tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post3014500624585511036..comments2008-04-10T13:27:31.734-07:00bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-54014631497540478632008-04-10T13:27:00.000-07:002008-04-10T13:27:00.000-07:00WILT is extreme but if the replenishment of new cells can be made to work then it would be workable. Other advances (like some new devices that might get us to 100% early detection by finding any cancer cell in the blood) and GIFT for boosting the immune system could greatly reduce the need for WILT and reduce deaths from cancer. <BR/><BR/>the question is if the other methods are 90-99% effective and WILT plus replenishment is 100% effective, then if you are shooting for 1000 years and not 250 years then WILT might be the better option.<BR/><BR/>Plus synthetically reversing WILT could even be possible.bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-83824637073475267022008-04-10T13:18:00.000-07:002008-04-10T13:18:00.000-07:00I am not sure that I agree with Aubrey on his WILT idea. I am definitely not an expert in these fields, but I do read a little. It seems like the WILT approach is pretty extreme. Don't you think that in the next 20 years, we will have enough weapons in our arsenals to take care of most types of cancer? This would negate the need for WILT, right?Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18026476004883859119noreply@blogger.com