09/10/2013) [-]
It is physically impossible to vaccinate against cancer and HIV. A vaccine is where you inject someone with a dead form of a bacteria so that your body can produce antibodies to fight the disease. This means if you ever contract the disease, your body will be able to produce the correct antibodies to rid your body of the disease immediately. However, as HIV is a virus, a dead form cannot be injected as it was never alive in the first place (Much like an enzyme it can only be denatured). Cancer on the other hand is defined as a group of cells that is dividing uncontrollably. This also cannot be vaccinated against as it would effectively be injecting someone with a small tumour. Each of us has the potential to get cancer everyday as cells are constantly being damaged into the position where a tumour could form. What stops this is your body killing those cells before they start to divide into a tumour. Sorry about that, just annoyed me, check your facts next time.
#94 to #68 - adak
Reply +2
(09/10/2013) [-]
Dude... Measles, hepatitis A&B, polio, rabies, mumps, influenza and HPV are just a couple of examples of viral diseases that we have functional vaccines for.
#71 to #68 - specialone
Reply +7
(09/10/2013) [-]
Explain influenza vaccines then.

That's a virus and yet we can vaccinate against that.

The "cancer vaccine" probably refers to vaccinating against a certain virus/bacteria which when in the body is able to produce alterations in host cell DNA leading to uncontrolled cell proliferation, ie cancer. This virus/bacteria may be the cause of certain types of cancer. For example, I know that you can get a vaccine against ovarian cancer, but the causing agent is also involved in a lot of cases for throat cancer - hence why it's recommended for everyone.
#80 to #71 - robertolee
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
There are thousands of mutations of the influenza virus, we obviously can vaccinate against the most common types like you said but not all variations of it.
#82 to #80 - specialone
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
Yeah, I think they're able to isolate the most common form of the influenza virus for each season and produce enzymes which will act at the binding site of that particular surface protein that has been isolated.
#88 to #82 - robertolee
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
We are actually injected with a sort of disabled pathogen/antigen produced by the influenza virus and our T-cells/B-cells will recognise the shape of these antigens and code for the antibodies required to kill them so the next time we are infected by this specific virus we won't feel the effects because our immune system already has the code required to mass produce these antigens. We're a lot like giant computers, just very efficient (Although not in all areas)
#75 to #71 - saltycat
Reply -2
(09/10/2013) [-]
1. there is no vaccine for influenza, hence why people contract it and can die.
2. the post says: "a vaccine for cancer" not a vaccine for a cancer-causing virus.
#76 to #75 - specialone
Reply +1
(09/10/2013) [-]
1. Yes there is, there are seasonal vaccinations. It's just that the influenza virus mutates at an incredible rate and as such is very hard to lock down/almost impossible a single vaccination for.
2. I assume the OP was making it sound simpler for people not associated with the different forms of cancer.
#46 - gwynn
Reply +7
(09/10/2013) [-]
Find a cure for Tinnitus.
#96 to #46 - eliteqtip
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
#11 - nuclearderp
Reply +4
(09/10/2013) [-]
Too bad people will likely drop the cancer cure part way, patent their current research, making it cost a fortune to continue, because greed is more important that trying to make the world just that little bit better.
Too bad people will likely drop the cancer cure part way, patent their current research, making it cost a fortune to continue, because greed is more important that trying to make the world just that little bit better.
#13 to #11 - higaphix
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
So what if it's a private firm that has no federal funding? They can't get their money out of thin air, equipment and resources are expensive
#26 to #13 - puffolotti
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
used dustsucker salesmen get so many money for that...

they cry "i had a ******** of success but the effing CIA don't want me to continue cuz corporations pay them big bucks "

and sheeps give theyr gold.
#14 to #13 - nuclearderp
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
True, but many people do that, then just drop the research altogether, leaving everyone else to pay them and pick up the research. Which means those actually trying to solve the cure waste money paying to get access to research as opposed to using that money on their own research equipment.
#32 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
money is always more important than lives in this ****** up world
#44 to #11 - ompalomper
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
#64 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
they have to patent these kinds of things otherwise they wont be able to fund the insanely expensive research and development
#112 to #11 - morkotlap
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
Making the world a little bit better costs ********* of money and you need to convince someone to spend them that way.

On one hand you need free trade to incentivize people investing in healthcare, because any research needs funding. On the other you also need to regulate that business, because medicine is too complex and vital for consumers to make rational, informed decisions.

Good example why non-regulated healthcare is terrible idea can be seen in the whole alternative herb homeo sino chakra whatevs, that hurt people and prey on their helplesness.

Good exapmle why over-regulated healthcare is terrible idea can be seen still today in some post-soviet countries where you need to know someone to get the treatment you need and not the treatment you "deserve". Also it still costs ******** of money but the money pays the state and they don't go on the research but on the statesmen hawaii fund.

It's ******* complicated, like everything else in this world.
#45 to #11 - kanduhuskedetder
Reply +1
(09/10/2013) [-]
Good. People need to die. If we find a cure for cancer, AIDS AND can increase the human lifespan any further, overpopulation will grow into a SERIOUS problem. Way worse than it already is.
#48 to #45 - mothertrollbegood
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
Just, out of the blue here. What do you suggest to lower the world's population. I've thought of it myself a lot and all I can really think of that works and would sit well with the people in power is to 'remove' non wealthy/homeless people, though where would 'non wealthy' end and 'wealthy' start.
#65 to #48 - Rockycrack
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
birth control, just a kid per couple. But the economy would have to change not to be based in population growth
#51 to #48 - minnten
Reply 0
(09/10/2013) [-]
im sure the people up top will think of something. the current system of holding back life saving health care to all but those that can afford it is only a temporary solution. Wars help too though, but they've obviously got that angle covered.
#115 to #45 - morkotlap
Reply -2
(09/10/2013) [-]
Overpopulation is not a problem that is caused by too many people. Overpopulation is caused by too many people concentrated in a place that cannot sustain them any longer, be it Detroit or Sudan. There are insane surpluses of food and inhabitable land, able to hold hundred times of the current human population more.

I cringe everytime someone brings up the elitist issue of "too many poeple unworthy of their place on earth".
#18 to #11 - toosexyforyou
Reply +3
(09/10/2013) [-]
Why do people feel like the world owes you something? If you want the world to have a cheap cancer cure, why don't you devote your entire life to becoming knowledgeable enough to make a cure and then hand it out for free.
#16 to #11 - cleverguy
Reply +4
(09/10/2013) [-]
it already costs a fortune to do in the first place. it would be a waste of time and money to drop it halfway if it actually worked