Beating cancer builds character!
Well this is a poor taste take on a common sense issue .
You might be taking it too literally. It’s a joke because the take is bad, on purpose. The entire point is people unironically have this position on student loans when it’s obviously fucking stupid to have that opinion on anything.
US student finance is for sure broken. I really hate comparing biological ills to social, though. Nobody graduates high school and says “I’m going to go sign up for cancer”. Nobody says “well, if I knew cancer was going to be cured, I would have got it instead of being a plumber!” This metaphor is breaking down rapidly.
Nobody graduates high school and says “I’m going to go sign up for cancer”.
Maybe not in a literal sense, but there are plenty of people who apply for jobs which pose inherent danger to health, including increased risks of cancers, because they need the money.
No one signs up for college to take on all that student debt just because they enjoy it, it’s seen as an investment in better job prospects to have a degree despite the financial risk of debt. This is at least somewhat similar to how more dangerous jobs pay more, because you take on a risk. You’ve got physical danger and financial danger to consider based on your choice. Sometimes both.
More like, “we’ve invented a cure for cancer, but only people who have cancer right now can get it. People in the future are fucked once again and won’t get the cure.”
Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn’t solve the problem. It’s pulling up the ladder.
Declare that future student loans are also automatically forgiven. You take a student loan tomorrow? You don’t have to pay it back. This, of course, will mean that no one will want to give student loans - which will force the tuition down.
At that point why not just cut out the lenders entirely and make college free/publicly funded for all students like they do in Germany? An educated population yields many returns for a society and it will pay for itself with the boost to our economy it would provide.
I thought the U.S. government already took all the loans. So wouldn’t the lender be the U.S. government, and the interest goes to paying for the companies managing the loans I would assume. My interest rate on some of my loans went from 2.4% to 4.8% if I remember correctly (was sometime between 2008-2012 time period). I don’t believe students can go to a bank and get private student loans unless there is some loopholes. That said, cancelling student loan debt would simply mean not paying themselves back. Student loans are tax deductible as well, so when you pay them it would essentially come out of your taxes income, so if you could magically pay 10k off one year, it should come off your highest taxes income bracket. I still owe some, but I’d be fine with at least making it free college for AS/AA and 0% interest on student loans past that for all new takers. If they could make it free for BS/BA I’m still fine with being stuck with mine so long as we can figure out how to fix it for the future generations.
Interesting wonder why they confiscated all of those back then. I looked it up and 7.2% are private and the other 92.8% are owned by the federal government. I didn’t think those existed anymore. Mine were all through JP Morgan when I went to college and those all got taken by the government.
So we should just not let the people currently sick have the cure? 🤔
Even in your analogy, curing any cancer today, even if it doesn’t extend to future sufferers, is an improvement over curing no one. Because fuck cancer, and fuck student loans.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Imagine if researchers said: We’re working on a cure for cancer, and in the process we’ve generated a bunch of unobtanium. We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure. Obviously, if we use it all up now, we’ll be back to square one and have to start generating it again before we can work on a long-term cure. Which would you pick?
“Unobtanium” is political will. If we just do a round of bailouts for current loan-holders instead of addressing the root cause of spiraling education costs, we’re just kicking the can down the road. The pressure will be off, a whole generation of 20- and 30-somethings will lose interest in the issue, and it’ll fall off the political radar for another few decades, by which time GenZ+ will be well and truly fucked, since educational costs are only going up and up.
The absolute worst way to address rising education costs is to encourage a bunch of students to take ridiculously large loans and then wipe them off the books. That means: 1) schools can raise prices to the roof because they know students have access to mountains of cash from loans, and 2) students won’t hesitate to take the loans because they’ll probably just be forgiven eventually. Probably. Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be a millstone around their neck for the rest of their lives…but hey, what choice do they have, that’s just what school costs (because governments make sure students have all the money they need for a bidding war to get in).
So it amounts to just transferring huge piles of taxpayer money directly to overpriced schools and predatory banks, with no plan to stem the flow. It’s like trying to help your drug-addicted friend recover with a one-time gift of a brick of heroin. They’ll feel great for a while, and they’ll love you for it while it lasts, but it’s only going to make the problem much worse in the long run.
“Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”
Get out of here with that bullshit.
Why not contribute something yourself, or address the arguments they’re making instead of dismissing them out of hand?
