Cure for cancer/Cure for AIDS

[The Czech Republic 0]

This was quite the spirited discussion in several of my old social studies classes. Now both should ideally be taken care of. But if it was a matter of choosing who you'd make a charitable donation to, would it be towards finding a cure for cancer, or a cure for AIDS? Which, to you, is the more worthy cause?

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Cancer. Absolutely, positively no question. In fact, this isn't even a contest. Not even worth of a thread. While there have been many innocent people who have contracted AIDS, the severity and brutal nature which cancer rips the life out of millions upon billions of innocent people each day is disgusting.

[Hoff 0]

Cancer, absolutely. AIDS is by and large controllable, as far as getting it goes. Cancer is less so. There's methods of reducing risk sure, but a whole lot of things have carcinogens. Plus, as Banky said, cancer is just so brutal. Not that AIDS isn't...but you know what I mean. Pain and suffering, you know. The slow agony.

[Guest Ghetto Bird]

Cancer.

[Hoff 0]

Not even worth of a thread.

Maybe you should learn some basic grammar and sentence structure before you go around condemning threads.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

Cancer, without question; my grandmother died of leukemia, and my father in-law is dying from liver cancer.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Not even worth of a thread.

Maybe you should learn some basic grammar and sentence structure before you go around condemning threads.

A cancer thread isn't a time or place to get self-righteous, Hoffman.

 

 

....yeah.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I voted cancer.

 

In my high school discussion days, I perfected the science of saying controversial disrespectful things that got the OTHER guy ejected. Like so:

 

"Cancer, not even a question. And I'll tell you why. We solved AIDS already. Don't sleep around and keep away from the needle drugs. Aside from a transfusion gone awry, you're safe from AIDS. We've made so many advances since the 1980s that more than anything, AIDS is a penalty for ignorance. There's no need to throw millions of dollars into research for a disease we have to TRY to get when people are being destroyed by their own bodies with no explanation. Non-smokers are losing their lungs to cancer. Children are dying of leukemia. And we don't know why. Now let's say we all go home tonight, don't do any drugs, don't have sex, just have a nice dinner, watch some TV, read a book, go to bed. You could wake up with cancer tomorrow morning. I could wake up with cancer tomorrow morning. But let me tell you something: you sure as hell aren't going to wake up with AIDS tomorrow morning."

 

"OH MY GOD!! YOU ARE SOOOOOO INSENSITIVE YOU BASTARD! I KNOW SOMEONE WITH AIDS WHY DON'T YOU SAY IT TO HIS FACE! HUH? SAY IT TO HIS FACE!

 

"I think you'd better leave."

 

 

The Czech Republic always wins it in the end.

[Guest Nanks]

Agreed Czech, I recently got tested for both AIDS & cancer (turned out to be post viral chronic fatigue thankfully) and the idea of having AIDS was having me think, "oh fuck, have I done something stupid and gotten myself AIDS", just a general feeling of anger at myself for doing something dumb, but the prospect of having cancer was just more hopeless because it gives you a sense of having no control over your own fate, which is fairly depressing.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

AIDS.

Why? Because cancer is a perfectly natural disease. As brutal as it sounds, cancer has always been there. Cancer is not an epidemic, it's your body's cells rebelling against the natural order of having to die, it's not contagious. There are so many types of cancer that you have to find a cure for the actual problem: Cells aging. Once you can stop that (which is a daunting task) cells will be able to multiply forever, eliminating aging (giving us a whole new slew of problems.) Because that's what cancer is: A mutation of a healthy cell, the propability of this happening massively increases with the age and the number of the cells that are that old. If you smoke the cells in your lungs, in your throat age a lot faster.

 

We, in the civilized world, don't have much of a problem with AIDS. It only happens to people who fuck around, to people who share intravenous needles or to people who are just damned unlucky with their blood transfusions.

However: AIDS is a major problem in the world.

Africa can't afford condoms, people don't know shit about AIDS there in most of the cases. It spreads easily. It spreads in rural China were people just don't KNOW. AIDS is still on the rise and in the end it's going to become more and more of a problem the longer we stall working on it.

