Do they even WANT to find a cure for cancer??

hrd2imgn

they don't make money treating healthy people, so why in the world would they want to cure anything?


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

gimmesometruth27

essentially when broken down to its simplest definition, the way i understand it, most forms of cancer are an abnormal collection of cells that replicates and spreads until it impairs normal function of whatever organ it infects, and the breakdown of that organ leads to failure of a vital system resulting in death. it sounds so simple to me, but i can not figure out how with millions of dollars and millions of man-hours in research we can not stop that spread of abnormal cells....it just boggles my mind.

FrankBauer

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

essentially when broken down to its simplest definition, the way i understand it, most forms of cancer are an abnormal collection of cells that replicates and spreads until it impairs normal function of whatever organ it infects, and the breakdown of that organ leads to failure of a vital system resulting in death. it sounds so simple to me, but i can not figure out how with millions of dollars and millions of man-hours in research we can not stop that spread of abnormal cells....it just boggles my mind.

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).

TravisTheSky

FrankBauer wrote:

i cant believe that some of you think that drug companies dont want to find a cure for cancer.

Other than the 1930s-era technology of antibiotics for bacterial infection, I can't think of any cures that the drug companies have offered. Instead, they turn everything into a chronic 'condition' which they can only 'treat' but never cure. Oh, and the 'conditions' need to be 'treated' with patented pharmaceutical drugs forever: Diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, asthma, ADD, MS, arthritis... Patients are drug-addicted junkies, lifelong customers of Big Pharma.

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.

FrankBauer

TravisTheSky wrote:

Diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, asthma, ADD, MS, arthritis... Patients are drug-addicted junkies, lifelong customers of Big Pharma.

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.

Eek! You didn't fall for the television commercials about Gardasil, did you, FrankBauer?!?!

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 . i dont know about this cat tenpenny, but i do know that research is for the most part evidence based. you need data to back up what you are saying and you need reproducibility. and there are enough ambulance chasers out there that would love to take down a few physicians and a big drug company for a hefty payday. also, you quoted side effects. what are the stats for those side effects? i mean if there are 5000 cases out of 10M cases, we're talking .0005%, which are pretty good odds.

yogibare

There is no profit in the cure, and soon, thanks to congress in the middle of dismantling DSHEA, natural cures will be eliminated because Big Pharm will own the "patent" to vitamins and supplements. I urge anyone with cancer to check out the Hippocrates Center in West Palm Beach. I'm not sick, but I've sat and spoke with people in raw food classes who have been cured not only of cancer but a whole slew of other diseases with natural cures. And please urge congress to leave DSHEA alone!!!

mca47

I work in cancer research for a pharmaceutical company.
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).

JD Sal

FrankBauer wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

essentially when broken down to its simplest definition, the way i understand it, most forms of cancer are an abnormal collection of cells that replicates and spreads until it impairs normal function of whatever organ it infects, and the breakdown of that organ leads to failure of a vital system resulting in death. it sounds so simple to me, but i can not figure out how with millions of dollars and millions of man-hours in research we can not stop that spread of abnormal cells....it just boggles my mind.

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)...

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.

michelleelise

even flow - question mark wrote:

Cancer eats you up in many different ways. There is no one cure for the thing. Anyway, until the governments of the world stop making things that cause cancer there will never be a cure. Things like cancer will just morph like the flu.

TravisTheSky wrote:

Other than the 1930s-era technology of antibiotics for bacterial infection, I can't think of any cures that the drug companies have offered. Instead, they turn everything into a chronic 'condition' which they can only 'treat' but never cure.

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.