Kabuki Waq
Member
Cancer definately....its so random its scary.
Great Debate: Cancer or HIV/AIDS?
- Thread starter pnjtony
- Start date
- Status
loxy:
Well, the distinction you raise regarding the demographics of the people generally affected by the respective diseases is something I had honestly not considered, and it's a valid point. In general, all lives carry equal weight, but you're correct in that if one ailment disproportionately affects the "working" segment of society, then it would ultimately have a greater impact (economically, at least; other aspects obviously can't be quantified) on the nation in question. An interesting perspective.
And I never meant to suggest that all people contracted HIV through freely chosen behavior, since I did mention blood transfusions; the HIV babies are, of course, another affected segment of society who had no hand in their fate. Also keep in mind that when you talk of education and medical infrastructure advances being made in these developing nations, you are speaking of precautions that could actually be taken, and which would largely stem the spread of the disease-- so no matter how difficult it is (and will be, since it has to be done regardless), the fact remains that education and public health initiatives can work to combat the spread of HIV. With cancer, no amount of education would have any effect except for things such as lung cancer, which could be reduced if fewer people smoked. And I'm pretty sure that most people who smoke, in developed nations at least, realize that it's carcinogenic.
We're entitled to our own opinions on this matter, however, so I'll leave it at that.
Obviously, wiping out either one would be great, so this is all an academic debate. We'll take whatever we can get. I'd also like to commend you for your service in the developing nations you spoke of, since from what I gather from your post, you've worked extensively there to combat the spread of the disease. That's great.
Ok, three smileys in one paragraph-- I'm done now.
Well, the distinction you raise regarding the demographics of the people generally affected by the respective diseases is something I had honestly not considered, and it's a valid point. In general, all lives carry equal weight, but you're correct in that if one ailment disproportionately affects the "working" segment of society, then it would ultimately have a greater impact (economically, at least; other aspects obviously can't be quantified) on the nation in question. An interesting perspective.
And I never meant to suggest that all people contracted HIV through freely chosen behavior, since I did mention blood transfusions; the HIV babies are, of course, another affected segment of society who had no hand in their fate. Also keep in mind that when you talk of education and medical infrastructure advances being made in these developing nations, you are speaking of precautions that could actually be taken, and which would largely stem the spread of the disease-- so no matter how difficult it is (and will be, since it has to be done regardless), the fact remains that education and public health initiatives can work to combat the spread of HIV. With cancer, no amount of education would have any effect except for things such as lung cancer, which could be reduced if fewer people smoked. And I'm pretty sure that most people who smoke, in developed nations at least, realize that it's carcinogenic.
We're entitled to our own opinions on this matter, however, so I'll leave it at that.
Obviously, wiping out either one would be great, so this is all an academic debate. We'll take whatever we can get. I'd also like to commend you for your service in the developing nations you spoke of, since from what I gather from your post, you've worked extensively there to combat the spread of the disease. That's great. Ok, three smileys in one paragraph-- I'm done now.
siamesedreamer
Banned
Since I have cancer right now (a synovial cell sarcoma - soft tissue tumor - on the back of my neck) and I'm going through the agony that is chemotherapy, I will go with cancer.
To the dude above who said its so random its scary. Right on man. I'm 27, never smoked, a college athlete, and generally more healthy than the average individual. If I can get cancer, then anyone can get cancer.
For those interested, y'all can check ou my website at www.joshdavis.net.
To the dude above who said its so random its scary. Right on man. I'm 27, never smoked, a college athlete, and generally more healthy than the average individual. If I can get cancer, then anyone can get cancer.
For those interested, y'all can check ou my website at www.joshdavis.net.
AIDS. It's devastating Africa, it's fueling all sorts of brain-dead homophobia (even though you're more likely to get AIDS if you're black, or if you're poor, than if you're gay, according to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), and it generally creeps me the fuck out.
