NationStates Jolt Archive

Not an easy question and one nobody should have to answer, but Which illness takes priority? Which one is scarier and is overall a worse illness cancer or aids? Both need a cure now, but cancer takes top priority for me as it can strike anyone at anytime without warning no matter how healthy you think you are, no matter how well you take care of yourself.

What exactly do you mean by "takes priority"?

And cancer isn't just one illness but a term that is being used for a good dozen of illnesses, some of which are caused by bacteria, others by excessive exposure to certain substances or radiation, and yet others by causes unknown. Just thought I'd clarify.


I know what cancer is, but cancer as a whole. And take priority I mean which would you donate money to first and find the bigger threat.

What exactly do you mean by "takes priority"?

And cancer isn't just one illness but a term that is being used for a good dozen of illnesses, some of which are caused by bacteria, others by excessive exposure to certain substances or radiation, and yet others by causes unknown. Just thought I'd clarify.

I know what cancer is, but cancer as a whole. And take priority I mean which would you donate money to first and find the bigger threat.

I'd only donate for research on AIDS, for the simple reason that cancer is more common in the first world, so pharmaceutical companies are throwing a shitload of money at the research anyway, as they know that cures will make them millions.
AIDS is more prevalent in the third world, where so there's no incentive for the pharma industry to push the research on a cure or treatments. So this is where my money is actually needed.

Both are an equal threat, as both a deadly diseases. Asking which one's more dangerous is like asking if there's a greater risk to be hit by an Audi when crossing the street or by a Ford..

Both are an equal threat, as both a deadly diseases. Asking which one's more dangerous is like asking if there's a greater risk to be hit by an Audi when crossing the street or by a Ford..

I suppose you could compare them by prognosis but as this would vary by country and by the site of the cancer (+ a whole host of other factors e.g. co-morbities) it would be damn near impossible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_death

See for yourself.

Other: Something like Malaria, Cholera, Trichosomiasis or TB. Probably malaria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_death

See for yourself.

Cancer. I have no health care and am poor so if I get it I am screwed.

Cancer. I have no health care and am poor so if I get it I am screwed.

But you won't be screwed if you get AIDS? :confused:

Both are an equal threat, as both a deadly diseases. Asking which one's more dangerous is like asking if there's a greater risk to be hit by an Audi when crossing the street or by a Ford
This is sort of the way that I see it, too.

In my idealist little world I'd have globally-funded research into all sciences. There's still a hell of a lot to be learned about viruses, for example, and co-ordinated research into them should ultimately provide treatments for those afflicted - whether the virus they were suffering was one that leads to AIDS or one that triggers cancerous behaviour in cells, or anything else. Leaving research up to private corporations looks a bit short sighted, from my perspective - let's face it, it doesn't exactly encourage the sharing of information.

Pie in the sky, sadly.

Nobody here has yet mentioned Male Pattern Baldness?

Nobody here has yet mentioned Male Pattern Baldness?

I refuse to believe it will ever happen to me so it doesn't worry me too much

Yay for denial :)

Seeing how we can treat almost all kinds of cancer with high rates of success for the suffer, we should focus on doing the same with HIS/AIDS.

This (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62) is a very interesting talk about priorities for saving the world. It's a little bit related to the topic at hand, but much more interesting.

Other: Something like Malaria, Cholera, Trichosomiasis or TB. Probably malaria.

... diseases which we already have cures for?

I'd like to be annoying and say both, but I'll say cancer because it kills a lot more people and is more difficult to prevent.

Oh, and the poll is weird. Cancer kills a lot more than AIDS as I said and the latter is what's just scary, IMO.

Not an easy question and one nobody should have to answer, but Which illness takes priority? Which one is scarier and is overall a worse illness cancer or aids? Both need a cure now, but cancer takes top priority for me as it can strike anyone at anytime without warning no matter how healthy you think you are, no matter how well you take care of yourself.
So can HIV/AIDS. This notion that some people have that they are somehow insulated from it is one of the most dangerous delusions in society today, because it is one of, if not THE main contributor to the spread of the disease.

I would give my research donations to HIV/AIDS research because while both diseases are equal tragedies, I rank HIV/AIDS as the (somewhat) greater threat to society because it is communicable.


Other: Something like Malaria, Cholera, Trichosomiasis or TB. Probably malaria.
Because they are communicable, these diseases would get my research donations next in line after HIV/AIDS. I would only make them wait a bit because they have not reached the pandemic level that HIV/AIDS has. It's true, it would be better to take preventive action before they get that bad (especially since they are on the rise now), but there is only so much money to go around, sadly. Also, these diseases need less money because we already have cures or reliable treatments for them. What we need in these cases is money to improve delivery of medicines and education.

... diseases which we already have cures for?

I'd like to be annoying and say both, but I'll say cancer because it kills a lot more people and is more difficult to prevent.

Oh, and the poll is weird. Cancer kills a lot more than AIDS as I said and the latter is what's just scary, IMO.

Well, Malaria is a bit of a problem actually.
I remember a few years back seeing a documentary about Malaria and the current problems with it. There ARE drugs to cure the disease, however it doesn't pay for the pharma companies (I believe it was Bayer in this case) to produce them, as the drug is not affordable to the general public in the countries most affected by Malaria.
So in effect, we know the cure, but the patients still can't get it.

