# New Cancer Vaccine Shows Promising Results in Human Safety Tests



## Gahars (Apr 11, 2012)

I feel safe in declaring that cancer is bad; in fact, I feel safe in declaring that cancer is _really_ bad. So then, a vaccine that targets 90% of cancers would be really good, right? (That's up for you to decide. There's no right answer, except for, "yes.")

Well, scientists are creating just that. It's called ImMucin (and also proves that scientists would be terrible marketers), and its existence has been made public for a little while now (in fact, I think I did a news post about the vaccine when it was first announced). However, there weren't any trials with human test subjects to determine its effectiveness. Until now, that is.



> ImMucin, a vaccine that targets a molecule present in 90 percent of all cancers, has been tested on humans for the first time, according to researchers who found that all the blood cancer patients tested in the trial had greater immunity to the disease after receiving the drug.
> 
> Researchers from the drug maker Vaxil Biotheraputics and Tel Aviv University said that seven of the patients who have finished treatment all had significantly greater immunity against cancer cells compared to before they were given the vaccine, and three of the patients in the study are now free of the condition. Results have yet to be formally published, but if the findings are confirmed in future trials then the vaccine could be on the market in six years.
> 
> The clinical trial was conducted at the Hadassah Medical Centre in Jerusalem and consisted of ten patients with multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer that affects plasma cells in bone marrow, have now received the vaccine.


 Source: Medical Daily

While I obviously don't need to explain why saving lives is good, there's also an economic benefit. After all, seeing how costly health care costs can be, a vaccine that may mitigate many of them would certainly be a boon.

Keep your fingers crossed; if everything goes well, we might just see this in 2018. In the meantime, we can all just quote the wise words of Randall Munroe...


----------



## smile72 (Apr 11, 2012)

Cancer sucks, you are right. It's very uncomfortable.


----------



## chyyran (Apr 11, 2012)

Gahars said:


> ...In the meantime, we can all just quote the wise words of Randall Munroe...



Uh..His wise words were..
"Not Found Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching will help."..?



Anyways, inb4 someone makes an I Am Legend reference

..ohwait..

But I'm all open to saving lives


----------



## Necron (Apr 11, 2012)

I hope if this is succesful, it doesn't get turned down. You know, those costly treatments get a lot of money to a lot of people, and some of them are not going to allow this.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 11, 2012)

@[member='Punyman']

The link didn't work for you? Huh.

Well, let's see if that helps.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Apr 11, 2012)

Which cancers specifically does this vaccine target? Has that information been released?


----------



## EyeZ (Apr 11, 2012)

I recently read that cancer will affect 1 in 3 people in their lifetime (as in themselves or someone they know)  so yes, this is very encouraging news


----------



## Gahars (Apr 11, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Which cancers specifically does this vaccine target? Has that information been released?



It targets an antigen present in a wide variety of cancers. While there may be too many to list fully, the article does give a few examples...



> Researchers suggest that the new vaccine, made from a unique sequence that can be found in the MUC1 tumor associated antigen that is present in nine out of 10 cancers, could potentially be used to treat other conditions like breast, pancreatic, bowel and ovarian cancers.


----------



## pokefloote (Apr 11, 2012)

I remember reading the original story months ago, I'm happy that the solution could be near. It doesn't affect me, but who knows maybe it will in the future. Cancers a bitch.


----------



## Luigi2012SM64DS (Apr 11, 2012)

Wait a vaccine for cancer? yes


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Apr 11, 2012)

I always hear about families losing mothers, sisters, daughters, etc. to breast cancer. I've heard it too many times now. I pray this comes sooner than later


----------



## Janthran (Apr 11, 2012)

But good and bad don't exist in some worldviews, so it's discriminatory to say that something is "really bad".
What if it's only bad for you?


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Apr 11, 2012)

Janthran said:


> But good and bad don't exist in some worldviews, so it's discriminatory to say that something is "really bad".
> What if it's only bad for you?



Cancer has a benefit?


