-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Great Debate: Cancer or HIV/AIDS?
- Thread starter pnjtony
- Start date
- Status
The Faceless Master
Member
cancer
because it's something that really can't be avoided easily
because it's something that really can't be avoided easily
Ford Prefect
GAAAAAAAAY
Cancer, since I'm not planning on having anal sex any time soon.
HIV/AIDS why? I may be interpreting your meaning of eradicate inccorectly but say you get rid of all cancer, it will just come back as people get older. Where as if you get rid of HIV/AIDS in people and animals or wherever else it is, then it's gone for good, it's as if it never existed.
kablooey said:Would you mind elaborating why? Just curious.
I don't really want to get into an argument over one or the other here.
I think it's a little bit unfair to consider all cancer as a solitary unit. Certain types of cancer are preventble and certain types of cancer can be "cured" through early detection. The same can't be said for AIDS/HIV. While it may be fully preventable in developed nations, such as the United States, with a good healthcare infrastructure, the same can't be said for developing nations.
AIDS/HIV is the greatest health threat facing the world today.
Fatghost28 said:
yeep as someone who is undergoing treatment for cancer and is winning its a bitch, but i kind of would rather see more advancements in AID's, Diabetes, and other autoimmue type diseases. But who knows what kind of door that will open for cancer research. I'm sure nanite s will be able to fix us up in 10-15 years.
loxy said:
There are far more people in my family (6) from grandparents down who have or died from cancer. In fact I don't think I know anyone with HIV/AIDS. Cancer as a whole is the far bigger problem in our world. Granted some can be prevented (not smoking, chewing tobacco) but so can HIV/AIDS (condoms, no interveneous drug use)
Agent Dormer
Dirty Drinking Smoker
Cancer.
max_cool said:
....
Loki said:Do you know what the words "completely eradicated" mean?
You do realize that this is a hypothetical question, and that it's assumed that "completely eradicated" means exactly that-- that any recurrence would also be able to be dealt with via whatever cure we're supposing here.
loxy said:
By the numbers:
Cancer deaths per year: ~7.5 million
AIDS/HIV-related deaths per year: ~3.4 million
It's just as easy to abstain from sex or have protected sex and (most likely) avoid AIDS as it is to not smoke and (most likely) avoid lung cancer. So it's the same in that sense, except that lung and perhaps throat cancer are the only forms of cancer for which overt risk factors are known (or at least the ones that the public is educated on).
And many/most cancers are not "preventable" or remediable to any significant extent also, similar to AIDS.
The fact of the matter is that one of these diseases is largely (ignoring blood transfusions) obtained through a freely chosen action, which people are cognizant of the possible repercussions of, and the other seemingly strikes at random (ignoring subcellular processes here). Now, if you say that people are not cognizant of these consequences (of contracting HIV) in the developing world, then obviously we need to go about educating people. There's no argument there. However, keep in mind that if we chose to eradicate HIV/AIDS instead of cancer (as you propose), no amount of "education" would ever eliminate most of the 7 million deaths attributable to cancer worldwide each year, unlike what would happen with AIDS if we properly educated people.
You're right-- heart disease is. However, as compared to HIV/AIDS worldwide, again:
Cancer deaths per year: ~7.5 million
AIDS/HIV-related deaths per year: ~3.4 million
I'm not sure why you're asserting that AIDS is the bigger health "crisis". Perhaps because HIV/AIDS cases have the potential for somewhat exponential growth whereas cancer (i.e., mutation) rates are relatively stable give or take a couple of percentage points (due to increased exposure to risk factors)? That's a separate issue from what should be considered for the purposes of this topic, imo.