Voted other

there is only one kind of illness that needs priority... The sickness that i am going to get during my life :P

Seriously though, there is no such thing as a more or less important illness in the world. There are diseases known only happening in one family (well all relatives of that family are capable having it to be more precise) but does it mean that it is only a select few who get it that it shouldn't be cured? I would say no. Let the medic science do there work, and all researchers work on the disease they like to cure. And in the end all will be done (and then some new will arrive)

There are many AIDS-related cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Kaposi sarcoma, and some cancers of the mouth, lung, cervix and digestive tract. This does not mean that all people with AIDS have these cancers, or the all people with these cancers have AIDS, it simply means that people who have AIDS are more likely to develop these cancers. The precise mechanism behind this is not yet fully understood, though one team has suggested that the AIDS virus may directly cause certain lymphomas when it inserts itself into cellular DNA and activates a dormant cancer gene.

Well, Malaria is a bit of a problem actually.
I remember a few years back seeing a documentary about Malaria and the current problems with it. There ARE drugs to cure the disease, however it doesn't pay for the pharma companies (I believe it was Bayer in this case) to produce them, as the drug is not affordable to the general public in the countries most affected by Malaria.
So in effect, we know the cure, but the patients still can't get it.

Sure, but I was under the impression this thread was slanted towards research funding, or at least that was how the first few posters saw it. Certainly effort and money should be spent fighting all those diseases, but I doubt researching something we can already cure is a really high priority.

definitely AIDS, cancer doesn't ruin entire countries and stay across generational boundaries - aids has and does.

But you won't be screwed if you get AIDS? :confused:


The odds of me getting aids are not too high. Unless it just pops up I am at no risk. Cancer on the other hand can and does just pop up. With my current unkown stomach pains I am more concerned about cancer. That and I have a family history, a strong one. My father and both his parents had it.

People have actually been cured of cancer. Nobody has yet to be cured of HIV/AIDS, to my knowledge.

The odds of me getting aids are not too high. Unless it just pops up I am at no risk. Cancer on the other hand can and does just pop up. With my current unkown stomach pains I am more concerned about cancer. That and I have a family history, a strong one. My father and both his parents had it.

You do know that stomach cancer is in fact a bacterial infection and can be cured with anitbiotics?
And how do you know you're not at risk?

Rather than treat illnesses, I think the priority should be treating people. More complicated, I know. less generalisations require more thinking, but the individuals affected would appreciate it, regardless of tyhe illness they are suffering from.

The patient with the direst need takes priority.

You do know that stomach cancer is in fact a bacterial infection and can be cured with anitbiotics?

Hmm, I doubt it. After some fast wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori#Helicobacter_and_cancer)ing I read scientist think that helicobacter pylori is a cause of gastric cancer. This doesn't mean that it is the only cause and it also doesn't mean that once you have stomach cancer it will cure after you eliminate the bacteria I think. Cancer is the result of a series of genetic mutations which causes some cells to grow faster than normal and in the later stages to 'infect' other areas of the body. So once you have cancer you'll also have to kill the mutated cells. The bacteria is a carcinogen, what you say would be comparable to "stop smoking to treat lung cancer" or "stop sunbathing to treat skin cancer" .At least that seems most logical to me, but it would be good if an expert gave his opinion.

And there are a lot of things you can do to prevent cancer. The main one would be to live healthy, not smoking and drinking and eating healthy and not sunbathing (to much) would be the most important ones.

Also, HIV is not as bad as it was 10 years ago. With modern treatments it is reduced to a chronic disease (at least I heard that). (most of the infected people in developing countries don't have access to these medicines though :() Of course this doesn't mean you don't need protection or that it isn't bad if you have it, but on first sight without thinking to much about it I would prefer to have AIDS instead of some forms of cancer.
So I think I would go for the "universal cheap cure for cancer" and with the money we save we could provide free modern medicine to most people with HIV and free condoms to all.

And take priority I mean which would you donate money to first and find the bigger threat.

The bigger threat is certainly the resistant strains of infectious diseases.

Other: Something like Malaria, Cholera, Trichosomiasis or TB. Probably malaria.

Multidrug resistant strains of TB was my first thought.

... diseases which we already have cures for?

And which have developed multidrug resistance.

HIV/AIDS. This would give us a major bonus against other viral diseases, and would be much easier, since it's only one disease (with a number of strains), rather than the 2000+ types of Cancers.

We've had basically zero success curing any viral illness ever. If we're going to make a breakthrough on that, I don't think it will be on a virus as illusive as HIV.

So I have to go with cancer. Partly because AIDS is preventable, and cancer is a broad term that covers a wide variety illnesses. But mostly because I don't think we'll have much luck with AIDS.

If it was my choice, cystic fibrosis.

Cancer, because the mechanisms behind cancer provide an insight in to a huge number of other illnesses, especially ones affecting the immune system (like AIDS). Cracking the cancer nut, so to speak, would open up the floodgates of a huge number of other illnesses in virtually all bodily systems. So, from that standpoint, cancer should be the primary target for finding a cure.

However, it's also true that HIV is far, far easier to prevent than cancer; with the use of safe sex practices, proper medical sanitation practices, and efforts to control and contain intravenous drug use, HIV infection can be severely reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced to the point where it is not significant; that's not to say the problem will disappear, but it's a good starting point to focus resources on the remaining cases. Cancer, on the other hand, can be caused by a huge number of factors, most of which are currently unpreventable; lifestyle factors can influence your chance of getting certain cancers, but it doesn't eliminate the risk at all.

