Poll of the Day > Do you think funding for cancer research should be greatly reduced?

(+) Yeah! (+)

What do you think the u.s. has spent on cancer research in total within the last 50 or 100 yrs? a trillion dollars total or maybe more? Do you think this money has been put to good use? In your opinion have the results been good? Maybe all the money spent on cancer research should be greatly reduced. What do you think?

Seems like a better thing to spend money on than a lot of shit the US spends money on.

I encourage anyone thinking about donating to cancer research to take a biology 101 level class.

Saying "I'm researching a cure for cancer" is like saying "I'm researching a cure for old age". Giving them more money will not help anyone.
---

Hariel posted...

I encourage anyone thinking about donating to cancer research to take a biology 101 level class.

Saying "I'm researching a cure for cancer" is like saying "I'm researching a cure for old age". Giving them more money will not help anyone.

yeah i kinda agree with you good post

The ultra elite wealthy families operating in secrecy (higher than the illuminati) kill/silence anyone who finds a cure anyway. Just saying.

Population control. They don't care.
---

Hariel posted...

I encourage anyone thinking about donating to cancer research to take a biology 101 level class.

Saying "I'm researching a cure for cancer" is like saying "I'm researching a cure for old age". Giving them more money will not help anyone.

There are people who actually believe this, yikes.

I was ready to type out about 30 reasons why you're completely off base, but on second thought, I'm not going to dignify this with a real response.
---

Hariel posted...

I encourage anyone thinking about donating to cancer research to take a biology 101 level class.

Saying "I'm researching a cure for cancer" is like saying "I'm researching a cure for old age". Giving them more money will not help anyone.

As a biology major, I totally disagree with you. Can you explain your reasoning?

What do you think?

You're probably a Republican that's ok with seeing people die.
---

I think it's better to give money for more research on specific cancers like those that are harder to find and treat.
We already have developed reliable ways of early detection of cancers such as breast cancer and cervical cancer.
I'm not saying we should stop funding them but I mean that we should maybe give more attention to other cancer forms that needs more research.

I'd also like to add that we need more awareness on dementia.
It feels like most people like to think dementia is just 'old people going nuts' or something.
---

I'm pretty sure there already is a cure, so...no.
---

I've already added the FOXDIE vaccine to my list of White House demands.
---

I think that if we're going to trim the budget anywhere, our military.would be the place to start. I'd rather see us take the lead on Fast Breeder Reactors and Molten Salt Reactors, and bringing our infrastructure in general beyond 1950's technology.
---

VenomQuietMGSV posted...

What do you think the u.s. has spent on cancer research in total within the last 50 or 100 yrs? a trillion dollars total or maybe more? Do you think this money has been put to good use? In your opinion have the results been good? Maybe all the money spent on cancer research should be greatly reduced. What do you think?

*rolls eyes*
---

Researching one of the world's most dangerous diseases is a bad idea?!
---

What the fuck is this topic?

Novice User
User Since: Aug 2016
Karma: 30
Active Posts: 19

Oh.
---

Erik_P posted...

What do you think?

You're probably a Republican that's ok with seeing people die.

Are you so left-wing because if the US was any more right you'd be put down for being too slow/poor?
---

Grigor_II posted...

I'm pretty sure there already is a cure, so...no.

Welp... I meant yes... >_>
---

Anything beats the military industrial complex, honestly. Giving funny hats to homeless people is far more productive.
---

Hariel posted...

I encourage anyone thinking about donating to cancer research to take a biology 101 level class.

Saying "I'm researching a cure for cancer" is like saying "I'm researching a cure for old age". Giving them more money will not help anyone.

Biological immortality isnt actually out of reach.

Probably not in the next 100 years though,

Unlucky

green dragon posted...

Hariel posted...

I encourage anyone thinking about donating to cancer research to take a biology 101 level class.

Saying "I'm researching a cure for cancer" is like saying "I'm researching a cure for old age". Giving them more money will not help anyone.

As a biology major, I totally disagree with you. Can you explain your reasoning?

Cancer is a result of decaying DNA. The technology required to affect all of the cells in a body that have out of control growth due to this issue (especially after the cells metastasize) doesn't exist and is less realistic than actually reversing the natural decay of DNA. Hence my comment about a cure for aging.
---

Hariel posted...

I encourage anyone thinking about donating to cancer research to take a biology 101 level class.

Saying "I'm researching a cure for cancer" is like saying "I'm researching a cure for old age". Giving them more money will not help anyone.

There's so much wrong with this post, I'm not even sure where to start.

How about the fact that "old age" is actually a condition that, in theory at least, is curable. We grow old because as our cells divide they also degenerate - it's effectively a genetic disease that every single person has. There are creatures out there - like the aptly named "Immortal Jellyfish" - that do not suffer this same degeneration and understanding the mechanisms that grant them their agelessness could allow us to do the same in the future (though we're, admittedly, a long ways off).

Beyond that, your "money isn't going to help" flies in the face of the fact that there have been huge strides in cancer treatment over the last 30 years that have rendered many previously deadly cancers eminently treatable. This is thanks in large part to focused research and research isn't cheap.
---

Hariel posted...

Cancer is a result of decaying DNA. The technology required to affect all of the cells in a body that have out of control growth due to this issue (especially after the cells metastasize) doesn't exist and is less realistic than actually reversing the natural decay of DNA. Hence my comment about a cure for aging.

OK, so, you know that when most people say "a cure for cancer", they're using it as a shorthand for curing a specific type or subtype of cancer, right? Not as a catch-all panacea for the general concept of runaway cellular degeneration in a manner that constitutes cancer?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Erik_P posted...

What do you think?

You're probably a Republican that's ok with seeing people die.

Are you so left-wing because if the US was any more right you'd be put down for being too slow/poor?

So you hate sick people as well and want them to die. That's all you had to say.
---

Erik_P posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Erik_P posted...

What do you think?

You're probably a Republican that's ok with seeing people die.

Are you so left-wing because if the US was any more right you'd be put down for being too slow/poor?

So you hate sick people as well and want them to die. That's all you had to say.

Shut up, Erik.
---

Hariel posted...

Cancer is a result of decaying DNA

No it isnt. Cancer is a result of dna mutations.

green dragon posted...

Hariel posted...

Cancer is a result of decaying DNA

No it isnt. Cancer is a result of dna mutations.

---

Hariel posted...

I encourage anyone thinking about donating to cancer research to take a biology 101 level class.

Saying "I'm researching a cure for cancer" is like saying "I'm researching a cure for old age". Giving them more money will not help anyone.

Don't talk on subjects ya don't grasp fam.
---