Home | Community | Message Board

Original Seeds Store
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability?
    #19224907 - 12/03/13 11:18 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I'm no good at making this videeios things appear properly in posts, so this:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=677_1354418535

Reputable reporting, no hokey sources. Suggests cure for cancer is known and virtually free, but can't make a $100 million test phase process due to no companies holding a patent on it, and so nobody wants to spend the money to have it certified for public availability.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedodgem
Learner
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/04/11
Posts: 2,683
Last seen: 6 months, 13 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19224924 - 12/03/13 11:24 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I have thought this for many a year, not where I got the idea for it was though. 

Shit could have been cured.  They can make upwards of a billion dollars a year off of breast cancer donations and other cancer donations for 'research', but can't make any money after telling the world about curing it... So which do you think they picked? 

Something to think about.





Sort of like the talk about Tesla and his free energy.  No one could make money off of free energy so why would you tell everyone about it when you can make millions off this inefficient way of outsourcing energy. 


--------------------
Walk where you like your steps


Edited by dodgem (12/03/13 11:30 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: dodgem]
    #19225133 - 12/04/13 01:42 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Well, the important thing is to not let others' malevolent choices get in the way of knowledge and discoveries such as these. The more people who are aware, the less it becomes a decision left to pharmaceutical companies. Everyone who's lost somebody important to them due to cancer will likely become indignant upon such knowledge, and there is an unfortunate sea of such.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19225176 - 12/04/13 02:33 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Apart from the question if this is the miracle cure, I agree that the funding of drug research needs to be restructured, albeit partially, to (1) allow the investigation of drugs that are promising medically but not economically and (2) reduce the cost profile of drug development and testing.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: koraks]
    #19225434 - 12/04/13 06:12 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Do you have ideas or knowledge on how that can be done from this point?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19225461 - 12/04/13 06:26 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Your best bet, depending on where you live, is to exert influence on public policy. The main problem is that in Western countries, the paradigm of the free market dictates that drug research is performed by pharmaceutical companies and research institutes, with funding originating for the major part in the private sector (i.e. pharmaceutical companies). It seems that at this point, many countries are recognizing the problem with this, i.e. that interesting drugs from a public health perspective are not always the best investment for a pharmaceutical company. Governments should step up to the plate and direct funds directly towards institutes that are capable of developing new drugs that may not necessarily be profitable. At this point, in particular antibiotics are receiving attention that goes in this direction.

In order to speed up the slow and expensive process of drug testing, the challenges seem even greater, with technological innovation in the nanotech and biotech domains being promising for early trials - but as a society, we keep leaning heavily on animal trials and very strictly regulated human trials. I'm not sure if the risk/benefit analysis for major developments in life-threatening diseases always grants this very cautious approach, and indeed, in isolated cases, unapproved but promising drugs are indeed administered to patients outside a drug-testing setting. This is already possible and fortunately, in the case of drug-testing procedures where intermediate results already show that the benefits far outweigh the risks of side-effects, even a controlled trial will be aborted and the entire research population will be given access to treatment with the new drug for ethical reasons (you could keep administering placebos to the test population and watch how they deteriorate, but fortunately, we're not that stupid as a society :wink:).

So in part, the solution (or at least a partial one) seems to be on its way - as long as we keep dedicating some of our public resources to innovation and we don't insist on relying too much on a free market paradigm that has by now proven to be less effective than we perhaps once hoped.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: koraks]
    #19229957 - 12/05/13 03:41 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Dandelion Root Extract has also been shown to cause apoptosis of cancer or is that what they are talking about?:


Quote:



His team’s first phase of research showed that dandelion root extract forced a very aggressive and drug-resistant type of blood cancer cell, known as chronic monocytic myeloid leukemia, to essentially commit suicide.

Researchers then discovered that repeated treatment with low dose dandelion root extract was effective in killing most of the cancerous cells.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/cancer-killing-dandelion-tea-gets-157k-research-grant-1.1248382






Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLungCheeseFungus
Stranger Everyday
Male

Registered: 05/01/13
Posts: 75
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: teknix]
    #19230233 - 12/05/13 07:46 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I've seen a few documentaries on this topic. Very interesting. I think it goes beyond "Why would someone promote something they can't profit from?" to "Gee, we'll loose billions if the truth gets out." What's a few million bucks to suppressing these truths, other than job security to these death and suffering loving cysts of society? I'll help pay for their chemo, and let them suffer the product of their lies, the yearning of death. And before I forget, women, don't ever get a mammogram. I like titties and ionizing radiation will never help them, any real studies show that it causes cancer. Gee, you don't have titty cancer yet? Lets beam you with this crazy shit and make sure!

Rant off.

If anyone is interested in this, or for whatever reason wants to become totally enraged and disgusted at the world today, I recommend searching for the following torrents:

Burzynski
Burzynski 2
The Story Of Vitamin B17
Gerson Cancer Cure

And I saw a boring documentary on the PH of the human body, and how it is a total cock block to cancer. Forget exactly what it was called. Some damn good movies ^. Check them out. Peace.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19231197 - 12/05/13 01:15 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Yes. Nobody wants to use $100 million that's non-recouperable of their own funds, particularly for something they don't own, particularly for something that they can't profit on after testing is complete, particularly when it will replace procedures and medications which those people who are those in the industry who finance such things are currently making heavy profits from.

