GiveMeRep4free wroteAlso population control via drink driving and mandatory seat belt driving. wot.
People drink driving has nothing to do with population control its just people being idiots. Adding breathalyzers to every car isn't really feasible from any standpoint and there are certainly situations where you don't want to be wearing a seatbelt in a car. People dying through stupidity isn't population control.
I assumed that people would know what I meant when I typed this, I'll explain it below though.
I was implying was that with all the new technology, it wouldn't be hard to have a sensor in each seat (mainly the driver's seat) and unless the driver was wearing their seltbelt, the engine can't start and the car wont move. This means that everyone would be guaranteed to be wearing a seatbelt for any car that was on the road. I'm aware that there's already something similar to this in place but it's nowhere near as effective, it just bleeps for a couple of seconds and makes an annoying sound and then it eventually turns off.
Speed control too. Do you think it work be hard to place a chip in new cars and a chip in every speed sign, so when the car goes past the speed limit sign, the car''s maximum speed is adjusted to that sign and the driver can't go over that speed? That would pretty much eliminate speeding completely and stop lots of death. It wont ever be implemented though mainly due to costs, however people are already paying thousands of dollars/pounds for a car so it's not that big of an issue. It's mainly due to population control.
As far as drink driving goes, it would be possible to have a breathalyser in the car or some sort of built in test to tell if someone is intoxicated or not. This would stop drink driving completely because if you can't pass the breathalyser then you can't drive. And anyone who's sober can pass a breathalyser. Of course this would be pretty annoying to do every-time you entered the vehicle so I assume it would need to be adjusted, e.g only necessary at weekends and past 6PM or something like that. It's not a perfect idea but it would certainly decrease drink driving deaths and I'm sure with some work it could be plausible.
I'm obviously not an expert in this but if an average person like myself can come up with some decent ideas to prevent road deaths in under five minutes, I expect that a team of professionals could do a lot better and make something that actually works.
All cancer is damaged DNA that has led to cell division that also managed to bypassed the normal cellular controls and also has the possibility of spreading to nearby tissues. Once we learn how to eliminate damaged cells or stop our bodies from allowing cell division to occur with damaged cells then we've successfully cured cancer.
Immunotherapy is used to increase the body's immune system to prevent any cancer from forming. So this isn't isn't a method used for one specific cancer, it's mainly used to try and prevent cancer as a whole. There is different variations of Immunotherapy though, some being more effective against different cancers than others but the original idea still implies.
GiveMeRep4free wroteAlso, if a company did have a cure for cancer, just imagine how much money they would make from patenting it and selling it to other companies. They would likely instantly become one of the richest companies in the world. They could within reason charge what they like, people would take out a second mortgage if it meant they could cure themselves or their family. So I think financially holding onto a cure doesn't make any sense either.
Firstly, you can't patent medical treatment or a discovery. So the company that finds the cure for cancer wouldn't be rich by any means, other companies would copy their method and all cancer funding would likely cease to exist within ten years.
A small private company isn't going to find the cure for cancer anyway, it's by no means easy to find a cure for cancer, especially without a huge amount of money to pay for experiments and tests. If a company has already found the cure for cancer (or if they do) it'll be an already extremely wealthy company and they'd prefer to make millions every year from funding than release a cure for it to be stolen.