 

The economic fall-out, the political instability would be tremendous, imagine a large scale AIDS epidemic errupting in India.

What if we don't research? What if AIDS has so many hosts that a mutation that lets it become airborne becomes more and more propable? It needs as much as a flu epidemic to wipe out large parts of the world then.

 

AIDS is only one disease, only one virus. If you can find a cure for AIDS it's the definate cure (unless it decides to mutate due to an aborted treatment, etc) and you're rid of that problem. It's the black plauge of our time, we defeated the black plauge by reducing the number of rats in our cities, by increasing hygiene and finally with the help of Penicillin we have rendered it nearly impotent.

It's about time we tackle AIDS. Cancer has always been there, as said. Cancer will be there for a long time to come but there's no chance in hell that cancer will suddenly start killing people in droves, filling up hospitals and quarantines with patients who carry a deadly disease that kills your body's ability to actually fight back.

 

 

Yes, cancer is gruesome. I've lost friends and family through it.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's not the most pressing problem.

Surely, it's the problem that most of us would like to see resolved swiftly but if you think on a "what is more threatening to mankind at large?" scale, then you will see that cancer is all-together secondary to AIDS.

[spiny norman 0]

Personally, both have their arguments as to which I'd prefer to be cured, as AIDS has a 100% death rate whereas cancer sufferers do have a better chance of survival.

 

I chose cancer though because of the fact that AIDS is a more preventable disease. I think AIDS prevention education should be further promoted, whereas while there are possible lifestyle factors that could help in preventing cancer (eg. don't smoke, sun protection) I think it is not as easily prevented as AIDS. Both are terrible diseases (and I honestly believe if I chose to die from one it would be cancer as I think it would be marginally less terrible as AIDS), but I would aim for cancer cure and AIDS prevention.

[Nighthawk 0]

Make a nigga wanna stay on tour for days... cancer. The Hero does make some goods points, however.

[Hoff 0]

He does, although I agree with what norman said about furthering AIDS education. Someone has to be able to reach those farmers in China and everyone else who's not aware. In a way, it speaks of a greater problem in society as a whole, where we have all these people in the dark, during the so-called Information Age.

[caboose 0]

Cancer first.

 

But AIDS if I want to save the Africans.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Cancer, because it's more likely to kill me.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

C to the A to the N to the C to the E to the R...

[Nevermortal 0]

Make a nigga wanna stay on tour for days...

I was wondering who was going to say that first. IDRM, youdaman

[EL BRUJ0 0]

"OH MY GOD!! YOU ARE SOOOOOO INSENSITIVE YOU BASTARD! I KNOW SOMEONE WITH AIDS WHY DON'T YOU SAY IT TO HIS FACE! HUH? SAY IT TO HIS FACE!

Man, that Slovakia guy sure is a jerk.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

C to the A to the N to the C to the E to the R...

There would be no more Cancer Fairy though.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

My worry is less Africa, fuck Africa. From a cold, assholeish point of view Africa's people and society are nothing but an excess overload of cheap human labor. If they were to vanish it wouldn't pose that much of a problem. You could send cheap labor from other countries to mine the rich resources.

 

The problem is that Africa isn't a vat, it isn't a bacterial culture in a plastic petri dish.

As said, the more people get the virus, the more chance it has to mutate into something all-together MORE terrifying and successful. God bless evolution.

If this happens we are majorly, majorly screwed if we haven't researched AIDS sufficiently by then. A single flight from Africa can be the harbringer of death.

It can takes years until AIDS really kicks in. Until then you could have unwittingly infected all of New York City.

 

Sure, it sounds crass. It sounds like an apocalyptic vision but .. shit, you saw what the black plauge was able to do. 25% of the known population at that time. An incredible throwback in all fields of progress.

 

Cancer just doesn't have that potential. So to me it's a question of priority.