There's another miracle cure I'm already aware of that hasn't been even considered for application for the same reason: cocaine - this might call for explanation and examples, but there are many specific medications whose roles cocaine would replace by being much more-effective, safer, and cheaper. That's probably why it has kept its illegal status despite being non-addictive (not counting lack of self control as an addiction that falls on a substance), giving no withdrawl, being dirt cheap to produce (Around $0.25 if you're a licensed lab importing bulk leaf), and much safer in dose sizes compared to most any other medication - and with no side-effects within moderate use - and while being concluded, by the World Health Organization, to not be in any way mentally or physically harmful in small to medium doses in a healthy person, and to additionally in fact be beneficial in small doses (though I think that can very easily apply to a dose of any size that doesn't kill you).



As sometimes happens on the subject, I'm going into a tangent now, still innocently unawares of how long this one will be. But: Cocaine has been known as the party and celebrity drug, but that's due to what crowd it settled with through socio-economic and image factors. In reality, cocaine is the self-perfection drug. It surges dopamine through you in strength relative to your dose, and dopamine is in play to create every possible good sensation known to human - love, confidence, empathy, plus tons... and whether directly from dopamine, in-part due to dopamine while in-part due to oxygen transfer rate, memory, scope of though, ability to deal with complexity, ability to control thoughts, ability to make subject association with eclectic subjects that shed light onto something, quality of thought, precision of movement, accuracy of evaluations and scope of evaluations, plus tons... all see massive benefit with a good dose. Thing is, you have to not be distracted with a party to realize all of this, and the benefits to be reaped I would say are greater than possibly any other drug, and with near-complete dependability. The overwhelming thoughts I've experienced on heavy doses of psychedelics don't hold a match to what cocaine effortlessly achieves - once you take control. It's like knowing all possible routes you could take, and being in complete control of all branching paths each step along, and the results are enigmatic like with psychedelics, but they're useful. I think that it's easy to realize limitless mega bucks scoring concepts with understanding while meditating on a strong dose of cocaine - as long as it was made sure that any downward running stressed and though patterns were meditated into silence before dosing.

I think that in the medium-distanced future, most all will use stimulants regularly to increase their capacities, refine themselves, and change the entire world for the better at a pace easily 100x the current - at no cost to health in the moderate user. This might sound fanciful or contrary to associations with the drug, but it's literal (I'm already putting out personal-life, a bulletproof new solution relating to specific field of medical science (not with this, lol), bible improving (it is possible to out-date the new testament with the virtually same new testament, resulting in greatly increased ease and depth of understanding), organizing an app that sits in an application near-proximity sphere of the $30 million selling Summly (but doesn't something entirely different and has no existing competition and massive application (including newly-realized to be an essential basic tool for every single...[won't say] in more than one large continent), suggesting that it should easily sell for millions) new app, possible career-establishing, and unique personal rights (as in just for me) establishing by confirmation of just... I'm already putting all this stuff out, just naturally stemming from stuff I'd most likely never think, realize, put together, know how to deal with, or act on, sober, much less on any other substance - the amount of money). Also, it significantly boosts learning skills, and grants you to do the documentation for all your projects effortlessly at a much stronger proficiency than normal, including more powerful and detailed observations than normal. And then there are the non-immediately-monetizable ideas, those are many as well.

How much money that any of those full-scope-known and planned projects will net, no clue (similar to the answer to whether they will be done), but I feel it all comes down to whether I enact them. The bible one is easily millions-netting, as is the app (unless someone it was shared with for practical reasons, and who didn't dis acknowledge it's amazing usefulness and scope) has no scruples and tries to do it first (and they easily can) - these are simply time and laziness issues (not really laziness, but I'm substituting the debilitating factor with laziness), but their values are facts. The medical cure where none currently exists offers no chance of money in cure sales or patenting, so if there's money to be made on verified useful cures on presentation alone then I might get something, otherwise, no monetary benefit but definite benefits of other sorts... and whatever else I mentioned, lots of money I'm sure, if enacted.

Semi-ramble adjourned, but hopefully opening some consideration to the reality that using stimulants as party or casual effort never alludes that the actual potential, and I'd say driven purpose, for such is limitless beyond that casual use - the limiting factor is instead the speed which a physical body lets things be done at, while the thoughts and knowing are all ready to be tapped effortlessly after the initial choice that takes just a modicum of self-direction to meditate before/during, create an assistive environment, maybe put on beneficial music... the party drug and the self-perfection/self-realization drug two entirely distinct substances with little that's familiar in experience, enjoyment, satisfaction, results, and perception-shifting. Never again will I choose to use cocaine to chill or party if the other use is available. From now on it is definitively the self-perfection/endless--rigorous-masturbation drug.

Post-text Disclaimer: This was not written on cocaine. The trail end of something for sure, though (my views on things future prevalent normal stimulant use and the string of typically never-in-a-lifetime, and highly lucrative product plans which have come at least significantly through dopamine surge treatment [some maybe entirely], though).

Fuck I'm derailing my own thread. Asshole.


Edited by something cool (12/05/13 01:22 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr.alkaline
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/15/12
Posts: 684
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool] * 1
    #19234689 - 12/06/13 12:33 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

this isn't really anything other than sensationalism. shitty reporting that misleads people and hurts the public view of drug development.

