New Cancer Vaccine Shows Promising Results in Human Safety Tests

[The Milkman]

@[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]

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.

No I haven't thought about that

 

[Gahars]

@[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]

@[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.

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]

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]

@[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.

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Cosmic Humanist, actually.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

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.

Cosmic Humanist, actually.

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

 

[Actinopterygian Melospiza]

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]

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.

Cosmic Humanist, actually.

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.inqui...e-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://theglobaljour...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

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]

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.