(Of course, given the increased trend towards consilience between medical fields, the question of diverting resources to different illnesses is becoming rather obsolete; research in pretty much any field is now giving insights in to a host of others).

Neither needs a cure. What are we to die from if these two scourges are eliminated?

Neither needs a cure. What are we to die from if these two scourges are eliminated?

Um...when we want? I don't think you know just how excruciating and slow death from cancer or AIDS really is.

Other: Something like Malaria, Cholera, Trichosomiasis or TB. Probably malaria.
We were doing fine against malaria before we banned DDT.

Sure, DDT did some nasty stuff, but happened because it was REALLY effective and thus we basically painted the world with it.

That was a bad idea.

But in limited application, mosquito nets or screen doors treated with DDT would reduce malarial deaths dramatically.

We were doing fine against malaria before we banned DDT.

Sure, DDT did some nasty stuff, but happened because it was REALLY effective and thus we basically painted the world with it..

Yeah, and I have to blame Silent Spring for it. There's a difference between using inordinate amounts of it everywhere and totally banning it, and unfortunately this book painted such a catastrophic picture that was totally out of line with the evidence that people became irrationally afraid of pesticides and banned it entirely.

We need to bring back the limited use of DDT as a way of controlling disease.

The timing of this is rather interesting, and exceptionally good news:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110144848.htm

We've had basically zero success curing any viral illness ever. If we're going to make a breakthrough on that, I don't think it will be on a virus as illusive as HIV.

Why is it illusive? I guess there's a lot of research into AIDS (at least more than other diseases) so why not? It's just a disease, the only special thing about it is that it targets our immune system. It's less contagious as I thought too (look at the table to the right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS#Transmission_and_prevention)). Imagine it was as bad as the flu or something, most people have the flu each year.

It would surprise me greatly if we found a universal cure against cancer (which is quite impossible seeing the number of variants, although a lot of process is made for certain kinds) before we found a cure or vaccine against HIV.

It would surprise me greatly if we found a universal cure against cancer (which is quite impossible seeing the number of variants, although a lot of process is made for certain kinds) before we found a cure or vaccine against HIV.

I'm of the opinion that targeted cures for cancer will lead to vaccines and cures for various viral infections, especially since both will involve extensive genetic analysis as part of discovering how they work.

It's sort of like how medications for autoimmune disorders are showing some significant effects on conditions like Alzheimer's.

The timing of this is rather interesting, and exceptionally good news:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110144848.htm

Yeah, that is exceptionally good news, thanks for posting that. *parties a little bit*

AIDS is the one that destroys families. AIDS is the one that is devastating entire societies. Cancer mostly affects the elderly. Not that their lives aren't worth something, but cancer isn't striking people down in their prime.

AIDS is the one that destroys families. AIDS is the one that is devastating entire societies. Cancer mostly affects the elderly. Not that their lives aren't worth something, but cancer isn't striking people down in their prime.

Are you sure about that? Cancer strikes across all ages...and most of them can't be prevented. Besides, the elderly have years of experience and wisdom, so they're hardly any less valuable (I shudder to even value people like that) than the young...not to mention increasing numbers of them of them are living healthy, productive lives well in to their 80's, 90's, and beyond.

I'm of the opinion that targeted cures for cancer will lead to vaccines and cures for various viral infections, especially since both will involve extensive genetic analysis as part of discovering how they work.

It's sort of like how medications for autoimmune disorders are showing some significant effects on conditions like Alzheimer's.

True, research into the human genome will give us a lot of cures for different diseases.
This thread made me wonder why it is so hard to make a vaccine though. Why don't they just kill some HIV's or produce some coating proteins and inject it together with the appropriate other substances into a human? Why does that work for the flu but not for HIV?

This thread made me wonder why it is so hard to make a vaccine though. Why don't they just kill some HIV's or produce some coating proteins and inject it together with the appropriate other substances into a human? Why does that work for the flu but not for HIV?

Well, I found this on Wikipedia:

The ineffectiveness of previously developed vaccines primarily stems from two related factors. First, HIV is highly mutable. Because of the virus' ability to rapidly respond to selective pressures imposed by the immune system, the population of virus in an infected individual typically evolves so that it can evade the two major arms of the adaptive immune system; humoral (antibody-mediated) and systemic (mediated by T cells) immunity. Second, HIV isolates are themselves highly variable. HIV can be categorized into multiple clades and subtypes with a high degree of genetic divergence. Therefore, the immune responses raised by any vaccine need to be broad enough to account for this variability. Any vaccine that lacks this breadth is unlikely to be effective.

It seems like emerging technologies and techniques, such as the article I posted, may help address these issues. It'll probably take a while still, but there's a lot of room for further development; not only that, but better drugs will also help contain and hopefully reverse the disease.

At the very least, it isn't impossible.

It seems like emerging technologies and techniques, such as the article I posted, may help address these issues. It'll probably take a while still, but there's a lot of room for further development; not only that, but better drugs will also help contain and hopefully reverse the disease.

At the very least, it isn't impossible.

Thanks, I hope they find a vaccine or a cure and can deliver it to all persons who need it

Cancer because my wife had to deal with it (still does really with constant check ups).

Thanks, I hope they find a vaccine or a cure and can deliver it to all persons who need it

As do I.

AIDS is the one that destroys families. AIDS is the one that is devastating entire societies. Cancer mostly affects the elderly. Not that their lives aren't worth something, but cancer isn't striking people down in their prime.

Tell that to the millions of kids worldwide with cancer.

