<p>ok, so i've been debating myself over this forever now...all insight is appreciated</p>
<p>can anyone truly find a cure for cancer? i thought cures were only for diseases, and cancer, as far as i know, is not a disease, just a failure of cells to perform apoptosis or an abnormal reproduction of cells</p>
<p>You can stop cells from becoming cancerous. Also, you can develop drugs that specifically target cancer cells. Remember, cancer cells are abnormal, therefore, you can design drugs that search them out. Obviously this is difficult, but eventually, assuming normal progression of technological advancement, it will be eradicated.</p>
<p>drug companies dont want to find a cure for cancer. they would lose money. they'd rather spend time creating drugs that make living with cancer easier (prolonging death, etc)</p>
<p>dcfca, I heard that's what they're doing with AIDS, too.</p>
<p>My sister is friends with a med student, and he says it's almost 100% possible to find a CURE for AIDS, not just prevention, prolonging whatever. An actual CURE.</p>
<p>But since that would mean that there would be no more AIDS patients to extort money from, the drug companies don't want to look for it.</p>
<p>A cynical view, but an interesting one nonetheless.</p>
<p>That's bullcrap, if they can find a cure then they just need to find the damn cure because there are other diseases that don't have cures that they can get their money off or whatever. </p>
<p>There are so many programs dedicated to finding the cure for AIDS, I don't think that's the reason. Bill Gates donated so much of his money one year to one particular program. </p>
<p>Too many people go to Africa to help those with AIDS. And if the above case is true, then there are too many people wasting too much of their time and money. I'll find the darn cure if it's so easy. Not everything in this life can be always manuevered to make money. Geez. I'm not being mad at anyone, but that kind of thinking really irritates me, especially because there are so many people suffering out there who don't even deserve to suffer.</p>
<p>There is such a thing as AIDS immunity (it's a genetic mutation that makes it impossible for HIV to come into contact with your T-cells), so that would be a logical starting point...but then again, that's gene therapy, which is controversial...and as anijen21 said, it will kill a lot of profits if there is worldwide immunity to HIV...</p>
<p>but whether to call it a cure or a vaccine or whatever doesn't really matter...</p>
<p>However, the word "disease" refers to any condition in which the body is not behaving properly. That includes viral/bacterial infections, autoimmune maladies (including allergies), and cancer. So calling it a "cure" wouldn't be bad at all...</p>
<p>That's bullcrap, if they can find a cure then they just need to find the damn cure because there are other diseases that don't have cures that they can get their money off or whatever.</p>
<p>There are so many programs dedicated to finding the cure for AIDS, I don't think that's the reason. Bill Gates donated so much of his money one year to one particular program.</p>
<p>Too many people go to Africa to help those with AIDS. And if the above case is true, then there are too many people wasting too much of their time and money. I'll find the darn cure if it's so easy. Not everything in this life can be always manuevered to make money. Geez. I'm not being mad at anyone, but that kind of thinking really irritates me, especially because there are so many people suffering out there who don't even deserve to suffer.</p>
<hr>
<p>Oh yeah, it irritates me too. But I've heard thats why there haven't been cures found. If I ever get to where I wanna be, I'll end up donating heavily towards finding cures.</p>