Cancer Cure

fulhamfanincork · 13-04-2010 08:40PM

Too ****ing right, we are number 1, as my friend tinchy stryder would say.

:eek:

admiralofthefleet · 13-04-2010 08:59PM

the brits will try and claim it, they always do

galwayrush · 13-04-2010 09:10PM

Hope it works.:(

iUseVi · 13-04-2010 09:14PM

"Their breakthrough has been hailed as being at the cutting-edge of science by an international expert in the treatment of cancer."

Hailed by an "international expert", LOL. That's not how science works.

seanybiker · 13-04-2010 09:16PM

biko wrote: »

I hope it's available by the time I get cancer from my smoking.

Me to. Giving up is to much effort.

sock puppet · 13-04-2010 09:23PM

SugarHigh wrote: »

If the birthrate remains the same and the death rate goes down then population increases.

Eh I know. But it won't lead to a sustained increase in population growth. It's a once off, like I said in the post you quoted.

edit: Also you do realise it's only a temporary decrease in the death rate right?

SugarHigh · 13-04-2010 09:53PM

sock puppet wrote: »

Eh I know. But it won't lead to a sustained increase in population growth. It's a once off, like I said in the post you quoted.

edit: Also you do realise it's only a temporary decrease in the death rate right?

How is it a once off?

8000 people die from cancer each year so a cure for cancer would be 8000 more people alive each year.

ejmaztec · 13-04-2010 10:05PM

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

the brits will try and claim it, they always do

Then it'll be a lot cheaper in the North. Here it will only available at €20k a pop, or free to politicians, multi-millionaires and bankers.

sponsoredwalk · 13-04-2010 10:33PM

SugarHigh wrote: »

Didn't cancer overtake heart disease as being the biggest killer in the world?

With heart surgery advancing very quickly recently(There are robots being developed that can perform heart surgery) and cancer getting better treatment this will make over population an even bigger threat.

It sounds ****ed up to think of it that way but it's true that people need to die.

:eek:

It's funny how people will look at something so extremely hopeful and positive and think "well this will cause problems" but they'll ignore the real problems, it the case of overpopulation the factors that will make overpopulation actually occur are those that are amongst us nowadays are capitalism, meat eating, deforestation, global warming (both man made and natural), incompetent preservation of natural habitats due to both failure to understand them and just plain stupidity, ...

I'm sure I could go on but this is a good thing that's happened today & I refuse to continue dragging stupidity and depression into a conversation about something potentially hopeful.

Also hope it works, I didn't know Cork had "it"

13-04-2010 10:34PM

Voltwad wrote: »

Is Cork cancer the same as regular cancer?

No, it's better.

sock puppet · 13-04-2010 10:35PM

SugarHigh wrote: »

How is it a once off?

8000 people die from cancer each year so a cure for cancer would be 8000 more people alive each year.

They're not going to live forever. They'll still die eventually. And as I said it won't lead to much/any increase in the birth rate. So explain to me how we can get a sustained increase in population growth rates by keeping people that can't reproduce alive for a little longer?

storm2811 · 13-04-2010 10:36PM

yay!:p

i remember my granny was talking about some treatment a few years ago in europe that was really effictive,can't remember the name though..

goat2 · 13-04-2010 10:40PM

TheZohan wrote: »

Why such a snide remark for a topic so serious?

Article for those that have a genuine interest:

this is brilliant news
the best in a long time
lives will be saved
i say, good luck to them,
hope this will be rolled out soon

Bloody Nipples · 13-04-2010 10:42PM

iUseVi wrote: »

"Their breakthrough has been hailed as being at the cutting-edge of science by an international expert in the treatment of cancer."

Hailed by an "international expert", LOL. That's not how science works.

Speaking about the work published today, Noriyuki Kasahara, President of the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy of Cancer said: “The work being done at Cork Cancer Research Centre at UCC is certainly at the cutting edge of science: no one has ever shown before that you can take an orally administered safe bacteria and have it hone into a tumour mass before and act there.”
http://www.ucc.ie/en/mandc/news/fullstory,98559,en.html

Bam.

opinion guy · 13-04-2010 11:06PM

Whilst we're on the subject of cancer, you might want to get those bloody nipples checked out...

iUseVi · 13-04-2010 11:52PM

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

Speaking about the work published today, Noriyuki Kasahara, President of the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy of Cancer said: “The work being done at Cork Cancer Research Centre at UCC is certainly at the cutting edge of science: no one has ever shown before that you can take an orally administered safe bacteria and have it hone into a tumour mass before and act there.”
http://www.ucc.ie/en/mandc/news/fullstory,98559,en.html

Bam.

Dear Bam,

Never mind.

iUseVi.

SugarHigh · 13-04-2010 11:56PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

:eek:

It's funny how people will look at something so extremely hopeful and positive and think "well this will cause problems" but they'll ignore the real problems, it the case of overpopulation the factors that will make overpopulation actually occur are those that are amongst us nowadays are capitalism, meat eating, deforestation, global warming (both man made and natural), incompetent preservation of natural habitats due to both failure to understand them and just plain stupidity, ...

