PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical: If you could cure Cancer or HIV/AIDS, which would you cure?


Stamp Paid
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:02 PM
Somebody asked me this question today, and I am curious to see what you all think.

My answer to come shortly.

Vartan
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:06 PM
Easy :shrug: Cancer, AIDS is preventable.

tennismaster8820
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:07 PM
Cancer, no doubt at all.

Nicolás89
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:08 PM
Emotional answer. I would definitely cure cancer because it has affected me and the people around me.

Vartan
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:09 PM
Plus, 5 times as many people die from cancer every year as compared to AIDS.

Yoncé
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:09 PM
HIV/AIDS.

Mainly because the great proportion of sufferers are in the developing world and have no access to any form of treatment what so ever. Also AIDS is probably one the worst illnesses in the modern world, which has some pretty horrific side affects some of which can include cancer. A lot more people who get cancer now days are able to survive due to medical advances which allow for treatment while there is, in reality, no treatment for AIDS.

azdaja
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:11 PM
cancer because you can prevent aids.

Stamp Paid
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:19 PM
Interesting.

I think when most ppl think of HIV/AIDS, they talk about it in terms of morality - many of you have said that is preventable - I think at the core, people link having HIV/AIDS to bad decision making. Cancer is seen as a public health issue, no value judgments are placed on people with cancer because the perception is that anybody can get it, its partially genetic, and its not necessarily their fault, etc. But bad decisions can make a person more susceptible to both, and your risk of having and dying from both are largely dependent on your social position in society.

I would choose cancer though, because it has been around for way longer than HIV/AIDS and we still have not been able to prevent it. I think we will find a cure for HIV/AIDS one day.

Lin Lin
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:26 PM
Cancer of course.:)

LeRoy.
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:27 PM
Easily Cancer, Ms. Norma Rae.

Pops Maellard
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:39 PM
Cancer.

hablo
Dec 4th, 2012, 11:57 PM
Aids.

KournikovaFan91
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:01 AM
In the minority here but I'd go with HIV/AIDS.

Julian.
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:02 AM
Half of all types of Cancer are actually preventable too.

legalise#
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:06 AM
Cancer, for sure.

LeRoy.
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:12 AM
Interesting.


As is this.....:wavey:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=6514994&postcount=71

http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=6515073&postcount=81

Vartan
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:15 AM
Half of all types of Cancer are actually preventable too.

Some types, like lung cancer. But how about breast cancer? On the other hand, HIV/AIDS is completely preventable.

moodin0931
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:18 AM
Cancer :awww:

Novichok
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:19 AM
Cancer

Novichok
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:20 AM
Some types, like lung cancer. But how about breast cancer? On the other hand, HIV/AIDS is completely preventable.

Not for everyone.

Smitten
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:20 AM
Cancer.

Pops Maellard
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:22 AM
Not for everyone.
True. A baby in a poor country can't decide if it gets it from it's Mother.

Stamp Paid
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:23 AM
Cancer just seems so much harder to cure, because even though environmental factors play into it, some people are just genetically predisposed to having it. I've had like 4 cousins die of cancer on my father's side of the family, so I think thats why I would choose cancer.

Julian.
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:23 AM
Some types, like lung cancer. But how about breast cancer? On the other hand, HIV/AIDS is completely preventable.

But HIV is not completely preventable either. :lol: HIV/AIDS can pass from mother to unborn baby while growing inside the womb.

Yes, it's preventable for the mother but it's not preventable from the baby's point of view :lol:

Vartan
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:26 AM
But HIV is not completely preventable either. :lol: HIV/AIDS can pass from mother to unborn baby while growing inside the womb.

Yes, it's preventable for the mother but it's not preventable from the baby's point of view :lol:

I know what you mean but, medical intervention greatly reduces the risk of mother to child transmission.

Plus, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/rhonda-i-zygocki/mother-child-hiv_b_2198791.html.

Julian.
Dec 5th, 2012, 12:31 AM
I know what you mean but, medical intervention greatly reduces the risk of mother to child transmission.