Date of Lies
Banned
Don't you just wish you could do it with anyone you want anytime you want? I mean there's no pill to prevent HIV.
Fair enough Loki.
I had a feeling that the responses to the thread would be more heavily weighted in favor of eradicating Cancer because (and I'm assuming alot here) more people here have a more personal experience with Cancer. Hence why I didn't want to get into too many details regarding my response. The last thing I want is to come across as unsympathetic to victims of cancer (any form of cancer).
One more thing. I personally haven't worked with AIDS/HIV patients but people in my immediate family are very involved in improving health care services in developing nations in sub-saharan Africa (any praise you are giving me rightfully belongs to them =). However, I have seen what the situation is like, so I have something close to a first-hand account of what it's actually like.
I had a feeling that the responses to the thread would be more heavily weighted in favor of eradicating Cancer because (and I'm assuming alot here) more people here have a more personal experience with Cancer. Hence why I didn't want to get into too many details regarding my response. The last thing I want is to come across as unsympathetic to victims of cancer (any form of cancer).
One more thing. I personally haven't worked with AIDS/HIV patients but people in my immediate family are very involved in improving health care services in developing nations in sub-saharan Africa (any praise you are giving me rightfully belongs to them =). However, I have seen what the situation is like, so I have something close to a first-hand account of what it's actually like.
Loki said:
This is exactly why I questioned whether I was interpreting the question correctly, to me eradicate means in this case to get rid of all existing cancer or HIV/AIDS, prevention is not necessarily implied. if the question was along the line of permanant prevention of AIDS or cancer, then I'd choose cancer.
:lol :lol :lolSKluck said:
Best post ever!
Lighten up man. They're just jokes, if you don't find them funny, it just means that you have a different sense of humor from those two posters. I'm sure they know how terrible AIDS is and I'm sure they both realize that people can get AIDS from things like heterosexual sex, blood transfusions, and even contact sports. They're not ignorant, they're just funny.FoneBone said:
HIV/AIDS. As has been said, it has a much greater effect on segments of the world', not just its victims. Since cancer largely affects the elderly, its economic and social repercussions aren't as bad. If you cure someone who has cancer, you'll (on *average*) add 20-30 years to their life. If you cure an HIV patient, you might be adding 50 years of life, a good portion of which are economically valuable. I know it sounds all cold hearted and calculated, but someone's age is the major variable when considering how "valuable" they are to society.
Also, everyone is saying that cancer is totally random and AIDS is preventable. Tell me, how many of those 7.5 million cancer deaths are a direct result of smoking? 1/3 of them? How many in the western world are because of obesity and poor dieting? How many new HIV cases are children born with the diseases? It's not as simple as saying "those poor, innocent cancer victims should live over those immoral, stupid, sex obsessed AIDS patients". Even something like breast cancer, which I'm sure you guys would label as a "random" disease, is due mostly to life style: the incidence rate is almost three times as high for more developed regions than less developed regions (WHO, 2002). Prostate cancer's incidence rate is 10 times as high. Etc.
Both are terrible health crisis and there is no simple answer, though.
Also, everyone is saying that cancer is totally random and AIDS is preventable. Tell me, how many of those 7.5 million cancer deaths are a direct result of smoking? 1/3 of them? How many in the western world are because of obesity and poor dieting? How many new HIV cases are children born with the diseases? It's not as simple as saying "those poor, innocent cancer victims should live over those immoral, stupid, sex obsessed AIDS patients". Even something like breast cancer, which I'm sure you guys would label as a "random" disease, is due mostly to life style: the incidence rate is almost three times as high for more developed regions than less developed regions (WHO, 2002). Prostate cancer's incidence rate is 10 times as high. Etc.
Both are terrible health crisis and there is no simple answer, though.
Cancer does not just affect the elderly. Thats like saying AIDS only affects gays. Ask B'z-chan and siamesedreamer what it is like being elderly. You never heard of leukemia, testicular cancer and skin cancer. Not to mention most of the other cancers which start to become a risk at fourty which is far from elderly.