They probably treated mice that had undergone a xenograft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotransplantation

treatments with drugs that shrink tumors in this grafts are not a breakthrough discovery. It may indicate a good platform, but there are many other drugs that do this. I think calling it a cancer cure might have been a bit of a stretch.

Don't believe me, here you go:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=xenograft+small+molecule&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48

I dont blame pharma companies for not taking on a drug that wont make them money.  If a company wont take it on who will? The government? It costs a metric ass ton to develop a drug and money doesn't fall from the sky. 


Edited by dr.alkaline (12/06/13 12:55 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19234965 - 12/06/13 02:28 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

LungCheeseFungus said:
And before I forget, women, don't ever get a mammogram. I like titties and ionizing radiation will never help them, any real studies show that it causes cancer. Gee, you don't have titty cancer yet? Lets beam you with this crazy shit and make sure!




Ok that was a legitimately retarded remark right there. You must have spent too much time with your head in the ionizing radiation or sometimg :facepalm:
In case you do want to actually use your brain when considering this matter, here's a comparison of radiation doses associated with a few random things:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiation/UnderstandingRadiation/UnderstandingRadiationTopics/DoseComparisonsForIonisingRadiation/
A mammogram involves a 1 - 2 mSv dose, with the total exposure for a woman receiving mammograms over a period of 50 years amounting to 400mSv. The average dose anyone will receive in the USA (for the major part from natural sources and food) is 310Sv (=310,000mSv). The fact that this cumulative dose is spread out over a period of 50 years and is 0.13% of the average dose an American would receive anyway suggests that the incidence of cancer as a result of mammograms is very, very low; far less than a tenth of a percent. The average lifetime risk of a woman developing breast cancer is 12.3% (source). The odds of dying from it rise sharply with the time it goes undetected. Early detection saves lives and one of the reasons for the relatively high survival rate in this day and age in the Western world (ca. 85%) is diagnosis.

In my view, it's pretty retarded to not take a <<0.1% risk associated with imaging to manage a >10% risk of contracting a lethal disease. Hence my earlier, quite undiplomatic but heartfelt remark. Think again, Carl.


Edited by koraks (12/06/13 02:57 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19234978 - 12/06/13 02:33 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Treating cancer is a multi billion dollar industry why would they want to cure it?
Western medicine profits mostly off of treating symptoms of disease, not curing disease. That would cut profits significantly.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Shroomism]
    #19235016 - 12/06/13 03:00 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Yes, but assuming that the economic argument actively prevents other treatments of cancer to be found is a stupid idea. It will make it more difficult to fund research into potentially cheap cures, but research is being conducted and the magical cure just isn't in there yet. Unfortunately. It's much too easy to just assume that 'big pharma' is evil and actively blocks research. It isn't nearly as simple, but maintaining such an argument doesn't get the debate an inch further.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Shroomism] * 1
    #19235816 - 12/06/13 10:33 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Shroomism said:
Treating cancer is a multi billion dollar industry why would they want to cure it?
Western medicine profits mostly off of treating symptoms of disease, not curing disease. That would cut profits significantly.




Mindless and unsubstantiated hippie propaganda.  Curing cancer would be immensely profitable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: DieCommie]
    #19236058 - 12/06/13 11:22 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

If the cure costed only pennies per dose, didn't require any equipment or treatment center visits, didn't require special care, and could be attained by anyone? The costs of treatment come the specific methods of treatment and the equipment and meds used within. If long-term treatment equipment and costly meds are replaced with a virtually-free and non-pantented cure, how could that provide opportunity for even small profit, let alone immense profit? Where do you see the profit coming in to play?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19236355 - 12/06/13 12:33 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

All the profit health insurance companies would make if they dont have to spend money on people staying sick.  It would result in millions, if not billions in lower costs (ie higher profits).  Its a ridiculous conspiracy theory to think that "Western medicine" (which is in itself a ridiculous misnomer) has a conspiracy to treat rather than cure a disease.  "Western medicine" has cured, does cure and will cure countless diseases.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: DieCommie]
    #19236546 - 12/06/13 01:20 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Ok, those are insurance profits, not pharmaceutical profits. Curing cancer would take away Pharma's profits, therefore there's no incentive to them doing so. Pharma doesn't give a shit about insurance companies' profits, they give a shit about Pharma's profits. They aren't going to erase their billion dollar industry so that people who work in insurance will have nicer Christmas bonuses, they want those bonuses for themselves.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: DieCommie]
    #19236568 - 12/06/13 01:25 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

First off, they could probably patent and profit off this by a simple reformulation.  It's done all the time.  Companies release new "extended release" versions of drugs, or patches, nasal sprays, etc.

Second, even if they couldn't get exclusivity, millions could be made off simple marketing.  This is how generic drugs work.  Lots of conmpanies make the same drug, and they still make money doing it.

Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly:  Why would someone give up millions of dollars in a cure, just so someone else can stay rich?  That is utterly, and entirely stupid.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19236804 - 12/06/13 02:16 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

something cool said:
Ok, those are insurance profits, not pharmaceutical profits. Curing cancer would take away Pharma's profits, therefore there's no incentive to them doing so. Pharma doesn't give a shit about insurance companies' profits, they give a shit about Pharma's profits. They aren't going to erase their billion dollar industry so that people who work in insurance will have nicer Christmas bonuses, they want those bonuses for themselves.




