[nwildmand]

while your case is sound miki it does not include the people who did live because of medicine/treatment. they are carriers of the trait and are able to pass it on to another genereation.

the only way to be for sure is to not treat the disease and see if they live, something i doubt you would endorse.

take haemophilia for example. for a long time males had little if any chance at survival. that is not the case today with modern medicine. an infected male will pass those traits on. there is no question to this.

here is proof that haemopheliac males are reaching adulthoodbecause of medicine.
http://www.blood-disorders.us/haemophilia.html

this will lead to an increase of that trait in the population..

other genetic diseases are and or will become more prevalant in the population because of medicine. its all to logical to ignore.

[rogerhb]

And what happens when your children and grandchildren get sick? Should we let them die so that there's money left to pay the debts?

Depends on the ailment, if the kid has a cold, fix the child up with some remedy, if the baby has half a head due to a birth defect, let it die.

Why do answers always have to be black and white?

[Falconoffury]

Rogerhb, watch out for some of these forum posters. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

not off hand i dont. its a mountain of information to dig through. its a fairly taboo subject but its only logical. take juvenile diabetes or lukemia. it runs in families. i grew up near a family in which 2 of the 3 kids had lukemia. they all lived through it and i only later learned that the father had it when he was a child. thus basically the whole family survived to pass thier defective jeans on to another generation.

In many of these cases, environmental factors are to blame. The groundwater of many areas of the world has become polluted, and it finds its way into the people that live there.

In the particular case of cancer, I wouldn't blame genes. All types of cancer were rare 100+ years ago. Now, cancer is so widespread that more than half the people who live to be over 50 in the USA will get cancer. It's a symptom from the poisoning of our environment.

[KhanCEO]

Gene therapy rids men of cancer
Two men have been cleared of deadly skin cancer using genetically modified versions of their own immune cells.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5304910.stm

See also the Q&A on the gene therapy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5305420.stm


No miracle cure yet, but definitely a major breakthrough.

And then to see some people hating science and technology; some even want to get rid of it all and return to some pre-modern state of wilderness.... tssss.

Technology and science are the only way out for us, out of cancer, out of climate change and out of peak oil.

You don't mind me posting about scientific breakthroughs here at the open discussion forum, once in a while, do you? Just to keep things real, and to keep some reactionaries with their feet on the ground.

There will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, be a cure for cancer, EVER (at least in the United States of America). The idea is to poison your population then clean them out.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +deception

No one in the medical community cares about a cure only treatment. The idea these people are looking for a cure is laughable, clearly you dont know how the food goes around.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... oison+food

http://www.newstarget.com/z019957.html

http://www.amazon.com/Every-American-Sh ... F8&s=books

(Reading this book will help you understand more how our country works, but not 100%)

I'm sure you think you are spreading the word that cancer will someday be cured, however you are mistaken.

The FDA is a joke.

[Miki]

while your case is sound miki it does not include the people who did live because of medicine/treatment. they are carriers of the trait and are able to pass it on to another genereation.

It is my understanding that current knowledge on genetics is so limited, that almost nothing can be done about most genetic malformations. They can certainly improve their quality of life, but not "cure" them, or even ensure that they will live longer.

the only way to be for sure is to not treat the disease and see if they live, something i doubt you would endorse

Not only me. The kind of study you're suggesting violates the basic ethical principles that need to be respected for any scientific study to be funded and published.

take haemophilia for example. for a long time males had little if any chance at survival. that is not the case today with modern medicine. an infected male will pass those traits on. there is no question to this.

I'm not an expert in genetics, but I do know one thing: just because someone doesn't have a disease, it doesn't mean the person does not have the genes for that disease. Two people that don't have a genetic disease may marry and have a child with that disease. Just like if one person with a genetic disease marries a healthy one, it is possible that none of their kids would have the disease. If both people have the disease, the chances increase, but even then the probability of having a sick kid is not 100%--the exact probability depending on the "genetic charge" of the disease.

Thus, even if we let all the people with a genetic malformation die, there would still be many of us carrying the recessive gene for that disease and marrying others that also have the recessive gene. Unless you're planning to kill everyone with a recessive gene for the disease, killing the sick wouldn't be the smartest strategy.

