Do they even WANT to find a cure for cancer??
Wobbie
Posts: 30,481
This, from another thread which I didn't want to derail out of respect for the OP:
Is it a fact? Are certain interests against finding a cure for cancer? Help me out, here. I'm interested... not just trying to stir shit. :think:
polaris_x wrote:imalive wrote:to your first point - I doubt it.
to your second - call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'm not sure certain interests want a cure to be found...
not a consipiracy theory - it's a fact ... :evil:
Is it a fact? Are certain interests against finding a cure for cancer? Help me out, here. I'm interested... not just trying to stir shit. :think:
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Philly I & II, 16
Denver 22
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
my mom's latest chemo drug which is given to her once a month cost $15,000...i think my parents first house cost that! :shock: :roll:
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
i dunno, i was watching the future of food last night and it talked about corporations patenting plants and even cancer cells. it said a corporation owns the patent for breast cancer and so a lot of schools and groups aren't allowed to use 'their' property to research a cure for breast cancer without paying a ridiculous fee. it said the company has even sent spies in and gone after researchers found using 'their' property like Monsanto does with their seed patents.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Toronto 10/01/00
Toronto 06/28/03
Kitchner 09/11/05
London 09/12/05
Hamilton 09/13/05
Toronto 05/9/06
Toronto 05/10/06
Please play SATANS BED
1. i believe cancer rates would be down significantly if we didn't introduce so many toxins into our environment - whether it be in the air we breathe or the food/water we eat/drink ... also - many household products such as cleaners and such carry ingredients that are known carcinogens - why the cuss do we need to buy this shit?
2. pharmaceuticals have shareholders which inherently means their goals are to drive shareholder value ... creating drugs to deal with the symptoms and impacts of cancer is big business and finding cures are secondary ...
... as in the case of norm's mom's drug
fuckers. plus, they get all this grant money from the govt, so the argument that the expense of drugs goes to research is a bit suspect.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
especially when many spend far more on advertising than R&D
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
In the 1950s, about 3% of Americans died from cancer. That was back when everyone smoked unapologetically. Today, about THIRTY percent of us die from cancer! Disease doesn't just "happen." It is caused!
I hope your dog recovers. If the treatment from a conventional vet does not work, I would recommend finding a naturopath. My auntie just lost her 4 year old dog to a sudden cancer. I am forwarding her some info so that she has a broader base of opinion to draw on with her future pets. One common cause of pet cancer is the disgusting concoctions sold as food for them. (As if dogs and cats are meant to thrive on processed GMO corn with flavours and preservatives.) Another cause is the massive overkill of yearly "booster" vaccines. Here is one article I found:http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html There are websites, newsletters, and even several published books on the issue.
yeah, looking through the ingredients to dog food is always fun. it seems most of the major brands their beef flavor the first meat is chicken by-products, then chicken, then liver or something....out the major brands like alpo, pedigree...the grocery store's brand here has better ingredients in their wet food. and with the dry food it seems like most have some sort of corn or corn meal as the first ingredient.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
at least one person would have spoken out.
My uncle smoked for over 40 years, and quit about a decade ago. No one is questioning where his cancer came from. He was diagnosed one year ago. He was 'treated' by oncologists who only offered chemotherapy and radiation. Even though these products do not cure lung cancer, my uncle was enthusiastic to buy them. He never sought a second opinion, or a third, or a fourth. In his narrow view, there were no cures, so he never looked for any. Literally tragic.
I won't be crossing the country to attend any gatherings of his loved ones. The good thing about that is: I won't have to hear anyone describe how nice the doctors and hospitals were that made tens of thousands of dollars from his illness. And that they did everything they could......
All I've heard about the fellow tenant is that he died of bone cancer six months after his diagnosis. I have no idea what caused his cancer. I do know that the bioaccumulative toxin "fluoride" promotes bone cancer in children. I have been drinking public tap water since early '08. It has many poisons added, such as fluoride, bleach, ammonia, psychotropic drugs, hormone mimickers, etc. I can't afford a proper reverse osmosis filtration system. But my neighbour's death has prompted me to buy one anyway!
Most small filters sold at stores say that they remove chlorine, but proudly boast that they leave in the BENEFICIAL fluoride!