The argument is bad and probably in bad faith. If I can paraphrase it in a few lines and demonstrate how ridiculous it is, it’s not deserving of a response.
You don’t have to attend every argument you’re invited to.
Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are? Do you know what arguing in bad faith means?
“Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”
If the US poured it’s full resources into saving John Doe from Birmingham Alabama, who has cancer, they could probably do it. Of course, then those resources (cash, equipment, researchers & doctors) couldn’t be used to help other people, or to perform research towards an eventual cure for everybody. It would be a bad use of resources, right?
You don’t let John Doe die because you want his death to motivate researchers. But you only have a certain amount of resources, and you have to allocate them in a way that makes sense, and pouring everything into a temporary solution that only affect this one dude (or one batch of student loan recipients) at the cost of a long-term, permanent solution to the root causes of the issue is just…a bad idea.
Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are?
I think your real beliefs and agenda are that you don’t want student loan forgiveness for anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Maybe you’re bitter because you didn’t go to school or maybe because you did and already paid off your debt. Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, or maybe you’re just a troll. I don’t really care. It doesn’t matter, because the argument is reprehensible regardless of your motives:
We should let John Doe in Alabama die because it’s too expensive to save him.
You decided that the financial expense of saving a life is worth condemning a patient to death just like you decided that the imaginary, hypothetical political cost of a change in policy is worth consigning multiple generations to lifelong debt.
You should be ashamed of yourself. But whether you are or not, I’m not interested in debating with you.
We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure.
How is this what’s happening? Who said it’s a one-time-only thing? Who said they can’t also research permanently available cure? Wouldn’t proving that removing the debt is a huge boon to everyone cause people to invest more in the idea of a cure?
Sure, once it becomes clear that students being debt-free on graduation is a benefit to society, I’m sure voters will scramble to wipe out student debt! That’s why baby boomers, who graduated with very little debt, are such staunch opponents of heavy student loans! /s
Once the pressure is off millennials and gen z, you’ll be able to watch the issue drop right out of public discourse. The focus will shift to housing costs, or health care, or some other topic that directly affects them. That’s just how politics works, especially in the US, where the constant gridlock in congress means that things only get done in a crisis. If you think we young people are just better than the boomers, and we wouldn’t forget to go back and fix the root causes even though we’re not immediately affected anymore…you’re in for disappointment.
If the goal is to help young people graduate with less debt, randomly forgiving large loans has got to be the worst possible approach. That only encourages educational costs to rise, and encourages students to take on ridiculous debts, and thus ends up transferring taxpayer money directly to schools and banks–and the more outrageous the loans and charges of those schools & banks, the more taxpayer money they get. That is legitimately a crazy way to solve the problem! As I said, it’s like giving a drug addict a bunch of heroin. Surely these businesses won’t want even more money, right?
So what do you do instead? Well, just off the top of my head: cap student loans. That’s what Canada does. I applied for a student loan when I went to school there, and I didn’t get to pick an amount. Based on where I was living and the school I was planning to go to, the government just said: “Okay, here’s $N”. It wasn’t that much, something like $6k per term (in the late 00’s).
Since students in that case won’t have access to arbitrary bags of cash, schools that actually want students will have to, you know, lower prices and compete. So my tuition was something like $4-5k per year, not $20k or $80k. I graduated with something like $50k in debt, which I paid off in a few years.
That would be a reasonable first step. Do that first, while you’ve got the political support, and then forgive student loans. Don’t do that first!
Could also be “but we might give the cure to people who have cancer in the future, but nobody knows if the government will allow it”
I’m on board, as long as we forcefully agree that cancelling the loans is a good thing - it’s just NOT ENOUGH
We should still do good things even if we can’t do all the good things.
Exactly , rather than only forgiving existing loans that should make education free and also forgive existing loans , and perhaps give people who have already paid off their loan some kind of stimulus check as a kind of recognition that their struggle was just as hard as everyone else’s and they deserve a break too.
What about those of us that didn’t go outright because we couldn’t afford it nor get the loans?
… I’d still be more than happy if education was made free, but there are A LOT of people the system has fucked and Democrats barely even want to glance at the lowest hanging fruit.
Isn’t the lowest hanging fruit exactly what they’re targeting, i.e. the people who currently have loans, and the higher hanging fruit all the other circumstances people are mentioning here like already paid off their loans or future student who will get loans or in your case people who forewent becoming a student due to the loans?