IMO, the best (and most ethical) way to reduce the incidence of these diseases is to learn to manipulate genes in order to prevent these malformations. As that will take a long time, I think the best one can do now is to use genetic counseling, so that two people that have similar genetic defects won't marry, or that if they do marry, they'll be aware of what's to come.

Falcon: I agree that pollutants (and especially preservatives/colorants) probably have a lot to do with Cancer. However, genetics also play a great role. There are many studies supporting that fact.

As for why people did not have cancer 100 years ago, it is very simple: people used to die from the flu back then, so they didn't live enough to have Cancer. Keep in mind that antibiotics were discovered in the early 20th century (1920s?).

Roger: I'm not one to talk in blacks and whites, except when it comes to ethical matters. I was trying to show you that your position was too radical. In your original post you said that one should not cure diseases so as to pay external debts. That is a very "black and white" statement. You never mentioned that you were referring only to some diseases.

I personally think it's unethical to let someone die of *any* disease.

[rogerhb]

I personally think it's unethical to let someone die of *any* disease.

Even if it's

(a) terminal

(b) their wish to die?

In your original post you said that one should not cure diseases so as to pay external debts.

What I am saying is that healthcare is another bottomless pit, and future generations will pay dearly for our current waste.

If you want everyone to live for ever then put everyone in a coma.

[Falconoffury]

As for why people did not have cancer 100 years ago, it is very simple: people used to die from the flu back then, so they didn't live enough to have Cancer. Keep in mind that antibiotics were discovered in the early 20th century (1920s?).

Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.

[MonteQuest]

I personally think it's unethical to let someone die of *any* disease.

Even if not doing so causes even more to die as a result of breeding without restraint?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Miki]

Even if it's

(a) terminal

(b) their wish to die?

OK. Let me rephrase that: I think it's unethical to let die anyone who doesn't want to die. I also think it's unethical to kill the person even if he/she wants to die. If they kill themselves, that's another matter. But even in that case, one should try to persuade them. Most people that commit suicide do so in the midst of an episode of depression, and in those instances the person's judgement is not "normal". In other words, the only ethical situation in my mind would be if: a)the disease is terminal; b)the person wants to die; c)the person will kill him/herself; d)the person's judgement is not impaired by a mental disease.

What I am saying is that healthcare is another bottomless pit, and future generations will pay dearly for our current waste.

See, that's where you lose me. Are you talking about all heathcare or about the people who want to die? Or about the ones that are in comma atached to machines?

If you want everyone to live for ever then put everyone in a coma.

I'd like everyone to live forever, but not in a comma. Talk about black and white...

Montequest: the ethical solution to the problem you pose is not to let people die, but to educate and help those nations where birth rates are out of control. I grew up in Peru where 60% of the people live below the poverty line. Yet, each family has an average of 4 kids or so. The main reason was not that people wanted to have all those kids, but that they did not know about basic birth control methods! The same applies to eg, Africa, where both ignorance and high birth rates coexist. You can let millions die, but if 4 million are born for every million that dies, what's the point?

Time for the US to cut their "donations" to Israel and invest them in the places where they are really needed. Do you know how many birth control campaigns and food for the poor could be funded with the billions that the US spends on imperialist enterprises and war crimes (aka, preemptive wars)?

Falcon:my explanation was not simplistic. It was based on available evidence. You're invited to review the research in cancer/public health and find out for yourself that most people that have cancer don't get the disease when they're young (the average age for most cancers is 50s) . Then look at the life expectancy of people living before the 1900s, and reach your own conclusions. I did not affirm that this was the only cause of cancer; I just pointed out that this factor is very important to understand why the incidence of cancer was much lower a hundred years ago.

Here's a huge study based on people from 41 countries that shows the relationship between age, hereditary factors, and cancer:

IARC Sci Publ. 1985;58 :35-42. Heredity, age and cancer.
Author: Voitenko VP.

A factor analysis of mortality from gastric cancer in the populations of 41 countries has been made. It is concluded that the interrelation between age and cancer has both a biological and a chronological component. On the one hand, tumour development is linked to the molecular-genetic and systemic-physiological mechanisms of ageing. On the other, increasing mortality from cancer with age reflects the number of years for which the organism was exposed to the carcinogenic action. Each of these mechanisms is illustrated by the factor model of mortality from gastric cancer. Hereditary effects on both mechanisms that relate age and cancer are discussed.