You do know that stomach cancer is in fact a bacterial infection and can be cured with anitbiotics?
And how do you know you're not at risk?



Are you sure about that?


Lets see...I don't do drugs...No blood transfusions...Not sexual active...Parents don't got it....No risk for me.

Scariest disease? Tooth decay! Statistically, it's almost inexcapable. :eek: I've been victimized by it myself. :( Politicians should be ashamed of themselves for not thinking of the children and eradicating tooth decay now.

Lets see...I don't do drugs...No blood transfusions...Not sexual active...Parents don't got it....No risk for me.

Very true. If cancer could be prevented by the use of condoms, well... it would be a different world, to say the least. Of course, AIDS is a political winner, and identity politics make the world go 'round. ;)

Very true. If cancer could be prevented by the use of condoms, well... it would be a different world, to say the least. Of course, AIDS is a political winner, and identity politics make the world go 'round. ;)

Not a winner with me, cancer is a winner with me and should be with everyone.

Not a winner with me, cancer is a winner with me and should be with everyone.
Why? Why not fund HIV/AIDS research?

Why? Why not fund HIV/AIDS research?

Better yet why make it an either/or? Funding for both I say.

Why? Why not fund HIV/AIDS research?


You can and should, just that cancer is a bigger concern for me.

Better yet why make it an either/or? Funding for both I say.
I agree, but each individual person who might want to donate money for research only has so much cash to give. They might parcel it out, or they might pick one to give to.

You can and should, just that cancer is a bigger concern for me.
OK. I was just wondering about the "and it should be for everyone" part of your post.

Tell that to the millions of kids worldwide with cancer.

Millions?

Cancer rates in children are about 14 in 100,000. That amounts to quite less than a million worldwide.

Do you even know what it is you're talking about?

Now, on to topic, it is obvious for anyone who thinks about it, the answer is clearly HIV, for two major reasons. First, even if there was a cure, using it would not significantly increase the life expectancy of many people who have it, since it's a disease that often strikes the elderly. Even if you cure cancer, many people who would have died from cancer would die from something else in a short time.

Second, the cancer rate stays fairly consistant. The amount of people who have cancer per 100,000 were the same this year as it was last year, and will be the same in ten years from now. If your parents have cancer it doesn't mean that you have a high risk of getting cancer.

The same, obviously, can not be said of HIV, which, like many diseases of its type, spreads exponentially, and is carried from mother ot child fairly easily..

Edit: cancer rates in children are, of course, 14 in 100,000, not 14 in 1,000 as I, rather stupidly, stated.

Millions?

Cancer rates in children are about 14 in 1000. That amounts to quite less than a million worldwide.

Do you even know what it is you're talking about?

There are 1.8 billion people aged 0-14. 1.4% of that is over 25 million.

That's assuming that cancer rates are equal worldwide. Regardless, it's well over several million in the developed world, let alone the developing world where it is likely underreported and undertreated.

This must be one hell of a good day for the fight against AIDS:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110123929.htm

There are 1.8 billion people aged 0-14. 1.4% of that is over 25 million.

*smacks forehead* That's what you get for typing tired. Cancer rates in children are not 14 in 1000 (that would make it one of the most common diseases on the planet...)

Rather, my error was that cancer rates in children are actually about 14 in 100,000.

So cut that figure into 1/100th, to about 250,000. Now, admittedly, that was my error, but shame on you for actually believing me when I said one out of every 70 kids gets cancer :p

So cut that figure into 1/100th, to about 250,000

I figured something was up, because that kind of incidence would be a serious OH SHIT moment for the human species. Thanks for the clarification.

(I still wonder why people would even place one disease over another; I only chose cancer because its mechanisms are a massive lynchpin that will open up the doors to treat hundreds, maybe even thousands, of conditions and diseases that operate along similar channels. You treat AIDS, you'd probably have a lot of insight in to cancer, and vice versa).

Millions?

Cancer rates in children are about 14 in 100,000. That amounts to quite less than a million worldwide.

Do you even know what it is you're talking about?

The question is do you know what the fuck you are talking about, since cancer causes 12.4% of all deaths worldwide every year, in fact the death rate from cancer is higher than aids. You have NO clue what you are talking about, read and learn that cancer deaths are more than double aids death!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_death


Second, the cancer rate stays fairly consistant. The amount of people who have cancer per 100,000 were the same this year as it was last year, and will be the same in ten years from now. If your parents have cancer it doesn't mean that you have a high risk of getting cancer.



OMG the ignorance!!! Do you know anything? Anything at all? Seriously. Any doctor will tell you that a strong family history of cancer DOES increase your risk! Jeez.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/

READ and learn!

3 April 2003 | GENEVA -- Cancer rates could further increase by 50% to 15 million new cases in the year 2020, according to the World Cancer Report, the most comprehensive global examination of the disease to date. However, the report also provides clear evidence that healthy lifestyles and public health action by governments and health practitioners could stem this trend, and prevent as many as one third of cancers worldwide.

In the year 2000, malignant tumours were responsible for 12 per cent of the nearly 56 million deaths worldwide from all causes. In many countries, more than a quarter of deaths are attributable to cancer. In 2000, 5.3 million men and 4.7 million women developed a malignant tumour and altogether 6.2 million died from the disease. The report also reveals that cancer has emerged as a major public health problem in developing countries, matching its effect in industrialized nations.



:rolleyes:

AIDS, because it can be spread (unlike cancer); it can very easily be prevented if a sufficient number of people are educated; cancer is a lot easier to treat (when caught early).