Plus, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/rhonda-i-zygocki/mother-child-hiv_b_2198791.html.

I'm not arguing the fact that HIV is more preventable the cancer. :lol:

I was just pointing the fact that some types of cancer are preventable too because many people in this thread used the "HIV is preventable" as a reason as in cancer is not preventable at all :rolls:

Anyway my answer is Cancer too.

Tennisation
Dec 5th, 2012, 01:01 AM
Cancer kills, HIV/AIDS does not

Novichok
Dec 5th, 2012, 01:02 AM
Cancer kills, HIV/AIDS does not

:help:

dybbuk
Dec 5th, 2012, 01:07 AM
What the fuck though at so many people just saying outright HIV/AIDS is preventable. :confused: There's several ways someone could get it and it not be bad decision making. A child getting it from their mother, getting infected blood from a blood transfusion, etc. IMO implicit in that thinking is people who get HIV might not deserve treatment as much because it's their fault.

Stamp Paid
Dec 5th, 2012, 01:08 AM
What the fuck though at so many people just saying outright HIV/AIDS is preventable. :confused: There's several ways someone could get it and it not be bad decision making. A child getting it from their mother, getting infected blood from a blood transfusion, etc. IMO implicit in that thinking is people who get HIV might not deserve treatment as much because it's their fault.I think STDs are seen as more of an issue of individual morality, as opposed to general public health issues.

cowsonice
Dec 5th, 2012, 01:09 AM
HIV/AIDS

Both cancer and HIV/AIDS have biological mechanisms that make it very hard to cure, but in the grander scheme of things, I feel that HIV/AIDS development is a lot less slower. For the most part, it's becoming a "third-world" disease, glamorized by these benefit concerts (not that cancer isn't but we don't usually hear back about advancements in AIDS or if there's a decline in rates)...and there's the additional social stigma to it.

Tennisation
Dec 5th, 2012, 01:37 AM
:help:People infected with HIV nowadays do not die from it because of improved anti-retroviral therapies that allow people to live their life for as long as a healthy individual would. If indeed the patients allow themselves to dip to the point where the disease becomes AIDS because their immune system is reduced and CD4 counts are below 200, it is not AIDS that kill them, it is the opportunistic infections that kill them. In fact, the chance of you dying in a automobile accident is much higher than dying of HIV/AIDS due to opportunistic infection. Hope that helps you understand a bit about the disease.

Sincerely,
Dr. B MD, Pharm.D., MBA

iHeartTroyBolton
Dec 5th, 2012, 01:37 AM
HIV/AIDS.

Mainly because the great proportion of sufferers are in the developing world and have no access to any form of treatment what so ever. Also AIDS is probably one the worst illnesses in the modern world, which has some pretty horrific side affects some of which can include cancer. A lot more people who get cancer now days are able to survive due to medical advances which allow for treatment while there is, in reality, no treatment for AIDS.

In that idea, if someone is from the developing world do you think they have access to cancer treatments?

Like others have said, I'd have to go with cancer as it is preventable.


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

jameshazza
Dec 5th, 2012, 01:46 AM
Not sure, as Reephoria said HIV/AIDS in the developing world don't have access to healthcare so there's that to consider. I think I would go with cancer for the reasons LBV said, HIV hasn't been around half as long and there's been much more breakthroughs in terms of finding a cure.

So, if we're more likely to eventually cure HIV/AIDS then I'd go with cancer. :shrug:

Novichok
Dec 5th, 2012, 01:46 AM
People infected with HIV nowadays do not die from it because of improved anti-retroviral therapies that allow people to live their life for as long as a healthy individual would. If indeed the patients allow themselves to dip to the point where the disease becomes AIDS because their immune system is reduced and CD4 counts are below 200, it is not AIDS that kill them, it is the opportunistic infections that kill them. In fact, the chance of you dying in a automobile accident is much higher than dying of HIV/AIDS due to opportunistic infection. Hope that helps you understand a bit about the disease.