Who cares about the "big pharma" boogie man?  You think that adderall and oxycontin manufacturers dont have a financial incentive to cure cancer?  So what.  Neither does Amazon or Pizza Hut.  I dont think you understand how the research works.  There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of tenured researchers and practicing doctors looking for cures to all sorts of cancers.  Health care plans and insurance, either private or by the state, stand to make a lot of money if one is found.  The economy of your country and the world will improve when the tax paying workforce is healthy and working rather than sick and consuming extra treatment.  Cures to cancers are being researched more in "Western Medicine" than any crackpot healers you go too and there is nothing that manufactures of current treatments can do to stop them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: DieCommie]
    #19237225 - 12/06/13 04:07 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I don't believe in a Pharma monster that seeks to hurt people for the sake of hurting people, but I've been strongly made aware that many company execs either pick future execs because they are already of similar mindset in displaying sociopathic tendencies to trample over any number of people and not blink, or they pick suitably manipulable future execs that can be groomed to become of their shared mindset. But, as collective salaries start getting significantly large among office groups, there's little grooming needed because the value of protecting your profit even if it means stamping out somebody else's seems to become 2nd nature by default. It probably would sound pretty absurd to you to hear somebody bitching because they only make so much above $250k and so they prefer to make payments using their mega-millionaire gf's credit card that was given to them. Never mind that the company paid for everything prior to that anyway.

Big Pharma is a lot of people with a lot of them being grunt labourers who have no focus beyond making bills. They don't make the decisions, and normally somebody would be getting in big trouble if labourers were even privy to them. The decisions that all those labourers end up carrying out stem from a much smaller collection of people, and I have to say that it's fact that in that smaller collection of people there are people who think they're poor because they aren't making above $1 million a year, or worse, not above $2 million+ a year. Griping because they deserve more than the $300k+ a year they're receiving along with their globe-trotting benefits and limitless access to company credit lines. Companies DO invest massive amounts of millions of dollars to ensure that something which would be very beneficial to many average-earning people does not come into being because it would hurt the company's much larger collections of massive millions of dollars.  This is the kind of shit that was part of my dad's routine for probably decades before he retired. You are clueless if you think that you're saying something smart or are clever to dismiss what is the de facto reality of daily work all over, for many people, by taunting "big pharma boogie man".

Pharma don't have incentives to cure cancer. And? What's significant is that they have massive incentive to see that somebody else doesn't cure it, and they're in the position to make what they want to happen, happen. And wherever their millions and billions are threatened, they invest mounds of millions of dollars to see that their much bigger mounds of incoming millions/billions of dollars are assured to be safe. And your "boogey man" comment, I have to say is a childish perspective and suggests that you think this vile behaviour would have to be some advanced black-ops conspiracy. Being exposed to it, it's a stupidly plain text from one person who was advised from who-the-hell-ever who then splinters their list of tasks needed doing for a certain cause and disperses it among low-level workers and mid-level workers in other departments who then disperse them among further anonymous low-level workers who could believe they were bringing a nuns laundry to get washed for Sunday church for all they know, rather than indirectly contributing to making sure that the ball-playing legislation-tossing senator will win his campaign by hook or by crook. Kind of a literal choice of example for that one.

Nobody down the line is making a one grand evil choice of action to cause some people to die and many to be negatively afflicted. That choice is known to be a consequence by some (typically the ones genuinely don't care, it's survival of the fittest / your only responsible to yourself and family / it's dog-eat-dog / grow a backbone... ), possibly suspected by others but not perceived to be something that's in their hands, with no knowledge one way or the other among further others... but that reality is dealt with indirectly and the handling of it is broken down and spread among many when useful, so that no one thinks they're responsible, if they're even aware.  Many corporations that aren't 1/1000th the scale of B-P are regularly a lot nastier than a ridiculous "boogey man" dismissal surely has ever even considered.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/anemia/anemia-overuse-01828.html#.UqJEq8RDudw

Is it just a counter-culture decision to assume that the illustration of nasty and selfish things being done by those with all the means, who want to defend their current and future means, must be reverse of the truth? Not all industry's share the same exec culture, but there is no shortage of the nasty - and it doesn't look like movie villains or have nefarious music playing. The people involved are having fun, not thinking about what they can't do anything about ("without failing their job" should possibly be added to the end of that). The people either literally don't care, can sense kind of what negative practices could be being referred to but don't experience responses of understanding to them because they're genuinely sociopaths (and sociopaths can make ideal execs, depending on company philosophy), or are decent enough and just willfully ignoring shit. But all those people are under pressure to be a good worker and provide for themselves and their families. Is nasty, evil shit happening? Yeah. Do the people responsible appear as movie villains? Some are assholes, but most appear normal. Are most of the people involved thinking about it? Hardly any. They're thinking about needing to provide for themselves and their families... and that limitless company credit line and that, and that.

You don't have a possibility to taunt me into thinking Pharma is nice guys with some useless "boogeyman" ridicule because I've had to see that such stuff does happen, as it's being explained and spread along, and you're only telling me that you've always solidly been a middle class/upper middle class/ below middle class lifer with no exposure to what are naturally exclusive plans and only experienced by types to whom it's just normal routine anyway and nothing of note (or would have me believe), and who kept quiet not out of fear or guilt, but out of a natural sense of responsibility to serve their company, respect for their co-workers, and a goal to improve the company's image (which brings great personal benefits) rather not harm it (which might likely coincide with their termination anyways, so if any added incentive was needed, there it simply is). Pointless argument. Shit happens, it happens daily from companies and corporations of all sizes, and certainly happens with more muscle behind it when it relates to B-P. No boogymen, just people.


