Cancer cure, finally?

*** grants, loans, philanthropologists...govt. yeah. how about that. how did canada do it? same way... they need to lay off a bit of the unecessary research and procure the cure. too much busy work and not enough results.
Click to expand...
Those grants etc go to pay for the research. Not to translate that research into drugs in the clinic.

And please define "unecessary research". I challenge you to pick any major University, anywhere in the world (your alma matar would be fine with me), and run through their research record and tell me exactly which "basic science" programs will never be productive. [The key word there is NEVER, just so we are clear on that].
 
So then you would know whether "they" actually do have a magic bullet that they are not selling. How does big pharma currently profit from the "cancer business"?
Click to expand...

** of course they do. and, if they don't have it within their immediate physical means (for protective reasons known only to them) , they know right where to go to obtain it; it[the cure] sits in a lab somewhere right now waiting...and, waiting and waiting in vain...to bring healing and health to needy people.
the pharmaceutical corporation profits by charging exorbinant amounts for medications that costs them mere pennies in some instances (yes, that's right) to produce...then, they turn around and sell it to the public for a 100%, 200% etc. mark-up. i'm not explaining anything new here.
 
Last edited:
"unecessary research"


a good anology for this would be...the D.O.T. ..you know how they are always working on the road... seems to usually be that same stretch of road all spring, summer, winter and fall. cripes almighty...just fix the darned road once and for all already! . .. you do realize they could do that, don't you??..fix it once and for all? right? right. but..no, they keep on messing, and re-asphalting, resurfacing, etc... that is what i am trying to explain about unecessary research. i did not, however say ALL research is unecessary.
 
re to you

Hi,Pumps,

I'm responding to your response to my general "orange pumpkins and non-orange pumpkins" call.Are you willing to talk?
 
I was referring to how the gov. gives out production grants to companies that produce a product... in that case the military. My main problem with US medicine it the obscene amount of money you have to pay! If the gov. payed of all medicine and health coverage money would be given out to companies that can produce the most, cheapest, purest, best product. It would still be up to the companies to go through all the stages of testing, toxicology so forth.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
I was referring to how the gov. gives out production grants to companies that produce a product... in that case the military. My main problem with US medicine it the obscene amount of money you have to pay! If the gov. payed of all medicine and health coverage money would be given out to companies that can produce the most, cheapest, purest, best product. It would still be up to the companies to go through all the stages of testing, toxicology so forth.
Click to expand...
So this is basically the UK National Health Service. Have a look into it and see if it is really any cheaper. Don't forget to factor in tax raises. (BTW - from your posts, I'm assuming you are in the USA). (And add the long waits for service in run down Hospitals too.) Unless the Government gets involved in actually making the drugs, having a NHS will not reduce your overall health care costs.
 
Now - is this a science forum, or a conspiracy forum? I understood it to be scientific, so may we please have a little bit of scientific process.

  1. Please provide evidence (i.e. links to PubMed) that someone somewhere has a cure for all cancers. Or, at least, proof that such is possible.
  2. How much do drug companies currently make from anticancer drugs? How much would they make if they had a cure-all anti-cancer drug? Probably orders of magnitude more than they do now, right? So why would they not sell it if they did have it.
  3. Drug companies charge huge amounts for their drugs. Agreed. Probably it is even too much.
  4. Socialized medicine will not change that. [That is the context in which it was introduced into this thread.] If big pharma cannot overcharge, they won't even go there. Evidence - how many drugs are they actively pursuing that combat diseases of mainly a third-world nature. Even TB is not that high on their agenda.
  5. I started out by questioning pumpkin's scientific credentials. That was wrong of me, and I humbly appologize.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
ok this issue is for a post in the politics section.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. Posts like
heck, "they" already have a cure for cancer, they just won't release it, because of all the billions they would lose on their very lucrative "cancer business".
Click to expand...
have no place whatsoever in a scientific forum, if they are not backed up by hard facts.
 
I started out by questioning pumpkin's scientific credentials. That was wrong of me, and I humbly appologize.
Click to expand...

*drags out her huge, galvinized, facetiousness-detecting-o-meter* *plugs it in*

*reads results* *laughs*

mmuhaaaaa....i don't think you are being the least bit sincere, sir...but, i'll let it slide. you know...i have never ever once claimed to be a "scientist" ...i do, however claim to love science; i realize i will never know as much as some do about the subject, but, that will not deter my love and further development of that love for the subject. i realize i have my limitations. do you?
 
Last edited:
hmm

pumkin, there are COUNTLESS conspiracy forums on the web and far too few on science. I think there is no limit to a scientists knowledge, *IF* he or she uses proper thinking like logic, the scientific method, etc. Believing in illogical conspiracy theories probably goes to show how much of a scientist you are. Even management of these "evil" pharmoceutical companies loose loved ones to cancer, that in itself PROVES that they don't have a cure for cancer. And the whole idea of making something for cents, and then selling it for much more is the idea of recuperating costs. The total cost of anything, is the raw resources, labor, and capitol necessary to make it. You totally ignored the very cost of research, which is ironic being that you yourself are those who get paid for doing the research.
 
All I can say about pumkin is

99% of all people on the net are men, the other 1% are men that are perves and like others to think their girls
Click to expand...

not that thats true just something to think when considering pumkin's posts ;) :eek: :bugeye:
 
>> Pay for development with production grants!!!

No one is willing to shell out the required $26.4 billion per year ($880 million per drug, 30 drugs per year) to develop new drugs. There are currently government grants available for development, but they are in the $1 million range -- just shy of 1 week of research for a single drug [average development cycle is 15 years; $1 million / ($880 million / 15 years / 365 days) = 6.2 days].

Lets petition Bill Gate$ to fund our drug development with his non-liquid assets! /g/
 
We shell out billions every year on health insurance way not a more direct approach?
 
>> We shell out billions every year on health insurance way not
>> a more direct approach?

Tell that to the taxpayers! /g/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top