Look at it this way: You have a gun and you have to decide whetever you shoot the guy that is holding someone you love hostage with a most likely loaded gun, or the guy who's about to launch a god damned nuclear warhead. Supposedly. You're not 100% sure that he can do it but considering the terrible quality of this threat if it were real you might as well want to be safe instead of sorry.

 

So whom do you blow away? Whom do you shoot first, risking that the other one can make this threat true?

I'm just the good ol' boyscout, I take one for the team (da werld.)

[Renegade 0]

Cancer, there are just so many variants of it.

[alfdogg 0]

If you look at the last reply thing right now on the front page, it will say "Cure for Cancer/Cure for AIDS, By: alfdogg"

[Highland 0]

I'm convinced they could cure both diseases today, yet prevention and research are far more lucrative than what could be made from a cure.

That cynicism aside, I'd vote to cure both, but with cancer a priority and AIDS a close second,.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

"Cancer, not even a question. And I'll tell you why. We solved AIDS already. Don't sleep around and keep away from the needle drugs. Aside from a transfusion gone awry, you're safe from AIDS. We've made so many advances since the 1980s that more than anything, AIDS is a penalty for ignorance. There's no need to throw millions of dollars into research for a disease we have to TRY to get when people are being destroyed by their own bodies with no explanation. Non-smokers are losing their lungs to cancer. Children are dying of leukemia. And we don't know why. Now let's say we all go home tonight, don't do any drugs, don't have sex, just have a nice dinner, watch some TV, read a book, go to bed. You could wake up with cancer tomorrow morning. I could wake up with cancer tomorrow morning. But let me tell you something: you sure as hell aren't going to wake up with AIDS tomorrow morning."

 

I know a child with AIDS...I'm pretty sure he wasn't sleeping around.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Basically, this is combating something that's contagious versus something that's genetic. In which case, I chose Cancer.

 

Sure, there may be millions of people in China, India, wheretheverthefuck that don't have a clue about AIDS or how to prevent it. Fuck em. Let them be ignorant. The whole point of disease (and this includes cancer as well) is to regulate population and the weed out the weak and let the strong survive. As we all know China, India, are overpopulated and Africa has simply chosen NOT to progress technologically come on tell me who the FUCK would want to live in any country there? The closest thing Africa has to a modern world in South Africa, and even then they've still got nothing. If they want to fuck around and attempt to reproduce only to die, it's dwindling the numbers down to a respectable size in which those who are more aware of the disease will be more cautious, and thus will survive.

 

Cancer is something that can't be prevented. Whether you live the healthiest of lifestyles or the worst of lifestyles, you can still get it, as has been mentioned numerous times up above.

 

Sure, it sounds crass. It sounds like an apocalyptic vision but .. shit, you saw what the black plauge was able to do. 25% of the known population at that time. An incredible throwback in all fields of progress.

 

The black plague was also infectious by being near someone. Also, at that point in time medical knowledge was far too limited to really be able to quarantine a city and rid it of an infectious disease. That joke of a disease that happened last year, SARS? That would have wiped out half of Europe back then as well. AIDS is sexually or intravenously contratcted, you can't get AIDS by standing next to them or using the same silverware they do, anything like that.

 

Look at it this way: You have a gun and you have to decide whetever you shoot the guy that is holding someone you love hostage with a most likely loaded gun, or the guy who's about to launch a god damned nuclear warhead. Supposedly. You're not 100% sure that he can do it but considering the terrible quality of this threat if it were real you might as well want to be safe instead of sorry.

 

That's a terrible analogy. You're basically saying it's choosing between saving a select few or saving us from a potential giant outbreak that could kill potentially thousands or millions more. There already IS an outbreak of AIDS, but the only ones that are infected are those who have sexual contact with them (or intravenously). Millions of people in the world are dying from cancer, and while it is true that one can survive it unlike AIDS, it's the greater of two evils.

 

I know a child with AIDS...I'm pretty sure he wasn't sleeping around.

 

No but his parents were.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

... As we all know China, India, are overpopulated and Africa has simply chosen NOT to progress technologically come on tell me who the FUCK would want to live in any country there? The closest thing Africa has to a modern world in South Africa, and even then they've still got nothing...

