Re: Starving people refuse to eat food aid
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
cryptoguy wrote:
> On Nov 19, 11:00 am, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> orig...@moderators.isc.org <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 3:11 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article
> > > <c73aea8c-0a42-44e9-8523-b4e85fae7...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org
> >
> > > <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > > > > Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > For a cite try any case where you have claimed that state health
> > > > > > care systems would routinely refuse treatment, this is not actually
> > > > > > so as there is a high political cost to refusing treatment on
> > > > > > financial grounds so it rarely happens.
> >
> > > > > I'm sorry if this response violates afu's BOP, but I feel I am being
> > > > > attacked here, and that I ought to be allowed to defend myself in the
> > > > > same venue. I will keep it very brief.
> >
> > > > > I have pointed out that no health care system, whether private or
> > > > > government-run, can provide all possible useful treatment to all
> > > > > patients, as there isn't enough money in the world. So the issue
> > > > > isn't whether denial of treatment will happen, but who gets to decide
> > > > > when and how it will happen.
> >
> > > > E.g., medical insurance company shareholders.
> >
> > > > > I understand that many people disagree
> > > > > with me and believe the government should decide. But my *facts* are
> > > > > correct, even if, in your judgement, my opinions about what ought to
> > > > > be done are not.
> >
> > > > Can you prove that there isn't enough money in the world (or in the
> > > > country) to provide all possible useful medical treatment, when
> > > > apparently appropriate, to all potential patients? I'd just like to
> > > > see your working. Obviously, for instance, providing all treatment in
> > > > or adjacent to the patient's home, including surgery and intensive
> > > > care, would be nice, but very expensive. And privately invented
> > > > treatments, notably patented drugs, also are very expensive. But you
> > > > could socialise scientific research in medicine as well. Say if the
> > > > President declared a "War on Cancer" and used public funds for a lot
> > > > of research. Hmm. Apparently he did.
> >
> > > Cancer is holding it's own and perhaps winning.
> >
> > Well, /this/ President isn't through yet.
>
> There's *still* faithful out there who think BHO is so god-like that
> he can cure cancer? How touching.
All that it needs is money. If the Democrats are going to take all
your money, they better do something useful with it.
Nixon did it first - and cancer is a tough disease, given what's
immediately making you sick is basically you (so surgical removal is
tricky), and the older you get, the more liable you are¹to turn
cancery. But it's already very treatable in many of its types, as
long as you can afford the doctor's bill. There's a vaccine against
most of cancer of the cervix, the penis, etc. (If I read some
statistics right, there is quite a lot of cancer of the penis, but
presumably surgery... is... very... successful. Even so.)
This may be unpopular in rec.arts.sf.written, but it looks like if we
kill the space programme, we get to kill cancer as well. Under Nixon
and under Obama.
Walter Bushell
<d1742e9a-3e4c-42cc...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.or�g
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
You can kill cancer, no doubt. But it keeps coming back, like the
proverbial cat.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Robert Carnegie
So we're not done yet. So, we put away the Mars mission for /another/
four years. _Doctor Who_ for instance just set it in 2059. And
there's _Defying Gravity_. Sci-fi fans, sorry, but what's more
important?
Keith F. Lynch
> cryptoguy wrote:
>> There's *still* faithful out there who think BHO is so god-like
>> that he can cure cancer? How touching.
> All that it needs is money. If the Democrats are going to take all
> your money, they better do something useful with it.
> Nixon did it first ...
Indeed, there has been a "war on cancer" non-stop since the 1960s.
Also a "war on poverty" and a "war on drugs." Vast amounts of money
have been thrown at all three for nearly half a century, with little
to show for it.
> This may be unpopular in rec.arts.sf.written, but it looks like if
> we kill the space programme, we get to kill cancer as well. Under
> Nixon and under Obama.
You might be surprised. Plenty of SF fans have long thought that
NASA is a waste of money. But I strongly doubt that ending the space
program would somehow result in a cure for cancer.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Howard Brazee
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Indeed, there has been a "war on cancer" non-stop since the 1960s.
>Also a "war on poverty" and a "war on drugs." Vast amounts of money
>have been thrown at all three for nearly half a century, with little
>to show for it.
Wars should have winning conditions that can be measured and agreed
upon, along with strategies with some hope of achieving those
conditions.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc. or\255g <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > cryptoguy wrote:
> >> There's *still* faithful out there who think BHO is so god-like
> >> that he can cure cancer? How touching.
>
> > All that it needs is money. If the Democrats are going to take all
> > your money, they better do something useful with it.
>
> > Nixon did it first ...
>
> Indeed, there has been a "war on cancer" non-stop since the 1960s.
> Also a "war on poverty" and a "war on drugs." Vast amounts of money
> have been thrown at all three for nearly half a century, with little
> to show for it.
>
> > This may be unpopular in rec.arts.sf.written, but it looks like if
> > we kill the space programme, we get to kill cancer as well. Under
> > Nixon and under Obama.
>
> You might be surprised. Plenty of SF fans have long thought that
> NASA is a waste of money. But I strongly doubt that ending the space
> program would somehow result in a cure for cancer.
On the face of it, it would leave a lot of spare money to invest in
medical research. We've got cures for cancer. Lots of 'em.
Radiotherapy, chemotherapy, vaccines, I just heard about some guy who
had his rectal cancer incinerated with concentrated sound waves. Or
something. Cancer is our bitch. We have cures. We just need them
more and better.