No. The total death toll for HIV/AIDS is 524,060 with 929,985 with what I assume is full blown Aids. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#ddaids Out of 300 million Americans thats nothing. Africa, Asia, fine it is a epedemic. But Cancer is a far bigger problem in the western world. As far as Cancer here is another link to the CDC. Try reading the first paragraph.loxy said:
http://www.cdc.gov/node.do/id/0900f3ec80193c0d
Fatghost28 said:
Took the first legit-looking link I found:
http://pharmalicensing.com/features/disp/1107184270_41fe4a8e6afc7
Halfway down:
Worldwide :
Living with HIV (end of 2003) 35.7 million adults
New HIV infections (2003) 4.8 million
HIV/AIDS-associated illness-caused deaths (2003) 2.9 million
I'll try to fish around the NIH or WHO websites for their stats.
NLB2 said:
So its a horrible experiment gone wrong developed by the US government to get out of Social Security? I see i see =P Yes i can laugh, but seriously i dont hate old people.
Its just sad that you cant really prevent cancer cause there are so many types, and they usually all are environmental in nature. So either we evolve, find a cure, or fight.
HIV mutates so much. What if it mutated so that it can be exchanged by air? I'm not a medical researcher or anything so I don't know if it's possible, but if that happened, it would kill off 99% of the world's population.
If that's not a possibility, cancer because some people get it because of genetics or other non-fault reasons. However there is a good percentage of people that get cancer that could avoid it by not smoking and eating healthier.
So on a reasonable consideration, medical science should focus on those related cancers. Not focus too much on lung cancer or anything.
Edit: No, wait. I'd kill off HIV/AIDs. You have to consider other nations. Like in some African nations, where the average woman is raped by age 30 at least once, people die when its not their fault. Most cancers can be avoided by healthy lifesytles. So defintely HIV/AIDs.
If that's not a possibility, cancer because some people get it because of genetics or other non-fault reasons. However there is a good percentage of people that get cancer that could avoid it by not smoking and eating healthier.
So on a reasonable consideration, medical science should focus on those related cancers. Not focus too much on lung cancer or anything.
Edit: No, wait. I'd kill off HIV/AIDs. You have to consider other nations. Like in some African nations, where the average woman is raped by age 30 at least once, people die when its not their fault. Most cancers can be avoided by healthy lifesytles. So defintely HIV/AIDs.
I'd rather get rid of cancer than HIV.
Mainly because HIV is something that you contract while cancer is often times random and beyond your control, something that you develop over time.
If you don't want HIV, just don't fuck around with anyone or take drugs. If you don't want cancer, well, too bad, you might get it anyway.
Mainly because HIV is something that you contract while cancer is often times random and beyond your control, something that you develop over time.
If you don't want HIV, just don't fuck around with anyone or take drugs. If you don't want cancer, well, too bad, you might get it anyway.
It is so difficult to discuss this issue because there are so many facets to AIDS/HIV that I won't be able to cover and also because there is no distinction between the different types of cancer.
What percentage of that 7.5 million were elderly people aged 70+?
What percentage of that 7.5 million were smokers?
The problem with AIDS/HIV is that almost everyone that dies from it is from what we consider the productive, younger members of society. Making it far more devastating to society. Furthermore, there is an entire generation of children made orphans from the disease. The number of death's per year don't do anything to illustrate the true nature of AIDS/HIV. There are millions of people infected with AIDS/HIV and the rate of infection is steadily on the rise.
It's not the same. Don't assume that everyone in the world is educated on AIDS/HIV and has the means to protect themselves or get tested. Not to mention the poor state of healthcare infrastructure in developing nations. Jesus Christ, if people in developing nations are having trouble getting penecillin how will they be able to get proper treatment for AIDS/HIV?
Not everyone who has AIDS/HIV has the disease as a result of unprotected sex. How would you account for the millions of infants around the world infected with the disease?
I completely agree with you that people need to be educated on AIDS/HIV but it's easier said than done. Educating the people I have dealt with in the developing world would require nothing short of a social revolution. Do you have any idea how much time and money would be required to accomplish such a feat?
