Hacker News Reader

Comment by RyanAdamas | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

You really need to learn about the burden of proof, since you'd (hopefully) be able to figure out that in this case, the burden of proof is on you to prove what you're saying is accurate. HN isn't a place for hand waving arguments where your only supporting proof is "logic".

> You don't need evidence when logic will do.

No one has the ability to make logical deductions about the world in the manner you've done in this thread.

Cancer is just a tough nut to crack. While a blanket cure remains a pipe dream, there is lots of promising research and life expectencies keep going up.

I'm curious, what do you think the difference is between a "cure" and a "treatment"? I imagine when you think cure you think about a pill that you take once and it uncancers you instantly. But wouldn't that also be a treatment? I get that you're criticizing the medical industry for financially draining patients, but what would stop someone from charging any exorbitant price for a pill that instantly cures your cancer?

A cure is something that solves a health condition 100% of the time. A treatment is a prolonged procedure with only a chance of success. One is a profit generating machine, the other loses customers.

You know, a cure - like what they pretended the vaccine was that somehow was forced through the almost impossible system of medical approvals that has stalled real cancer research for decades.

A cure is something that completely obliviates the problem on a particular patient. It doesn't have to work on every patient.

And, of course, medical treatments can be very valuable even if they fall short of a "cure".

What is "the vaccine"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com