Edited by something cool (12/06/13 04:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19237354 - 12/06/13 04:36 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

So Pharma is a corrupt, ruthless organization that is only profit driven.  Why then, do they not ruthlessly chase the millions and billions of dollars that would come from a cancer cure?

If you've ever actually experienced the pharmaceutical industry, you'd realize its cut throat.  Companies compete.  Companies buy each other out, sue each other out of competition, and go head-to-head constantly.  Yet despite this, you think they're just play nice to one another, and DON'T discover a cancer, just so the other guy keeps getting money?

It just doesn't  make sense.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: badchad]
    #19239370 - 12/07/13 02:09 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Your paragraph seems like a mix of directions to me. I don't see how they're playing nice by keeping billions in their lap instead of wanting to give it to other industries. You just said that it's cut throat and competitive... so why are they going to give their money away? Those millions DC mentioned that insurance companies save are not finding their way into Pharma's pockets just because they altruistically give a lending hand. The USA gov sends swatches of people to areas knowing that a result is going to be that many, many thousands of innocent fathers, mothers and children are going to wind up raped an with bullets through their skulls and stomachs, yet still send the people who they know will do this to those areas for reasons of pride and profit. Yet Pharma, with its more direct and larger personal profits, is predicted to be an angel that doesn't have it in them to do less directly harming actions that, despite however bad they may be, aren't exactly shitting all over an entire peoples' knowingly?

A cure is only going to make money if it's proprietary, and this thread references a possible cure that isn't, and therefore is not only not profitable but would actually costs tons of millions of dollars to have released. Insurance companies saving millions doesn't sound like a great incentive for Pharma to lose billions, if it's about the money - even if Pharma could suddenly start an insurance division that instantly takes all the business from those insurance companies, which they can't so, they'd still be down tons and tone of money and have tons and tons of new overhead costs. Also, whoever hypothetically might work against such a thing could feel good over telling themselves that they're not hurting thousands (probably many millions) of lives, they're rather protecting many thousands of lives who will be out of jobs if an entire large industry instantly disappears. Companies are full of individuals of all sorts, but stuff overall gets more territorial and personal in upper groups, where an might well firstly be seen from the perspective of the direct effect it has on a certain individual's quality of life, ability to conduct business, ability to support their employees, how good their performance looks... and everyone allows themselves a certain big of slack that they'll make up in the long run. A string of self-excusing people can create a string of really crap, and the influence of the existing people makes it easier for the next who join in to take things one step further.

Upper tier cultures are different between industries and companies, and some are full of decent people while some not, and in both cases the people in those positions are all chosen by those who are already in them, so they can develop pretty strong flavors of character. Since there are some really dirtbag things happening, that don't necessarily feel dirtbag to the person or people who causes it, I don't think there's room to assume that the largest, richest, one of the most territorial and ruthless and segregated of these spheres, and who have the most means and are the most accustomed and placated to every day making decisions which, even if they acted with the best of intentions, will still see people suffer and die because they didn't make an alternate decision... that this sphere is cleaner than many who have much less at stake.

I don't know what Pharma has done, but it's entirely without merit and evidence and contrary to what's likely to assume that those who are employed and paid many millions to singularly increase profits, who are reviewed annually to see how their performance has affected profits, and who are either fired or given bonuses larger than many of you will make in your lifetime, sometimes combined, depending on how good that performance is,and who are future-employable depending on the performance of their singular task in their previous job... to assume that such people aren't pursuing their only existing career and maybe also life goal with determination (why they feel they need to be future employable, I don't know, but it's important to them). I'm inclined to think that it's not possible to fulfill that role in many industries and simultaneously consider the people involved. I think it's either think about A (the task) or B (people), and whichever you do, you gotta cut out thinking about the other. In medicine, people are going to die no matter what, so might as well just focus on what you know you can change and not worry about what you can't - I think that thought is well known to anyone long before they make it into higher positions in Pharma, and that as they move up through positions, that thought might effortlessly move along with them to gradually strengthen their focus on their job and consider less outside things.

$0.05 to make a pill that had $2 spent trying get you to buy it so they'll get that $2.05 + another $2 back in profit when you do. If everyone was so nice and firstly concerned with everyone's well-being, why not just make it for $0.05, make it available for $0.50 and just add it to an annual lexicon of medications that are all referenced with their characteristic according to ailments, that are referenced by symptoms? Why lobby doctors to sell stuff that's a poor choice or non applicable for many who will get it? Other than because then many people won't be getting rich anymore?


Edited by something cool (12/07/13 02:59 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19239928 - 12/07/13 08:57 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

something cool said:
You just said that it's cut throat and competitive... so why are they going to give their money away?




A new drug would make money. Why would a company withhold a product, just so competitors could make money? 

Quote:

something cool said:
Those millions DC mentioned that insurance companies save are not finding their way into Pharma's pockets just because they altruistically give a lending hand.




The millions would find their ay into their pockets through drug sales.

Quote:

something cool said: Yet Pharma, with its more direct and larger personal profits, is predicted to be an angel that doesn't have it in them to do less directly harming actions that, despite however bad they may be, aren't exactly shitting all over an entire peoples' knowingly?




nobody said they were an angel.  I said they were profit-driven.  This brings us back to square one:  Selling a new product makes money.