----------



## Zetta_x (Apr 11, 2012)

This topic makes me sick - pun intended

Everything has a win and lose situation. Guess how much we have learned about the human system by studying cancer. So while some biased views will see this as only a benefit, if no one had cancer, tons of people who went through years of college will have no where to work, the medical education would be severely undeveloped.

We learn from our sorrows, life needs to have an equal balance of sad and happiness -- our skewedness perspective on the world has many flaws.


----------



## EyeZ (Apr 11, 2012)

Janthran said:


> But good and bad don't exist in some worldviews, so it's discriminatory to say that something is "really bad".
> What if it's only bad for you?



The topic is about cancer, so that's not bad for all?


----------



## Luigi2012SM64DS (Apr 11, 2012)

Janthran said:


> But good and bad don't exist in some worldviews, so it's discriminatory to say that something is "really bad".
> What if it's only bad for you?


Cancer killing someone close to you is a good thing? especially if they are young?


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Apr 11, 2012)

Zetta_x said:


> This topic makes me sick - pun intended
> 
> Everything has a win and lose situation. Guess how much we have learned about the human system by studying cancer. So while some biased views will see this as only a benefit, if no one had cancer, tons of people who went through years of college will have no where to work, the medical education would be severely undeveloped.
> 
> We learn from our sorrows, life needs to have an equal balance of sad and happiness -- our skewedness perspective on the world has many flaws.



You're suggesting by curing all diseases we are essentially halting the progression of Medical science? Bullshit.


----------



## Jakob95 (Apr 11, 2012)

Wow this is amazing, hopefully this comes soon.  These Israelis are geniuses!


----------



## Janthran (Apr 11, 2012)

Excuse me, but if you're uneducated on the subject you should probably not respond to it.


----------



## LightyKD (Apr 11, 2012)

This is awesome but "I am Legend" makes me hella weary of this.  Its almost too good to be true


----------



## Densetsu (Apr 11, 2012)

I read the research article [PDF] on this a year ago.  I wouldn't get too optimistic, yet.  It _only_ targets 90%.

As good as 90% sounds, it leaves 10% of cancer cells impervious to the vaccine.  Those 10% will eventually grow to repopulate the cancer patient.

The difficulty with curing cancer is that if even 1% of the cells is left alive, they'll just grow back again.  That's why oncologists have to use multiple methods (various methods of chemotherapy + radiation) to fight cancer in one patient.  They just hope that if one method misses a few cancer cells, the other methods will pick off the remaining surviving cells.  It works _sometimes_.


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Apr 11, 2012)

Densetsu said:


> I read the research article [PDF] on this a year ago.  I wouldn't get too optimistic, yet.  It _only_ targets 90%.
> 
> As good as 90% sounds, it leaves 10% of cancer cells impervious to the vaccine.  Those 10% will eventually grow to repopulate the cancer patient.
> 
> The difficulty with curing cancer is that if even 1% of the cells is left alive, they'll just grow back again.  That's why oncologists have to use multiple methods (various methods of chemotherapy + radiation) to fight cancer in one patient.  They just hope that if one method misses a few cancer cells, the other methods will pick off the remaining surviving cells.  It works _sometimes_.


The thing is, it targets 90% of the different types of cancer, not 90% of the cells in a specific cancer. While true, cancerous cells could adapt to such methods, it still means that only 10% of different types of cancerous cells could survive. Also, as an example, if someone that had a type of cancer that this stuff could cure, it would kill it completely, whereas, someone with a different type might not be fazed by it.


----------



## Densetsu (Apr 11, 2012)

Thanatos Telos said:


> The thing is, *it targets 90% of the different types of cancer, not 90% of the cells in a specific cancer*. While true, cancerous cells could adapt to such methods, it still means that only 10% of different types of cancerous cells could survive. Also, as an example, if someone that had a type of cancer that this stuff could cure, it would kill it completely, whereas, someone with a different type might not be fazed by it.