Have you ever been to northern Africa?

[EL BRUJ0 0]

*wonders what Fooster thinks*

[The Czech Republic 0]

This wasn't nearly as split down the middle as it was for me. But that's probably because we don't have as many bleeding-heart liberal posers who just want to do what MTV and their college sibling's buddies tell them is best for the whole wide world.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

This may just amaze you but Israel is in Africa.

It's not like they don't choose to have technology, they just don' have it. Why? It costs money, it requires knowledge, it requires a certain infra-structure. All which never existed there in first place or which was destroyed by warring factions trying to get their land back. The borders of Africa were drawn with a ruler as the colonies were given back in the middle and late 20th century.

 

Look here, SARS was a joke. It's only close to lethal for most Asian people. A genetic difference. In the end it was nothing than a really bad case of the flu and it was beaten down. There's some breakouts in Asia but no one really cares for those.

 

 

You also did a great job of dismissing the aforementioned porpability of mutation. The more virii there are the greater the chance of them changing into something even more lethal. And that's where we're fucked beyond return.

Consider how often Joe Genero gets himself tested for HIV. Then consider how easily Joe Genero could spread the disease if it were airborne within that time.

The moment a flight attendant contacts AIDS in an airborne variety we're screwed. Screwed ten ways from Wednesday. You can't quarantine the sick then, the best you could do is quarantine the healthy and pray to god that most of our civilization isn't lost by this disaster.

 

 

And that's exactly what the analogy meant to convey: Either you let a few people die for sure or you risk the most devastating epidemic mankind has ever seen.

 

The black plauge can be contained today due to the comparatively (to AIDS) short incubation time and the easy treatment. Imagine if they had 24 hour around the world flights back in the dark ages of the plauge, we'd have a really big problem now. Back then travel was long and adventurous. Nowadays patient zero can get from Dubaih to New York and then Amsterdam within less than 24 hours, coming in contact with hundreds of people and spending quite a few hours with ca. 200 people in an enclosed space. All these people traveling to different places too.

 

 

Fuck cancer. It's been around since the beginning of time, long before mankind. Cancer is cells aging and mutating. The older the cells get the more likely it is to happen. It has never endangered our species at large because it's not a contagious disease, because it's a mutation within one individiual.

 

So what if children die of leukemia, so what if my grandfather is dying of a combination of diabetis and stomach cancer, so what if countless people snuff it due to skin cancer every year. That will never endanger mankind. It will never wipe out a whole culture, a whole country.

 

Diseases can. Viruses and bacteria. All sorts of happy bugs just waiting in locations we haven't penetrated yet. Bubonic ebola with an incubation time of a month. Antibiotica resistant flesh eating viruses. The new flu epidemic that doesn't react to any treatment.

 

Cancer is utterly minor compared to that.

 

You yourself said it, diseases are population control. Cancer is nature's way of not letting things get too old if they can escape their predators, nature's way of thinning the ranks a bit. I have to repeat myself: Cancer will never threaten mankind at large.

 

The idea that population control in India, China, Africa, etc through AIDS is a good thing relies on the short-sighted conception of the world. We're all connected by now. Africa may seem far away but it's really only 24 hours away on a normal airline ticket. How many people visit China frequently? India isn't a sepperate petridish anymore. All these formerly isolated places are connected now in one way or another that allows diseases to spread, we're all in one giant petridish now.

 

 

 

Our main priority should be to fight diseases, to find cures and vaccinations against things that can kill off many humans at once.

The only reason we're not doing this is because most people are notoriously mentally myopic. They don't think the whole scenario to the end so they would rather see cancer eliminated.

[justsoyouknow 0]

Someone likes to hear themself type...

 

Cancer in a hearbeat. There really shouldn't be an argument about this, Czech is right...AIDS is a punishment for the ignorant, like people that accidentally shoot themselves or try to wash their balls in a golfball washer. When you hear those stories, it's automatically, "What a dumbfuck." I don't see anyone out there parading to eliminate golfball washers.