|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Sept 24, 2010 18:18:38 GMT -5
What do you think would happen when cancer is cured?
Will it be breaking news? Will this person or team of people be regarded as heroes? Or will the pharmaceutical companies/FDA feel threatened and try to shut them down (cancer is a huge industry btw).
Lemme know what you think =)
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Sept 24, 2010 19:22:34 GMT -5
I don't understand, why is this even a debate.
You're basically asking which is more important the lives that could be saved by curing cancer or the money that would be lost from cancer treatments that only serve to slow the spread of cancer.
I think if word got out that there was a cure and it wasn't being made available so that greedy people could keep risking the lives of people for money everyone with cancer would stop going for treatment till they die or get the cure. Families and friends of people who have or have died from cancer would be holding protests and the business would fall apart anyway plus it would be bad PR for the companies involved. Even if they did give in and let the cure out no one would ever trust them again after that stunt.
Of course any people involved would be heroes for finding a cure, that's not even a question.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Sept 24, 2010 19:30:59 GMT -5
Incidentally, I don't think it would be possible to attribute it to a single person. Everything in the field that is already known can be attributed to literally thousands upon thousands of people such that even if it was a single person that finished the job, that person could only take one small portion of the credit that would be owed to so, so many people.
|
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Sept 24, 2010 20:01:09 GMT -5
I don't understand, why is this even a debate. It's a debate of ethics and peoples view on the world. Cancer is just a medium, although I am very interested in this specific topic. You're basically asking which is more important the lives that could be saved by curing cancer or the money that would be lost from cancer treatments that only serve to slow the spread of cancer. Yes, but I'm not asking what your morals are. I am asking what you think the morals are of these large companies that stand to lose a lot if cancer is cured and they can't get a patent on whatever the cure is. (Btw big pharma makes up 15.5% of the US economy.) Incidentally, I don't think it would be possible to attribute it to a single person. Everything in the field that is already known can be attributed to literally thousands upon thousands of people such that even if it was a single person that finished the job, that person could only take one small portion of the credit that would be owed to so, so many people. That may be true, but it's irrelevant to the question. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Sept 25, 2010 0:16:28 GMT -5
There will not be a cure for all cancer, each cancer will probably have its own separate cure. I.e. it is more probable that a cure for breast cancer will be found long before a cure for lymphoma. This sort of progress will actually lead more to the pharma companies taking over the means to the cure, rather than preventing them. Also keep in mind, while cancer is a huge industry, and a huge consumer base for big pharma, the drugs big pharma produces are not solely for cancer, so its not like a cure for cancer will bankrupt them, even if it might hurt economically.
|
|
bullskitur
Planet
Intelligence requires not confusing what you believe with what you know
Posts: 306
|
Post by bullskitur on Sept 25, 2010 7:08:18 GMT -5
There is the possibilities that the pharmaceutical companies would try and shut them down after finding the cure for cancer but I wouldn't underestimate the power of the market. If they do then the team that found the cure could sell their cure to another company. The cure for cancer is a HUGE business and would make the company that has probably one of the, if not the, largest company in the world.
Finding the cure for cancer is bad business for every other company that didn't invent the cure which is why everyone is trying to be the first one to invent it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Sept 25, 2010 7:17:40 GMT -5
Also keep in mind, while cancer is a huge industry, and a huge consumer base for big pharma, the drugs big pharma produces are not solely for cancer, so its not like a cure for cancer will bankrupt them This is actually what I was thinking when I wrote my last reply. If the companies tried to keep the cure from people it would stand a larger chance at bankrupting them than if they didn't keep the cure from people. People would boycott the company till the cure was made public. In the end they would of made more money with the cure public in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by elephantshoes on Sept 25, 2010 15:13:26 GMT -5
Whoever discovers the cure for cancer will be rich. That's all I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Sept 25, 2010 15:19:06 GMT -5
Let me ask everyone one more question. When a cure for cancer is found, will you believe it? Or would your first thought be this is a joke?
|
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Sept 26, 2010 11:13:31 GMT -5
Let me ask everyone one more question. When a cure for cancer is found, will you believe it? Or would your first thought be this is a joke? Depends on how I hear it, from facebook groups? Then id think it was fake, from cnn or a major TRUSTED News source, then Id be super happy. |
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Sept 26, 2010 17:13:40 GMT -5
I bet a lot more people would smoke.