And now that we've gotten over that "but what about the millions of children with cancer?" Nonsense, let's drop a little math.

The US Cancer instituted estimated that approximatly 90,000 children died of cancer, worldwide, in 2007 (source (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/Global_Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2007_rev.pdf), page 27).

On the other hand, 2.1 million people in 2007 died of HIV, and 1 in 7 of them were children (source (http://www.avert.org/children.htm)). Which means that 300,000 children died from HIV in 2007.

So if your'e going to appeal to some stupid "why won't anyone think of the children!" defense as to why cancer is a more destructive disease than HIV...just keep in mind, HIV kills more than three times the number of children.

Now, overall, all age groups considered, cancer does kill, overal, about 4 times as many people as HIV (19.2% and 4.6% respectively, source (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/Global_Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2007_rev.pdf) page 1). HOWEVER, as I noted earlier, many people who die from cancer...are elderly who have other health problems. Even if you prevented them from dying form cancer, they'd die from something else entirely, and you haven't really improved life expectancy at all.

So if you want to "think of the children", think of this. HIV kills 3 times as many children as cancer.

AIDS, because it can be spread (unlike cancer); it can very easily be prevented if a sufficient number of people are educated; cancer is a lot easier to treat (when caught early).



Cancer is not always easy to treat, some show no signs until it is untreatable. And education can't stop it.

The question is do you know what the fuck you are talking about, since cancer causes 12.4% of all deaths worldwide every year, in fact the death rate from cancer is higher than aids. You have NO clue what you are talking about, read and learn that cancer deaths are more than double aids death!

Yeah, no shit, I'm well aware. Now, do you need to be reminded of your own posts?

Tell that to the millions of kids worldwide with cancer.

Let me emphasize the important word in that post:

Tell that to the millions of kids worldwide with cancer.

Did ya catch it? Need more help?

Tell that to the millions of kids worldwide with cancer.

Do you see the important word in that post now? You were talking about children. I'm quite aware that cancer kills more than HIV, most of the people cancer kills are elderly. However, you specifically mentioned children, and if we want to talk about children, which you obviously do, since you mentioned it, then HIV deaths in children outnumber cancer deaths in children 3 to 1. you also spoke about the millions of children with cancer, when it's been demonstrably proven in this thread that the number of children with cancer does not even come close to approaching one million.

Learn to read, or, at very least, fix that rampant memory loss that prevents you from keeping your own damned words in your head for five minutes.

The rest of your nonsense has already been debunked, so needs no further response. Fail.

And now that we've gotten over that "but what about the millions of children with cancer?" Nonsense, let's drop a little math.

The US Cancer instituted estimated that approximatly 90,000 children died of cancer, worldwide, in 2007 (source (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/Global_Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2007_rev.pdf), page 27).

On the other hand, 2.1 million people in 2007 died of HIV, and 1 in 7 of them were children (source (http://www.avert.org/children.htm)). Which means that 300,000 children died from HIV in 2007.

So if your'e going to appeal to some stupid "why won't anyone think of the children!" defense as to why cancer is a more destructive disease than HIV...just keep in mind, HIV kills more than three times the number of children.

Now, overall, all age groups considered, cancer does kill, overal, about 4 times as many people as HIV (19.2% and 4.6% respectively, source (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/Global_Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2007_rev.pdf) page 1). HOWEVER, as I noted earlier, many people who die from cancer...are elderly who have other health problems. Even if you prevented them from dying form cancer, they'd die from something else entirely, and you haven't really improved life expectancy at all.

So if you want to "think of the children", think of this. HIV kills 3 times as many children as cancer.

You maybe the only person on earth who translates millions of kids with cancer to millions dying from it. :rolleyes: I said millions with cancer not dying from it. Get better reading comprehension. Also to brush of cancer like that is sad.


http://http://filer.livinginperu.com/features/img/Aldimi1.jpg

Yeah, no shit, I'm well aware. Now, do you need to be reminded of your own posts?



Let me emphasize the important word in that post:



Did ya catch it? Need more help?



Do you see the important word in that post now? You were talking about children. I'm quite aware that cancer kills more than HIV, most of the people cancer kills are elderly. However, you specifically mentioned children, and if we want to talk about children, which you obviously do, since you mentioned it, then HIV deaths in children outnumber cancer deaths in children 3 to 1. you also spoke about the millions of children with cancer, when it's been demonstrably proven in this thread that the number of children with cancer does not even come close to approaching one million.

Learn to read, or, at very least, fix that rampant memory loss that prevents you from keeping your own damned words in your head for five minutes.

The rest of your nonsense has already been debunked, so needs no further response. Fail.



Do you have some reading problem or something? I said with cancer and then you went on some nonsense about kids dying from it which I never said. Jeez. Somebody has failed here and its you.

I said millions with cancer

And you were wrong. Most people when they make a mistake don't keep on pointing out, in public, that they were wrong.

But *shrug* as you will.

And you were wrong. Most people when they make a mistake don't keep on pointing out, in public, that they were wrong.

But *shrug* as you will.

Let me show you what YOU said.

And now that we've gotten over that "but what about the millions of children with cancer?" Nonsense, let's drop a little math.

The US Cancer instituted estimated that approximatly 90,000 children died of cancer, worldwide, in 2007 (source (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/Global_Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2007_rev.pdf), page 27).