Sincerely,
Dr. B MD, Pharm.D., MBA

People with access and can afford those improved anti-retroviral therapies might not die because of HIV/AIDS. But thousands of people (mostly in Africa) die each year because of AIDS.

Valanga
Dec 5th, 2012, 01:52 AM
Cancer. Definitely.

Vartan
Dec 5th, 2012, 02:31 AM
People with access and can afford those improved anti-retroviral therapies might not die because of HIV/AIDS. But thousands of people (mostly in Africa) die each year because of AIDS.

5 times as many people die from cancer.

Novichok
Dec 5th, 2012, 02:37 AM
5 times as many people die from cancer.

Okay.

Yoncé
Dec 5th, 2012, 02:56 AM
5 times as many people die from cancer.

But how many more people in the world have reported cases of cancer compared to AIDS?


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Vartan
Dec 5th, 2012, 02:59 AM
Same could be said for cancer, though.

Cajka
Dec 5th, 2012, 03:19 AM
People infected with HIV nowadays do not die from it because of improved anti-retroviral therapies that allow people to live their life for as long as a healthy individual would.

This. That's why my answer is cancer, not because HIV is preventable.

Say Hey Kid
Dec 5th, 2012, 04:08 AM
Cancer.

That said, most Cancer is as preventable as AIDS.

Don't smoke, drink excess alcohol, use drugs (illegal or "prescription") don't binge on red meat, processed foods, GMO garbage, and in all likely hood you will not get cancer.

The vast majority of Cancer is brought on by people's lifestyle choices, just like most cases of AIDS are transmitted the same way.

iHeartTroyBolton
Dec 5th, 2012, 04:16 AM
Cancer.

That said, most Cancer is as preventable as AIDS.

Don't smoke, drink excess alcohol, use drugs (illegal or "prescription") don't binge on red meat, processed foods, GMO garbage, and in all likely hood you will not get cancer.

The vast majority of Cancer is brought on by people's lifestyle choices, just like most cases of AIDS are transmitted the same way.

The vast majority? That is just utter rubbish. While I've seen a study that called 40% caused by lifestyle (in the UK), that's not yet a majority, and far from vast.


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Cajka
Dec 5th, 2012, 04:34 AM
Don't smoke, drink excess alcohol, use drugs (illegal or "prescription") don't binge on red meat, processed foods, GMO garbage, and in all likely hood you will not get cancer.


That's what you should avoid generally if you want to stay healthy. It doesn't have to be cancer, heart attack is coming for you if you do that. If you're HIV positive and do all these things, AIDS is coming for you. You're ignoring genetics here. Smoking,eating processed food, using drugs and alcohol is the way to get some disease. A heart attack twill get you sooner than a cancer in this case, but does it explain all weird kinds of tumor that exist? Or simply, how is that possible that people who live in rural areas and don't smoke at all get a lung cancer?

tennismaster8820
Dec 5th, 2012, 08:31 AM
I have chosen cancer because it is number 1 killer in Croatia.
Here where I live I don't think there is any family who didn't lose someone because some form of cancer.
It's frightening how many people get it and it doesn't matter always about lifestyle.
It's shocking when someone who lives healthy all their life suddenly gets cancer.
So many cases here must be connected with recent war, these are just the effects of it.
Not to mention Chernobyl disaster which affected whole of Europe and which effects we don't understand completely.

I also believe cure for AIDS will be found out sooner.

Beat
Dec 5th, 2012, 08:38 AM
But HIV is not completely preventable either. :lol: HIV/AIDS can pass from mother to unborn baby while growing inside the womb.

Yes, it's preventable for the mother but it's not preventable from the baby's point of view :lol:

your use of the :lol:-smilie is slightly disturbing.

Sam L
Dec 5th, 2012, 08:43 AM
HIV/AIDS.

