Fuck Cancer
March 9, 2004 5:35 PM Subscribe
Fuck Cancer. Win Prizes. [possibly nsfw. photo has the word fuck in it.]
Ugh, I just had a friend die from Myeloma last week. She was diagnosed about nine months ago after feeling "run down". She went from being an active and energetic person to dead in nine months. This is a really nasty terminal disease, treatment doesn't offer any real hope of cure either, just "quality of life".
Good luck to this guy. It is fantastic that he is putting a good face on this, raising awareness, and attempting to live his life while helping others.
posted by phatboy at 6:50 PM on March 9, 2004
Good luck to this guy. It is fantastic that he is putting a good face on this, raising awareness, and attempting to live his life while helping others.
posted by phatboy at 6:50 PM on March 9, 2004
Sorry, change the gender of the above. Didn't realize he was a she.
posted by phatboy at 6:53 PM on March 9, 2004
posted by phatboy at 6:53 PM on March 9, 2004
i hate cancer ...
one would think those in power would throw a fraction of the cost of the war on terror at a war on cancer ... in light of the fact 550,000 cancer deaths happened in the US last year ....
but chasing evildoers seemed like it was a better way to get votes (and oil) at the time...
posted by specialk420 at 10:12 PM on March 9, 2004
one would think those in power would throw a fraction of the cost of the war on terror at a war on cancer ... in light of the fact 550,000 cancer deaths happened in the US last year ....
but chasing evildoers seemed like it was a better way to get votes (and oil) at the time...
posted by specialk420 at 10:12 PM on March 9, 2004
Sometimes I'm not sure which is worse -- being diagnosed with cancer yourself, or having to watch a loved one disintegrate before your eyes and knowing that there's nothing you can do.
Having been in both positions doesn't seem to have tipped the scales either way.
posted by antifreez_ at 9:26 AM on March 10, 2004
Having been in both positions doesn't seem to have tipped the scales either way.
posted by antifreez_ at 9:26 AM on March 10, 2004
Most cancer is, from what I understand, simply what happens when you live long enough for your DNA to begin to go wonky. Thus, it should be as easy to eliminate as other aging-related diseases.
First, you prohibit anyone from under the age of 30 from having children. After a few hundred years of this, you raise the age to 35. And a few hundred years later, 40. And so on. Eventually you will weed out all the genes that make people die before 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, etc., and the ones that are left will have exceptionally sturdy genes that don't break down easily with age. Not to mention few other inherited diseases and the freakish ability to bear children well into what used to be one's twilight years. (There will likely be other genetic diseases discovered that don't affect people now because we don't live long enough.)
Of course, people will probably still get cancer and die, they'll just get it when they're 150 instead of when they're 75.
And you'll also have a police state, because people want to reproduce, and will become increasingly more desperate to do so when their line is about to be extinguished. Or else you'll have a permanent underclass of people whose parents reproduced early, whose lives will be nasty, brutish, and short because they will be unable to obtain insurance or even employment once past a certain age.
This dystopian scenario brought to you by...
posted by kindall at 9:50 AM on March 10, 2004
First, you prohibit anyone from under the age of 30 from having children. After a few hundred years of this, you raise the age to 35. And a few hundred years later, 40. And so on. Eventually you will weed out all the genes that make people die before 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, etc., and the ones that are left will have exceptionally sturdy genes that don't break down easily with age. Not to mention few other inherited diseases and the freakish ability to bear children well into what used to be one's twilight years. (There will likely be other genetic diseases discovered that don't affect people now because we don't live long enough.)
Of course, people will probably still get cancer and die, they'll just get it when they're 150 instead of when they're 75.
And you'll also have a police state, because people want to reproduce, and will become increasingly more desperate to do so when their line is about to be extinguished. Or else you'll have a permanent underclass of people whose parents reproduced early, whose lives will be nasty, brutish, and short because they will be unable to obtain insurance or even employment once past a certain age.
This dystopian scenario brought to you by...
posted by kindall at 9:50 AM on March 10, 2004
« Older Pre-9/11, Bush Deprioritized Counter-terrorism and... | Destroy those old love letters (emails) to your ex Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by orange swan at 5:42 PM on March 9, 2004