It does make you wonder. Collectively, people donate millions of dollars every year to various research foundations. If these diseases are not curable, then essentially it's a waste of money.
I truly hope folks were being sarcastic about incurable diseases and wasting money on charity giving. Good one. _
what a buzzkill. I'd like to have seen that wet T shirt contest. Even at age 47 and after being impaled by Tommy Lee.
First fatality: http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/169729/scottish-teen-death-linked-to-als-ice-bucket-challenge Although it seems he challenged the ice bucket.
How does someone not doing the ice bucket challenge equate to the ice bucket challenge causing a death? He jumped off a cliff, tombstoning has been around for years. The Scottish kid was just a moron jumping into a quarry. Some reporter in the Philippines found a way to get gullible people to click on his article and spread it around. The hint should have been an article originating in Manila about a kid in Inverkeithing, Fife, Scotland.
The research money is used to make the diseases become curable. How would we make any progress on anything if we only focused on what we already know how to do? Progress comes by pushing the boundaries as far as they go.
A few of the previously incurable diseases: Tuberculosis, Scarlet Fever, Strep Throat, Syphilis, Bacterial Meningitis. There are more but this just shows the closed minded thinking of some.
Also, the fact that some diseases are incurable doesn't mean that research can't find methods of lessening the effects of the disease, while not actually curing them.
That was my point. In theory, there is no such thing as an incurable disease, just diseases that have not been cured yet. My wife had breast cancer. Incurable. Within the next 25 years they will cure it. Some of the stuff they were doing in Germany when we went to a private clinic there were amazing and that was 10 years ago. They treatments they gave her made tumor growth shrink literally before our eyes, and when I saw literally, that's what I mean. Within hours. It just couldn't be sustained. Research dollars are what is going to make that response sustainable and actually make it go away. They thought they had it with antiangiogenesis treatments but that too could not be sustained, but in combination with hormone inhibitor treatments and stem cell transplants (which we had in rudimentary forms), maybe that could do the trick. Or research could find a way to turn off the metastasis in it's entirety. Suggesting that it's a waste of money to research ways to cure "incurable" diseases is, quite frankly, ignorant. Exactly, or to help defray the cost and expense of treatments or just GETTING somewhere for treatment is invaluable for folks without the wherewithal or the insurance to pay for such things. My wife's wigs were incredibly expensive and we were fortunate but not everyone could afford them. There was a local group that raised money for women who couldn't afford these wigs or breast prosthesis or bras or hats and scarves. The Ronald McDonald house isn't about curing cancer, it's about giving kids a place to go and $$ to get there when they are getting treatment. Is fundraising flawless? When money is involved, of course not. But is it a waste of time and effort? That's just ignorant. _