Yew, my point is they are ONLY targeting the lowest hanging fruit.
I bring it up NOT to just poopoo on Democrats, but to offer perspective. An inflatable life raft should NEVER be viewed as a fully functioning, sea-worthy vessel, and inflatable rafts is all Democrats ever offer, let alone fight for.
Yes, that’s better than the sabotaged canoe Republicans offer, but again, it’s about perspective. Some people are not OK with celebrating a dingy like it’s a ship.
Again. No one who is for student loan forgiveness is outright against assistance for low wage earners. They are not linked. If its who gets the bite at the apple first than do every thing you can to remove the GOP from power.
“They are not linked”, exactly, they’re choosing to leave some people behind.
They are not chosing anything. They are politically cornered.
Keep buying the excuses while you’re given crumbs. It really makes it look like you understand just how little you’re being offered…
It isn’t an excuse. It’s plain as day that the Republicans will do nothing on both matters and they keep getting elected.
What I don’t get, is that what moderates keep saying…
You know, the people that constantly shit on progressives and claim we don’t want anything unless it’s everything.
Isn’t the whole moderate mission to take what we can get now and keep working for more? I’m not saying that’s what they actually do, that’s just their excuse for not fighting for more.
So shouldn’t the ones pushing for loan forgiveness now and fixing the underlying issue later be the moderates?
Instead they say if we can’t 100% fix the problem in perpetuity, we can’t do anything.
Exactly. Arguing that you’re against helping people now because it doesn’t go far enough is ridiculous. Help people now. Then continue helping people. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of progress.
Those unrealistic idealists are so frustrating to argue with. Is this a great first step? YES! Can we do more? Also YES.
Take the win, and use that momentum to drive mode change. Trying to go from 0 to 100 in one step is just not realistic.
Take the win, and use that momentum to drive mode change.
There’s a difference between a start and means testing tho…
Those same moderates like to use means testing to erode away support for more, and to get the people who don’t make the cut to vote against it.
It’s how moderates have been opposing universal healthcare for over 80 years.
Social Security was supposed to be a temporary compromise to help the neediest while the government worked out the wrinkles for universal healthcare that was for everyone.
It’s because moderates are what conservatives claim to be. They are pro-status quo and keeping change as show as possible (as opposed to conservatives that just want hierarchical power structures that let them exercise power over others, no matter what changes are required).
Well observed. Conservatives in the US are reactionary but those described as moderates are basically NIMBYs standing in the way of those who want to tear down what’s left of the country.
Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn’t solve the problem. It’s pulling up the ladder.
You’re 100% correct. But be careful, these folks don’t take kindly to shining a light on their hypocrisy. They signed their names to a legally-binding contract, spent the money, but now don’t like paying it back under the terms they agreed to.
College tuition is far too high. But without fixing the root cause, tuition loan forgiveness does nothing for everyone before and after, and it actually makes the whole problem worse.
Blaming the people taking the loans is kind of absurd, for many it’s their only option if they want to continue their education. It’s not like they’re taking out loans they don’t need and burning the money.
“Legally-binding contract” is meaningless too, would you make the same argument against people who signed away their lives before slavery was abolished? Just because it’s legal now doesn’t mean it always will be, or that it must be enforced indefinitely.
You’re absolutely right that reducing tuition is the right move. Tuition is free where I am and some of the costs I see elsewhere are crazy. However, the options are not necessarily mutually exclusive; you can reduce tuition and help people that have already been shafted by the existing system.
Especially cause a lot of ‘legally binding’ stuff isn’t even actually legally binding. For a recent example look at non competes, a lot of judges don’t even enforce them cause they’re ridiculous and they actually just made them illegal for the little people.
Also, given the age and social pressure of the people taking student loans it’s not that straightforward to just say it’s their own fault
Could you walk me through what you see as these folks’ hypocrisy? I don’t get it.
Is somebody arguing that loan forgiveness should be a one time thing and no one after them should get it?
deleted by creator
No one (BESIDES THE GOP) is against fixing it through legislation. That is a strawman.
Unfair terms they didn’t fully understand and were pressured to accept.
Don’t get distracted. That argument is already fraught. They straight up lead their argument with a fallacy.
So the people who could get relief should abstain because the door is shut on any legislation as long as the GOP are in power?
Awfully compassionate of you.