On the other hand, 2.1 million people in 2007 died of HIV, and 1 in 7 of them were children (source (http://www.avert.org/children.htm)). Which means that 300,000 children died from HIV in 2007.

So if your'e going to appeal to some stupid "why won't anyone think of the children!" defense as to why cancer is a more destructive disease than HIV...just keep in mind, HIV kills more than three times the number of children.

Now, overall, all age groups considered, cancer does kill, overal, about 4 times as many people as HIV (19.2% and 4.6% respectively, source (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/Global_Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2007_rev.pdf) page 1). HOWEVER, as I noted earlier, many people who die from cancer...are elderly who have other health problems. Even if you prevented them from dying form cancer, they'd die from something else entirely, and you haven't really improved life expectancy at all.

So if you want to "think of the children", think of this. HIV kills 3 times as many children as cancer.


Focus on died. Now what I said.


Tell that to the millions of kids worldwide with cancer.

See the difference? I stated with you said died. I'd bet everybody caught that.:rolleyes:

Do you have some reading problem or something? I said with cancer and then you went on some nonsense about kids dying from it which I never said.

*sigh* hopeless. Absolutly hopeless.

See the difference? I stated with you said died. I'd bet everybody caught that.:rolleyes:

Yeah, I bet everybody did. That's...um...that's not a good thing for you, though.

*sigh* hopeless. Absolutly hopeless.

Yes you are Neo, yes you are. Still haven't caught on. Just stop posting here dear.:rolleyes:

Yeah, I bet everybody did. That's...um...that's not a good thing for you, though.

Stop posting sweetie, just stop ok? Move on darling, just move on. I bet everybody caught on that I said with and you ranted died and now claiming victory. Just move on ok?

I'd explain but...I fear the effort would be wasted, I tend to not enjoy spending my time yelling at windmills, so I'll just leave this little tet-a-tet up for the amusement of the rest of the forum.

Yeah, I bet everybody did. That's...um...that's not a good thing for you, though.

I don't know about everybody, but I did and it is a good thing for CN, since at no point did he say "millions of kids dying of cancer" he said "millions of kids with cancer".

I'd explain but...I fear the effort would be wasted, I tend to not enjoy spending my time yelling at windmills, so I'll just leave this little tet-a-tet up for the amusement of the rest of the forum.

You do a fine job of amusing us by yourself neo.

I don't know about everybody, but I did and it is a good thing for CN, since at no point did he say "millions of kids dying of cancer" he said "millions of kids with cancer".

See neo? If I said dying I would have been wrong, but I didn't say dying, you did.

Cancer will strike a majority of the population during their lifetimes. Everyone knows someone who has cancer or has died of it. While AIDS is bad, most of us don't know anyone with it.

What exactly do you mean by "takes priority"?

And cancer isn't just one illness but a term that is being used for a good dozen of illnesses, some of which are caused by bacteria, others by excessive exposure to certain substances or radiation, and yet others by causes unknown. Just thought I'd clarify.

Genetics are a huge factor in cancer.

People have actually been cured of cancer. Nobody has yet to be cured of HIV/AIDS, to my knowledge.

No one has EVER been cured of cancer. There is a different between treating cancer and curing cancer. Someone who has been treated for cancer still has cancer. It is just in remission, but it can come back and often does.e

I don't know about everybody, but I did and it is a good thing for CN, since at no point did he say "millions of kids dying of cancer" he said "millions of kids with cancer".

OK, I suppose I just have to explain, because apparently some people forget what this post is about.

Let's take a snip from the OP, shall we?

Both need a cure now

See the word, cure? This thread is about finding a cure for these diseases. Now, since we're talking about which disease should have greater focus for a cure, it would seem, the relevant line of discussion, the actual important figure, is not how many people get the disease, but how many people die from the disease, and, those that die from the disease, if they didn't die, how much longer would they have lived?

So, if there are "millions of kids with cancer" (which, is false), that's entirely fucking irrelevant to the question of which one needs a cure.

Because we are talking about cure here, and if all these millions and millions of kids get cancer, but don't die, I'd say that appealing to all those tiny babies with cancer, who don't die, is a very shitty argument for saying we should focus our efforts on curing cancer because, if those kids aren't actually dying from it...well...they're pretty fucking cured wouldn't you say?

So, how is it in any way relevant to how many kids GET cancer, when discussing which disease needs a cure more? Isn't the relevant question how many die from cancer?

There are millions upon millions upon millions of children, who get colds every year. Exponentially more children get colds compared to children who get HIV.

Are we going to use the argument that "millions more children get cold than HIV every year?" to say that we need a cure for the common cold more than a cure for HIV?

No, because that's fucking stupid. Yes, LOTS AND LOTS more children get colds, but they colds don't actually kill them.

So the question of how many children get cancer isn't relevant to the question of which cure we need more, it's how many children die from it. If they don't die from the cancer, they don't really need a cure, they're pretty well fucking cured

Is that really that hard to understand?

Why? Why not fund HIV/AIDS research?

HIV/AIDS is best controlled by educating populations. It usually results from partaking in high risk activities. Education can allow those who partake in such activities to mitigate their risks.

Cancer can not be controlled or mitigated by any education. It is going to strike people who have certain genetic predispositions.

See neo? If I said dying I would have been wrong

Wait, are you STILL trying to claim that "millions of kids have cancer"? Didn't you catch that part where that was conclusively proven to be wrong?

Moreover, I'll ask the question, again. What does it fucking matter how many get cancer? This thread is about which cure is needed more.