I've finally found one that removes everything, including every molecule of fluoride! It's called ZeroWater. The filter and container system is affordable at less than $40. The problem I'm going to have is coming up with $1 a day to keep myself supplied with the replacement filters. Cancer prevention is not free.
http://www.youtube.com/user/kcherub#p/a/u/0/N-UQprRqSwo
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"We tried this plastic in tests for three months or even up to a year." Well my scientist friend the people using those things live longer then that duration. Silly humans being.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
http://www.youtube.com/user/kcherub#p/a/u/0/N-UQprRqSwo
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The doctor or lab tech may know nothing beyond allopathic medicine. But the head of a Big Pharma company would NOT consume the poisons he peddles to the common plebs like us!
When there is nothing to cure they will invent more things to make medicines for too, ask any ADD ADHD parent, we used to just call those kids trouble makers, not drug them.
it is all a joke
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
biggest problem with cancer is distinguishing the "abnormal" cells from normal cells - finding different targets, pathways, proteins, whatever. usually with current treatments (drugs, radiation, etc), you cant target the cancer cells without wiping out normal healthy cells. think about other diseases (caused by bacteria, virus, etc), they illicit an immune response or can be targeted by drugs because certain markers are identified as foreign (distinct from the cells in your body).
havent seen the video yet, will get around to checking it out later. but i cant believe that some of you think that drug companies dont want to find a cure for cancer. cancer isn't caused by one single thing - so many causes, sometimes unknown (can be genetic element, carcinogens, viruses, all sorts of unnatural crap out there that causes a single change in one cell - thats all thats needed). whatever company finds an effective treatment that can target cancer cells from normal cells strikes gold. just because you find an effective treatment for cancer, doesnt mean people stop getting cancer. its not like a vaccine (only cancer vaccine out there targets cervical cancer which is primarily caused by a virus - hpv).
Eek! You didn't fall for the television commercials about Gardasil, did you, FrankBauer?!?!
I forget her name, but one of the main doctors who helped produce the vaccine has publicly denounced it as a dangerous fraud. I'm sure you could find articles about her, the story was all over the European press earlier this year.
Gardasil targets 3 to 4 percent of the HPV strains that American women are exposed to. Not the other 96-97 percent! Most women are exposed to HPV early in life, and never develop any illness. When it leaves their system, they have natural lifelong immunity. The vaccine is useless on all strains she has previously encountered. Even women diagnosed with HPV will make a complete recovery within 2 years, and have immunity from then on. After being exposed to HPV, people's immune systems are stronger and more likely to fight off other viruses and cancers in the future! (Read any book, interview, or article by Dr. Sherri J. Tenpenny, MD.) When tested, at least half of women with cervical cancer show low levels of selenium and other nutrients.
The polysorbate 80 in Gardasil has caused strokes in little girls. Girls with pre-existing conditions have died from the vaccine. Polysorbate 80 causes infertility in female mice. Borax, another ingredient of the vac, causes infertility in male mice. Pregnant women in clinical trials for Gardasil had higher-than-normal rates of miscarriage and birth defects.
most of these conditions you listed are caused by many factors - not one cause. largely, it comes down to how well people take care of themselves. how many of these factors are related to obesity? or smoking? factor in a genetic element....ADD is a different story, so is MS, but thats why theres no magical cure for heart disease, HBP, diabetes. its only treatment.
dude, the efficacy of gardasil in staving off cervical cancer is another story. most on here are crying for a cure for cancer. i was merely stating there is no single cure - which is why cancer vaccines have been unsuccessful. you cant narrow it down to one cause. with cervical cancer and this vaccine, they try to fight percentages/probability. maybe i used the wrong word "primarily" in my last post - while its probably not correct to say that most cervical cancers are caused primarily by HPV - i shouldve said that HPV DNA is found almost universally in primary cervical tumors. you are absolutely correct, theres like over 150 different serotypes of HPV (maybe more i dont remember the last statistic i read). like 20 are linked to cause malignant cervical cancer, and gardisil only protects against like 2 (i think its only against 16 and 18 of the subtypes?...i think the other HPV subtypes protected against deal with warts) so its by no means a guarantee for cancer "protection." all this can help in reducing the risks of getting cervical cancer, but by how much? i thought it was up to 50% with everything, reduced risks in cancer, reduced risks on those subtypes associated with warts (whatever pumped up data merk put out). not sure where that statistic is now years later. or how well its doing on the market.
dude, my post about HPV vaccine isn't an endorsement of gardisil, so not sure how you felt like i "fell" for anything. i remember reading about gardisil when it first came out but i havent really followed up with it. if i was a chick or if i had a daughter, i wouldnt know what i'd do, its something i'd have to research more. but HPV is scary stuff. like you said, mostly asymptomatic, no real screening except a pap, for males - nothing you can do because it doesnt present (i think you can stick a q tip up the urethra and get a swab but who's really going to do that for the fun of it???). i wouldnt be surprised if everyone on this message board has had/has some subtype of HPV in them
It's easy to bring up the notion of companies not wanting to find disease (cancer, HIV, anything) because they make money off of it, but to think they don't find "cures" because it pads their bottom line is absurd.