I'm sure I could go on but this is a good thing that's happened today & I refuse to continue dragging stupidity and depression into a conversation about something potentially hopeful.

Also hope it works, I didn't know Cork had "it"

So you don't think an increasing population would play a part in over population?

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 12:04AM

iUseVi wrote: »

Dear Bam,

Never mind.

iUseVi.

Vi sucks emacs rule.

What year is this?

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 12:06AM

sock puppet wrote: »

They're not going to live forever. They'll still die eventually. And as I said it won't lead to much/any increase in the birth rate. So explain to me how we can get a sustained increase in population growth rates by keeping people that can't reproduce alive for a little longer?

That's like saying an increase in birth rate won't increase the population because they will die eventually.

by keeping people that can't reproduce alive for a little longer?

They don't need to reproduce to add to the population by simply being alive they are a +1 to the population. This is really simple and I can't believe you don't understand the concept.

iUseVi · 14-04-2010 12:13AM

SugarHigh wrote: »

Vi sucks emacs rule.

What year is this?

C-u M-! date (or close enough, meh)

we'llallhavetea_old · 14-04-2010 12:20AM

personally i like to hear about these breakthroughs. a cure for cancer/better treatment can only be a good thing.

i don't understand why people want to put a negative spin on these things

would these people be grateful if their family and friends died of cancer, so to keep the world population down? really? if not, then why think like that?

sock puppet · 14-04-2010 12:28AM

SugarHigh wrote: »

That's like saying an increase in birth rate won't increase the population because they will die eventually.

They don't need to reproduce to add to the population by simply being alive they are a +1 to the population. This is really simple and I can't believe you don't understand the concept.

Totally different scenarios. When babies are born, they grow up and have more kids of their own. This is what people worried about over-population are referring to when they speak of the problem - high growth rates. High growth rates can result in populations doubling in a very short space of time. Lower death rates from cancer would have no effect on growth rates, and thus have no effect on the doubling time. Funny that it's actually you that's incapable of understanding this concept.

A major breakthrough in cancer would lead to a once off increase in the population and have no effect on long-term population growth rates. It would take years to occur as more and more people get a chance at a longer life but eventually the population would stop rising.

In short if you want to avoid over-population then keeping the birth rate low is the only thing required (and they're already far too low in most of the Western world). We can still develop life saving medicines without bringing on the apocalypse .

Bob Z · 14-04-2010 12:29AM

Ghost Train wrote: »

Yop

They Will have it licked

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 12:29AM

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

personally i like to hear about these breakthroughs. a cure for cancer/better treatment can only be a good thing.

i don't understand why people want to put a negative spin on these things

would these people be grateful if their family and friends died of cancer, so to keep the world population down? really? if not, then why think like that?

Because sometimes a rational response is more interesting than a uniformed emotional one.

we'llallhavetea_old · 14-04-2010 12:33AM

SugarHigh wrote: »

Because sometimes a rational response is more interesting than a uniformed emotional one.

well i really hope you never lose a friend or family member to cancer.

iUseVi · 14-04-2010 12:33AM

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

personally i like to hear about these breakthroughs. a cure for cancer/better treatment can only be a good thing.

i don't understand why people want to put a negative spin on these things

would these people be grateful if their family and friends died of cancer, so to keep the world population down? really? if not, then why think like that?

I think it's because people hear about "potential" breakthroughs every week and most of them never happen for one reason or another. So people are understandably wary of such stories.

we'llallhavetea_old · 14-04-2010 12:35AM

iUseVi wrote: »

I think it's because people hear about "potential" breakthroughs every week and most of them never happen for one reason or another. So people are understandably wary of such stories.

its not about being wary, its about thinking if a cure for cancer came about that it would be bad. thats what i'm talking about.

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 12:38AM

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

its not about being wary, its about thinking if a cure for cancer came about that it would be bad. thats what i'm talking about.

I pointed out a negative effect that isn't to say it would be a bad thing overall.

Are you capable of anything other than simple emotional responses?

SugarHigh · 14-04-2010 12:38AM

sock puppet wrote: »

Totally different scenarios. When babies are born, they grow up and have more kids of their own. This is what people worried about over-population are referring to when they speak of the problem - high growth rates. High growth rates can result in populations doubling in a very short space of time. Lower death rates from cancer would have no effect on growth rates, and thus have no effect on the doubling time. Funny that it's actually you that's incapable of understanding this concept.

A major breakthrough in cancer would lead to a once off increase in the population and have no effect on long-term population growth rates. It would take years to occur as more and more people get a chance at a longer life but eventually the population would stop rising.

In short if you want to avoid over-population then keeping the birth rate low is the only thing required (and they're already far too low in most of the Western world). We can still develop life saving medicines without bringing on the apocalypse .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Stage5.svg
Notice how population growth occurs even though the birth rate decreased. It's called the Demographic transition model.

we'llallhavetea_old · 14-04-2010 12:41AM

SugarHigh wrote: »

I pointed out a negative effect that isn't to say it would be a bad thing overall.

Are you capable of anything other than simple emotional responses?

its the fact that you pointed out a negative effect thats alien to me.

are you capable of any emotional responses?

Cancer Cure

Comments