Millions and millions of kids get colds every year, FAAAAAAAR more than get HIV. So fucking what? If cancer doesn't kill more children than HIV does, than HIV is more deadly to children.

Isn't that the only relevant part when discussing a cure? You've tried to argue that we need a cancer cure more than an HIV cure because "of all the millions of little children with cancer".

You tried to justify your position that we needed a cancer cure because of all those millions of kids have cancer. First off, that's wrong. That's just mathematically wrong. Millions of kids do not have cancer. You're just wrong.

No debate, no argument, your statement of "millions" is wrong. Now, since we are talking about a "cure", the relevant question is, how many are actually killed. You understand what cure means right? You get it, yes?

I for the most part ignored what you said (with the exception of correcting your error) because what you said is entirely irrelevant

Someone who has been treated for cancer still has cancer. It is just in remission, but it can come back and often does.e

That's actually not true at all. Remission is a state where the cancer exists, but is dormant. Plenty of people have been successfully treated for cancer.

For example, skin cancer can be entirely removed, with no remaining cancer, but cutting it out. Tumors can be irradiated and totally killed. Not everyone successfully treated is "in remission." Sometimes their cancer is totally removed.

Cancer can not be controlled or mitigated by any education. It is going to strike people who have certain genetic predispositions.

Also not true what so ever. A lot of cancer can be prevented through education. Don't smoke. Don't go out in the sun for prolongued periods without protection. Don't eat foods with certain chemicals. Limit alchohol intake. Eat foods rich in antioxidants.

There's a lot of things that can be done to reduce risk of cancer. Genetic predisposition is one factor, but it certainly is not the only, and many risks can be eliminated or reduced by smart choices.

The sheer ignorance and massive error of the statement "cancer can not be mitigated by any education" just shows how important cancer preventative education really is. The fact that you believe there is no such thing just shows how desperatly you need it.

So the question of how many children get cancer isn't relevant to the question of which cure we need more, it's how many children die from it. If they don't die from the cancer, they don't really need a cure, they're pretty well fucking cured

So its okay for them to spend the rest of their life with a disease that might kill just because it hasn't done so yet?


Now, mind you I agree that the biggest 'threat' of the two long-term is HIV/AIDS I merely stepped up to CN's defense because you were attacking him based on something that he did not say.

wait, what is the question? Is it "if you could cure one, which would you cure?" or is it "which do you think deserves more research money?" If the first, the answer is cancer. But if the second, the answer is AIDS, simply because it is much more likely to be cured, and represents a more immediate problem. AIDS' ultimate cause is an outside infection, HIV. Wheras cancer's ultimate cause is the way the body itself works, on a cellular/genetic level.

So its okay for them to spend the rest of their life with a disease that might kill just because it hasn't done so yet?

That's...fairly stupid. I think the kids who get cancer and live don't just survive with the cancer in their bodies for the rest of their lives.

Cancer often kills children pretty damned fast if untreated. If they don't die, they're not "living with it the rest of their lives". They're not living with the disease, they're fucking cured.

Either the cancer kills them, or it is treated successfully. The question of relevance is how many the disease kills. If it's not killing them, then a cure isn't that needed because...well...they seem to be getting cured.

In fact, with modern medicine, cancer is fairly treatable. Only 1 in 5 children diagnosed from cancer die from it. It has an 80% surviveability rate in the united states.

The question is which disease needs the cure more. I am well aware what he said. You don't need to point it out to me. I know he wasn't talking about deaths.

You're damn right I was attacking him for something he didn't say, and was pointing out that what he did say was entirely irrelevant. He is trying ot say cancer is "more deserving" of a cure because "millions of kids get it". First, this is false. he's just wrong.

Secondly, many, MANY more kids get the common cold. Does that mean we should focus our efforts on curing the common cold? No, of course not. That's stupid. Why? Because just because kids GET IT, doesn't make it MORE DANGEROUS.

I'm pointing out what he did say is stupid and irrelevant. I could use the same arugment to justify that the common cold deserves more funding because more people get it.

You're damn right I was attacking him for something he didn't say, and was pointing out that what he did say was entirely irrelevant. He is trying ot say cancer is "more deserving" of a cure because "millions of kids get it". First, this is false. he's just wrong.

Secondly, many, MANY more kids get the common cold. Does that mean we should focus our efforts on curing the common cold? No, of course not. That's stupid. Why? Because just because kids GET IT, doesn't make it MORE DANGEROUS.

I'm pointing out what he did say is stupid and irrelevant. I could use the same arugment to justify that the common cold deserves more funding because more people get it.

Which is something you could have said to begin with, rather than being a bit of an ass about it.

Which is something you could have said to begin with

Why? If that thought didn't occur to him in the first place, I highly doubt my explanation would have helped him in any way.

If someone is functionally retarded enough to argue that "a + orange = zebra" then no amount of my efforts explaining why that's stupid and incomprehensible is going to make any difference what so ever.

If such a blatantly silly, erronious, and entirely irrelevant argument is put forward, it automatically makes me suspect of the poster's ability to understand the refutation. As amply demonstrated by my eventual efforts to try to explain it, which was met with the same brick like logical thinking that spawned the statement in the first place.

Why?

I don't know, maybe to avoid the part of my post that you didn't quote. :p

I don't know, maybe to avoid the part of my post that you didn't quote. :p

*shrug* frankly speaking, anyone who is incapble and/or unwilling to form a cohesive, logical, and well thought out argument is generally not someone I feel the need to respect all that much. In fact, my initial responses were practically polite, in which I carefully explained why his initial claim was incorrect, and showed proper, and applicable statistics relative to the argument.