Some of the most brilliant minds in the world are working very hard to find the next breakthrough in cancer research but the fact of the matter is that it is incredibly difficult. If you could look at the science behind the drugs that are currently marketed and those in pre-clinical and clinical trials you'd be spinning in circles.
Are those drugs that are currently marketed ridiculously expensive? Absolutely.
But think for a minute how much money it takes to bring a drug to market (i'll just focus on cancer for this example).
You need to staff hundreds if not thousands of brilliant minds to do the research. Ph.Ds and MDs don't typically come cheap and if you want the best, you have to pay for the best.
Of the 10,000 compounds that are proposed, only approx. 20% may reach pre-clinical. Now think of the resources, time and effort that goes into this? Of the 2000 compounds that go through pre-clinical about 5 will reach human trials. Now we have 3-4 years of research getting to these compounds that actually showed any efficacy. To get here has already cost millions of dollars out of pocket for a drug company. Now we are in clinical trials...
A drug company has to hire oncologists, hospitals, clinics to test the drugs. Again, not cheap. Once this is done, they have to hire personell to oversee the trials (clinical monitors). Traveling to and from these doctor's offices to assure patient safety and oversee the data isn't cheap...plus the cost of travel. Clinical trials go on for many years...again...not cheap. I haven't even mentioned the inhouse people (MDs, data management, regulatory, people to conduct the trial, etc.). Of the 5 drugs that go to trial, if they are lucky 1 might be submitted to the FDA for approval. If it's a drug that shows great promise, it could go through faster, but typically it takes 5-6 years to go from the first human subject to the FDA and they may not even approve it or request that more trials be conducted. At this point you are at tens of millions of dollars and $100 million would not be a stretch. If approved you have to market it otherwise oncologists won't be able to know about the drug and therefore not be able to provide it to their patient in need.
Long story short, it takes an incredible amount of resources to get a drug to the market (esp oncology drugs). How does a company even begin to make a profit off of this? Well sadly, the company isn't spending tens of millions of dollars for fun...afterall they DO need to make money and at least break even. The drugs cost a lot of money. It's not fair for the consumer, but until someone suggests a better way to do this...it's how its going to be.
And the bottom line of all this. If any company comes out with a "cure" don't you think them having a firm hold on "the cure" would make them the richest company in the world? Imagine turning on your TV and seeing a commercial that promotes the cure for cancer. Don't you think this would make the company just a few bucks in profit? Holy christ! The fact is there are drugs out there that are damn impressive and save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, and because the company came out with such a good drug...they also benefit from it because people want what works.
The whole "not finding a cure because it's profitable" doesn't hold any weight whatsoever.
And no, because I work for pharma, I'm not a pharma-whore (in fact I'm very much the opposite. I live a natural healthy life to avoid pharma-agents, but if that doesn't work I do in fact trust science).
Nanotechnology is an important tool for cancer research and has the potential to detect cancer at its earliest stage and simultaneously deliver anticancer agents only to the discovered tumors. Here is an example:
Previously, carbon was thought to exist in only two pure forms—diamonds and graphite. Now, nanoengineers are manipulating these carbon molecules to act as atomic soldiers in the war on disease. Basically, scientists put a bunch of little diamonds together to make a bigger diamond, which is then covered with cancer killing medicine. Protein fibers are then attached to the outside of this tiny ball. When inserted into the body, the molecules skip over the healthy cells until they find the cancerous ones. This happens because the Y protein attaches better to the triangular shape of the tumor cell. The molecules are absorbed into the cancer cell and the medicine is then released, killing only the cancer cell.
Nanoscale devices could be the crucial technology that will turn the promise of personalized cancer therapy (where a patient receives a drug based on the exact genetic and molecular characteristics of his or her particular type of cancer) into reality. We're not there yet, but we're not that far off either.
Just to be the devil's advocate for a second.. this is BS. I have two family members who were cured of cancer. My great aunt has been cancer free from breast cancer for over 20 years and my uncle was cured of lymphoma about 10 years ago. Unfortunately, my mom died from cancer this summer so I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses about all cancers being curable, but cures are out there. Some cancers are just so much more aggressive and difficult to target than others.