[MonteQuest]

Montequest: the ethical solution to the problem you pose is not to let people die, but to educate and help those nations where birth rates are out of control. I grew up in Peru where 60% of the people live below the poverty line. Yet, each family has an average of 4 kids or so. The main reason was not that people wanted to have all those kids, but that they did not know about basic birth control methods! The same applies to eg, Africa, where both ignorance and high birth rates coexist. You can let millions die, but if 4 million are born for every million that dies, what's the point?

Birth control takes 50 to 70 years to have an effect due to demographics. It also does nothing to address the current population overshoot.

If we don't increase the death rate over the birth rate, then overshoot and a dieback or dieoff will do it for us.

We have to address both ends of the spectrum.

Unethical?

Is it better to let even more people die, healthy and unhealthy alike because you find it abhorrent to be responsible about excessive population numbers that threaten everyone?

You want freedom from disease and suffering? You want the freedom to save as many human lives as possible? You want the freedom to preserve your moral ideals and embracement of the sanctity of life? Fine, then you are going to have to give up the freedom to breed without restraint. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[rogerhb]

I'd like everyone to live forever.

Well that's really a problem. Because this world is finite in size and in resources. If you want everyone to live forever then you need a zero birthrate, and people had better start getting on with each other.

Every year up to three score and ten is a bonus, every year after is greed.

[KhanCEO]

I always figured that if there was a cure for Cancer the medical industry would never allow it. Well, I was right, Neener Neener.

Thanks for the good folks at Google and people like Edward Griffin. I found this video when I got curious about the another works from Mr. Griffin when I saw him on Freedom To Fascism. Never thought I would find this treasure. Watch it. In fact its so good it might not be true. Got Cancer? No problem!

A World Without Cancer

Watch it! Before Mr. Griffin figures out his video is being downloaded for free.

[eric_b]

Probably rubbish, but who knows.

If you're concerned just try to add some foods containing B17 into your diet from time to time.

(there, i googled it for ya)
http://home.bluegrass.net/~jclark/b17_foods.htm

[Pretorian]

Cancer is a way more complicated thing than a nutrition defficiency. Obviously, lack of anything can damage immunity system bad enough to develop cancer.
But the general rule is simple: want to avoid cancer for sure--die young.
Anyways a handfull of wild berries and a few apricot seeds daily will do nothing but good. i remember devouring apricot seeds when I had a chance when i was little. Yummy.

[cynthia]

Once I saw the title of the film I shut it down. I don't believe one single vitamin can answer the cancer that prevails in our world.
I have watched two female friends die from stage IV cancers in the past five years (the most recently the beginning of this month). I have many opinions about why they died and it will be a futile debate to visit those ideas because we will never know why.
There are personality profiles, exposure to toxins-especially over-exposure to estrogenic compounds. One stage IV friend used to run in the mists created by the DDT trucks as a child. The second friend drank coca-cola non stop starting at age five. She eventually became a coke drinking vegetarian who didn't eat that many vegetables.
One thing the studies agree upon: Lose weight. Sweat and stretch. Eat as many plant based foods possible that are organically grown. (Even organically grown soils might be delpleted of basic minerals so take a vitamin supplement that is as clean as you can find it. If you identify a particular deficiency then take an additional supplement for that. And remember inflammation is bad. If you have pain, discomfort that is even mild, it's a warning sign for things to come-even if it doesn't stop you from your routine.
Most of all Laugh
And that brings me to breathing. Live like there's no tomorrow.
cynthia

[Pretorian]

Most of all Laugh

And poop, everyday at least once. Well these two can be combined.

[TheTurtle]

Most of all Laugh

And poop, everyday at least once. Well these two can be combined.

LOL! This made me laugh ... ... oh, crap!

[JustinFrankl]

There are many types of cancers, but most cancers boil down to: damaged cells that still replicate but shouldn't. There are many types of cells, many unique nutritional requirements for each cell, types of irreparable damage the cell can sustain and still function. And some viruses can cause cancer. There is no one cure-all.

Good nutrition is the way to go, and the wider the variety the better. Get some exercise. Relieve stress in a number of ways, not turning to any one way exclusively that it might become an "addiction".

[NEOPO]

Once I saw the title of the film I shut it down.

When I heard you say this I went on to the next comment

[emailking]

Cancer is a natural and inevitable result of breathing oxygen rich air. Yes, the gas we need to live is also the cause of almost all cancer.