It's only when he started swearing at me, and repeating the same tired argument without showing the slightest willingness to actually think about what I said that my capacity to remain polite hit rock bottom.

Because we are talking about cure here, and if all these millions and millions of kids get cancer, but don't die, I'd say that appealing to all those tiny babies with cancer, who don't die, is a very shitty argument for saying we should focus our efforts on curing cancer because, if those kids aren't actually dying from it...well...they're pretty fucking cured wouldn't you say?

So the question of how many children get cancer isn't relevant to the question of which cure we need more, it's how many children die from it. If they don't die from the cancer, they don't really need a cure, they're pretty well fucking cured

Also not true what so ever. A lot of cancer can be prevented through education. Don't smoke. Don't go out in the sun for prolongued periods without protection. Don't eat foods with certain chemicals. Limit alchohol intake. Eat foods rich in antioxidants.



Cancer often kills children pretty damned fast if untreated. If they don't die, they're not "living with it the rest of their lives". They're not living with the disease, they're fucking cured.



Either the cancer kills them, or it is treated successfully. The question of relevance is how many the disease kills. If it's not killing them, then a cure isn't that needed because...well...they seem to be getting cured.

You just love digging yourself deeper into a hole don't you neo? Those comment speak volumes about how little you know.

*shrug* frankly speaking, anyone who is incapble and/or unwilling to form a cohesive, logical, and well thought out argument is generally not someone I feel the need to respect all that much. In fact, my initial responses were practically polite, in which I carefully explained why his initial claim was incorrect, and showed proper, and applicable statistics relative to the argument.

It's only when he started swearing at me, and repeating the same tired argument without showing the slightest willingness to actually think about what I said that my capacity to remain polite hit rock bottom.



http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/jedisentinal/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg



Stats huh? You provided no links in your first post proving anything and were rude from the start. Get of your high horse.

This must be one hell of a good day for the fight against AIDS:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110123929.htm
YES!! More money, quick! Keep that work going!

Cancer will strike a majority of the population during their lifetimes. Everyone knows someone who has cancer or has died of it. While AIDS is bad, most of us don't know anyone with it.
That kind of attitude is the reason why contagious diseases spread into epidemics and pandemics. Give it time and we'll all know people with AIDS. Lots of them.

HIV/AIDS is best controlled by educating populations. It usually results from partaking in high risk activities. Education can allow those who partake in such activities to mitigate their risks.

Cancer can not be controlled or mitigated by any education. It is going to strike people who have certain genetic predispositions.

So?

The fact that the spread of HIV/AIDS can be controlled by good education and use of protective measures does not in any way whatsoever obviate the need to be able to cure it -- or, possibly better and at least as desirable, vaccinate against it.

The fact that cancer affects millions, has many (and many unknown) causes, and is not curable at this time, does not change the fact that it is not contagious and is not spreading around the world at the same rate that HIV/AIDS is.

Nor does it change the fact that there is far less social stigma attached to cancer than to HIV/AIDS, and that cancer treatment/education faces far, far fewer social and governmental blocks than HIV/AIDS treatment/education.

If we are assessing the relative threat of the diseases -- and if we understand "threat" to mean a danger to the greatest number of people worldwide and to mean "urgent" -- then the spread of a communicable disease that is itself potentially fatal and also increases likelihood of the spread of other potentially fatal diseases (such as pneumonia and some cancers), then I say HIV/AIDS is the more urgent threat at this time.

Hey, I'm for cancer research, but only so long as we don't use the Measles virus, or any other virus for that matter, to beat it.

Hey, I'm for cancer research, but only so long as we don't use the Measles virus, or any other virus for that matter, to beat it.

:confused: why not? Most of the research into cancer is done by gene research, and viruses are one of the best vectors for synthetic DNA. In addition to that some cancers are caused by viruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Virus#How_viruses_are_thought_to_cause_cancer), so we would at least need those to do research to those particular kinds of cancer. And a lot of human genes that are mutated in cancer cells are closely related to genes found in viruses, which is another reason to use viruses as a way to beat cancer.
I can't see a good reason not to use viruses to beat cancer.

:confused: why not? Most of the research into cancer is done by gene research, and viruses are one of the best vectors for synthetic DNA. In addition to that some cancers are caused by viruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Virus#How_viruses_are_thought_to_cause_cancer), so we would at least need those to do research to those particular kinds of cancer. And a lot of human genes that are mutated in cancer cells are closely related to genes found in viruses, which is another reason to use viruses as a way to beat cancer.
I can't see a good reason not to use viruses to beat cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_Legend_%28film%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_Legend_%28film%29
Since I have 99.9% of the same DNA as Charlton Heston, I think I'd be fine on that one.

How's about malaria, or getting people clean drinking water?

If we spent the same amount on draining malaria-infested marshes or digging wells as we did thinking up theoretical cures for HIV, that's quite a few more people saved, hurrah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_Legend_%28film%29

Exactly. Curse the evil Kippa (Krippa?) lady and her mad goal of destroying cancer without thinking about the consequences.

Hey, I'm for cancer research, but only so long as we don't use the Measles virus, or any other virus for that matter, to beat it.

I see somebody else saw I Am Legend. ;)

(Am I the only person who saw huge parallels between the movie and Resistance: Fall of Man?)