Yeah because all people with AIDS are under thirty years old. And most of the third world is lucky to live fifty years without either disease.
How the fuck are those part of a lifestyle? I mean you can disagree like Loki, loxy and myself have been but you don't have to be a completely moron about it. Both disease are bad and no one seriously dicussing this said "those poor, innocent cancer victims should live over those immoral, stupid, x obsessed AIDS patients".
Cancer is caused by genetic mutation of cells. Every time a cell copies its DNA, portions of its DNA are truncated. The cell at first truncates meaningless data that has no effect on the operation of the cell, however as the cell copies its DNA over and over again, more and more data gets truncated which eventually leads to the truncation of vital information and mutation. The more times a cell reproduces, the more likely it is to mutate. This is why things that kill cells, such as smoke and other pollutants cause cancer. This is also why old people are more likely to have cancer than young people and why young people get cancer such as testicular, leukemia, and breast cancer (these are all parts of the anatomy which have cells that copy themselves many times). This is also why everyone develops cancer if they do not die from something else first. To say that only old people get cancer is of course wrong, but to say that there is no relationship between age and cancer risk is also wrong.android said:
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
Anyone who says Aids/HIV is completely coocoo or just lack the brain capacity to realize how crappy cancer is and how huge it is.
i mean...you can fricken get cancer anywhere in your body almost for a Multitude of reasons....
skin cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer (possible the worst), breast cancer, etc etc etc etc....
And just about everyone may end up with some form of cancer before they die...
sorry..if i had to choose it would be cancer...and that should be a ditto from everyone else.
peace
i mean...you can fricken get cancer anywhere in your body almost for a Multitude of reasons....
skin cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer (possible the worst), breast cancer, etc etc etc etc....
And just about everyone may end up with some form of cancer before they die...
sorry..if i had to choose it would be cancer...and that should be a ditto from everyone else.
peace
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
sonarrat said:
yea? what if you get testicular cancer tomorrow?
i wouldnt have to wait 30 years...
I know how cancer works and you are the last person to be correcting me after you comments earlier in the thread. I was commenting on the "Since cancer largely affects the elderly, its economic and social repercussions aren't as bad." comment. That's jut wrong and is no better than saying "gays get AIDS" Try taking a walk through a childrens hospital cancer ward and then say the disease mainly affects the elderly. More importantly the elderly are valuable members of our society who should not be dismissed as unimportant. But really i'm tired of discussing what amounts to nothing more than what pot is blacker. They are both horrible. Anyone one seriously discussing it in this thread, put down neither disease, unlike you .
Kids can get cancer -> cancer doesn't mainly affect the elderly. Sorry man, that's a non sequitor.android said:
http://www.tapirisat.ca/health/cancer-registry-graph07.php
As you can see from this graph, there is a correlation between age and cancer. Cases of cancer start to pick up at around 35 for women and 40 for men and max at around 50 for women and 65 for men.
http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_html/ExecSummary_en/Execsumm_en.pdf2004 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic said:
android said:
When did I say cancer just affects the elderly? I said it *largely* affects the elderly, which is true. The chart just posted in this thread shows this. Don't ridicule me over something I didn't even say.
In contrast, saying AIDS only affects gays is a blatant lie, considering almost half of all HIV patients are women, and that figure is rising
Ummm....those aren't part of a lifestyle, but developed vs. non-developed country is indicative of huge differences in diet, excercise, and ingestion of carcinogens. For example, obesity dramatically increases the risk for almost all type of cancers, especially those of the breast, colon, and kidney (link. Combine that with the major cause of skin cancer (UV radiation) and the afrorementioned lung cancer (the world's biggest cancer killer), and it's undeniable that basic health issues are a major factor in the cancer epidemic.
And I fail to see how using consistent logic supported by actual facts is somehow moronic.