No. That’s mighty presumptive of you. Play the game as the rules are. I’m suggesting loan forgiveness is a half-measure and it never should have been offered by politicians without solving the problem of unaffordable education. Otherwise, this isn’t a solution, it’s just a band-aid on a gaping still-bleeding wound that needs stitches. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does create inequity.
Lol you really couldn’t help yourself. Just one reply and you reveal that you’re actually just a selfish piece of shit. Maybe just shut up while you’re ahead next time. You’re a garbage person but people don’t have to know on the Internet if you don’t make it so abundantly clear.
You know adults can usually communicate their point without resorting to insulting those who have different opinions. You don’t seem to have a point, just insults.
He’s right though
No YOU are the piece of shit. Why can’t we debate without unwarranted ad hominems any more? This place is supposed to be better than reddit, but that asks that its users be better. Your post is an indictment - take a look in the mirror before being so vile on the fediverse.
Cute analogy but here’s one for you. It’s not a bandaid it’s a tourniquet for a massive wound prior to needing full amputation.
Politics isn’t a zero sum game. You need to cash in on the political goodwill before it evaporates.
The relief isn’t being offered on the other side. The same side giving relief wants to legislate. Both actions are working towards a common goal.
How is this down voted. You’re speaking facts lol. It’s a shitty bandaid solution
Because a half measure is better than no measure
Why not do both
We could do both, but you asked why it was being down voted. The down voted text says that politicians never should have offered loan forgiveness. They explicitly said we shouldn’t do both.
I mean, i still agree. I rather have them put the same energy first in fixing the actual problem. And then the bandaid solution
Because it completely ignores the fact that it does solve the problem for a lot of people, and they don’t want to do it because it doesn’t help everyone.
But if the rules of the game suck, perhaps the rules need to be changed, no?
I’m all for student loan forgiveness and all that. I think education should be socialised for anyone till any level.
That being said, this meme is an example of false equivalency. Where is the money for student loan forgiveness coming from? From taxes. Taxes that these ppl (who also had to pay for student loans) have to pay. Hence, effectively, these guys paid their own loans off and are contributing to pay others’ loans as well. That’s their grime from what I understand.
Morally, I believe that they’re wrong. I’m just pointing out the false equivalency generated here.
Government gives money to tobacco industry: “What? They’re too big to fail.”
I can honestly say that I don’t remember anyone claiming tobacco is too big to fail.
Banks, auto industry, certain other farming segments yes…but tobacco seems like just special interest arguments.
In this analogy tabacco is the pervayor of cancer. Likened to how banks make predatory student loans. When ever we have to bail out the banks or corporations we are told, “they are too big to fail.”
As if an educated population is less important than the financial institutions that they uphold.
Guaranteed student loans, that you had to be approved for, were a terrible idea to begin with.
I don’t get it
Edit:
Ok thanks I get it now.
People with student loans are mad there are loan forgiveness programs.
The person in this comic is acting like someone who paid off their student loans and now doesn’t want others to get loan forgiveness
Thanks I already got it.
“I paid off all of my student loans myself, it’s not fair for the government just forgive loans from other people!”
People who have paid off their student loans are allegedly opposed to the government forgiving student loans for people that are financially burdened by them.
I worked my ass off to pay off my student loans, and I wish it upon no one. It didn’t teach me shit except fuck capitalism. School should be socialized and free. And fuck cancer!
I’m still paying off loans and will be for the next 8 years. I’m ineligible for forgiveness now because I consolidated with a private lender. I hope everyone gets their debt wiped, even if I can’t. Education should be free to begin with.
A common “reason” for why student loans shouldn’t be paid off by the government is that it would be unfair to everyone who has already paid off their student loans.
I finally paid off my student loans!
If they suddenly forgive student loans given to people now, I’m gonna be so mad.
Nailed it. Thanks.
People with student loans are mad
They’re generally not. But a few well-situated op-ed writers working for newspapers with a vested interest in the private loan industry have expressed a great deal of outrage.
In the US it’s common for people to say that they shouldn’t cancel student loan debts because it would be unfair to people who have already paid theirs back.
I hope they find a cure because even if you beat cancer, it can still come back.
But the post is about student loans.
No sir, this is a Wendy’s
No, this is Patrick.
It’s never too late to go back to school.
No thanks. I don’t want more debt.
