Replies

Where did you get the absurd notion that cancer mainly strikes people over child-bearing years?

On average, each person who dies from cancer loses an estimated 15 years of life.

The source of HIV is almost purely behavioral, and thus far more preventable and far less in need of a vaccine.

The source of HIV is a virus. In North America, the risk is pretty slim if you don't engage in a few high-risk behaviors, but the rest of the world isn't North America. And there are behavioral factors in cancer as well -- giving up tobacco use, for starters.

>The cause of cancer is still undetermined. Some pathologists and oncologists believe it is rooted in a virus, others in genetic failure, others in environmental toxins.

Or various combinations of the above. The evidence for some environmental hazards (tobacco smoke, radiation, sun exposure) is clear. The evidence of genetic and viral factors is emerging, but looks strong.

But this much is known about cancer: that it is an uncontrolled increase in the number of malignant cells attacking the vital cells. Once they find a cure/vaccine for ONE type of cancer, it will set up a rapid domino effect for all other types.

That's a supposition on your part. What seems clear to me is that different cancers form by different mechanisms, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that one "silver bullet" will emerge that will keep them all from forming or contain them all once they do.

I don't know how you can honestly claim that finding a vaccine for HIV is more important than finding a vaccine for cancer.

Show me an area with 25 million cancer patients, any of whom could spread cancer to others. That's the UN estimate for sub-Saharan Africa.

First, this:
"On average, each person who dies from cancer loses an estimated 15 years of life,"

is a misleading statement. It does not necessarily mean that each person who died from cancer was elderly and would have only lived 15 more years. That statistic also takes into account the statistic that IF each person who died from a cancer had not died at the time they did, they would probably have died within 15 years. This is due to weakened immune systems and other factors. Age is irrelevant. This is why the statistic of likelihood of death for survivors for nearly all cancers reduces in five-year cycles. Simply put, if you're still alive after 5 years, you have X% of living another five. If after 10 years, X+X% of living another five years, etc.

As I and others and you have stated, HIV is spread through behavioral choices resulting in the transmission of bodily fluids. Those who have it and those likely to get it, regardless of the ostensibly alarming numbers you quote, is a finite number in that it is limited to those who engage in the "risky" behaviors (unprotected sex, intravenous drug use). The unfortunate numbers of those infected who do not engage in those behaviors (the victims of deceit in sexual relationships, rape, recipients of infected transfusions) is very small.

Your original post made the point of wanting to find a vaccine for HIV for "Darwinian" reasons. Well, for purely cold, "Darwinian" reasons, the race would be better off without the numbers who are willfully spreading HIV. How has this risky behavior and its consequences benefited society or the human race? It hasn't. It is purely destructive.

But the above is not an argument that I would like to make. My goal is to eliminate the greatest suffering from the greatest number of people. To me, cancer strikes those who may have lived the "perfectly healthy" life, whatever that may be. HIV tends to strike those who are largely aware of the risks, who make a choice to engage in a behavior.

To me, our time and finances, our scientific and medicinal effort has a greater worldwide and generational benefit by being spent on finding a cure/vaccine for cancer than for HIV.

I believe it is this qualitative issue where you and I disagree. So be it.