StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Which do you think should get priority in funding?

I ask this as I saw an ad for an Alzheimers association, saying they funded both the cause and the cure, which got me thinking, what would be more important?

The cause will allow you to identify it very early and kill it early, whereas the cure would kill it once it is identified, possibly too late.

I think you end up working on both.

If you can figure out the cause you might have a better chance of curing it or at least preventing it.

Where's that Black+White GIF?

I say Cause, because that prevents the damage in the first place. Which is better, curing smallpox, or vaccinating it?

Vorlon1701 wrote:I say Cause, because that prevents the damage in the first place. Which is better, curing smallpox, or vaccinating it?

The cure for smallpox was the vaccine and it what allowed it to be wiped out in the world.

Both are important. You'll rarely cure something with out getting an understanding of what causes them.

But what would you give priority to?

Say you get a disease that you have no clue as to what causes it, or how to cure it, which would you prioritise?

Ted wrote:But what would you give priority to?

Say you get a disease that you have no clue as to what causes it, or how to cure it, which would you prioritise?

Cause of course. It'd help you figure out how to cure it.

Depends on the disease. If it's viral, then looking to prevent it is the only way to control it in any reasonable length of time. If it's genetic, for right now it seems to be better to try to control the symptoms because our control over genes isn't good enough yet to prevent them.

The cure, to be sure.
Prervention only stops the NEW suffering, the PRESENT suffering is real, not POTENTIAL.
Stop a sure thing, and make REAL, actual peoples lives better, as opposed to writing ALL of the present sufferers off, for the benifit of the POTENTIAL sufferers?
I don't feel sorry for people that WILL get sick in 20 years, I feel sorry for people that are sick and suffering NOW.

This choice is based on the STIPULATED, (look it up if you don't know what it means) condition that it is one or the other.

In the REAL world of medicine, cures, and prevention go hand in hand. (some vaccines are curative, provided you live long enough to let your newly boosed immunity to counter attack!)
Cures are used when there's no stopping the cause,(genetics, exposure to toxics, ignorance of the true cause, or unrepentant unhealthful lifestyle)
Sometimes you just don't get to choose WHICH chemicals or diseases, or genes you have.

That's pretty damn tough. I went with cause though. It just seems off the top, given that if you figure out the cause, sometimes you can catch other things that start the same way. If that makes fucking sense. Heh.

Without knowing the cause, any effort trying to find the cure will have very limited results. Research the cause first.

To find the cure you must understand what you are dealing with. That means understanding its cause and growth and all that other stuff. I go with cause.

Agreed here...Cause first. When you know WHAT the problem is, you can figure out how to fix it.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Vorlon1701 wrote:I say Cause, because that prevents the damage in the first place. Which is better, curing smallpox, or vaccinating it?

The cure for smallpox was the vaccine and it what allowed it to be wiped out in the world.

I just used that example mainly because, once smallpox is contracted, you're stuck with the scars for life. A better example would be Ebola. Which would you rather have, a cure, or a vaccine?

I think a better way to put this is treatment for prevention. Cure or cause doesn't make sense, the two are linked.