I looked into it. It appears to be talking about the cancer moonshot (which is in the background photo) which helps with early detection and assist with cost of those diagnosed. The part about developing a cure seems to stem from a one time donation to the "Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health" (ARPA-H) which aims to "train the immune system to better fight cancer and other diseases". [Opition] Sounds wasteful tbh, the immune system isn't that amazing, which is why we have things like vaccines. Unless the goal is to make a vaccine like product for cancer, seems plausable until you think properties of cancer a vaccine like solution seems unlikely. Thou we could certainly disccus what the most plausable or best investment for cancer solution but I'd say we are grasping at straws here, which isn't nessessarly a bad thing. A hail mary for a touchdown is still a touchdown.
The senate is majority by Republican, so I could see how one might think this is political driven, and it could be. However Congress is telling a different story. Funding seems to be their primary consern. With nearly exponential spending impacting the nations debt and raising inflation seems to be the main counter argument. The program doesn't seems to specify were that money will come from (from what I can find) and worst case its resolved at the printing press, worsting inflation. [Option] Resolving Cancer certainly sounds good, but it seems a poor or lack of plan for funding, or just the raw expenses seems to be the reason why it was rejected. At least one paper. And I would certainly agree a proper plan of action and funding should be considerd before passing. Were are you gonna get the money? Increasing taxes? Budget cuts, and if so whats getting cut?
March 21 of this year (2024) Congress voted an increase in funding in the fight against congress. Going to the "National Cancer Institute" (NCI). More funding has already been approved in cancer efforts. This is just for addional funding for a program started by Biden.
In summary: Title is clickbait title by a left leaning media group. Doesn't do any research and just assume its an politial move all while not acknowledging that this coincides with their own polical intrest. Cancer funding was increased, mostly going to the NCI, founded by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937. Addtional funding for ARPA-H, which one could argue is purely polical in nature, was what was rejected.
Sounds wasteful tbh, the immune system isn't that amazing, which is why we have things like vaccines
....
Vaccines work by priming the immune system. The immune system is the one that is doing the heavy lifting. If you don't have an immune system (e.g., you're on anti-rejection drugs), what did you think will happen if you get a vaccine?
Did you think the vaccine is the one that is fighting the disease?
If I gave a guy who normally sucks at fighting a complete guide to his opponent, their habits, their weakspots, the exact point to hit them in order to completely vanquish them, as well as a glock 19, and he ends up winning, it's not because he's a good fighter.
I noticed you didn't answer the question. So let me answer your analogy: if the guy doesn't exist at all, there's no one to vanquish the opponent.
Furthermore, if I have to fight someone, I will do everything I can to gain an upper hand, including getting all the pertinent information about my opponent. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm "not amazing at fighting", it just means "I'm not a moron who would go to a fight blind". Why would anyone do that?
But I digress; this is the first time I see someone dunking on their own immune system to own the libs. To each his own, I guess.
Vaccines eradicated disease. Thousands of years of immune system evolution couldn't do it. The vaccine is innovation to make up for the shortcomings of the immune system.
Your answer is completely irrelevant, because the guy "not existing" would be synonymous to the claim that the immune system n'existe pas, which is not what was asked for. Also there are specific parts of the immune system whose job is quite literally to "go to a fight blind" while the more specialized parts gather information, an incredibly slow process. You've clearly lost the plot at some stage in the thought cycle. This is the first time I've seen someone fail to address an opposition made completely of their own machination. Also you didn't stray from the main point, you do not, in fact, digress.
Also there are specific parts of the immune system whose job is quite literally to "go to a fight blind" while the more specialized parts gather information, an incredibly slow process
What an amazing thing! Thank goodness for this, otherwise we would die from every mutation or new pathogen.
Also, I'm not sure about "slow", but you do realize that the immune system cannot think, yes? Things that are "obvious" to you is not for a bunch of cells. The fact that it can go in blind and keep you alive sounds pretty amazing to me.
I'm going to ignore the baseless accusations because again, kinda hard to reason with someone dunking on his own immune system for some reason. But let's approach it from the other direction: if you say that the immune system is "lousy", what are you comparing it with?
idkman perhaps the viruses, bacteria, and in this case, cancer in question? If it weren't for human intervention they would've lost the biological arms race long ago.
If it weren't for human intervention they would've lost the biological arms race long ago.
Bruh...
Every animal have immune systems. They have existed for millions of years.
Hell, let's talk about humans. Modern humans have existed for 200,000 years. How did you think we survived that long without vaccines?
If you want to say this is "lousy", then I don't really know what to say. For something "lousy" it's doing a good job keeping us all alive, and the species as a whole for 200 millenia.
I'm going to assume you are alive. Feel free to correct me if I was wrong. How did you think your body is fighting off all kinds of bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc. that is trying to kill you?
The immune system is not perfect. But that doesn't mean it's "lousy". I'm going to stop pursuing this line of conversation now because honestly I did not anticipate having to tell someone "our immune system is good and we need it to live".
"which aims to "train the immune system to better fight cancer and other diseases". [Opition] Sounds wasteful tbh, the immune system isn't that amazing, which is why we have things like vaccines."
Tell me you don't know anything about biology without telling me you don't know anything about biology. Training the immune system via things like Killer T cell alteration, is the future. It's insanely powerful.
3
u/not-my-best-wank 27d ago
Lot of people getting mad at a clickbait title.
I looked into it. It appears to be talking about the cancer moonshot (which is in the background photo) which helps with early detection and assist with cost of those diagnosed. The part about developing a cure seems to stem from a one time donation to the "Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health" (ARPA-H) which aims to "train the immune system to better fight cancer and other diseases". [Opition] Sounds wasteful tbh, the immune system isn't that amazing, which is why we have things like vaccines. Unless the goal is to make a vaccine like product for cancer, seems plausable until you think properties of cancer a vaccine like solution seems unlikely. Thou we could certainly disccus what the most plausable or best investment for cancer solution but I'd say we are grasping at straws here, which isn't nessessarly a bad thing. A hail mary for a touchdown is still a touchdown.
The senate is majority by Republican, so I could see how one might think this is political driven, and it could be. However Congress is telling a different story. Funding seems to be their primary consern. With nearly exponential spending impacting the nations debt and raising inflation seems to be the main counter argument. The program doesn't seems to specify were that money will come from (from what I can find) and worst case its resolved at the printing press, worsting inflation. [Option] Resolving Cancer certainly sounds good, but it seems a poor or lack of plan for funding, or just the raw expenses seems to be the reason why it was rejected. At least one paper. And I would certainly agree a proper plan of action and funding should be considerd before passing. Were are you gonna get the money? Increasing taxes? Budget cuts, and if so whats getting cut?
March 21 of this year (2024) Congress voted an increase in funding in the fight against congress. Going to the "National Cancer Institute" (NCI). More funding has already been approved in cancer efforts. This is just for addional funding for a program started by Biden.
In summary: Title is clickbait title by a left leaning media group. Doesn't do any research and just assume its an politial move all while not acknowledging that this coincides with their own polical intrest. Cancer funding was increased, mostly going to the NCI, founded by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937. Addtional funding for ARPA-H, which one could argue is purely polical in nature, was what was rejected.