No one is saying exactly that but when posts say things like "Normal people get cancer, +1 Cancer", they might as well be. Both are devestating diseases, and when answering the original question I'm just trying to objectively think which has a greater effect on people's lives worldwide now and in the upcoming years. No need to baselessly lambast me for that.
I don't think you get it. I'm not saying they're unimportant, nor am I saying that no children get cancer. I am saying that if you look at portions Africa, the fact that (because of HIV) a large porportion of their 15-40 year olds are dying is absolutely crippling to all parts of society. It means that a country's main working and labor force, which economically holds up the society, is being eliminated. They have families who are dependent on them. Furthermore, a generation of children is being left as orphans. In the real world, who is dying is really important, especially if you consider the effects the disease has on non-infected segments of the population.
HIV prevention isn't 100% (condoms aren't 100% reliable etc.). Even if you're talking about choosing complete abstention from anything that could even remotely transmit HIV, for some there is no choice - the child born with HIV, for example, or the person contracting it from a blood transfusion. I'm sure millions of kids have died and will die because of HIV transmission in the womb.
So it's a harder question for me. Also slightly harder given that many types of cancer are treatable to the point of a cure, whereas HIV/AIDs isn't. Also, how many people die and are going to die of HIV/AIDs versus Cancer? (This is an honest question, not a suggestion that HIV is killing more people, though I wouldn't be surprised if it is).
There's also the little twist of many people who have HIV subsequently developing cancer opportunistically and dying of it
To be honest, I don't know. It's a tough question.
So it's a harder question for me. Also slightly harder given that many types of cancer are treatable to the point of a cure, whereas HIV/AIDs isn't. Also, how many people die and are going to die of HIV/AIDs versus Cancer? (This is an honest question, not a suggestion that HIV is killing more people, though I wouldn't be surprised if it is).
There's also the little twist of many people who have HIV subsequently developing cancer opportunistically and dying of it
To be honest, I don't know. It's a tough question.
android said:
Grrr....and I meant lifestyle. It's not the enviroment that's the reason between the difference in cancer rates among different parts of the world, it's the lifestyle associated with people living in those areas. People in the developed world are more likely to be obese, for example, and that obesity increases their risk for cancer. I just used the "enviroment" data as an indication of lifestyle. And really, that's what "more developed" vs. "less developed" is a statistic of: the lifestyles of different economic levels of people worldwide.
HIV has become a chronic illness. People can get it and still lead a normal life for tens of years. Maybe even the rest of their life until something else kills them. Cancer starts killing you from the day you get it and cancer can be extremely aggressive to the point where it can't be treated.
Everyone can get cancer. HIV mainly affects the ignorant or careless. There are simple solutions to prevent getting HIV. There are none that prevent getting cancer.
Everyone can get cancer. HIV mainly affects the ignorant or careless. There are simple solutions to prevent getting HIV. There are none that prevent getting cancer.
Fatghost28 said:
I dunno dude...I just went by the first official link I found. Here's something off the WHO website:
World Health Organization said:
Seen here.
Granted, these are statistics for 2000, but I'd imagine that the rate hasn't fluctuated more than 10% or so in the last few years. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-8 million sounds about right to me; the website I looked at earlier (which I can't find now) said 7.5 million, which is what I originally quoted. I can't imagine these numbers (particularly the WHO #'s) being 80-100% off.
Well, my Dad's cancer, Non-Hodgekins Lymphoma (well, Emory is still working on what exact type). Being this is his 2nd go through on it, the first was brought on later in life from Agent Orange in Vietnam. While his 57 now, it was over 8 years ago when he had it the first time. So no, his lifestyle didn't bring about this.
siamesedreamer said:
My wife had cancer when she was 18 (it was either a sarcoma or they thought it was and were wrong - I'm pretty sure it was), and is now considered fully cured. She didn't have to go through radiation or chemo, but recovery from the removal was pretty bad. I can't imagine what going through chemo is like. I wish you the best.
- Status