There is no such thing as a tumor that contains a homogeneous mass of cells that all contain the same exact antigens.  If that were the case, then cancer would be very easy to cure.  But unfortunately, all of the cells in a tumor are different from each other because of random, rapid mutations.  All tumors are a heterogeneous mix of cancerous cells containing different antigens.


----------



## Zetta_x (Apr 11, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Zetta_x said:
> 
> 
> > This topic makes me sick - pun intended
> ...




No I'm saying cancer is responsible for a large part of medical progression


----------



## Gahars (Apr 11, 2012)

Zetta_x said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > Zetta_x said:
> ...



This vaccine wouldn't magically remove the countless samples of cancer cells we currently have (the ones that infinitely reproduce). We're in no danger of running out anytime soon should we ever need to take another look.


So yeah, that's hardly a reason to deny life (or at the least, better lives) to those who would otherwise be terribly afflicted.


----------



## Densetsu (Apr 11, 2012)

Zetta_x said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > Zetta_x said:
> ...


As someone who actually studies medicine, I think you're grossly underestimating how much there is to know in the field.  Cancer is just a small bit of knowledge when compared to the whole of medical knowledge.

And you could say the same argument about anything.  If we were born with jetpacks in our asses we would never need to invent airplanes.  And I'd rather the human race _never_ experience a zombie outbreak than have a cure for zombie-ism at the cost of half the population dying.


----------



## Nimbus (Apr 11, 2012)

Good lord sir, science never ceases to amaze me! A cure or rather a viable vaccine for cancer. Impressive.


----------



## OJClock (Apr 11, 2012)

Good news even though some ~cancer treatment breakthrough~ comes out every month or so

What's really interesting about this is that they actually got human test subjects to test it on


----------



## Zetta_x (Apr 11, 2012)

Densetsu said:


> Zetta_x said:
> 
> 
> > Hyro-Sama said:
> ...



Exactly, everything has a balance. That was my whole point, my point was not that cancer is good, my point was that there is never always a down side in response to people who have such biased point of views.

Everything you learned is because there existed some problem ages ago that people have figured out. The keyword: problems. 

We thank you cancer for contributing to the medical community, but now is your time to go.


----------



## Wizerzak (Apr 11, 2012)

Zetta_x said:


> This topic makes me sick - pun intended
> 
> Everything has a win and lose situation. Guess how much we have learned about the human system by studying cancer. So while some biased views will see this as only a benefit, if no one had cancer, tons of people who went through years of college will have no where to work, the medical education would be severely undeveloped.
> 
> We learn from our sorrows, life needs to have an equal balance of sad and happiness -- our skewedness perspective on the world has many flaws.


Are you one of those evil politicians or something? I don't know about you but I would much rather have people alive without suffering than worrying about people losing their jobs and medical research grinding to a halt (which, if it does, will only be in the field on cancer which we would no longer need to research anyway if we have a cure).



> We thank you cancer for contributing to the medical community, but now is your time to go.


What? If cancer hadn't existed in the first place there would be no need to fight it. You don't research things for the sake of research you know? You research things in order to solve the problem.


----------



## Zetta_x (Apr 12, 2012)

The reason why we have so many jobs in this society is because we have so many problems. Lets just imagine all of the medical problems just disappeared, what would happen to all of the jobs.

I would be a evil politician, or put into perspective, an unbiased politician. We, as a society, have gotten used to everybody doing nice things and trying to maximize happiness, a person who does not do nice things or goal is to maximize people's happiness is looked down upon.

Someone falls down, if a person walks right by them (aka doing nothing and not pushing them down) that person would be looked down upon.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Apr 12, 2012)

Zetta_x said:


> The reason why we have so many jobs in this society is because we have so many problems. Lets just imagine all of the medical problems just disappeared, what would happen to all of the jobs.



In all honesty more people equates to needing more jobs. Like if your job is, say, to make clothes. More people means we need more people to make clothes. And the influx of new people will mean we can fill this gap. The issue is resources.

That's why we're looking to expand to other planets and crap. Not kidding.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 12, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> That's why we're looking to expand to other planets and crap. Not kidding.


