Evolutionary pressure is present in any situation and is unavoidable. It still has an effect even in cases where treatments are effective with a success rate of 100%: the selection of diseases for which there is no cure.
Entertaining such a perspective can lead to an extreme and undesirable conclusion, that the only logical outcome is to do nothing and dismantle the entire modern medical practice.
Other posters have explained why my concerns aren't warranted for this situation, I'm asking the questions to learn a little.
>It's not very constructive.
>Entertaining such a perspective can lead to an extreme and undesirable conclusion, that the only logical outcome is to do nothing and dismantle the entire modern medical practice.
Disagree, if you read my parent comment in this thread, I talk about the research going on in cancer to account for evolutionary pressure, and the conclusion they arrived at is nowhere near "do nothing".
It is instead a change in treatment protocols to aim for less aggressive treatment, the clinic in questions motto is for the patients to die from something other than their cancer by having them on a protocol that has them live permanently with their cancer under the thesis that aggressrive attempts at eradication risk a stronger variant resurging.
Obviously it's not applicabale for all types of cancer which is why it's research, and why I'm not telling anyone that evolutionary pressure is a concern here, but am simply asking the question to learn if there are similar concerns between cancer and hiv disease treatments.
Evolutionary pressure is present in any situation and is unavoidable. It still has an effect even in cases where treatments are effective with a success rate of 100%: the selection of diseases for which there is no cure.
Entertaining such a perspective can lead to an extreme and undesirable conclusion, that the only logical outcome is to do nothing and dismantle the entire modern medical practice.
It's not very constructive.