cancer is a killer, yet the uk government spends more on defence than finding a cure for this disease, cancer as too rely on charity most of the time, why?
2006-11-06 04:04:00 · 16 answers · asked by kevin1958 2 in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Cancer
If we'd all actually practice the religions we claim to follow, we'd have little need for defense. *Sigh!* But that, in itself, would be a miracle.
My vote's for cancer curation. It's been estimated that one in four people's lives are touched in some way by this disease. Mine was! My father, my grandmother, one of my aunts--and her son, who no longer has a thyroid because of his "brush" with cancer--as well as myself. The treatments so far mostly involve poisoning the body, and in my opinion liken curing a headache by cutting off the head; even when cured, you're not quite the same. It's funny how most people who are diagnosed with cancer fear the treatment more than the disease... and very telling of just how much further we need to go.
By the way! To the poster who suggested that cancer's cure is being with held because of its danger, financially, to drug companies: Why are there so many examples of doctors, nurses and their staff, as well as politicians who have had to undergo the same treatments that us lowly peasants at the bottom have to undergo? In fact, one of America's leading cancer doctors, Dr. Paul O'Donnell (who works at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance for those interested in poking around on the internet) became an oncologist after losing his wife to cancer. I wonder how Paul would vote to this question?
2006-11-06 06:14:39 · answer #1 · answered by writersblock73 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definately cancer. I have a high family history of many types of cancer and my dad currently still has cancer but it under control. Also my husband was in the army at one time and worked with nuclear weapons and when all of this stuff first started going on with Saddam he told me point blank that if the goverment gave him any people he wanted for his team and any weapons and spy items etc he wanted that he would just go in and take Saddam out and be done with it. I realize some of this is just "talking a line of sh*t" as they say but if he pretty much knows it can be done and other military people have told me it could be done then I tend to feel it is true. The government is is good at telling people what they want to hear and dragging things out. Take care of business in Iraq and then get out. Would the money saved be put towards cancer? Probably not but what a waste of money and human lives with this current war.
2006-11-06 04:17:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Find a cure for cancer. And to answer your question there's more money in defense.
2006-11-06 10:30:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As someone whose had Cancer for 3 years, lost a kidney and numerous other bits along the way, i think my answer to the question is pretty easy to guess.
However, if we'd never gone into Iraq, i wonder where all that money would have gone? I doubt things would be a whole lot diffrent to they are now.
2006-11-06 04:09:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are you extreme ? the way you gonna pay the docs and nurses ? What money are you gonna use to pay for the upkeep of the kit ? What money are you going to apply for different initiatives ? how are you going to save hospitals operating in any respect ? Thats between the most stupidest questions i have ever heard. Theres good evidence you cant "remedy" cancer in any respect and no one EVER will be. Its not talked about as a overseas substance contained in the body, so theres NO drugs which will ever be able to remedy it. Chemo works by technique of killing ALL cells contained in the body, so frequently its gonna continually be a 50/50% chance of surviving, both the chemo will ward off by technique of having fortunate and hitting the nicely perfect parts of the cancerous boom, or the chemo kills you by technique of weakening the immune equipment.
2016-11-28 20:21:28 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely cancer. Defense kills people without trying to find a "cure".
2006-11-06 04:12:36 · answer #6 · answered by Bella Donna 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
find a cure for cancer
2006-11-06 15:47:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one would contribute to a charty aimed at purchasing Trident.
We do need to spend something on defence but could have saved an awful lot by not invading Afghanistan and Iraq just because the US wanted to
2006-11-06 04:08:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
All of us would like both, for those in the armed forces, I would think they would go for defence. Me I'm in the bracket for cancer so my answer is obvious. We have to remember that no one lives for ever so don't worry about it !
2006-11-06 04:19:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would have to say find a cure for cancer
2006-11-06 11:33:34 · answer #10 · answered by sindi 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