Wouldn't that be somewhat nice. Expect they may present more medical problems when/if that happens.
So Guild, what do you think the likelihood of living on other planets?


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 12, 2012)

I thought making a proper cure or vaccine for cancer was impossible because it comes out with a new string every year like the flu


----------



## Jakob95 (Apr 12, 2012)

Zetta_x said:


> The reason why we have so many jobs in this society is because we have so many problems. Lets just imagine all of the medical problems just disappeared, what would happen to all of the jobs.
> 
> I would be a evil politician, or put into perspective, an unbiased politician. We, as a society, have gotten used to everybody doing nice things and trying to maximize happiness, a person who does not do nice things or goal is to maximize people's happiness is looked down upon.
> 
> Someone falls down, if a person walks right by them (aka doing nothing and not pushing them down) that person would be looked down upon.


Did you ever think about it this way?  A man has a job and has a family to support and a house to maintain.  He later gets cancer and is to ill to work and now his house gets foreclosed, his whole family is now in a struggle and his kids can't get a decent education to go to college because of money problems.  And so on.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 12, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> I thought making a proper cure or vaccine for cancer was impossible because it comes out with a new string every year like the flu



........No.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 12, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > I thought making a proper cure or vaccine for cancer was impossible because it comes out with a new string every year like the flu
> ...


You say that as if its a stupid question -_-


----------



## Gahars (Apr 12, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Zantigo said:
> ...



........Yes.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 12, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > Gahars said:
> ...








And with that I'm gone.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 12, 2012)

@[member='Zantigo']

That's... all you have to offer? No wondering why your comments on cancer are seen as shockingly ignorant? Weak.

And just a heads up for the future. No hate, just good advice.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 13, 2012)

Gahars said:


> @[member='Zantigo']
> 
> That's... all you have to offer? No wondering why your comments on cancer are seen as shockingly ignorant? Weak.
> 
> And just a heads up for the future. No hate, just good advice.


----------



## Zetta_x (Apr 13, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Zetta_x said:
> 
> 
> > The reason why we have so many jobs in this society is because we have so many problems. Lets just imagine all of the medical problems just disappeared, what would happen to all of the jobs.
> ...



No I haven't thought about that


----------



## Gahars (Apr 13, 2012)

@[member='Zantigo']

...How does that imply you were trying to offend me?

I speak for the silent majority! And so what if you're 15? I'm no great expert on the subject either, but we're talking about some very basic information on a very prevalent illness here. even Plus, we are on the internet, where the answer to a question like that is a search away.

You might also want to make sure you heard your teachers correctly. If they seriously described cancer in that way, I'd be worried.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 13, 2012)

Gahars said:


> @[member='Zantigo']
> 
> ...How does that imply you were trying to offend me?
> 
> ...


Silent Majority my ass, your clearly talking out of your ass and lack the ability to humble yourself and frankly, I'm jist about out of fucks to give towards this conversion, please continue with your pointless crusade my good man, Zantigo! AWAY!


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Apr 13, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Bro. I'm 15, I don't study Cancer I was just trying to confirm something both my health and biology teacher told me.


At 15, you should have a basic understanding of cancer. I mean, I learned that when I was 12. It's basic knowledge.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 13, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > @[member='Zantigo']
> ...



Are you alright, Zantigo? Are you mad? I only ask because you seem pretty mad. Now, I sincerely hope that isn't the case, but that's the only conclusion I can draw from this.

I also find it funny how you go on a poorly spelled, profanity-laden rant about I can't humble myself (and evidently can't get a joke, but that's beside the point) when you yourself blow off my attempts to help you clarify your error. I'm sorry you see legitimate efforts on your behalf as vehement attacks; sadly, that's out of my hands to control.


