Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

This is very bizarre Kid, and old news at that - I dont remember hearing about it do you



The first three died in the space of just over a week in November. Benito Que, 52, was an expert in infectious diseases and cellular biology at the Miami Medical School. Police originally suspected that he had been beaten on Nov. 12 in a carjacking in the medical school's parking lot. Strangely enough, though, his body showed no signs of a beating. Doctors then began to suspect a stroke.

Just four days after Dr. Que fell unconscious came the mysterious disappearance of Don Wiley, 57, one of the foremost microbiologists in the United States. Dr. Wiley, of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Harvard University, was an expert on how the immune system responds to viral attacks such as the classic doomsday plagues of HIV, ebola and influenza. He had just bought tickets to take his son to Graceland the following day. Police found his rental car on a bridge outside Memphis, Tenn. His body was later found in the Mississippi River. Forensic experts said he may have had a dizzy spell and have fallen off the bridge.

Just five days after that, the world-class microbiologist and high-profile Russian defector Valdimir Pasechnik, 64, fell dead. The pathologist who did the autopsy, and who also happened to be associated with Britain's spy agency, concluded he died of a stroke.Dr. Pasechnik, who defected to the United Kingdom in 1989, played a huge role in Russian biowarfare and helped to figure out how to modify cruise missiles to deliver the agents of mass biological destruction.

The next two deaths came four days apart in December. Robert Schwartz, 57, was stabbed and slashed with what police believe was a sword in his farmhouse in Leesberg, Va. His daughter, who identifies herself as a pagan high priestess, and several of her fellow pagans have been charged. Dr. Schwartz was an expert in DNA sequencing and pathogenic micro-organisms, who worked at the Center for Innovative Technology in Herndon, Va. Four days later, Nguyen Van Set, 44, died at work in Geelong, Australia, in a laboratory accident. He entered an airlocked storage lab and died from exposure to nitrogen.

Other scientists at the animal diseases facility of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization had just come to fame for discovering a virulent strain of mousepox, which could be modified to affect smallpox. Then in February, the Russian microbiologist Victor Korshunov, 56, an expert in intestinal bacteria of children around the world, was bashed over the head near his home in Moscow.

Five days later the British microbiologist Ian Langford, 40, was found dead in his home near Norwich, England, naked from the waist down and wedged under a chair. He was an expert in environmental risks and disease. Two weeks later, two prominent microbiologists died in San Francisco. Tanya Holzmayer, 46, a Russian who moved to the U.S. in 1989, focused on the part of the human molecular structure that could be affected best by medicine. She was killed by fellow microbiologist Guyang (Matthew) Huang, 38, who shot her seven times when she opened the door to a pizza delivery. Then he shot himself.

The final two deaths came one day after the other in March. David Wynn-Williams, 55, a respected astrobiologist with the British Antarctic Survey, who studied the habits of microbes that might survive in outer space, died in a freak road accident near his home in Cambridge, England. He was hit by a car while he was jogging.The following day, Steven Mostow, 63, known as Dr. Flu for his expertise in treating influenza, and a noted expert in bioterrorism, died when the airplane he was piloting crashed near Denver.

So what does any of it mean?" Statistically, what are the chances?" wondered a prominent North American microbiologist reached last night at an international meeting of infectious-disease specialists in Chicago. Janet Shoemaker, director of public and scientific affairs of the American Society for Microbiology in Washington, D.C., pointed out yesterday that there are about 20,000 academic researchers in microbiology in the U.S.

Still, not all of these are of the elevated calibre of those recently deceased. She had a chilling, final thought. When microbiologists die in a lab, there's a way of taking note of the deaths and adding them up. When they die in freakish accidents outside the lab, nobody keeps track.

---

I have heard of dangerous jobs but flippin ec - maybe its just bad luck or something

Hmm...I think scientific advancements are always good but eugenics, as is closely related with cloning, does freak me out a bit. Screening for disease makes perfect sense but I start to doubt when you see stuff like couples (potentially) using it to create their perfect super child. Like I said it's just kinda freaky.

Ethical eugenics don't necessarily seek super beings, but I don't see how it wouldn't end up that way in the long run. Currently they suggest slight alterations in human intelligence. The suggestion is based on facts that the less intelligent continue to keep having more children thus increasing human mysery and contributing to dysgenics.

