AIDS/HIV cure versus a universal Cancer cure

[QuitBanningMe]

I would choose to sabotage anyone who found the cure for either.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The Libs want an HIV/AIDS cure more than anything because they are all about free love and sex without consequences. (They are really pro-abortion for the same reason.)

Of course, I think a cancer panacea should be more important.

I think libs just want to promote personal freedom while staying safe, thus condoms in schools etc.

Let's not get into a P&N crapfling though.

BS!

AIDS Cure = Lots of young teens FVCKING all the time with everyone and anyone = Inevitable increase in babies born out of wed-lock = Increased poverty levels AND more idiots in government schools = more people with their hand out to the government = more power to Liberals and Democrats = Increased taxation of the so-called rich = Bigger government...

Wait.. you think young teens are NOT fvcking because they're afraid of AIDS? That is total bs.

 

[hdeck]

cancer, no question about it.

 

[ghostman]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The Libs want an HIV/AIDS cure more than anything because they are all about free love and sex without consequences. (They are really pro-abortion for the same reason.)

Of course, I think a cancer panacea should be more important.

I think libs just want to promote personal freedom while staying safe, thus condoms in schools etc.

Let's not get into a P&N crapfling though.

BS!

AIDS Cure = Lots of young teens FVCKING all the time with everyone and anyone = Inevitable increase in babies born out of wed-lock = Increased poverty levels AND more idiots in government schools = more people with their hand out to the government = more power to Liberals and Democrats = Increased taxation of the so-called rich = Bigger government...

Wait.. you think young teens are NOT fvcking because they're afraid of AIDS? That is total bs.

Agreed. I know a teen who screws around. He's more worried about impregnating a girl, not getting HIV.

A cure for cancer would probably have a more direct impact on the people I know. The only reason why I would care about the cure for AIDS at all is for the viral treatment breakthrough, not for AIDS itself. Call me selfish.

 

[mrchen]

Definitly Cancer, since cancer could happen to anyone, while aids/hiv is preventable with a piece of latex

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: akubi
cancer, because aids/hiv can be prevented but cancer can hit just about anyone

 

[StageLeft]

At the moment. Hopefully the spread of AIDS can be if not halted, slowed a lot, so it doesn't become one of the main killers.

fvck em. Once a population has a sufficient level of education (which I agree isn't in Africa properly), then those still getting AIDs/HIV are being weeded out by anti-dumb darwinism.

I guess another thing is I don't live in Africa, so if they can't pay for it, and resources are finite, as they are, I'd rather they go towards something myself or my family or immediate associates/people I know could get, and that's cancer. I've never known anybody with aids and I doubt I ever will because north america has eradicated it for all intents and purposes; not including those who got it a long time ago, those still getting it now are just idiots and people I'd be highly unlikely to encounter in life, so I don't count them in my numbers.

 

[Triumph]

A disease that's 99.9% preventable in the 1st world if you'd just exhibit a little bit of self restraint

versus

A disease that can strike anyone without apparent warning and kill within a year

Yeah, that's a tough choice. :roll:

 

[Deeko]

I'm voting cancer because it kills so many more people.

NOT because AIDS is preventable. I get so tired of hearing self righteous pricks say you deserve to die if you get AIDS.

 

[imported_KirbsAw]

Cancer, I know people who have died of cancer. Plus there is a bigger chance that I will get cancer one day than HIV/AIDS.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

the only way to prevent cancer is to die of something else first. sooner or later the gene that controlls cell replication will mutate in one of your cells and start cancrous cells

 

[oboeguy]

Originally posted by: akubi
cancer, because aids/hiv can be prevented but cancer can hit just about anyone

 

[cjgallen]

Cancer.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Cancer because it kills a more people, and while some forms are sometimes preventable, it's not nearly as preventable as HIV.

 

[Strk]

Cancer, without a doubt.