----------



## thegame07 (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't mean to be disrespectful to the people who have died/suffering from cancer or disrespectful to people hoping for a cure for a family member or to the people working hard to find a 100% vaccine. However The world is beginning to become very over populated and It will end up to the point there will be even more millions of people that won't be able to feed themselves. When you think about how many people die of cancer in the world if we cure 90% of them and then cure other big diseases the world we live in will be fu**ed. Am I happy if they cure cancer? Yes I am indeed. However there will be consequences for such things if they cure it 100% and if it's cheap for the vaccine. I know people don't like to hear this but people need to die to balance the world out , It's life. We just don't want it to happen to the people we love.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 13, 2012)

The people dying of cancer tend to be in well developed nations with lower birth rates, and those afflicted are often older (usually past the age of having children). Cancer isn't as prevalent in third world nations with the higher birth rates, and is not a major cause of death. This vaccine, then, really wouldn't cause any great boost in population size.

Plus, with the world's governments having to pay less for the extremely expensive health costs of cancer, that money could then be diverted towards other critical issues (like, for example, maintaining and increasing the amount of food available).


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Apr 13, 2012)

Janthran said:


> But good and bad don't exist in some worldviews, so it's discriminatory to say that something is "really bad".
> What if it's only bad for you?


Please do not apply postmodernist rhetoric to cancer.


----------



## Janthran (Apr 13, 2012)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:


> Janthran said:
> 
> 
> > But good and bad don't exist in some worldviews, so it's discriminatory to say that something is "really bad".
> ...


Cosmic Humanist, actually.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Apr 13, 2012)

Janthran said:


> MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> 
> 
> > Janthran said:
> ...


Then it appears that Cosmic Humanism makes use of postmodern rhetoric here. Either way, please don't apply it to cancer.


----------



## Actinopterygian Melospiza (Apr 13, 2012)

Gahars said:


> The people dying of cancer tend to be in well developed nations with lower birth rates, and those afflicted are often older (usually past the age of having children). Cancer isn't as prevalent in third world nations with the higher birth rates, and is not a major cause of death. This vaccine, then, really wouldn't cause any great boost in population size.


Actually roughly 50% of new cancer cases are in developing countries. I would suggest not treating others like idiots for having wrong information if you're going to have wrong information yourself.

edit: I accidentally hit enter without replying


----------



## Janthran (Apr 17, 2012)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:


> Janthran said:
> 
> 
> > MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> ...


First off, a worldview is how you see the world, no exceptions.
Second off..
Death, disease, and suffering are the necessary driving forces of evolution; from this concept, we get the phrase​_survival of the fittest_.​Death happens. Deal with it.​


----------



## Jakob95 (Apr 17, 2012)

Lets just end it at this, for the people who wish that cancer didn't exist lets hope you don't get it, and for the people who wish and hope for it to exist and for a cure not to be found, then I hope you do get it.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 17, 2012)

Actinopterygian Melospiza said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > The people dying of cancer tend to be in well developed nations with lower birth rates, and those afflicted are often older (usually past the age of having children). Cancer isn't as prevalent in third world nations with the higher birth rates, and is not a major cause of death. This vaccine, then, really wouldn't cause any great boost in population size.
> ...



I'm sorry, I completely missed this post.

Would you mind sharing your source(s) for this information? If I'm wrong, I'd love to know; I just where the figures come from.


----------



## Actinopterygian Melospiza (Apr 17, 2012)

Gahars said:


> I'm sorry, I completely missed this post.
> 
> Would you mind sharing your source(s) for this information? If I'm wrong, I'd love to know; I just where the figures come from.


http://opinion.inquirer.net/21831/cancer-is-not-just-a-%E2%80%98sickness-of-the-rich%E2%80%99


> in 1970 or 40 years ago, developing countries accounted for only 15 percent of new cancer cases in the world. By 2008, however, 50 percent of new cancer cases were found in developing countries


 it's a somewhat recent study so it's understandable that you thought what you did since that used to be the case, and looking over my post I kinda sounded like a jerk so sorry if you got that impression  

edit: here's an article about another study too: http://theglobaljournal.net/photo/view/782/


> According to Livestrong, 50 percent of new cancer cases, and two-thirds of all cancer-related deaths, occur in the developing world.



I've seen a couple other articles about it but I don't really feel like finding them right now


----------



## Gahars (Apr 17, 2012)

Ah, sounds good. And I'm sorry if I came across as a bit of an ass; the old "medical advancements should be avoided because of flimsy justifcation x" argument just bugs me to no end.

Plus, with many in the third world now succumbing to the illness, the need for a cure is even greater; like I said, it saves lives and valuable resources (time, money, etc.).


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Apr 17, 2012)

thegame07 said:


> I don't mean to be disrespectful to the people who have died/suffering from cancer or disrespectful to people hoping for a cure for a family member or to the people working hard to find a 100% vaccine. However The world is beginning to become very over populated and It will end up to the point there will be even more millions of people that won't be able to feed themselves. When you think about how many people die of cancer in the world if we cure 90% of them and then cure other big diseases the world we live in will be fu**ed. Am I happy if they cure cancer? Yes I am indeed. However there will be consequences for such things if they cure it 100% and if it's cheap for the vaccine.* I know people don't like to hear this but people need to die to balance the world out* , It's life. We just don't want it to happen to the people we love.


Huh. Yeah. I bet you're a strong advocator of World War 3 then. Or nuclear fallout. Or anything that will halve the human population to solve our "overcrowding" problem. Yeah.

I bet the death toll of the millions of innocents who died in World War 1 and 2 made you smile, because it delayed human overcrowding by a bit. I suppose you'd smile, if a new virus epidemic surfaced that would threaten to wipe out the human race. Millions would suffer and die, but hey it's all cool since we're solving overcrowding right?

I'd suppose if, in a most unfortunate hypothetical scenario, you contracted cancer and were fighting a losing battle, you'd smile and say "Hey it's all cool, nature's taking it's course and using me to solve overcrowding", because if you wouldn't, you would retract your statement.

The gate swings both ways son. If you're personally unwilling to standby your comment when the odds _aren't _in your favour, it just shows how flawed it actually is.


----------



## Costello (Apr 17, 2012)

Actinopterygian Melospiza said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, I completely missed this post.
> ...



I have personally read about a study in the Shanghai Daily (local serious newspaper in Shanghai) which clearly showed that the growth of cancer rates in China -- which I believe is considered as a "developing country" -- was directly connected to the general wealth and modernity of the different lifestyles.
To put it more simply, the study showed that the more developped the region is, the higher the cancer rates are. The poorer and more rural the region is, the lower the cancer rates are. 
That's when it comes to China. And I can't give you a link because that was in an actual journal not online... and I read that something like a year ago.


----------



## Veho (Apr 17, 2012)

Janthran said:


> Death, disease, and suffering are the necessary driving forces of evolution; from this concept, we get the phrase survival of the fittest.


And humanity has survived and thrived by dint of telling "survival of the fittest" to stuff it, wherever and whenever possible.


----------



## thegame07 (Apr 17, 2012)

ZAFDeltaForce said:


> thegame07 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mean to be disrespectful to the people who have died/suffering from cancer or disrespectful to people hoping for a cure for a family member or to the people working hard to find a 100% vaccine. However The world is beginning to become very over populated and It will end up to the point there will be even more millions of people that won't be able to feed themselves. When you think about how many people die of cancer in the world if we cure 90% of them and then cure other big diseases the world we live in will be fu**ed. Am I happy if they cure cancer? Yes I am indeed. However there will be consequences for such things if they cure it 100% and if it's cheap for the vaccine.* I know people don't like to hear this but people need to die to balance the world out* , It's life. We just don't want it to happen to the people we love.
> ...



Way to read what I said. I knew what I posted would get a reply from someone that's kind of brain dead and can't take the truth. We need people to die or the world will end up messed up, Everyone can't live until they're 100. I know you probably like to look at things through rose tinted glasses. If you read my post where did I say I personally wanted people to die? Just because someone speaks how things are doesn't mean they want them to be like that. I smile when people die? how the fu** did you come to that conclusion from my post?

Take England for example right now there is a rain drought and there's not enough water due to the high population in such a small area of land. It's only going to get worse. In 30 years it will be even worse when we cure more diseases and people will probably start living to 110 etc. I'm guessing you're quite young and can't take the harsh reality of the world. I don't blame you, it's scary when you stare at the facts of death but don't take it out on me. I will let you go back to the land of fluffy clouds and bunnys now.

I'm not scared of death myself but It's nice you think you personally know my opinion on the matter. When my time comes it comes I can accept that. I'm an atheist too, I don't think anything happens when I die. I can just take reality , unlike some people...

As the meme posters would say "reality hits you hard bro..."


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Apr 17, 2012)

thegame07 said:


> Way to read what I said. I knew what I posted would get a reply from someone that's kind of brain dead and *can't take the truth*.


The fact that people inevitably need to die is a widely known fact and an unspoken truth. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that there's limited supplies of resources and land for a growing number of people.



thegame07 said:


> We need people to die or the world will end up messed up, *Everyone can't live until they're 100*.


That doesn't mean people shouldn't try.



thegame07 said:


> I know you probably like to look at things through rose tinted glasses.


Stripped of everything, all man is left with is his optimism and hope. If you want to live your entire life being pessimistic, I certainly won't stop you.



thegame07 said:


> *If you read my post where did I say I personally wanted people to die? Just because someone speaks how things are doesn't mean they want them to be like that. I smile when people die? how the fu** did you come to that conclusion from my post?*Take England for example right now there is a rain drought and there's not enough water due to the high population in such a small area of land. It's only going to get worse. In 30 years it will be even worse when we cure more diseases and people will probably start living to 110 etc. I'm guessing you're quiet _quite _young and can't take the harsh reality of the world. I don't blame you it's hard when you stare at the facts of death but don't take it out on me.


It was purely an inference. Just as how you inferred me to be "kind of brain dead".
However, it appears I was a little too harsh in judgement. Fair enough, I retract my statement.


----------



## Janthran (Apr 17, 2012)

Veho said:


> Janthran said:
> 
> 
> > Death, disease, and suffering are the necessary driving forces of evolution; from this concept, we get the phrase survival of the fittest.
> ...


Oh, so we're not allowed to tell the truth now?


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Apr 17, 2012)

Janthran said:


> Veho said:
> 
> 
> > Janthran said:
> ...


Social Darwinism is not the truth. And while a worldview is how you view the world, it does not follow that either they are beyond criticism, or that they will not clash with other worldviews. You are, of course, no exception to this. Neither is anybody else, for that matter. Deal with it.


----------



## Veho (Apr 17, 2012)

Janthran said:


> Oh, so we're not allowed to tell the truth now?


Did I say that?


----------



## Janthran (Apr 17, 2012)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:


> Janthran said:
> 
> 
> > Veho said:
> ...


Death is part of life. Deal with it.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 17, 2012)

Janthran said:


> MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> 
> 
> > Janthran said:
> ...



You really like arguing in circles, don't you?

Troll harder.


----------



## Janthran (Apr 17, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Janthran said:
> 
> 
> > MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> ...


I'm not trolling, it's true.
Death is part of life.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Apr 17, 2012)

Janthran said:


> I'm not trolling, it's true.
> Death is part of life.


Your insistence on this truism is confusing, since none of us ever said otherwise. I was chastising for your rhetoric initially because for you classifying cancer as the adjective "really bad" was erroneous, because apparently some worldviews did not contain that adjective (or concept). That came across as rather insensitive to me, considering cancer is, scientifically, harmful at best and fatal at worst. Then you attempted to justify your own appraisal by reducing all of human history to natural selection. I'm not entirely sure why you felt justified to go that far. Either way, this argument was not about whether death is part of life, it was the fact that your attitude toward cancer appeared as callous. Your "death is a part of life" "argument" is telling. It's as if you're sitting in an ivory tower, saying: "Oh, can't cure cancer. Fact of life. Get over it. Whatever." Why don't you try applying such responses to other human tragedies and see what reactions arise? I imagine it would be entertaining for you as well as physically painful. In any case, I believe a glance at the previous posts up to this point will justify my view.

