3 ms·

I see your point, but considering that there are almost no advances in cancer treatment over last decades (despite all that research), may be it would make some

I see your point, but considering that there are almost no advances in cancer treatment over last decades (despite all that research), may be it would make some sense to spend some of that money to help sick people? Especially 2 year old kid with such rare type of cancer? In fact trying to help him could be a great research in itself, but looks like it's not something they are interested in.

MichaelGG 14y ago
Even if there were no advancements, which is certainly not the case, no, it would still probably not be a good use of the money. If all forms of cancer are simply unsolvable (not the case), then research would be better spent on researching other diseases, working to change healthcare so the costs are not extremely expensive, and so on. And why spend $100K+ to save one child? Why not that money, to, say, feed many starving children? Or build housing? If "trying to help him" would be a form of "great research", then chances are someone would be interested in it. You might need to realise that he is simply unlucky. But not necessarily any more unlucky than a child that gets polio, or has their skin burned off, or is left brain damaged from a car accident. It's complicated and sad, but denouncing long-term investment because of immediate sad situations will only create more sad situations.
onedev 14y ago
So do you propose we just stop cancer research just because there have been no immediate advances? "Trying to help him could be a great research in itself" Only if you volunteered your nephew as a test subject to go through unproven clinical trials.
adaml_623 14y ago
I'm sorry about your nephew. But I'd like to tell you that actually cancer treatment has gotten better: http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Newsroom/LivingAfterCancerMedianCancerSurvivalTimes.pdf http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Newsroom/Livin... The situation isn't great and that report highlights the problems. And rare cancers are not going to attract research effort until the common ones are solved. But fundamental research is what is required. And I believe that rich philanthropists are going to remain an essential part in funding that research.
forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
"I see your point, but considering that there are almost no advances in cancer treatment over last decades (despite all that research)" I understand your hopeless feelings, but this is totally false. My uncle is oncologist.There has been a tremendous advance over the last decades, not as much as we want but it improves. "may be it would make some sense to spend some of that money to help sick people?" Some of this money is already being spent on them. I don't know in USA but in Europe it is. For me the best use of this money should be prevention, like less diesel and cancerous particles in cities, better quality food, and less flame retardant in our polar linings or bed foams.

MichaelGG 14y ago

Even if there were no advancements, which is certainly not the case, no, it would still probably not be a good use of the money. If all forms of cancer are simply unsolvable (not the case), then research would be better spent on researching other diseases, working to change healthcare so the costs are not extremely expensive, and so on. And why spend $100K+ to save one child? Why not that money, to, say, feed many starving children? Or build housing? If "trying to help him" would be a form of "great research", then chances are someone would be interested in it. You might need to realise that he is simply unlucky. But not necessarily any more unlucky than a child that gets polio, or has their skin burned off, or is left brain damaged from a car accident. It's complicated and sad, but denouncing long-term investment because of immediate sad situations will only create more sad situations.

onedev 14y ago

So do you propose we just stop cancer research just because there have been no immediate advances? "Trying to help him could be a great research in itself" Only if you volunteered your nephew as a test subject to go through unproven clinical trials.

adaml_623 14y ago

I'm sorry about your nephew. But I'd like to tell you that actually cancer treatment has gotten better: http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Newsroom/LivingAfterCancerMedianCancerSurvivalTimes.pdf http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Newsroom/Livin... The situation isn't great and that report highlights the problems. And rare cancers are not going to attract research effort until the common ones are solved. But fundamental research is what is required. And I believe that rich philanthropists are going to remain an essential part in funding that research.

forgottenpaswrd 14y ago

"I see your point, but considering that there are almost no advances in cancer treatment over last decades (despite all that research)" I understand your hopeless feelings, but this is totally false. My uncle is oncologist.There has been a tremendous advance over the last decades, not as much as we want but it improves. "may be it would make some sense to spend some of that money to help sick people?" Some of this money is already being spent on them. I don't know in USA but in Europe it is. For me the best use of this money should be prevention, like less diesel and cancerous particles in cities, better quality food, and less flame retardant in our polar linings or bed foams.