AIDS is the bigger health crisis because there is much greater fallout from the effects of the disease than Cancer. The difference between AIDS/HIV and Cancer is that AIDS/HIV affects the working class of people. That is not to say that Cancer exclusively affects the elderly but granted this is an important distinction when it comes to judging which has had a greater effect on society. Entire generations of people have been affected by AIDS/HIV and the situation is only going to get worse.
Look, I'm sorry if my opinion offends you or anyone else but the thread asked which disease I would rather be rid of and I answered with what I thought was the more pressing matter. AIDS/HIV is only going to get worse before it gets better, I don't think the same can be said for Cancer in general.
What percentage of that 7.5 million were elderly people aged 70+?
What percentage of that 7.5 million were smokers?
The problem with AIDS/HIV is that almost everyone that dies from it is from what we consider the productive, younger members of society. Making it far more devastating to society. Furthermore, there is an entire generation of children made orphans from the disease. The number of death's per year don't do anything to illustrate the true nature of AIDS/HIV. There are millions of people infected with AIDS/HIV and the rate of infection is steadily on the rise.
It's not the same. Don't assume that everyone in the world is educated on AIDS/HIV and has the means to protect themselves or get tested. Not to mention the poor state of healthcare infrastructure in developing nations. Jesus Christ, if people in developing nations are having trouble getting penecillin how will they be able to get proper treatment for AIDS/HIV?
Not everyone who has AIDS/HIV has the disease as a result of unprotected sex. How would you account for the millions of infants around the world infected with the disease?
I completely agree with you that people need to be educated on AIDS/HIV but it's easier said than done. Educating the people I have dealt with in the developing world would require nothing short of a social revolution. Do you have any idea how much time and money would be required to accomplish such a feat?
AIDS is the bigger health crisis because there is much greater fallout from the effects of the disease than Cancer. The difference between AIDS/HIV and Cancer is that AIDS/HIV affects the working class of people. That is not to say that Cancer exclusively affects the elderly but granted this is an important distinction when it comes to judging which has had a greater effect on society. Entire generations of people have been affected by AIDS/HIV and the situation is only going to get worse.
Look, I'm sorry if my opinion offends you or anyone else but the thread asked which disease I would rather be rid of and I answered with what I thought was the more pressing matter. AIDS/HIV is only going to get worse before it gets better, I don't think the same can be said for Cancer in general.
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
SKluck said:
Normal people don't get aids?
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Cerebral Palsy said:
AIDs is a disease localized to the vagrant homoseksuals in society. For more enlightenment, head to godhatesfags.com, godhatesamerica.com, godhatesyou.com, and godhatesgod.com.
-jinx- said:
People are tards. :|
android said:
A greater portion of the worlds population lives in what we call the developing world so, no I'm not convinced that Cancer is a greater health issue than AIDS/HIV. I am sorry, but we are not going to see eye to eye on this matter.
As a side note to consider (not directed at you specifically), the treatments available for the various types of Cancer are far more advanced than the treatments available for HIV/AIDS.
The Interrobanger
Member
Wow, the ignorance in this thread is quite disturbing.
Ford Prefect
GAAAAAAAAY
demon, I think this is the perfect time to tell you that I effing love your avatar.
Luckily none of my immediate family has/died from cancer, just aunts, uncles, and cousins, so I hope I didn't make it seem like I was facing it on a daily basis. As far as the world, you did say United States. And cancer deaths are far more deadly on a world wide basis anyways. Ask those around you what they fear more AIDS or cancer. AIDS is a preventable diease, so I believe proper protection and knowledge is far more essential to the elimination of HIV/AIDS. That is the reason contraction of this disease is far less prevalent in the West. These third world citizens should be taught proper prevention. Most there are completely misinformed about the disease. In some African countries some believe sex with a virgin will cure them. Proper education and free protection is the way we will curb the AIDS epedemic. Cancer can't be prevented in this way. (aside from tobacco related) Let's agree to disagree and agree that they are both horribleloxy said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked