# Ambition



## notimp (Jun 20, 2019)

Trump Promises to Cure Cancer, ‘Eradicate’ AIDS if He Wins Another Term

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-promises-to-cure-cancer-eradicate-aids-if-he-wins-another-term


----------



## Superbronx (Jun 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> Trump Promises to Cure Cancer, ‘Eradicate’ AIDS if He Wins Another Term
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-promises-to-cure-cancer-eradicate-aids-if-he-wins-another-term


Even I, as a Trump supporter, am skeptical of this. Unless he has some knowledge that we do not possess. 

Lastly I will add this. It has been mentioned, at least in the USA, that we already have the capability to cure cancer but it is kept secret because there is too much money to be made in treating it. If a cure were to become public knowledge, those who profit from the treatment would be upset.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 20, 2019)

He's just riffing on Biden's promise from last week that _he_ was gonna cure cancer if elected.

Here's the video of @JoeBiden promising to cure cancer if elected president.https://t.co/3doUlVOgcg pic.twitter.com/cRzsamV1Fc— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) June 11, 2019



It's like that Bugs Bunny cartoon (Big Top Bunny) where he keeps one-upping the high diving bear.


----------



## Superbronx (Jun 20, 2019)

Lol I understand now. 
As for bugs bunny? I really like those old cartoons. Bugs Bunny was the best! I wish they still made high quality cartoons like that.


----------



## Meteor7 (Jun 20, 2019)

Ah, for as asinine as the world is, at least it's finally making me laugh.
Of all the overblown promises that politicians have promised begging for another term, promising to literally cure both AIDS and cancer is a new absurdity by a wide margin. What an absolute barrel of horfs.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 20, 2019)

I assume it is a piss take on the other guy's statement the other day, and over selling in either case (not a fan of the concept but it is not a complete turn off either as I just replace it in my head with we take it on in a big way), but I would be interested to hear his plans on eradicating AIDS. Such a thing would be a rather large turnaround on science/medicine funding from his current efforts, and would also see a fairly big focus on foreign aids/affairs in Africa which would similarly be a deviation from his normally rather domestic issues and trade focused agenda.
I can't say would object on principle to either, at least pending finding out what will suffer to fund it. Granted the cynic in me says they will probably just be harsher screening for it for people entering and applying for visas/green cards, maybe some more internal funding for the existing medicines similar to the dialysis machines (if he is going to borrow Reagan's campaign slogan then he might as well borrow his approach to medicine and fund one specific disease*), maybe clearing up laws on knowingly spreading it (you probably will get done for murder for doing that but it is hazy and not the easiest case to make in a lot of places) and a task force for a few years. Less cynically they might be able to do some education (I would love to see them sell the end of abstinence only, even more so that the gays are OK people to the bible belt), fund some condoms, possibly fund some preventative medications and maybe sort some laws with regards to organ donation (there has been some movement, and some good stuff done in South Africa to draw data from, but US laws are still back in the 80s for the most part here).

*for those unaware the ur example of US Conservatism this last however long in Ronald Reagan was the one to fund the loads of dialysis machines the US has available for basically nothing on medicare. Does make me giggle when people speak of the ills of socialised medicine and then go venerate said Mr Reagan.


----------



## AkGBA (Jun 20, 2019)

Superbronx said:


> Lastly I will add this. It has been mentioned, at least in the USA, that we already have the capability to cure cancer but it is kept secret because there is too much money to be made in treating it. If a cure were to become public knowledge, those who profit from the treatment would be upset.



Please tell me you're joking...


----------



## Superbronx (Jun 20, 2019)

AkGBA said:


> Please tell me you're joking...


Sadly no. I'm not joking. 
It has been a topic of discussion among average American citizens as far back as I can remember. 
Could be an old wives tale but I've heard many sensible folks utter those words.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 20, 2019)

Superbronx said:


> Sadly no. I'm not joking.
> It has been a topic of discussion among average American citizens as far back as I can remember.
> Could be an old wives tale but I've heard many sensible folks utter those words.


The thought that there is a cancer panacea out there being hidden because treatment is somehow more profitable is not so much old wive's tale as greater departure from logic than the anti vaxxer set.

Cancer is as much a unified concept as sneezing -- could be because you got dust up your nose, could be allergies (of which there are infinite), could be that you have that sunlight reflex thing, could be that you have a cold (again infinite numbers of things that cause this)... There are how many types of cells in the human body ( https://www.kenhub.com/en/library/anatomy/types-of-cells-in-the-human-body )? Each of those gets their own cancer, all with their own genetic lineages and approaches to the world.
Moreover it is not just the cancer that is the problem as much as the tumours growing, pressing on things that don't need to be pressed, siphoning off blood and resources. Take a pill that somehow gets absorbed by just cancer cells and kills them off (or maybe renders them inert) and you still have to do the surgery to remove it or face whole things dying inside you (see compartment syndrome, crush syndrome and other such things -- injecting yourself with dead and decaying tissue is seldom a great plan).