Quote:

something cool said:A cure is only going to make money if it's proprietary, and this thread references a possible cure that isn't, and therefore is not only not profitable but would actually costs tons of millions of dollars to have released.




This isn't necessarily true.  DCA may not be patentable, but that has nothing to do with drug exclusivity.  They could be approved, and no generic competitors could be brought to market for 3-5 years.  Easily enough to recoup costs and profit if you're the only cancer cure in town.

Quote:

something cool said:
Insurance companies saving millions doesn't sound like a great incentive for Pharma to lose billions, if it's about the money - even if Pharma could suddenly start an insurance division that instantly takes all the business from those insurance companies, which they can't so, they'd still be down tons and tone of money and have tons and tons of new overhead costs.




Why would a pharma company care about an insurance company?  Further, why would they GIVE UP billions in profits, just so another company could continue to make money?


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: badchad]
    #19240092 - 12/07/13 09:45 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

You're saying that Pharma would make money from a new drug, but the only scenario that's been discussed here is one of a cure drug not being patentable, and therefore not money making. The two arguments have been: Pharma would not block a non-patentable drug because they'd profit from having a cure available // No, they would not profit, they would lose money, and therefore it's not in their business interests to have such a cure available. Nobody has mentioned or discussed whether Pharma would like to create new marketable drugs. Of course they would.

So you are saying that you're in agreement that Pharma will lose money if a cheap cure becomes available which is non-patentable.

Quote:

badchad said:
Why would a pharma company care about an insurance company?  Further, why would they GIVE UP billions in profits, just so another company could continue to make money?



This has been my question to you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19240378 - 12/07/13 11:07 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

something cool said:
You're saying that Pharma would make money from a new drug, but the only scenario that's been discussed here is one of a cure drug not being patentable, and therefore not money making.




As I said previously, the lack of patentability doesn't mean a drug/cure is unprofitable.  You can still get "exclusivity" on a drug/cure.  Exclusivity and patentability are different things.  Lots of non-patentable cures and drugs are made.  For example, most generic drugs, by definition are not under patent.

Quote:

something cool said:The two arguments have been: Pharma would not block a non-patentable drug because they'd profit from having a cure available // No, they would not profit, they would lose money, and therefore it's not in their business interests to have such a cure available. Nobody has mentioned or discussed whether Pharma would like to create new marketable drugs. Of course they would.

So you are saying that you're in agreement that Pharma will lose money if a cheap cure becomes available which is non-patentable.




I'm saying Pharma would profit handsomely from a "cure".  How much is your life worth?  You'd probably pay a lot to be cancer free.  If you bring a new drug/cure/treatment to market, by definition, you make money from selling it.

Quote:

something cool said:

Quote:

badchad said:
Why would a pharma company care about an insurance company?  Further, why would they GIVE UP billions in profits, just so another company could continue to make money?



This has been my question to you.




A pharma company would NOT care about an insurance company.  Why would they?  Withholding a cure to protect the profits of an insurance company is silly.

A pharma company would NOT give up selling a billion dollar cure, just so other companies can make money.

Based on the above, there is no conspiracy or reason to withhold a cure.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: badchad]
    #19244283 - 12/08/13 10:13 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Based on the above? Based on the above, there is no reason to say there is not a conspiracy. Based on that above, there is nothing to be said about anything.

>> As I said previously, the lack of patentability doesn't mean a drug/cure is unprofitable.

It does if the cure is unprofitable. Pharm doesn't get to choose whether an already existing cure is profitable or not. They can't easily make an un-patented resource that is already available for pennies into a profit-maker.


More boogymen.

http://dontpaniconline.com/magazine/music/the-secret-meeting-that-changed-rap-music-and-destroyed-a-generation


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19244639 - 12/08/13 11:56 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Listen, I'm all for the progress of science and research, especially cancer research.


And yeah the evidence behind DCA is intriguing, has potential, as do many other chemical synthetics in showing medical benefit.


First of all, it's not like this is the only chemical out there shown to reduce or shrink cancer cells in vitro and mice studies.  There's all kind of dietary supplements, vitamins, even metalic compounds that do the same thing. 



But to go out and say something like "CANCER CURED"  or like how this article phrases it "CANCER IS FINALLY CURED", is just about the most misleading thing to say.



Cancer isn't a singular disease that one compound can cure the entire scope of.  Sure there are some overlapping mechanisms in different kinds of cancers.  But this whole notion that one thing can cure "cancer" is as blanketing and generalizing as saying "THIS PILL CURES ALL DISEASE", which again, some people have tried to do in the past as well.



There's lots of cancers that have virtually been cured.  This whole notion that people are waiting on some kind of "miracle cure" is more of a manifestation of media sensationalism (like the article provided) and movies than of reality.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Shroomism]
    #19244699 - 12/08/13 12:14 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Shroomism said:
Treating cancer is a multi billion dollar industry why would they want to cure it?
Western medicine profits mostly off of treating symptoms of disease, not curing disease. That would cut profits significantly.






No.  Profits made from better drugs that are more effective at treating, curing, and decreasing mortality rates have always dictated the thrawls of the pharmaceutical industry.



Cancer drug development is no different.  Yes there's billions of dollars to be made, but  they are awarded to the best competition.  Look at how much money was made when REAL CURES have been developed dude...


