Should Funding be cut for HIV/AIDS research or for Cancer research? ([IMP]AntiWarmanCake88 .vs. Denny Crane!)

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

I am for cutting HIV/AIDS funding for research and he is against it, using the argument that we should cut funding for cancer research.



I will let my opponent go first, as I like to see what I am facing up to before I attack .

[Denny Crane!]

Well essentially I find it inherently immoral that any funding should be arbitrarily distributed on a whim. It is certainly not done a needs basis or even on what will generate results the quickest.

Aids is self inflicted. This is actually not true. It can happen through careful premarital sex that doesn't necessarily involve being a slag or a slut whether male or female. It certainly isn't exclusively a gay disease and quite often it can be spread by accident or through blood transfusions. There is also awful cases of priests spreading misinformation about condoms, calling them evil and so helping spread the disease. In places the very nature of disease is misunderstood therefore they do not understand the risk and with people like the Catholic church abusing their position of trust the situation is worsened.

Cancer is something that is in some cases random but in other cases is not. People help give themselves cancer through lifestyles and nutrition as well as imbibing harmful substances, or the use of certain drugs like smoking or alcohol.

Dementia on the other hand is something that at the minute appears to strike at random. It is something we are more and more increasingly likely to get in fact there are nearly as many sufferers as there are Cancer victims but they have a much worse death and much worse quality of life.

Here is Terry Pratchett on the subject:

With £11 spent for each person on research every year, compared with £289 for each cancer patient. “There’s nearly as many of us as there are cancer sufferers, and it looks as if the number of people with the disease will double within a generation . . . It’s a shock and a shame, then, to find out that money for research is 3 per cent of that which goes to find cancer cures.

“I’d like a chance to die like my father did — of cancer, at 86. He talked to us right up to the last few days, knowing who we were and who he was. Right now, I envy him. And there are thousands like me, except that they don’t get heard.”

In contrast to the “war” against cancer, the shortage of specialists leaves “those of us with early onset in particular, [fighting] a series of skirmishes. “My GP is helpful and patient, but I don’t have a specialist locally. The NHS kindly allows me to buy my own Aricept [the Alzheimer's drug] because I’m too young to have Alzheimer’s for free, a situation I’m OK with in a want-to-kick-a-politician-in-the-teeth-kind-of-way.



Dementia is clearly more deserving of funding than either Cancer or AIDs if for no other reason than it receives so much less per person than both the other diseases.

Furthermore I am aware that people have lost family to cancer and while I will get out a tiny violin and play a sad tune for them it is right that they should feel they have power over which disease they fund research into they shouldn't feel for a damn second that they have any right to spend mine or anyone else's money as everyone has their own personal tragedies and stories to tell. If a person wants to pay into a medical fund for 40 years and die of AIDs well he has paid into that fund for the very reason that he expects care. If he lives a risky life he should pay more, the same goes for if that man wishes to smoke or drink and gets cancer. When it comes to putting his money into research he should choose which ailment his money goes into.

Last but not least more money does not equal more progress. The most startling developments and benefits to patients were through the research in my home town. Keyhole surgery and other pioneering surgical techniques are what have really made the difference to patients of many ailments in the last decade. Research into genetics was once not considered intricately linked with Cancer but we now know that by profiling a persons genetic code we will be able to unravel exactly what has caused the cancer, which genes have caused it and what the likely progression of it is then hit it with a targeted treatment instead of the hit and miss approach we have now where they randomly choose between 4-5 treatments until they hit an effective one. AIDS research into immunology and the increased likelihood of cancers they have like NHL from the secondary immunologic hyper-activation that results from HIV related cellular immune deficiency is extremely useful to other cancer research.

The way discoveries are made is by an overall increase in the level of knowledge about human physiology, one targeted field of research alone would never do it.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Prevention
Cancer. Awareness and education, lifestyle change, diet, exercise, massage, self-examination, stress reduction, a toxic-free environment, routine physical examination, and knowledge of family history.
AIDS. Awareness and education, lifestyle change, protected safe sex, exercise, massage, stress reduction, and good medical management.




Causes
Cancer. No one knows for sure. Theories stem from diet, heredity, pollution, stagnation, toxicity, stress, lifestyle habits, bacterial contamination, etc.
HIV. The virus attacks the immune system. Entry is gained by:

• Unprotected or promiscuous sexual conduct;
• Blood Intravenous, Transfusions, Infected Needles;
• Placenta mother to fetus, breast milk.

An infection can occur when:

• The virus must have a proper environment to survive. It is anaerobic (lives without air);
• A large quantity of virus must enter the system;
• There must be a port of entry.

From the following website:
http://www.amtamassage.org/journal/f...ncer_aids.html




As you can see, AIDS is usually spread by the above. Cancer however, might not. Yes, Cancer can be cause by unhealthy lifestyles. However Dannyman, Could AIDS not be prevented by healthy lifestyle changes also? If Cancer can, AIDS most certainly can also.


But Danny, Cancer can be random like you said.Don't smoke = No lung cancer, right? However, I personally know some people who got lung cancer who never smoked and was always healthy.


If Demetria is so bad... Why don't we fund Macular Degeneration more then? Or Diabetes, or Speech Apraixa more then? Because to many, they are simply "not as important".



Money does not mean you can find a cure faster. Yes, I argee. But it can help the doctors get tools to help find a cure though. Everything cost money.

