What deserves more research funding - cancer or AIDS?

[Viralmd]

Originally Posted by pitt_transplant

Fevers naturally lower the amt of germs in your system so your immune system has more of a fighting chance.

But if you have aids...you don't have that. It blocks the anti-body makers. So it would not work for aids. It may work for viral related cancers if the brain damage thing would not be an issue.

Re: the first statement, it's a nice theory, but it's not true. Has never even been proven. AND if a patient elderly, it's not uncommon to see hypothermia (a relative DROP in temperature) in the face of infection.

Re: the second statement et al, also not true. Patients with HIV infection make TONS of antibodies. Sometimes not very useful ones, but make them they do. And HIV, itself, produces several types of malignancy.

[pitt_transplant]

Originally Posted by Viralmd

Re: the first statement, it's a nice theory, but it's not true. Has never even been proven. AND if a patient elderly, it's not uncommon to see hypothermia (a relative DROP in temperature) in the face of infection.

Re: the second statement et al, also not true. Patients with HIV infection make TONS of antibodies. Sometimes not very useful ones, but make them they do. And HIV, itself, produces several types of malignancy.

Not the ones that would kills off the AIDs. Thats what I am talking about.

Antibodies and HIV: New Evidence. Interview with Ruth Ruprecht, M.D., Ph.D. (http://www.aids.org/atn/a-365-01.html - broken link)
"But most of the antibodies produced in response to HIV infection are not effective in stopping the virus -- and some of them may even increase HIV infection."

Well not being the right temp either way won't make a good host for germs. I will discount the fever one when it does not work. Let a fever run has been the best "cure" for any illness I had. (within reason of course) Plus not being proven just means it has not been proven wrong either. As the body's natural healing power is usually discounted anyway I can't say I am surprised. If they can't sell it to you, they wont study it.

[PurpleLove08]

Originally Posted by texdav

Cancer;kils more people and aids is preventable by behavior. Many cancers are not.

What about people who developed AIDs due to a bad blood transfusion?
What about children who were born with AIDS?
What about women who were RAPED and infected with AIDS?

I know it's very easy to rail against those who have unprotected sex with many people but just know that not every single person with AIDS was promiscuous.

Sometimes women get it from their husbands or vice versa. You don't ALWAYS know when a boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife/partner/whatever is cheating.

[litlux]

Thinking that diseases are some sort of popularity contest is disgusting. A child suffering from Muscular Dystrophy is no less important than a woman facing breast cancer or someone with aids. They are all terrible diseases, and cures need to be found for them all.

The fallacy here is that there is one source of funding for all of these terrible scourges, but in reality there are many, and the bulk of support comes from individuals like you and me, and I think we all do what we can to find solutions. Certainly the NIH and others do pay for some of the most basic research, and very often a breakthrough for one disease is found while researching another.

And let us remember that there are many causes of suffering and death beyond the few mentioned with Heart Disease being at the top of the list. Admittedly those that succumb to that do so largely in later years, but it hits early, too. And what of those who have rare and dreadful diseases we only hear about once in a great while, should we write them off because the statistics do no support funding them?

The bottom line is that all diseases deserve attention, and with your own personal charity you can do much to help. I have a personal commitment to solving breast cancer, but I recently sponsored someone who was on a walk against hunger, and indeed support both HIV research and, if you look in the Diabetes forum, research into Type 2.

I am sure you have your own causes, and thank you for supporting them, as I support mine. We are all essential players in these efforts.

[tvdxer]

Originally Posted by litlux

Thinking that diseases are some sort of popularity contest is disgusting. A child suffering from Muscular Dystrophy is no less important than a woman facing breast cancer or someone with aids. They are all terrible diseases, and cures need to be found for them all.

The fallacy here is that there is one source of funding for all of these terrible scourges, but in reality there are many, and the bulk of support comes from individuals like you and me, and I think we all do what we can to find solutions. Certainly the NIH and others do pay for some of the most basic research, and very often a breakthrough for one disease is found while researching another.

And let us remember that there are many causes of suffering and death beyond the few mentioned with Heart Disease being at the top of the list. Admittedly those that succumb to that do so largely in later years, but it hits early, too. And what of those who have rare and dreadful diseases we only hear about once in a great while, should we write them off because the statistics do no support funding them?

The bottom line is that all diseases deserve attention, and with your own personal charity you can do much to help. I have a personal commitment to solving breast cancer, but I recently sponsored someone who was on a walk against hunger, and indeed support both HIV research and, if you look in the Diabetes forum, research into Type 2.

I am sure you have your own causes, and thank you for supporting them, as I support mine. We are all essential players in these efforts.

Your reasoning is fallacious. It's not a "popularity contest". It's a poll to see which disease merits more funding. Obviously, all diseases should be treated, and ideally cured, but some affect more people, are graver, and therefore should receive more funding. I doubt any of those who voted for cancer believe AIDS should receive no funding.

[Morphous01]

Originally Posted by litlux

And let us remember that there are many causes of suffering and death beyond the few mentioned with Heart Disease being at the top of the list. Admittedly those that succumb to that do so largely in later years, but it hits early, too. And what of those who have rare and dreadful diseases we only hear about once in a great while, should we write them off because the statistics do no support funding them?

The bottom line is that all diseases deserve attention, and with your own personal charity you can do much to help. I have a personal commitment to solving breast cancer, but I recently sponsored someone who was on a walk against hunger, and indeed support both HIV research and, if you look in the Diabetes forum, research into Type 2.

I am sure you have your own causes, and thank you for supporting them, as I support mine. We are all essential players in these efforts.

How can my monetary effort be "essential" if all that happens is the misappropriation of funds? If anything, people should say, "I will support your cause for a year and you can't find a cure I'm pulling my funds!". I bet you they would find a cure real quick!

Regardless, in addition to the what I already posted, instead of running marathons why don't people ever protest against or question the following:

1. Medical waste that is dumped into the ocean.

2. Incineration plants that burn medial waste.

3. Munitions/toxic waste that is dumped into the ocean.

4. Transmission/power lines that stretch over residential areas.

5. Preservatives in food.

6. Residential developments that where built on top of old industrial/military grounds that handled toxic chemicals, such as parts of Irvine, ca. (There is high incidence of breast cancer in Irvine, Ca because of this issue. Various chemicals were just dumped right into the ground and the government just avoids the issue).

[OhZone]

Yes Morphous, we have not been making enough fuss about those things. They also build housing developments on top of land fills.
There wouldn't be so many diseases if they would just leave all the poison chemicals out of our food.

I have read a lot of info that Aids is not caused by HIV. Almost any chronic condition is now classed as Aids and the highly toxic meds that are given to these sick people is what kills them. I have scacely any faith in doctors.
I tried to give you more points but the system wouldn't let me.

[litlux]

Here are the statistics on Federal funding for some 215 disease categories.

NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) - Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC)

As you can see, there is not just one category for "cancer" or "AIDS" but several.

For a real analysis we would need to know how much of these funds go for basic research, how much for trials, treatment, prevention etc.

And some diseases like Cancer have been researched for generations, while others are new, like Nile Virus, and potentially very dangerous.

If anything, this chart shows how complex things are.