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLungCheeseFungus
Stranger Everyday
Male

Registered: 05/01/13
Posts: 75
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #19259399 - 12/11/13 10:03 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

When Burzynski was dealing with the FDA, they never denied that he was saving lives and curing cancer. They disputed the legality of it. That alone shows their true colors. And then they took him to court again and again after that.

Lets think. What if I found a way to run my car on water instead of gasoline. I would expect there to be some pretty pissed off rich people. If they were really rich, they may even have people to help keep the cat in the bag. Would they make more money off the petroleum, or by teaching people how to run their autos on water? In the long term, they would make more money off the petroleum. Same deal here. What happens after everyone is cured of cancer?

We all know the old saying. Build a man a fire, and he is warm for the night. Light a man on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19259525 - 12/11/13 10:42 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

LungCheeseFungus said:
Lets think. What if I found a way to run my car on water instead of gasoline. I would expect there to be some pretty pissed off rich people. If they were really rich, they may even have people to help keep the cat in the bag. Would they make more money off the petroleum, or by teaching people how to run their autos on water? In the long term, they would make more money off the petroleum. Same deal here. What happens after everyone is cured of cancer?
.




If you figured out a way to run a car on water, Toyota would hire you to make and sell those cars because they would make billions.  According to your logic, Toyota would think: "nah, better hold off on the water car, we wouldn't want to cut into the profits of GM and Exxon."

Capitalism fosters competition, even if its at the expense of your competitors.  I can't think of a single product space or market where a manufacturer withholds a superior product because they'd prefer to keep their competitors in business and not make money.  Pharma is no different.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: badchad]
    #19261050 - 12/11/13 04:05 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Logic is not present in your words. It's not "If you figured out a way to run a car on water, Toyota would hire you to make and sell those cars because they would make billions" unless having a car that runs on water somehow means that water itself suddenly becomes expensive. A cure for cancer doesn't mean profit unless the cure itself is profitable. Having a car that runs on water will not make water cost $10 a gallon, and turn auto manufacturers into water dispensaries who collect that $10 per gallon.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19261130 - 12/11/13 04:19 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

something cool said:
A cure for cancer doesn't mean profit unless the cure itself is profitable.




That's not true.  It has already been spelled out for you.  Many stand to profit with a cheap cure for a cancer and there is nothing the makers of current treatments can do to stop that.  (Just like there is nothing "big oil" can do to stop toyota from hiring you to design cars)

Beyond that, many people do develop things and provide services with no expectation of profits.  There is nothing stopping a profitless cure for cancer hitting the market just like other profitless services and treatments are provided around the globe.  If its so easy and cheap like you claim, then only one person in the world needs to spill the beans and then we can all make the cures in our own homes.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19261241 - 12/11/13 04:39 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

something cool said:
Logic is not present in your words. It's not "If you figured out a way to run a car on water, Toyota would hire you to make and sell those cars because they would make billions" unless having a car that runs on water somehow means that water itself suddenly becomes expensive.




The cost of water is irrelevant.  Which would you rather buy:  A car that runs off gas, and costs $50 in gas per week to run, or a car that runs on water?  Toyota wants you to buy a car, they don't care about gas or water.

Quote:

something cool said:
A cure for cancer doesn't mean profit unless the cure itself is profitable.




It doesn't?  You have terminal cancer.  I have a cure.  How much is your life worth?  A cancer cure is certainly profitable.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: badchad]
    #19262160 - 12/11/13 07:27 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

The car is irrelevant. The cure parallels to the water that runs the car. Can you make otherwise free or inexpensive water profitable to a company that doesn't sell water, and which profits billions by not having water available? You aren't following your own example.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19262348 - 12/11/13 07:51 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Sure.  The bottled water industry probably makes hundreds of millions a year.  You can make a profit selling pretty much anything, especially a magical cancer cure.

Once something is approved as a drug, there are protections against others selling the same substance as a drug.


Edited by badchad (12/11/13 07:55 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: badchad]
    #19262597 - 12/11/13 08:33 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Who cares what bottled water sellers make? They're not Pharma, and Pharma doesn't get bottled water revenue same as they don't get revenue from commercially available inexpensive materials that might serve as a cure, which anyone can purchase for themselves - same as they don't get insurance company revenue, being as they're not insurance but Pharma. You're not following this at all.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLungCheeseFungus
Stranger Everyday
Male

Registered: 05/01/13
Posts: 75
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: badchad]
    #19262711 - 12/11/13 08:52 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

What does it take to get approved? And if it's not approved, and you save peoples lives like Burzynski? Then it you will be targeted, robbed, hindered in every way, and taken to court numerous times for helping people in ways other places do not. "Incurable" brain cancer is routinely cured. So they attack him. Wonder why? As usual, follow the money.

If it don't matter to someone enough yet, then presume there is no preventative or cure. If you get cancer, either look more closely at the facts, or die/suffer radiation poisoning like most of the others who blindly put their faith in the system despite their blatant overall ineffectiveness, even at treating the symptoms of diseases in general. People, you can watch both Burzynski documentaries for free via torrents. Dare you.

The bigger question is why have all these diseases and disorders become so popular in the first place.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19264259 - 12/12/13 04:21 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

something cool said:
Who cares what bottled water sellers make? They're not Pharma, and Pharma doesn't get bottled water revenue same as they don't get revenue from commercially available inexpensive materials that might serve as a cure, which anyone can purchase for themselves - same as they don't get insurance company revenue, being as they're not insurance but Pharma. You're not following this at all.