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Sept 26, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
I bet a lot more people would smoke. Like someone else said, every different type of cancer will probably have different cures and smoking only effects lung cancer which can spread into other parts of the body as well but primarily the lungs. My grandmother actually died from breast cancer when my dad was only 8 years old. |
|
|
|
Post by elephantshoes on Sept 26, 2010 19:00:01 GMT -5
I don't think people will be encouraged to smoke.. That just doesn't make any sense. No one wants to be sick in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Sept 26, 2010 19:11:53 GMT -5
I don't think people will be encouraged to smoke.. That just doesn't make any sense. No one wants to be sick in the first place. Except for people who are already smoking.  |
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Sept 28, 2010 0:36:06 GMT -5
This came up in conversation today with a buddy. He suggested the 'surplus population' angle. Now, I'm in the process of watching someone really close to me die from a long and nasty battle with cancer...But at the same time, death is a fact of life. People need to die sooner or later. But cancer is NOT a way you wanna go out.
That in mind, if there was no cancer, I bet we would hear a lot more obituaries read "He/She passed peacefully in his/her sleep" rather than "...Lost their courageous battle with cancer...".
|
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Sept 29, 2010 13:43:58 GMT -5
You can't cure cancer. Cancer is a mutation where your own cells divide uncontrollably. You can't isolate the mutation, you can't reverse what the cells have done - it'd be like trying to cure homosexuality.
All you can do is remove the tumors, and hope it hasn't reached the blood stream and spread yet.
You can't even rid the world of every carcinogen - because most of them are important for the world to function.
Cancer happens - it doesn't even need the influence of a carcinogen to occur. Being OLD can cause cancer.
A better question to ask is what the world would be like when a viable cure for HIV is found, or when most of the common childhood viruses like measles, polio, rubella, and chicken pox are eradicated - or if a vaccine for Hepatitis C is found.
|
|
|
|
Post by amon91 on Sept 29, 2010 15:45:09 GMT -5
You can't cure cancer. Cancer is a mutation where your own cells divide uncontrollably. You can't isolate the mutation, you can't reverse what the cells have done - it'd be like trying to cure homosexuality. All you can do is remove the tumors, and hope it hasn't reached the blood stream and spread yet. You can't even rid the world of every carcinogen - because most of them are important for the world to function. Cancer happens - it doesn't even need the influence of a carcinogen to occur. Being OLD can cause cancer. A better question to ask is what the world would be like when a viable cure for HIV is found, or when most of the common childhood viruses like measles, polio, rubella, and chicken pox are eradicated - or if a vaccine for Hepatitis C is found. I try to keep an open mind though. Maybe a few centuries ago throat infections were said to be incurable because they just stay in your throat and spread until they kill you. I believe cutting-edge research (stem cell, etc) can make recovery more likely. |
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Sept 29, 2010 16:01:56 GMT -5
You can't cure cancer. Cancer is a mutation where your own cells divide uncontrollably. You can't isolate the mutation, you can't reverse what the cells have done - it'd be like trying to cure homosexuality. All you can do is remove the tumors, and hope it hasn't reached the blood stream and spread yet. Is this your formal education speaking or your simple understanding of cancer? Either way what do you think about the billions of dollars spent on curing cancer each year? Seems like quite a waist if you really cannot cure it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Sept 29, 2010 16:05:23 GMT -5
Chemotherapy is the closest to a cure that we're ever going to get.
Cancer cells will divide infinitely until it takes the life of the individual. You cannot kill that which cannot die.
Cancer is not a bacteria which can simply be eliminated. It is like a malignant programming glitch in a computer rather than spyware. It's part of the internal communications, not an external force.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Sept 29, 2010 17:56:43 GMT -5
There is no 'cure' for cancer - no drug you'll be able to take that makes cancer goes away. The research being done is to find a way to remove cancerous growth and stop the mutation of cells and cell division of cancerous cells (which are possible, unlike reversing the mutation). There are current solutions to these problems (chemotherapy) but they are poisons and do quite a bit of harm to the body in order to stop the cancer, so the research is to find a method that is more effective.
|
|
