michael_stutzer said:
wfz said:
A cure for cancer was found by some researchers at a Canadian university a number of years back, and it also never really saw the light of day. It was even tested years later (very recently) and found to be working properly.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/05/cure-for-cancer-resurfaces-and.html
Why these things don't get more funding to be worked on and pushed through to help save millions of lives? No idea.
Probably because in all honesty, the last thing we really need is more old people living, costing us more money. I hate to sound like an asshole, but the amount of money we spend (because they can't afford it) on elderly people every year to keep them alive for a few months longer at a time is absolutely ridiculously expensive. We either need to learn when to pull the plug and stop providing free care to these old people or we need to hurry up and figure out how to make ourselves immortal beings.
Problem with doing the latter is we'll either overpopulate too quickly, or we won't have kids and new life will hardly ever see the world.
/running off topic. |
Age is an important factor in cancer, sure, but a lot of young people die because of cancer too. My uncle died because of cancer at the age of 37. A friend of me had cancer and only recently recovered, he is 27. You are not making any sense.
|
I said nothing of cancer and said everything about age and life expectancy. Obviously, spending 20K to treat a younger person (let's say 30 years old) saves more years of their life than spending 20K on treating a person who's 98 years old. The 98 year old's expected "years left" to live is much smaller than the 30 year old.
So again, I said nothing of cancer, and said everything of age. Your post contradicted that entirely. You are not making any sense. :P