Maybe there will some day be some nano robots or something that can cure essentially anything. The baseline knowledge required to get there is so far above what we have now though that for "them" to be sitting on a cancer cure also means they are probably sitting on a cure for basically everything else out there -- the tissue and organ regeneration that would be required in this scenario alone would be worth trillions a month, the scanning and detection methods probably even more than that... you have basically cured ageing at this point. For something so prominent to be hidden from basic extrapolation from all biologists, chemists, pharmacologists, medics and everything in between*... just no.

*I am better with oxides than I am with oncology but if they have the ability to detect marginally different organic matter in large untreated samples massing in the kilograms, never mind whilst keeping the host alive, and alter it on such a level (also whilst keeping the host alive), then the materials that I could create with scanning tech that good with that would change the world... I can't say overnight as things would need to be shipped around the place so in about a fortnight. Or if you prefer I deal with inert things that I could sit in a vacuum and chill to just a fraction off absolute zero for months, pelt with gamma rays and positrons the entire time and anything else as extreme as that and still not get a clear enough picture to do what said detection methods would have to be able to do in a living patient.

We could look at numbers as well. https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc201677
For 9 year treatments in the UK (very much an advanced medicine country) then the most expensive types (table 2) clock some £40000 if I round up.
In table 1 there are some 1206122 patients for all the cancers.

At said 40000 rate, assuming it is all profit and multiplying by 1206122 you have 48 billion over the course of 9 years. Or 5.3 billion a year in the most generous of circumstances. For reference the UK NHS budget is £125 billion for the financial year 2017-2018, and the social services bill to try to keep people that are in treatment from going bankrupt is not going to be low either. To that end sitting on a panacea would not only be one of the most unethical things done in history but if they are doing it for a profit then also one of the stupidest financial moves in history.


----------



## Superbronx (Jun 20, 2019)

Your explanation makes sense. I've never really researched it. Just one of those things I've always heard people talking about and thought it was true. I don't think that all the people I've heard talk about it over the years has so much departed from logic but rather, they have a healthy distrust of the power structure. 

They also have examples to draw from. For instance, I watched a program from a major network when I was a teen. The topic was a man who, years before (in the 50s or 60s I think) had invented an engine that would get 100 miles per gallon. He was so excited of his breakthrough and was certain it would make his family famous. Then, mysteriously, he was murdered. The program maintained that someone in power stood to lose millions if his invention were placed on the market. 

I understand how flights of fancy, many times can lead to people believing every conspiracy theory that comes along but when, down through history, the world has powerful, greedy people who will stop at nothing to gain even more wealth and power, I do not think it is unwise to be skeptical of them.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 20, 2019)

trumps getting desperate cause he knows even some of his loyalist are jumping the burning ship he's also prolonging his going to jail by seeking a second term (why else havent they done anything yet in related to muller he may do nothing but the rest of the justice department might once he's out idk if there is a statute of limitations for his said crimes (doubt it being that severe of crimes) but you do know once he's out they'll charge him and no pardon's will come out of the new president


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 20, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> trumps getting desperate cause he knows even some of his loyalist are jumping the burning ship he's also prolonging his going to jail by seeking a second term (why else havent they done anything yet in related to muller he may do nothing but the rest of the justice department might once he's out idk if there is a statute of limitations for his said crimes (doubt it being that severe of crimes) but you do know once he's out they'll charge him and no pardon's will come out of the new president


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 20, 2019)

Superbronx said:


> Your explanation makes sense. I've never really researched it. Just one of those things I've always heard people talking about and thought it was true. I don't think that all the people I've heard talk about it over the years has so much departed from logic but rather, they have a healthy distrust of the power structure.
> 
> They also have examples to draw from. For instance, I watched a program from a major network when I was a teen. The topic was a man who, years before (in the 50s or 60s I think) had invented an engine that would get 100 miles per gallon. He was so excited of his breakthrough and was certain it would make his family famous. Then, mysteriously, he was murdered. The program maintained that someone in power stood to lose millions if his invention were placed on the market.
> 
> I understand how flights of fancy, many times can lead to people believing every conspiracy theory that comes along but when, down through history, the world has powerful, greedy people who will stop at nothing to gain even more wealth and power, I do not think it is unwise to be skeptical of them.




