Keith Olbermann Calls Penn State Raising More Than $13 Million For Cancer Research “Pitiful”

Dan Regester11 years ago

FGT

I’m not going to fall into the same trap as those PSU students who fed the troll. Rather than give you a serious answer, I’ll simply tell you you’re a raging bottom-tier-cunt and that you can follow the link below to educate yourself about every single advance we’ve made in cancer treatment over the past 250 years. Go fuck yourself.

http://www.cancer.gov/researchandfunding/progress/250-years-advances

11 years ago at 2:15 pm

FGT

Nice straw man/red herring combo there, anti-cancer-research-Mayweather. If you equate “adding cushioned seats” to the identification of the primary genes that cause cancer, finding the specific proteins those genes produce that inhibit tumor cell growth, utilizing these discoveries to indefinitely prolong the lives of certain types of cancer patients, releasing several drugs that can both prevent and treat certain types of cancer, releasing fucking cancer vaccines, discovering different classifications of what was previously thought to be the same type of cancer (and therefore requiring different treatments), and altogether uncovering vast amounts of information about how and why cancer forms (allowing us to attack the sources of the problem)…then you are literally too stupid to insult (also, all of those advances have come in the last 40 years).

Your flu argument is fucking nonsense too. Just because the flu kills more people doesn’t mean cancer isn’t worth researching – the flu kills a much smaller percentage of those who contract it than cancer does…but that’s not an argument against funding research for the flu, it’s an argument for funding research for both. The fact of the matter is that you clearly know nothing about what you’re saying – which is fine – arguing about things you know nothing about is FAF. The difference is most of us argue about the reasons our neighbors are clearly overreacting with their noise complaints, while you’re arguing about something that kills millions of people each year – so expect some backlash for your fucking stupidity. When you or someone close to you develops cancer, go ahead and avoid treatment since it’s “obviously” worthless.

God fucking damnit, this bitch has me feeding trolls. If your main argument is that we haven’t progressed fast enough to continue trying to end cancer, then we might as well stop fighting for our freedom since, after 200 years as a sovereign nation, politicians are still trying to take it away from us. Go fuck yourself bitch.

11 years ago at 4:42 pm

FGT

Paragraph one addresses her argument that our progress on cancer research is comparable to adding cushioned seats to horse drawn carriages.

Paragraph two addresses her point about the flu killing more people than cancer.

Paragraph three insults her and draws a comparison of my own.

Any questions fuck face?

11 years ago at 5:52 pm

FGT

Kid, you’re getting a lot of hate on here, but I’m going to say you’re partially right…although you’re taking the things you do know about cancer and forming conclusions that are not entirely accurate. I’m starting off by saying I acknowledge you probably know more than the majority of people here, so at least hear me out, because your opinion is not an uncommon one and it’s actually very harmful to cancer research progress.

You’re right, cancer is “incurable” because it is not a “disease” in the same sense as any other disease. As you’ve said in other places in this thread, cancer is the result of aging. This occurs when the telomeres on the end of a chromosome run out and the chromosomes start to lose actual bits of genetic material when they replicate. That’s why geneticists will say that if someone lives long enough, they will absolutely die of cancer due to this process. Where you’re wrong is that you assume this process is constant, that it is inevitable in all people, and that “cures” are just ways of sucking money out of people that don’t know any better.

First, the enzyme telomerase replaces our telomeres after replication when we are young, but we eventually run out of telomerase and the cell replication process eventually starts cutting into the actual telomeres. This is because our bodies create telomerase at a rate that was sufficient for humans’ initial age expectancy (30-40), and the process breaks down in our 40s since we have only recently begun to outlive this expectancy and evolution has not caught up with it (recently being a relative term in the long history of evolution). Our telomeres eventually get used up, resulting in the loss of actual genetic information, resulting in genetic mutations. A huge portion of cancer research surrounds finding what genes dictate the production of telomerase and how they can be manipulated to speed up and prolong the production of telomerase, effectively ending the cause of cancer (or delaying it until much, much later in our lives).

Second, there are genes that speed this process up in certain people, and another portion of cancer research is devoted to finding ways to shut off these genes.

Third, the loss of genetic material at the ends of chromosomes is not in and of itself deadly, because our chromosomes are insanely long and this loss of genetic information is negligible. The deadly aspect comes from the mutations that result from this loss of genetic material, but again, a large portion of cancer research is dedicated to slowing or preventing the mutation process after genetic material has been lost.

Finally, once mutations begin, they spread to other parts of the body by seeping into the bloodstream and moving to other more crucial areas of the body such as the brain and the lymph nodes. Another area of cancer research is dedicated to keeping mutations localized to slow the process of the cancer killing the patient.

So you’re absolutely right, cancer is not curable because it’s not caused by a virus or bacteria like other diseases. But no, cancer research is not hopeless and is certainly not a scam. You’re also right that close to 80% of donations end up going to run the administrative costs of the charities, but you’re wrong in assuming this is a bad thing. Charity organizations with expensive administrative costs have been proven to be more effective at distributing funds to those who need it than organizations that give 100% of donations away. Think about it – if you donate money to a charity that builds houses in third world countries and they give 100% of the proceeds to the third world countries, that money is likely going to be used inefficiently or fall into the hands of their corrupt governments. But if you donate to a charity that has employees working full time to ensure the money that does go to those countries is used in the way it was intended, it will be used more efficiently and result in a better positive impact. I’m not saying I’m happy with the majority of my charity money going to pay some desk jockey, but if that is a necessary evil in making sure the rest of my money is used effectively I’ll live with it. Maybe we should be trying to lower this number from 80% to something like 40-50%, and if that is your argument I’m on board.

I respect you for knowing more about cancer than most people here (probably…I’m not second guessing the vast knowledge localized on totalfratmove.com), but you’re taking your limited knowledge and drawing conclusions that are beyond your level of education on the subject. You’ll probably disagree with me and I’ll probably get laps for this, but congratulations on soliciting one of the few serious responses I’ve ever given on this website.

11 years ago at 7:27 pm