Fuck y’all. I chose to not go to college and went with a lower paying career field as a trade off for lower earning potential. Using the tax dollars I’ve paid over the years to help eliminate the negative trade off everyone else chose to take on when they went to college is crap.
Cool story man. Let’s all do the same thing. Let’s hope we never need a doctor or a civil engineer
Those jobs pay in reflection of college and it’s debts. Time and costs in exchange for six figure salaries.
don’t worry, your taxes aren’t going into the education system! they’re all being funneled into the military anyway
Why didn’t you go to public university?
Because it would still be $60,000 plus interest, plus the other costs associated with going to college.
If just going to public university and paying that is no big deal, then i guess no one needs their college debt wiped, since everyone had that same option.
I spent five figures paying mine off two years ago.
Still 100% support my tax dollars paying for people’s college. In fact, I’d love that instead of the nine wars my tax dollars are paying for instead.
This analogy doesn’t really work though. Most people don’t willingly receive cancer. I think the thought process is you chose to borrow that money now it’s your responsibility to pay it back. If you worked an entire year to pay off your student loan debt and another person doesn’t work and their loans are paid off, you worked an entire year for free. Essentially slave labor. Anyone would be grateful when someone beats cancer but watching everyone around you get free handouts while you did what you are supposed to, I can see why people aren’t a fan of the idea. I paid off my student loans during COVID and I never expected any money back but I’d be lying if I said getting that money back now would not be extremely helpful in my life. I’m grateful that people are getting their loans forgiven. College shouldn’t cost remotely what it does.
For me, during college, I got my first credit card. Between student loans and credit cards, I’ve been set up to fail at every turn. I have a crap ton of debt. My student loans? Paid in full. But the fact that I was paying them for nearly 15 years, and the money that took from me while I did it caused me to get deeper in debt from other sources of debt that has led me to be in a position where I’m still just as much in debt as I was when I graduated. The debt has shifted from student loans to mostly credit cards, but it hasn’t gotten any smaller. I’m pretty sure I owe more now than I did when I graduated.
Financial debt compounds. Not only on itself, but it creates deficiencies in other areas requiring more debt to maintain balance. It grows like a cancer.
Sure, you can declare bankruptcy, and fuck yourself over for your ability to get any loans, but will that actually help? Does your income conver your expenses? Are you making a living wage? If not, and you go bankrupt, you might be screwing yourself over. It might be better to simply continue the cycle of violence until you earn enough to cover what you need to, then, when you’re cash positive, declare it at that point.
I’ve been on the debt treadmill for over 20 years now. I continue to find myself in situations that require large sums to get resolved. Whether that’s a broken vehicle, or another critical item I have to immediately pay for which was unexpected, or simple daily needs that have to be purchased when I’m at a low point in the availability of money. It grows.
I keep trying. I haven’t needed to declare bankruptcy yet; but my debts are attached to me like a cancer, slowly killing me by starving my finances.
I’m not even poor. I work a decently well paying job. I’m just so heavily in debt, that I can’t get out of it.
Good luck to you my friend. I wish you well.
That’s all I can ask… Well, that, and maybe a winning lottery ticket.
I hear what you’re saying but you have to put a little more thought into this beyond “you pay for what you get”. A lot of professions still need specialization but do not offer commensurate remuneration with respect to cost of entry. I’ll give you some examples:
- Teachers
- Historians
- Social workers
- Architects
I could go on. It’s a long list. The world still needs teachers and social workers, but we are far from adequately compensating for these industries. When you adopt a utilitarian approach to education (as a pipeline that leads directly to a career track) you are limiting the potential of the nation to improve/grow. A humanist approach to education promotes a more universal type of growth where we can foster the best talent towards achieving their full potential. Otherwise we end up with a situation in which the humanities and arts are segregated exclusively for the affluent members of society because the cost of entry is high but the output is low.
When it’s the only option for an education I would say willingly is a bit strong of a word.
While a higher education is really nice and it would be nice if everyone could have one. They aren’t necessary.
It is for a large number of jobs though. So its attempt to do what you want with your life or don’t take the predatory loan. It’s a shit situation all round.
Most people don’t willingly receive cancer.
When I was a kid, my parents were able to set aside money for my benefit in advance so that when I started college I had enough for tuition, housing, and a car. When I graduated, I even had enough left over for a down payment on a starter home.