Mike Ash
<4bc9ee83-92d9-42b7...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.or�g
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
It wouldn't leave any "spare" money. The US federal budget deficit
exceed's NASA's entire budget by about two orders of magnitude.
Even ignoring that, completely demolishing NASA and diverting its entire
budget to medical research would only increase US medical research
spending by about 20%.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Dimensional Traveler
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:28:36 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> Indeed, there has been a "war on cancer" non-stop since the 1960s.
>> Also a "war on poverty" and a "war on drugs." Vast amounts of money
>> have been thrown at all three for nearly half a century, with little
>> to show for it.
>
> Wars should have winning conditions that can be measured and agreed
> upon, along with strategies with some hope of achieving those
> conditions.
>
_losing_ conditions.
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Walter Bushell
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
Shirley, testosterone is a useful substance, but I think it should be
restricted to those who can use it responsibly.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In the last eight years, that would have saved a lot of time. Amongst
other things.
Keith F. Lynch
> On the face of it, it would leave a lot of spare money to invest
> in medical research. We've got cures for cancer. Lots of 'em.
> Radiotherapy, chemotherapy, vaccines, I just heard about some guy
> who had his rectal cancer incinerated with concentrated sound waves.
> Or something. Cancer is our bitch. We have cures. We just need
> them more and better.
When Nixon declared war on cancer 38 years ago, it was the second-
leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease. Today, after
hundreds of billions of dollars of research, it's the second-leading
cause of death in the US, after heart disease.
Dorothy J Heydt
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
><rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On the face of it, it would leave a lot of spare money to invest
>> in medical research. We've got cures for cancer. Lots of 'em.
>> Radiotherapy, chemotherapy, vaccines, I just heard about some guy
>> who had his rectal cancer incinerated with concentrated sound waves.
>> Or something. Cancer is our bitch. We have cures. We just need
>> them more and better.
>
>When Nixon declared war on cancer 38 years ago, it was the second-
>leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease. Today, after
>hundreds of billions of dollars of research, it's the second-leading
>cause of death in the US, after heart disease.
Of course, one of the other jokers in the deck is that heart
disease is one of those things that kills you if all the other
things that would've killed you -- plague, typhoid, cholera,
botulism, smallpox, et caetera ad horrendum, didn't get a chance
to. And cancer is what kills you if even heart disease doesn't
get a chance.
Did I already say that cancer is a disease of multicellularity?
The longer you live, the oftener your cells get to divide, and
the greater the chance that one of them will get a bad mutation
and just keep dividing till it kills you.
Toxins and pollutants are indeed one of the things that increase
your chances of cancer. They damage your cells, which have to
divide faster and oftener to keep you going, and the greater the
chance, et cetera.
In the Third World more cancers are caused by diseases that have
been licked around here, than by pollutants. (I used to work for
a woman* who collected, correlated, ran statistics on, and
published the results of every cancer experiment she could get
her hands on.)
(*I cannot call her a lady. She was a three-dimensional
spherical bitch.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Dimensional Traveler
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc. or�g <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On the face of it, it would leave a lot of spare money to invest
>> in medical research. We've got cures for cancer. Lots of 'em.
>> Radiotherapy, chemotherapy, vaccines, I just heard about some guy
>> who had his rectal cancer incinerated with concentrated sound waves.
>> Or something. Cancer is our bitch. We have cures. We just need
>> them more and better.
>
>When Nixon declared war on cancer 38 years ago, it was the second-
>leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease. Today, after
>hundreds of billions of dollars of research, it's the second-leading
>cause of death in the US, after heart disease.
The way I see it, in the last 50 years or so, those who
contracted heart disease and cancer now live longer than they
would have back then, so the ranking stays about the same, but
the victims now live longer.
When I had my quintuple bypass, as I understand it, I was hooked
up to a heart-lung machine, my chest was split open and my heart
stopped for the duration of the procedure. Then everything was
stapled in place and my chest was closed back up with adhesive
and staples to hold it together during recuperation, and my heart
restarted.
When I was young that would have been impossible. so I think the
research money is doing some good, even if it hasn't successfully
stopped heart disease and cancer altogether. I would have died
six years ago otherwise.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Dorothy J Heydt
That's the idea.
>When I was young that would have been impossible. so I think the
>research money is doing some good, even if it hasn't successfully
>stopped heart disease and cancer altogether. I would have died
>six years ago otherwise.
My father-in-law died of a heart attack at the age of 51. My
husband had his bypass at the same age and is still around.
Keith F. Lynch
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> (*I cannot call her a lady. She was a three-dimensional
>> spherical bitch.)
Tell us what you really thing.
> If she hasn't already, she probably will die of cancer.
Possible, but heart disease is more likely.
Dorothy J Heydt
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> (*I cannot call her a lady. She was a three-dimensional
>>> spherical bitch.)
>
>Tell us what you really thing.
>
>> If she hasn't already, she probably will die of cancer.
>
>Possible, but heart disease is more likely.
I have no idea whether she is alive or dead and I don't care.
Hatunen
Heydt) wrote:
>My father-in-law died of a heart attack at the age of 51. My
>husband had his bypass at the same age and is still around.
My father died at the age of 38 in 1945 of what the death
certificate called a "coronary occlusion".