How else would you explain the fact, that 4 out of 6 people I asked had no idea what ‘Chemotherapy’ was all about, but they did know, the various means through which AIDS could be spread? How else would you explain the fact, that the same percentage of people actually said that ‘Cancer is a curable disease and has been medically proven’, when posed with the inevitable question? How else would you explain the fact, that many people I asked didn’t have much idea of how Cancer was caused, or the general foundation for Cancer cells to grow, whereas, they not only knew the full form of the acronym AIDS but also knew the necessary precaution to be taken to avoid being on the receiving end of it?

http://ajax-thewastrel.blogspot.com/...vs-cancer.html

[Denny Crane!]

From the following website:
http://www.amtamassage.org/journal/f...ncer_aids.html




As you can see, AIDS is usually spread by the above. Cancer however, might not. Yes, Cancer can be cause by unhealthy lifestyles. However Dannyman, Could AIDS not be prevented by healthy lifestyle changes also? If Cancer can, AIDS most certainly can also.


But Danny, Cancer can be random like you said.Don't smoke = No lung cancer, right? However, I personally know some people who got lung cancer who never smoked and was always healthy.


If Demetria is so bad... Why don't we fund Macular Degeneration more then? Or Diabetes, or Speech Apraixa more then? Because to many, they are simply "not as important".



Money does not mean you can find a cure faster. Yes, I argee. But it can help the doctors get tools to help find a cure though. Everything cost money.






http://ajax-thewastrel.blogspot.com/...vs-cancer.html

Whoa whoa whoa! We know what causes Cancer. Genetic mutations. Carcinogens can cause them and it is undeniable that carcinogens play a role in accelerating these mutations though some may have them at birth. The causation between certain habits and lifestyles in causing cancers is undeniable.

This is from Cancer Research UK one of the biggest reseacher associations and cancer charities in the world.

Cancer experts estimate that maintaining a healthy bodyweight, making changes to our diet and taking regular physical activity could prevent about one in three deaths from cancer in the UK. In the western world, many of us eat too much red and processed meat and not enough fresh fruit and vegetables. This type of diet is known to increase the risk of cancer. Drinking alcohol can also increase the risk of developing some types of cancer. There is more information about this in the page on diet causing cancer.

So certain types of cancer are preventable just like AIDs. You may get cancer anyway but some cancers are caused by activities you engage in. Please stick to the facts here, we know this much.

And why shouldn't people get treatment for ending up with a preventable disease? Would you hold a gun up to peoples heads for doing something you disapprove of? Do they not pay into medical funds like you? Are you proposing some form of tyranny here?

Some pressing questions here I'd like you to address!

If Demetria is so bad... Why don't we fund Macular Degeneration more then? Or Diabetes, or Speech Apraixa more then? Because to many, they are simply "not as important".

lol my Grandad has macular degeneration and I damn well do think it should have more research!

How do you judge what is important and not important? I'll tell you how, by the right of self determination and the right to spend your money where you wish. Your own personal preferences or thoughts on what is more important are likely to be completely valid. It does not give you the right to force other people to fund your preferences.

So you see I think everyone should choose their own funding.

Money does not mean you can find a cure faster. Yes, I argee. But it can help the doctors get tools to help find a cure though. Everything cost money.

You didn't read my opening salvo properly I'm afraid. I am aware things cost money but the fight against cancer does not need more money thrown at it. The biggest advances have been from surgery and genetics which weren't originally intended to fight cancer but have ultimately made the difference in cancer care and the future of cancer research. Similarly the research into AIDs has greatly expanded our knowledge of the cancers caused by viruses*** and the effects of the immune system in causing cancers.


***Thats right there is a cancer that can be caused by sex as well, a virus that causes cervical cancer and is spread by sexual contact - kind of hurts your argument against AIDs I feel.


I've ignored the last part of your post because a badly edited blog does not constitute and argument. In fact I'll go so far as to call this writer an out and out liar. He says that 4 out of 6 people he asked didn't know what chemotherapy was but knew that the acronym for AIDs stood for Auto Immune Deficiency. The media in my country is filled almost daily with new research and ideas about cancer and its causes but nothing about AIDs. The idea that AIDs gets more media attention is one without merit and this man is decidely unscientific and I'd suggest irrational.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

And why shouldn't people get treatment for ending up with a preventable disease? Would you hold a gun up to peoples heads for doing something you disapprove of? Do they not pay into medical funds like you? Are you proposing some form of tyranny here?

Some pressing questions here I'd like you to address!

Quote:
If Demetria is so bad... Why don't we fund Macular Degeneration more then? Or Diabetes, or Speech Apraixa more then? Because to many, they are simply "not as important".
lol my Grandad has macular degeneration and I damn well do think it should have more research!

How do you judge what is important and not important? I'll tell you how, by the right of self determination and the right to spend your money where you wish. Your own personal preferences or thoughts on what is more important are likely to be completely valid. It does not give you the right to force other people to fund your preferences.

So you see I think everyone should choose their own funding.

If people want to have unsafe,unprotected sex.... I don't approve of it, but if you get HIV, then it's not my fault if you get it. I mean, Jesus, actions have consequences. If you kill someone, you go to jail or get death penalty. If I tell you Danny to go somewhere red and hot, I get a warning point or more.



Well my grandfather had MD to, and I wish they would have found a treatment for itm so we have at least 1 thing in agreement.

You didn't read my opening salvo properly I'm afraid. I am aware things cost money but the fight against cancer does not need more money thrown at it. The biggest advances have been from surgery and genetics which weren't originally intended to fight cancer but have ultimately made the difference in cancer care and the future of cancer research. Similarly the research into AIDs has greatly expanded our knowledge of the cancers caused by viruses*** and the effects of the immune system in causing cancers.

But more money might not find a cure faster, but it sure in hell helps. Besides, cancer can happen at random. AIDS on the other hand... How do you think it came along?