It involves altering the genome to increase intelligence in humans so that they consider their choices, as any intelligent person would in light of present envirionmental conditions. I agree with part of this, it has merit; but I wouldn't myself suggest that anyone having more than a couple of children is stupid, however; if, they know the conditions and the consequences of doing so, then certainly stupidity comes to mind.

It also suggests phasing out degenerative desease, so once again the ideal has merit. The problem becomes, is it in the right hands? Clearly if one becomes more intelligent wouldn't those be 'the right hands'?

Eugenics does also suggest that it is compassion, based in objectivity. Remove the emotion from your opinion and you get a better notion of that compassion. Does intelligence remove all the "feelings" of compassion? I don't know. Objectivity is intelligent assessment. Non biased, void of emotional ties.

and 'Freak/y" is what we may ultimately get

we have lots of freaky now..

But what about- longevity, no more desease, an 'at ease' disposition, better relationships; less weight problems either over or under, healthier lives (things most of us wish for or work for). Are these things that appeal to us?

--- yeah and less stress == what ---

There's some pretty good discussions on removing stress. The anxiety element that serves us in taking action in fight or flight response. I would assume the intention is to have this well balanced. It's also part of our low or high risk nature, some have it on huge amounts, others not so much. The adrenaline rush or intelligent couch potatoes

At the risk of making this thread soud like a "Conspiracy Website" <-----that one was for AL.....

How about Chemtrails? Could that be some sort of test round for an airborne genetic insecticide?

risk ---mmmh yes- can be productively stimulating with a safety net

---the tensile strength of boundaries is limitless

I really don't want it to become a conspiracy thread, because eugenics has some decent and worthwhile applications; but there you are. When we talk about religion, there's good sides, bad sides. Politics, good side bad sides.

If they are simple paranoia, what would be the purpose of that paranoia? Where's bond, James Bond..

Eugenics suggests that increasing man's intelligence requires a slight 'enlargement' of the brain (head as well to accomodate). That conjures up images of the 'alien' lifeforms from Roswell, and alleged UFO encounters. Which came first life or immagination?

Sorry Al, didnt mean to hijack with conspiracy stuff

I just saw it when looking up stuff on AIDS and thought it odd -

No probs, as I've said there are a number of sides (and disciplines) to this issue, including people who take things beyond ethical and moral righteousness.

Sometimes I wonder why, in light of real evidence we call them conspiracy 'theory'.
Conspiracy practice or any practice for that matter is not theory at all. I am however interested in hearing about everything, opinions included; theory and practice for good or bad.

BnaturAl ->>> "Since eugenics can go in so many different tangeants I won't begin to conclude any outcome"

Maybe it's just me, but I swear I see a big shift away from that and towards balanced discussion in the second half of the thread and it was a pleasure to read. See my point?

As for linking in posts, yes I noticed it when I made the "favorite music vid thread" and thought that it's gotta be the most restrictive and pointless rule I've seen on any forum.

Best,
MT

P.S. Happy Valentine's Day

Debate is about differences in opinion; the evolution of debate threads balance doesn't happen as soon as you want it to, unless we contribute. Perhaps contributing to the balance instead of making points about imbalance would further the balance you want to see, more constructively, as others have done. See my point?

Yup. However, your assumption that I did not contribute just because I pointed out that imbalance at one point, is with all due respect, wrong. I didn't have to do that literally but sometimes it works. C'mon be fair.

I'm not really contributing/going to contribute anything now so it's an EOT for me. Good thread.

if you want power, the people around you should be dum and powerless
medicine for the masses

if you want to ensure your empire, you need someone at least as super "good" as you!
medicine for the elite?

and who's going to decide who belongs where?

Its already going on, somewhat vigorously in China. Citizens who want to marry are subjected to testing, a paper trail is kept (records), people with a propensity for or hereditary dispositon to any listed desease are 'advised' (meaning you better not or else) get married.

They also have I think a 'one child law'

What was the flu that came out of china, all of a sudden, out of the blue? very curious that was.

Other countires such as India have 'inclinations' to eugenics based on over population, or so I've read.

Who decides, exactly what transpires. Heads of state, money and guns.