There is plenty of research that is not done because it is not sexy (there is a fairly famous analysis done on how much less funding you will get if you research involves literal shit, or if we are continuing with cancer then see the funding issues say lung cancer or colorectal cancer get because it is considered self inflicted or just unpleasant) nor terribly profitable (if it is a 1 in 1 billion disease then you are probably fucked if it is not easy/obvious surgical, even if it is then see something like Lorenzo's oil), and people have long been short sighted in protecting their interests (or what they perceive the people to need -- the Roman emperor Vespasian has such a sentiment attributed to him when asked about some labour saving devices and that was almost 2000 years ago at this point). At the same time though there is publicly funded research, charity funded research and said stuff already able to be extrapolated.
There is an old joke actually which is cancer is trivial to kill, I have a thousand ways to do it in my house alone, the trick however is to do it without killing the host. Not to mention depending upon the severity of the disease even if it was "found" tomorrow you would have however many years of trials* before it hit the market, which ties nicely back into the extrapolation thing -- if I build a new widget tomorrow it has to stand up to the forces it will be subject to (and possible a bit more for safety), stand up to the conditions it finds itself in for a suitable amount of time, cost enough that it is able to be purchased and these days we have to pay attention to the hippies so when it is done then have it not break down into something that kills all the fish, doable enough but to also add "has to not kill a human when inserted inside them" complicates things immensely. There is no way I can see someone have tech for far more banal purposes and not make the "if we could do this on a human then we would cure cancer" leap.

*real example from my past actually. Was having a chat with some people that do various aspects of surgery. Apparently there was a type of reusable tourniquet that people liked but is not available so much any more so we pondered what it would take to get it certified for use there. About as nuts as you imagine with regards to abilities to be cleaned, allergy testing, other biocompatibility and beyond, to say nothing of having to test them once they have been produced (in a sterile factory of course). If an industrial client came up to me tomorrow and asked me for something with the same mechanical properties I would wonder what happened to them as their technicians have access to a pair of scissors, the sewing shop, a bit of glue and a stress/strain testing machine and would not need me to sign off on such things.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2019)

Most anti-science president thinks he can cure cancer, while simultaneously allowing more pollution into our air and water, causing more cancer.  Probably just another task he'd assign to Jared Kushner and forget about.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 21, 2019)

Is Trump starting up his own political cult? Surely his advisors all know he can't cure cancer or AIDS, nor are American scientists likely to figure out how during his next term in office. It's like religious cults and their doomsday prophesies; even though their doomsday prophesies go unrealised, their believers keep on believing.


----------



## notimp (Jun 21, 2019)

edit: Just saw that the Biden quote made it to this thread before. Should have read the replies before posting it. Outrageous stuff. But bipartisan.
--

Good news - cancer is now a thing of the past - because both Trump and Biden will cure it, if you elect them president.



If you do something crazy and pick neither of them - well then the wold deserves to live on with cancer.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You know what? That Putin guy? Looking more honorable by the day. At least he didn't promise old ladies a cure for cancer - in exchange for their vote.

Boy, when america looses the moral guiding role in world politics - they even become the best at loosing dignity - ey?

Oh, btw... Could I interest you ins some facebook bucks?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 21, 2019)

Sorry, but...is that newspaper in the OP a genuine one? I've never heard of the daily beast, and I feel like it's the sort of thing the onion would post (for those who don't know: this is their yesterday's news  ).


----------



## notimp (Jun 21, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Sorry, but...is that newspaper in the OP a genuine one? I've never heard of the daily beast, and I feel like it's the sort of thing the onion would post (for those who don't know: this is their yesterday's news  ).


You faked everyone out and linked the onion. Which is an unrelated satire outlet. Also - if you would have read the article - instead of commenting stuff on the internet without knowing anything - you would have noticed - that video proof is part of the news snippet in the OP.

What are you doing?

If you want to watch your acting president peddling the cure for cancer to people in return for their vote - you can do so in HD, on an endless loop, if you wish. Hey make an artistic choice and jumpcut to the same statement made by your leading runner up on the contender side for POTUS. Make it it fun.

Ah and BTW - you are currently trying to instigate war with iran. Just for good will purposes.

Facebook bucks anyone?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 21, 2019)

notimp said:


> You faked everyone out and linked the onion. Which is an unrelated satire outlet. Also - if you would have read the article - instead of commenting stuff on the internet without knowing anything - you would have noticed - that video proof is part of the news snippet in the OP.
> 
> What are you doing?
> 
> ...


...sorry, but I don't think you've understood my post.

I know the onion is a satire outlet. And I've mentioned that as well, so there is no point pretending that I didn't know. And I didn't so much comment on the value as genuinely asked whether it was a real article or not. I understand this can sound silly, but I'm not in a position to watch the linked video.

He's also not my president, thank you very much. If it was another president I wouldn't have minded the confusion, but this is a guy I don't even want cleaning my toilet, let alone lead my country.


----------

