Christopher Reeve's widow has cancer
 

Oh my!

Scientists can clone a dayum dog, but are not able to find cures for diseases. :rolleyes: I know, it's about money!

Oh no...
 

I pray for peace that surpasses all understanding for their family. That poor lady - and their son... how sad.:(

That is extremely sad to hear. :(

So true!

I was so sadden to hear about this.

One would think that The Reeves Family has gone through more their share of tribulations and now this.:(

How so Saddening.

My father died from cancer when he was 58, and cancer is prevalent on both sides of my family. I've learned a bit about it because I have a strong incentive to do so. How is the lack of a cure for cancer simply about money? Making a flipant, and uneducated statement like that does no one any good.

My prayers and best wishes goes out to Dana, Will and the rest of the Reeves family.:(

One, You are not the only person who has been affected by cancer. There are thousands of individuals who are survivors, yet there are many who have not been as lucky to survive. So, you are not special in that regard. My father too, succumbed to the disease. He was younger than your father at the time of his death. However, that's not any of your business, nor relevant. Two, you might want to educate yourself as to how research (not only cancer research) is very political and is driven by dollars and cents and is a "big business". Third, if you feel my remarks were flipant and uneducated...so what! [/b]It's my opinion [/b]and it does me some good!

Still, we can clone a dog, but can't seem to find a cure for cancer, the common cold, AIDS, Sickle Cell Anemia...the list goes on and on and on!

Cloning a dog is to apples as cancer is to oranges.

It took much less time because it was an easier task.

In fact, you haven't touched on how cloning a dog has to do with money or how cancer has little to do with money.

The treatments for cancer are incredibly pricey and many companies stand to profit from better treatments and cures.

And then you bring up AIDs - a disease where remarkable progress has been made?

-Rudey
--Apple, oranges, fruit salad...whatever.

You're totally out of line here.

We may be able to cure Sickle-Cell Anemia, but you wouldn't want it cured for QUITE a long time, since we . . . don't know the long term effects of gene therapy, and sickle-cell is an allele-based trait that would require significant genetic work. We know the mechanism, but curing it would most likely kill you.

We can't cure the 'common cold' because there is no such thing - every cold is a different animal, and addressing such a wide-ranging (and non-dangerous, i might add) disease would be a waste of precious funds.

Addressing AIDS is completely illogical on your part, when the latest drugs work wonders to defeating the condition (in its present condition) . . . and I don't want to assume anything about your background in virology, but needless to say pinpoint distruction of a virus is THE cutting edge of medical science . . . but we can't do it. Yet. Millions are being spent trying, though - billions even.

As for cancer . . . I worked in a lab that had functional gene therapy techniques for attacking cancer cells, and killing tumors. However, these would most likely kill YOU as well. We can cure cancer, we just can't keep you alive while we do it. It is FAR easier to clone a dog than cure cancer . . . this is without bringing back the virology arguments (think HPV).

Even past that . . . do you really not think there is tons of money in store for whoever brings about 'cures' (most likely, effective prevention or in vivo treatment) for the most common forms of cancer???

Some of the brightest minds on the planet are working on this problem.

It's not about the person who finds the cure and the money or lack of money associated with that. It's about the funds pharmaceutical companies and others (specialists, doctors, hmos, etc) will lose when "cures" are found.

I know many "bright minds" are working on it. They will continue to WORK on it even after our demise. ;)

I don't expect dissenters to agree with my stance. I have discussed this issue with doctors and representatives from pharmaceutical companies that I know (off the record). Therefore, I know it won't be "PC" to admit that I am correct. :D

I have always wondered how in the world scientists were able to find a cure for polio in the 1950s but are unable to find cures for the deadly diseases of current times.

Granted, it could be for money because a cure would terminate all future treatments of a disease which in turn terminates future profits. It could be because of future genetic problems with cures for certain diseases. It could be because different cancers affect the body differently. I admit I don't know. Other than the pharmaceutical companies, scientists, and doctors, no one really knows what drives researchers to find new medicines or possible cures.

I do feel sorry for the Reeve family. I do hope they find a cure soon for cancers. My grandfather died at 67 of Non-Hodgekins Lymphoma. A dear friend of mine, his brother is fighting Hodgekins Lymphoma . . . he's in his second bout with it. I believe every family has had some experience with cancer. Cancer doesn't just strike a certain generation or group of people. Everyone knows someone who has had cancer and no one has first dibs on experience with cancer.

You don't understand my point - 'big Pharma' will buy the therapy or cure, and sell it, offsetting the dollar loss from current treatments.

I know this because I worked in the field - so that should be a counterpoint to whatever anecdotes you have from disillusioned doctors or . . . salesmen.

I am just standing here wondering what Dana Reeve did to become a celeb. Entertainment Tonight was covering it like it was Jane Pauley who had been diagnosed.

Us americans love celebs who have done nothing to become celbs.