There isn't really a permanent cure for Cancer. The longer you live, there higher the chances of cancer. In fact, one could even say it is a part of nature

tennismaster8820
Dec 5th, 2012, 08:57 AM
There isn't really a permanent cure for Cancer. The longer you live, there higher the chances of cancer. In fact, one could even say it is a part of nature

There are too many children and young people who have cancer.
I don't agree it is a part of nature at all.

Sam L
Dec 5th, 2012, 09:04 AM
There are too many children and young people who have cancer.
I don't agree it is a part of nature at all.
That's probably environmental but if you go back in history, cancer has always been a part of our species.

I'm no doctor but just from my understanding of how cells work, it seems inevitable that one would develop cancer if one lives long enough.

ElusiveChanteuse
Dec 5th, 2012, 09:59 AM
Cancer.

Sam L
Dec 5th, 2012, 10:00 AM
I also don't think there is actually a cure for cancer. But there probably will be one for HIV/AIDS.

ElusiveChanteuse
Dec 5th, 2012, 10:02 AM
Yeah, cancer is unpredictable compared to HIV/AIDS. You may even get cancer unexpectedly even living a healthy lifestyle.

August
Dec 5th, 2012, 10:57 AM
Plus, 5 times as many people die from cancer every year as compared to AIDS.

This. That's why I'd cure cancer.

cancer because you can prevent aids.

Not completely true. You can get HIV/AIDS e.g. from blood transfusions.

chirag
Dec 5th, 2012, 11:28 AM
Cancer for sure;p

Mr.Sharapova
Dec 5th, 2012, 11:32 AM
Cancer definitely :yeah:. AIDS is preventable.

borrowedheaven
Dec 5th, 2012, 11:32 AM
I'd go for AIDS/HIV because society doesn't support those who suffer from it. People with HIV often lose their friends and family because of their disease.

charmedRic
Dec 5th, 2012, 02:19 PM
A cure/immunization for the HIV virus is more realistic than a cure for Cancer. Cancer can be triggered by so many different things than saying "a cure for cancer" is rather irresponsible, but not as irresponsible as throwing the label of preventable on AIDS when in reality, it isn't entirely so.

Sammo
Dec 5th, 2012, 02:29 PM
Cancer

edificio
Dec 5th, 2012, 08:47 PM
There are so many kinds of cancer that this hypothetical is a nonstarter for me.

Also, the idea that because a condition is preventable it is less deserving of a cure is reprehensible to me.

Anyway, as people have already said, AIDS/HIV is not necessarily preventable.

Elwin.
Dec 5th, 2012, 08:51 PM
There are too many children and young people who have cancer.
I don't agree it is a part of nature at all.

:yeah:

Cancer

jrm
Dec 5th, 2012, 08:59 PM
theoretically, HIV could disappear with hardcore measurements; i think i have heard that in 50 years every third person will have some kind of cancer

FORZA SARITA
Dec 5th, 2012, 09:02 PM
cancer without a doubt

LeRoy.
Dec 5th, 2012, 09:40 PM
Not completely true. You can get HIV/AIDS e.g. from blood transfusions.
If the blood is always tested before transfusion, which it is now, spread of HIV can be prevented. If a HIV positive woman knowingly gets pregnant then she should be arrested imo. If she doesn't know then the pregnancy should be terminated.

Cancer can be genetic. A daughter whose Mother has/had breast cancer will almost always develop cancer.

Rui.
Dec 5th, 2012, 09:41 PM
It's like comparing 200 diseases with 1... I'd chose cancer. While developing countries don't have access to meds for HIV they also don't have them for any type of cancer or basically any "big" disease at all. Some forms of cancer are very much treatable but some of them are just too destructive (pancreatic, lungs...).
While I understand that babies in developing countries can't chose whether they'll have HIV or not most cases of HIV could be prevented. Nobody choses to have cancer. It's also not preventable in the same way as HIV.

By the way, I was reading the other day about a portuguese guy who found a protein, a single protein that when changed could kill cancer cells in about 9 hours...

here's the video:

http://www.publico.pt/multimedia/video/o-suicidio-de-uma-celula-cancerosa-634895502048869589

Really interesting :lol: