4 ms·

To be fair cancer is super overfunded and a waste of money to fund relative to lots of more easily cured third world diseases or poverty itself. Always someone

To be fair cancer is super overfunded and a waste of money to fund relative to lots of more easily cured third world diseases or poverty itself. Always someone with a better case than you.

vibrio 8y ago
"waste of money" is strong. Live with a loved one as they progress through rounds of cancer therapies and I suspect you will identify unmet need. It will change you. It's not a cancer vs infectious disease/clean water situation, both goals are valid and possible within reasonable means.
- gibybo 8y ago
  >both goals are valid and possible within reasonable means. I thought that was the point zimablue was trying to make.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Unfortunately, they compete for the same funding. We have a much more pressing issue than either: lack of working antibiotics... Cancer unsolved does not cause too many issues (it is a terrible disease nonetheless), while solving third world medical problems is mostly matter of goodwill and logistics (and comparatively cheap). But if we hit a new resistant superbug... That will decimate everywhere, everyone. Think plague combined with malaria. Talking about multidrug resistant strains of bacteria. If just one becomes reasonably virulent we are really out of luck. We need something new to have in reserve. Basic research as done in cancer research may or may not help.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > But if we hit a new resistant superbug... That will decimate everywhere, everyone. Think plague combined with malaria. Talking about multidrug resistant strains of bacteria. If just one becomes reasonably virulent we are really out of luck. AFAIR this is a bit of a dramatization. The primary threat of superbugs isn't a new super plague (which is unlikely). The danger is that a big part of our medicine will suddenly revert to preindustrial mortality rates - surgeries that are routine today will become life-threatening, including probably anything you do at the dentist's. Imagine getting a cut in the kitchen, going to hospital for stitches, and ending up in a body bag. This alone will be both seriously deadly and disruptive to the economy. It is a serious issue indeed.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      Probably closer to 19th century rates right after aseptic techniques are introduced. But I completely agree it would be disastrous nonetheless. The actual major problem would be hospital acquired infections not directly related to surgery. We have some really good asepsis nowadays but it cannot be maintained too long, is expensive and hard to scale.
    - vibrio 8y ago
      100% this, for sure. you don't have to sell me I'm a microbiologist-- my username here is a tribute to a bacterial genus that drives cholera, necrotizing fasciitis and other nasty stuff. We need new antibiotics now, and it is an economic problem at least as much as a scientific one. The basis for my post is the implication that funding cancer research is a "waste", which I disagree with.
      - wiz21c 8y ago
        since you're a microbiologist : is the threat to health you describe that bad ? I mean, when I read you, it's Michael Crichton level dystopia stuff.
        vibrio 8y ago
        Michael Crichton/Outbreak type stuff isn't what scares me. It is going into a hospital for a routine hernia surgery or dental surgery and getting an infection that responds to nothing. It could happen right now, but is unlikely. The chances will increase as antibiotic resistance spreads. It's not people screaming in the streets, it a more gradual change to a new normal where routine care may no longer be routine, with maybe occasional bursts of incidence at some hospital or other. There will be a lag-time to making new antibiotics, and honestly it's not now an area of focus for Pharma for economic reasons.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  I can point directly to a close friend who'd died of a particulaar forrm of cancer in the 1980s. There's been no effective advance in therapy since then. There hadn't been any since the late 1950s. Some conditions are simply resistant to improved theerapies. (CRISPR or similar direct genetic editing might break the logjam. But it's been a long time. And my friend remains very dead.) Rather than high-tech aadvances, increased and consistently available medical care and public health measures would be vastly more effective. And always have been.

To be fair cancer is super overfunded and a waste of money to fund relative to lots of more easily cured third world diseases or poverty itself. Always someone with a better case than you.

vibrio 8y ago

"waste of money" is strong. Live with a loved one as they progress through rounds of cancer therapies and I suspect you will identify unmet need. It will change you. It's not a cancer vs infectious disease/clean water situation, both goals are valid and possible within reasonable means.

gibybo 8y ago
>both goals are valid and possible within reasonable means. I thought that was the point zimablue was trying to make.
AstralStorm 8y ago
Unfortunately, they compete for the same funding. We have a much more pressing issue than either: lack of working antibiotics... Cancer unsolved does not cause too many issues (it is a terrible disease nonetheless), while solving third world medical problems is mostly matter of goodwill and logistics (and comparatively cheap). But if we hit a new resistant superbug... That will decimate everywhere, everyone. Think plague combined with malaria. Talking about multidrug resistant strains of bacteria. If just one becomes reasonably virulent we are really out of luck. We need something new to have in reserve. Basic research as done in cancer research may or may not help.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > But if we hit a new resistant superbug... That will decimate everywhere, everyone. Think plague combined with malaria. Talking about multidrug resistant strains of bacteria. If just one becomes reasonably virulent we are really out of luck. AFAIR this is a bit of a dramatization. The primary threat of superbugs isn't a new super plague (which is unlikely). The danger is that a big part of our medicine will suddenly revert to preindustrial mortality rates - surgeries that are routine today will become life-threatening, including probably anything you do at the dentist's. Imagine getting a cut in the kitchen, going to hospital for stitches, and ending up in a body bag. This alone will be both seriously deadly and disruptive to the economy. It is a serious issue indeed.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Probably closer to 19th century rates right after aseptic techniques are introduced. But I completely agree it would be disastrous nonetheless. The actual major problem would be hospital acquired infections not directly related to surgery. We have some really good asepsis nowadays but it cannot be maintained too long, is expensive and hard to scale.
  - vibrio 8y ago
    100% this, for sure. you don't have to sell me I'm a microbiologist-- my username here is a tribute to a bacterial genus that drives cholera, necrotizing fasciitis and other nasty stuff. We need new antibiotics now, and it is an economic problem at least as much as a scientific one. The basis for my post is the implication that funding cancer research is a "waste", which I disagree with.
    - wiz21c 8y ago
      since you're a microbiologist : is the threat to health you describe that bad ? I mean, when I read you, it's Michael Crichton level dystopia stuff.
      - vibrio 8y ago
        Michael Crichton/Outbreak type stuff isn't what scares me. It is going into a hospital for a routine hernia surgery or dental surgery and getting an infection that responds to nothing. It could happen right now, but is unlikely. The chances will increase as antibiotic resistance spreads. It's not people screaming in the streets, it a more gradual change to a new normal where routine care may no longer be routine, with maybe occasional bursts of incidence at some hospital or other. There will be a lag-time to making new antibiotics, and honestly it's not now an area of focus for Pharma for economic reasons.
dredmorbius 8y ago
I can point directly to a close friend who'd died of a particulaar forrm of cancer in the 1980s. There's been no effective advance in therapy since then. There hadn't been any since the late 1950s. Some conditions are simply resistant to improved theerapies. (CRISPR or similar direct genetic editing might break the logjam. But it's been a long time. And my friend remains very dead.) Rather than high-tech aadvances, increased and consistently available medical care and public health measures would be vastly more effective. And always have been.