I didn’t get to choose this. It was decided for me the day I was born. It was given to me purely by dint of who my parents happened to be and where I lived. In other countries, everyone has access to this level of
public health carecough excuse me cough higher education. But I had to rely on a private system that rewarded people with the means to accumulate financial surplus.Also, my mom smoked when she was younger. But when she started trying to get pregnant, she quit. If she’d continued smoking through the pregnancy, it would have significantly increased my chance to develop some form of childhood cancer. Again, this was not something I got to choose. It was purely a consequence of my parents’ decisions.
This is a shit metaphor. In reality no one should be angry if there is a cure simply because they didn’t have to use it. Some cancer cannot just be beaten so yea, let them have the cure. Move on That’s just childish view on cancer.
Student loans however yes, but for fuck sakes do not just compare such shit to cancer.
Checking my bank balance, and seeing this ugly growth that endlessly consumes while yielding nothing but anxiety and pain. Knowing that this ball of debt is intrinsic to my existence, but that a mutation in its purpose has transformed it from benevolent symbiote to voracious parasite. Talking to specialists and professionals about how to remove it, but hearing how my options are - themselves - often life-threatening or at least misery inducing for months or years at a time, and that there’s no real guarantee the growth can be removed as a result. Hearing how other people who were richer than me got a benign treatment much earlier on and are no longer suffering. Recognizing that there’s a national program to provide treatment in other countries, but we can’t import it because that would mean engaging with evil socialists.
Fuck. You’re right. Nothing like cancer at all.
It absolutely is not. you have no clue what you are talking about. Even if you refuse to understand and just want to self center ruminate your issues, you could at least make an effort to stop being an insensitive piece of shit to the people who are not the ones at fault for the situation you are in.
It absolutely is. You have no clue what you are talking about. Even if you refuse to understand and just want to self center whine about other people’s issues, you could at least stop being an insensitive piece of shit tonthe people who are not the ones at fault for the situation they are in.
Stop comparing minor things in your life to having cancer you hyperbolic piece of shit.
minor
If you stopped raging so hard maybe you wouldn’t be so fucking stupid
I like you. Wanna get coffee sometime?
Only if you’re buying.
Hi I’m a fucking idiot, how can you beat cancer if there is no cure for it yet?
I thought there was a cure but I guess not a very good one since some people don’t make it
Edit: Thank you for the answers, that really cleared it up for me, and I understand cancer a bit better now.
There are some treatments for some cancers with varying success rates. A cure would be a treatment for all cancers that always works.
Did you know that you can cure your meat and beat it?
Maybe not in that order.
Thank you for the giggle, SatansMaggotyCumFart
Right now, the main option to “beat” cancer is to poison yourself until enough of the cancerous cells die, along with killing the normal healthy cells. Even then, that only works for certain types of cancer, and that’s only if it is treated early enough.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/cancer-survival-rates
A cure would ideally work safely against all types and stages.
That’s very simplistic, there’s loads of cancer treatments, what you’re describing is a kind of broad brush chemotherapy, but there’s lots of more targeted versions, then loads of different pills and potions, immunotherapies, radiotherapies and the good old “cut the thing out” method.
Cancer treatment is the best funded area of medicine and there’s loooads of advances going on all the time.
A “cure” in this situation means an essentially guaranteed method of treatment. Cancers vary greatly, with some being benign, some being very treatable, and some being extremely deadly (at least with current technology).
Indeed. Beat it, but at what cost.
My mum beat cancer. She lost parts of her body in the process and chemo changed her physically (her hair and nails never came back the same). It took three years of regular testing to finally be given the “you’re officially cancer free” verdict. Three tense years.
All that said she’s incredibly lucky not only to have beat it but not to have to live with additional medication due to it. I know somebody who lost a lot more and while is alive now needs a lifetime of medication to “put in” what the partial removed organs no longer produce.
Cancer, as far as I’m aware, goes into remission and isn’t cured. Remission is when there isn’t any detectable signs of a cancer mass or growth in your body. So imaging doesn’t pick up any tumors, your blood work doesn’t indicate any hormonal changes, and biopsies come back negative.
A cure would be like say there is no cancer and it won’t come back. Remission is more like we have no evidence of cancer and x% of maintain that state for x years.
Fun fact: your body is constantly making cancerous cells, but you have the ability to detect and destroy them before they get out of hand. Keep that immune system strong.
He beat it with his fists.
You can cure pregnancy with a fist but not cancer
Boof, biff, pow!