 

[chowderhead]

I voted cancer as well but I thought about it from a different perspective and I think I will say AIDS/HIV. I believe that humans have never found a cure for a viral disease once someone has been infected. We can manage the symptoms i.e. herpes, colds, HIV but never "cure" someone. That is because viruses can use the host DNA to replicate and that is very difficult to attack with therapies to rid someone of the virus completely once infected. We may have created vaccines but I don't believe we have ever cured someone infected with a virus.
Can drugs cure a virus
To be able to completely rid someone of a virus would be novel and precedent setting. It would be a giant leap in human medicine and our understanding of diseases.

Cancer on the other hand can be caused by many different reasons. i.e. environmental, genetic, viral, combination of those, etc. It is uncontrolled cellular growth. It is basically your body losing control of cellular growth and the body's response to prevent this loss of control. I suspect there will not be an universal magic bullet to cure all forms of cancers. It will be a combination of drug therapies (anti-angiogenesis drugs, interferon?. etc) and targeted radiation /chemotherapies that will cure the majority of difference types of cancers. We already can cure a few types of cancers with aggressive therapies. Further advancements and an eventual cure would be a large step forward but may not further our understanding of diseases as much as a cure for a viral disease.

Purely on a human achievement level, I would say AIDS/HIV.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I voted cancer as well but I thought about it from a different perspective and I think I will say AIDS/HIV. I believe that humans have never found a cure for a viral disease once someone has been infected. We can manage the symptoms i.e. herpes, colds, HIV but never "cure" someone. That is because viruses can use the host DNA to replicate and that is very difficult to attack with therapies to rid someone of the virus completely once infected. We may have created vaccines but I don't believe we have ever cured someone infected with a virus.
Can drugs cure a virus
To be able to completely rid someone of a virus would be novel and precedent setting. It would be a giant leap in human medicine and our understanding of diseases.

Cancer on the other hand can be caused by many different reasons. i.e. environmental, genetic, viral, combination of those, etc. It is uncontrolled cellular growth. It is basically your body losing control of cellular growth and the body's response to prevent this loss of control. I suspect there will not be an universal magic bullet to cure all forms of cancers. It will be a combination of drug therapies (anti-angiogenesis drugs, interferon?. etc) and targeted radiation /chemotherapies that will cure the majority of difference types of cancers. We already can cure a few types of cancers with aggressive therapies. Further advancements and an eventual cure would be a large step forward but may not further our understanding of diseases as much as a cure for a viral disease.

Purely on a human achievement level, I would say AIDS/HIV.

One of the few to actually think it through.

A cure for AIDS means an end to most, if not ALL viral infections.

This means an end to flus, colds, warts, herpes (both types) and genital warts just to name but a few.

Many cancers are viral related as well.

On a more personal level:

I'm sorry, but anyone saying people with AIDS deserve it, or deserve to die can go fsck themselves. Spend just a little while working with people with HIV/AIDS and see the actual faces you so easily and glibly condemn.

A great many of you will die through your own mistakes. Be it a bad diet, smoking, drinking, or accidental, most of you will fall at your own hand one way or another.

And the VAST majority of you will have unprotected sex out of wedlock at least once in your lives (of course, the % here is a LOT lower in geekdom). Or at the very least, will have broken condom sex out of wedlock.

Think about that the next time you seek to judge someone who caught something they neither deserve, nor want... just for doing the single most natural thing there is.

 

[NiKeFiDO]

aids right now bc its uncontrolled in many places. usa not excluded.

 

[StageLeft]

Good post, chowderhead!

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The Libs want an HIV/AIDS cure more than anything because they are all about free love and sex without consequences. (They are really pro-abortion for the same reason.)

Of course, I think a cancer panacea should be more important.

I think libs just want to promote personal freedom while staying safe, thus condoms in schools etc.

Let's not get into a P&N crapfling though.

BS!

AIDS Cure = Lots of young teens FVCKING all the time with everyone and anyone = Inevitable increase in babies born out of wed-lock = Increased poverty levels AND more idiots in government schools = more people with their hand out to the government = more power to Liberals and Democrats = Increased taxation of the so-called rich = Bigger government...

Wait.. you think young teens are NOT fvcking because they're afraid of AIDS? That is total bs.

Nope, in fact, it's viewed as "Hey, we'd better do it now because we can't do it when we're older because someone might have AIDS!"