Here recently I’ve been asked to participate in several fundraisers that assist with research for “rare cancers”. Hadn’t really heard the term much until this year, and I can’t get it out of my head. The term sits odd with me. The more I hear it the more uneasy I feel. So I did a little research and then felt like opening my mind and sharing my thoughts. Hopefully I’ll feel better when done.
The first case of cancer was believed to have been diagnosed in Egypt around 1500 BC, so that’s approximately 3500 years ago. To my knowledge we have yet to find cures for “common cancers” in those 35 centuries.
Yes we have medicine, and radiation, chemicals to slow the disease down but no pill or vaccine that thwarts it.
Our world has grown so much in 3500 years. Hell, I’m 38, and the world has flipped twice since 1972. In my lifetime, mankind has reached the heavens, put computers in our pockets, and the Internet at our fingertips. Technology has exploded, and we still have no real cure for cancer. Cancer affects all of us. We all have lost someone to it. Yet and still we have no real cure.
I see slogans racing for the cure, I see ribbons on lapels, and I see drives, and fundraisers, but still no cures. I’m starting to believe that Chris Rock was right when he said there will never be cures for these things that ail so many because “the money ain’t in the cure, it’s in the medicine”.
I’m a capitalist by nature, but maybe we need to take another look at how we’re approaching this thing. One would think that resources would only go to “rare cancers” after “common cancers” have been cured. Maybe we need less autonomy and a more autocratic approach to this.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) was established in 1937. Their budget last year alone was 5 Billion Dollars. The monies are basically spread over 10 different cancers in order of “commonness”; skin, lung, prostate, breast, colorectal (combination of colon, and rectal), bladder, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney, leukemia, and pancreatic.
Why don’t we make this thing a real race for the cure, and try to cure one of these before 2015? Why can’t we lock the 100 best cancer scientists in a facility until they come up with a vaccine for one of these cancers? Would this be too much like socialism? Would this threaten our civil liberties? Could our democracy handle it? I think so.
Okay, so which cancer should we cure? Skin is very preventable so scratch that one. 90% of lung cancer diagnoses come from smoking, sorry you did it to yourself, scratch that one. Prostate and Breast are about even, and are predominately gender specific so let’s pick on of those.
The first case of cancer was believed to have been diagnosed in Egypt around 1500 BC, so that’s approximately 3500 years ago. To my knowledge we have yet to find cures for “common cancers” in those 35 centuries.
Yes we have medicine, and radiation, chemicals to slow the disease down but no pill or vaccine that thwarts it.
Our world has grown so much in 3500 years. Hell, I’m 38, and the world has flipped twice since 1972. In my lifetime, mankind has reached the heavens, put computers in our pockets, and the Internet at our fingertips. Technology has exploded, and we still have no real cure for cancer. Cancer affects all of us. We all have lost someone to it. Yet and still we have no real cure.
I see slogans racing for the cure, I see ribbons on lapels, and I see drives, and fundraisers, but still no cures. I’m starting to believe that Chris Rock was right when he said there will never be cures for these things that ail so many because “the money ain’t in the cure, it’s in the medicine”.
I’m a capitalist by nature, but maybe we need to take another look at how we’re approaching this thing. One would think that resources would only go to “rare cancers” after “common cancers” have been cured. Maybe we need less autonomy and a more autocratic approach to this.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) was established in 1937. Their budget last year alone was 5 Billion Dollars. The monies are basically spread over 10 different cancers in order of “commonness”; skin, lung, prostate, breast, colorectal (combination of colon, and rectal), bladder, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney, leukemia, and pancreatic.
Why don’t we make this thing a real race for the cure, and try to cure one of these before 2015? Why can’t we lock the 100 best cancer scientists in a facility until they come up with a vaccine for one of these cancers? Would this be too much like socialism? Would this threaten our civil liberties? Could our democracy handle it? I think so.
Okay, so which cancer should we cure? Skin is very preventable so scratch that one. 90% of lung cancer diagnoses come from smoking, sorry you did it to yourself, scratch that one. Prostate and Breast are about even, and are predominately gender specific so let’s pick on of those.
Why can’t we concentrate our resources, and systematically eliminate prostate and breast cancer from the world? Maybe if we can get one domino to fall the others won’t be very far behind.
