Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Which is more important? Finding a cure for HIV/AIDS or cancer


Which is more important? Finding a cure for HIV/AIDS or cancer?
In your opinion, is it more important to find a cure for HIV and AIDS or cancer? Really, what do you think? Go ahead and tell WHY. Thanks a bunch!
Infectious Diseases - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I think cancer, because hiv can be prevented if u have protection but u cant do anything to prevent cancer
2 :
First off, we have more than enough resources as a society to aggressively pursue cures for both diseases, so it's an irrelevant question. That having been said, As horrible as HIV/AIDS is, it affects a dramatically lower number of people than cancer does, and we already have treatments available that can delay the harmful effects of HIV almost indefinitely. Meanwhile cancer affects more people and the treatment options available for it are less effective and usually more traumatic on the patient. So if I had to allocate limited funds between the two diseases, I think I'd base it on the ratio of how many people die from each disease annually and how many people are diagnosed annually. And let's not forget that there's a TON more that can be done to prevent both diseases in people.
3 :
CagalliY is soooo wrrronnngggg!!!!!!!!!! omgggg. there are things you can do to prevent cancer. like no tanning, i could go on forever. but also there is a way to prevent hiv/aids by not having sex. but also if your cancer is because you inherrited it then yea its not preventable but if you got raped by someone who has aids or hiv then you cant prevent that either. so no matter what CagalliY is ssoooo wrong, and you cant tell what is more important untill you know how serouse each case is.
4 :
I would say cancer. HIV/AIDS is more often (but not always) contracted through poor lifestyle choices, such as sharing needles, or through unprotected sex, etc. That's not always the case, as HIV can be contracted through unfortunate and accidental exposure such as a health worker who gets a needle stick or a woman who's raped-- but these are rare-- or by being born to an HIV infected mother. Conversely, certainly certain cancers can be traced to bad choices (lung cancer from smoking, for instance). However, many cancers are of unknown cause and can't be prevented. They occur as the result of a cellular mutation, and can develop even though a person leads a "perfect life", avoiding things that are known to cause cancer. Many cancers have a genetic component, and are hereditary. HIV/AIDS is a communicable disease and doesn't just spontaneously or genetically appear like cancer. It's more important to find a cure for that which we cannot prevent. HIV is often preventable; most cancers-- not so much.
5 :
In my opinion, you should ask people who have either one or both.
6 :
This is the sort of question that is almost impossible to answer because the question itself is based on a false premise (actually a set of false premises). The first premise is that HIV and AIDS can be cured. Put simply, it (and no other virus) can ever be totally removed from a system. What can be done, however, is to render the virus so ineffective or reduce its concentration to sufficiently low numbers that it cannot be spread and does not show symptoms. But this isn't a complete "cure" - the virus still infects some cells and still exists within the host. Understanding this, you may be surprised to learn that there is a way that has rendered an HIV positive individual completely free of symptom or capacity for transmission. The process, however, is so expensive and extraneous that it wont feasibly become a cure within any reasonable timescale. It has also only been used in one documented case, and this only recently. There is not enough data to prove that this "cure" will work permanently, especially if the HIV virus looses its dependency on the CCR5 and CD4 receptors (unlikely, but the virus has a very high rate of mutation...). The second premise is that cancer can be cured in general. Cancer is completely unique in all instances of its existence and is not a disease like the common cold. Cancer is often classified by the mechanism that caused it or the location of the cell in question, but understand that every single strain of cancer is completely unique. There is no mechanism that humans could ever feasibly produce that would eliminate any and all cancer as each cancer would have to be treated individually or use methods that could not differentiate healthy cells from cancerous ones (this is what we do now: kill all cells cancerous or not currently performing mitosis [chemotherapy] or obliterate any cell in a certain region [radiation treatment]). The third premise is that these two things need to compete with each other. They don't, and research will continue in parallel until effective treatments are developed. So which is more important? Neither. Both are afflictions that society should divert great amounts of time and resources to research and discover practical, effective treatments.



Read more discussions :

Posted by HIV/AIDS at 2:53 PM