I would also suggest that you do more research on the term "survival of the fittest", because the way you're using it is entirely different to how Darwin did. http://en.wikipedia...._of_the_fittest
I wish you luck in your intellectual endeavors.


----------



## Janthran (Apr 17, 2012)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:


> Janthran said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not trolling, it's true.
> ...


For the record, it's not my worldview. I was just curious as to the reactions I would get for acting the worldview of the majority to the extreme.
As far as Evolution is concerned, death is good. Death means progress.
Anyone trying to save lives is actually fighting progress.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Apr 17, 2012)

Janthran said:


> For the record, it's not my worldview. I was just curious as to the reactions I would get for acting the worldview of the majority to the extreme.
> As far as Evolution is concerned, death is good. Death means progress.
> Anyone trying to save lives is actually fighting progress.



To be honest, it's looking very likely that part of our "evolution" is eliminating cancer.


----------



## Janthran (Apr 17, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Janthran said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, it's not my worldview. I was just curious as to the reactions I would get for acting the worldview of the majority to the extreme.
> ...


And what personal profit actually is that?


----------



## Vinnymac (Apr 18, 2012)

I clicked on this thread expecting an intellectual discussion on cancer vaccines. This is awkward, I will find my way out...

P.S. Cancer sucks


----------



## Gahars (Apr 18, 2012)

Janthran said:


> As far as Evolution is concerned, death is good. Death means progress.
> Anyone trying to save lives is actually fighting progress.



I'm sorry, you seem to have mixed up the actual theory of evolution with it's made up, supervillian cousin _evil_ution. It's an all too common mistake.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Apr 18, 2012)

Janthran said:


> For the record, it's not my worldview. I was just curious as to the reactions I would get for acting the worldview of the majority to the extreme.
> As far as Evolution is concerned, death is good. Death means progress.
> Anyone trying to save lives is actually fighting progress.


I guess we should let all murderers be. And don't try to cure ill patients. Not to mention that we should _never_ help victims out in a natural disaster. After all, that would be _fighting progress_, wouldn't it?

Oh and when you get struck with a disease, be sure to ask the doctors to leave you be. After all, we don't want to impede progress.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Apr 18, 2012)

*[member='Janthran'] says: Get paid. FUCK everything else. *


----------



## Densetsu (Apr 18, 2012)

Janthran said:


> As far as Evolution is concerned, death is good. Death means progress.
> Anyone trying to save lives is actually fighting progress.


So I guess this is your entire argument, distilled into its purest form.

Well, allow me to retort.

The entire point of evolution is to survive.  As far as evolution is concerned, if you die, it means you weren't fast enough to catch your food.  It means you weren't strong enough to escape your predator.  It means you weren't tall enough to reach the fruits on the trees.  It means your physiology wasn't fit enough to withstand the harsh weather.  It means your fur wasn't the right color to camouflage you like others of your species.  In other words, if you die, it's because you failed to evolve.  As far as evolution is concerned, death means failure.

And I'm studying to become a doctor.  You know, to save lives.  Would you say I'm fighting progress?  What "progress" am I fighting?  The progress of cancer?  The progress of disease?  Yeah, I guess.

But the job description of my chosen career (preserving life) certainly does not hinder the progress of humanity.

Death means progress?  How many potential Einsteins, Rembrandts and Mozarts do you think have been snuffed out of existence by natural disasters, pandemics and mass genocides committed throughout human history?  You know, people who would have contributed greatly to our progress?  Even if those kinds of people are one in a million, their impact would have affected the entire world.  But we'll never know because they were never given a chance to make their mark in history.  Because death claimed them, thus impeding progress.


----------



## leic7 (Apr 18, 2012)

Just wait and see what kind of long-term effects this "vaccine" would have. I only read the excerpt in the OP, but is it right that they tested this on just 10 (ten) people? Uhh...yeah, definitely wait and see.

IF it actually works, my concern is this would further the evolutionary/technology arms race between medical treatment and cancer, like the invention of antibiotics has. But that would be another discussion for another day.


----------

