Government

[penelo rocks]

does any one here also agree with me that governments should spend more money on research in to things like cancer and other serious illnesses.

[Chez Daja]

Well, yeah, of course.

The NHS is currently on a budget. Did anybody else read in the newspaper that the NHS sent their employees on a "rock climbing trip" ... WHILE their period of being broke? HOOOBOY!

There are scientists in labs currently developing new technology and cures to serious illnesses, such as cancer. But I think that if the government should be paying for anything, it's cleaning hospitals. So many patients in hospitals are dying from the lethal disease MRSA.

I've read in the newspapers, stories about patients who were recovering from other illnesses, DYING because the unclean hospitals. Yes. If the government should be doing ANYTHING for health care right now, it should be better cleaners for hspitals to rid us from this hideous disease, MRSA.

[Jin]

That all depends where the money comes from. Finding some of these cures may be a wild goose chase or may take several generations. It seems more sensible to focus on problems of the same magnitude that we are certain to be able to fix. Taking the money from some other places that are less important, then of course, I agree.

[Chez Daja]

Where I come from, the government is pretty much broke. I don't see how with the constant rises taxes and rent, though...

I was meant to be living by myself later this year, but because the rent for places has risen so high that I can't even do that until I have worked more.
The British society is SHITE.

I'm sick of hearing constantly about prices in every rising and wages staying at the typically low level.

[VIVI17]

originally quote by lee3825 does any one here also agree with me that governments should spend more money on research in to things like cancer and other serious illnesses.

i do .they shoud spend more money on cancer and such

[Chez Daja]

VIVI17, please put more content into the posts you type here. It'd be interesting to hear more of your views as to why cancer should come before other lethal and much quicker killing diseases, such as MRSA.

[VIVI17]

my best frined has cancer and i take it really seriously the government should b spending more money on cancer research than on defense because the usa already has a big enough army and such.

[Chez Daja]

Yes, but cancer is not the only deadly disease out there.

MRSA is claiming lives a LOT faster then cancer, but don't get me wrong, cancer is a major issue.
If you don't think I havent had friends that have died from cancer, you are mistaken. There are also already developements of cancer curing treatments being perfected in labs. And they should be used by 2010+.

That's what I've heard anyway.

[Pete]

Actually, a cure for cancer already does exist. Why is it that cancer was so rare in the pre 20th century, and why have we never heard of anyone in South America dying of cancer hundreds of years ago? Okay, granted there were a lot less cancer causing agents, however the answer is pretty simple, and that most cultures have either herbal remedies or extracts from various plants. Of course, the government knows this, but they don't want the cure to be put out immediatley due to two main factors.

Firstly, it will cost money, a lot of money to produce. Sure, they could hike up the prices to make a profit, but the government doesn't want people going bankrupt and thus on welfare to pay for medication.

Secondly, there are patents on medicine, and those patents last 7 years, I think. Some company in Japan may have already found the cure, but they're prohibited from sharing the recipe with other drug companies. I don't know exactly the reasoning behind this, but it works like that. Of course, this company that may or may not have the cure for cancer doesn't want to seem like a bunch of douchebags, not sharing the cure, so they are forced to wait the seven years in silence, more or less, until they can "stumble across it and share it with the world," when in reality, it's been sitting there for years all along.

Think about Viagra and Cialis. Both are used to keep your **** up, but why is it that Viagra came out around 1996 and Cialis just in the past few years. Basically, the recipe had been created 10 years ago by Pfizer, but they weren't allowed to share it and other companies weren't allowed to muscle in on the same drug. So years later, we see all of these new medicines for erectile dysfunction.


Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Originally Posted by lee3825

does any one here also agree with me that governments should spend more money on research in to things like cancer and other serious illnesses.

i agree research is in porten so the deiseses are cered and we can live longer

[Tiffany]

My thing is kinda similar to Pete's.

I heard a conspiracy theory that there already IS a cure for cancer, but donations and cancer funds are such a cash cow that the government doesn't want to lose the money.

I'm not saying I totally believe this, but I thought it was interesting all the same. I would like to hope that they wouldn't do something like that... but then again, how else will they fund their $150,000 pensions for 5 years of work?