Let me simplify this for you even further:  You can sell almost any product and profit from it, drugs included.  There are numerous active pharmaceutical ingredients that are very cheap to purchase in raw form, that are also sold as drugs.  For profit.

Examples include  acetylsalicyclic acid (aspirin), caffeine (also sold in drug form as no doz) and others.  Anyone can purchase these for themselves from a chemical supply company.

The synthesis of a chemical doesn't account for the cost and/or profit of drug.  Its the approval process that is costly.  I'll say it again for you to follow along:  There are lots of cheap chemicals that are readily available to the public that are also sold (for profit) as drugs.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: badchad]
    #19264645 - 12/12/13 07:53 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Let me simplify this for you: You went along with water and vehicles demonstrating a purported example of how seemingly non-profitable things can be profitable, arguing that water being free would mean that companies could sell cars that run on water, making profit from the cars. You missed that the water in the example was the metaphor for a cure, and not the car. The car would be the metaphor for cancer, with it's fuel being the metaphor for the cure. To argue that companies would make money selling cars that run on water would be to argue that Pharma would make money selling cancer to people who don't have cancer. You aren't following.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19264890 - 12/12/13 09:04 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

His argument makes perfect sense.  You are grasping at straws because your position is not defensible.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19265176 - 12/12/13 10:38 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

something cool said:
You missed that the water in the example was the metaphor for a cure, and not the car. The car would be the metaphor for cancer, with it's fuel being the metaphor for the cure. To argue that companies would make money selling cars that run on water would be to argue that Pharma would make money selling cancer to people who don't have cancer. You aren't following.




I'm doing my best not to belabor this argument, so I'll try and wind it down since we just don't agree.

If water cured cancer, what do you think would happen to the estimated, 100 billion dollar water industry?  I bet sales wouldn't go down.

Similarly, if gas became as cheap as water, it would still be bottled and sold, just like water.

Even things that are cheap, abundant, and easily available can (and will) be marketed and sold for profit.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: badchad]
    #19265439 - 12/12/13 11:55 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Maybe, badchad, there can be an illustration of how a gas corporation (the parallel to Pharma using the metaphor) would move profits from water becoming the main fuel into their pockets, since the vehicle in this scenario doesn't change along with the shift from gas to water, just as cancer doesn't change from being cancer whether it's approached with treatment 1 or treatment 2.

Unlike water, which is a limited resource with licenses held over who can tap which reservoir/glacier/lake, which uses some heavy equipment to collect, transport, and make ready, and which runs into shortages even in the USA... there would be no shortage on DCA, it has an already established industry price-point, is not supply-limited, and not costly to supply.

Quote:

DieCommie said:
His argument makes perfect sense.  You are grasping at straws because your position is not defensible.




I'm grasping at the nexus of the argument, not straws. My position isn't much a part of the equation, because I don't have one regarding the continued clarification other than that there is mis-attribution of the elements of the metaphor, and in light of that mis-attribution, the metaphor argues contrary to the purported claim. Perhaps you're chiming in here because your own "boogeyman" argument failed resoundingly, probably from being over-sophisticated for such as myself.

Quote:

badchad said:
If water cured cancer, what do you think would happen to the estimated, 100 billion dollar water industry?  I bet sales wouldn't go down.




Water companies profit. But water companies don't parallel to Pharma, and the potential cure in question would be price-competed against all profitable interests, as opposed to water - for which access is licensed to limited companies based upon available reservoir supplies, sometimes while local populations suffer summer droughts. Without those limited supplies and access to them, the price would be competed into un-profitability. DCA is not needed in a fraction of % of water's volume, its supply is not threatened regardless of need, there is no patent (akin to licensed access) held on it, it is a non-issue to create and supply, and people who aren't Pharma can lower the price in competition or out of goodwill to the point that it is revenue-neutral. It makes water look like platinum in comparison - but, regardless, this still leaves question as to how a price and value that is relatively egregiously inferior to what it would be replacing, and which is not within strong control of Pharma to determine, would be an attractive substitute.

Saying that an attributed cure to become available would be sufficiently lucrative, or comparably lucrative, to replace what it'd be replacing is a big supposition. And there are many possible reasons why it may possibly not be lucrative at all.


Edited by something cool (12/13/13 08:04 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLungCheeseFungus
Stranger Everyday
Male

Registered: 05/01/13
Posts: 75
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19267681 - 12/12/13 08:01 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

As a small point, let me also mention this.

In the USa, weather you have a real cancer cure or not, if you sell it as such without their blessing and the huge bribes and many years (if ever) that it takes to get it, you will be targeted. They are essentially making it illegal to truly cure cancer. Understand that, and the gears will begin to turn.

Kind of goes into the vaccine debate, but why does such a hugely increased percentage of people have all these cancers in the first place? We didn't used to. Something changed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19272317 - 12/13/13 08:19 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

> why does such a hugely increased percentage of people have all these cancers in the first place? We didn't used to. Something changed.

People are living longer and diagnostic tools are much better identifying cancer.  Until recently, if somebody died from cancer, the death would have been listed as natural causes or old age.  It is difficult to know for certain if cancer rates are really higher now than they used to be, though it wouldn't surprise me to find that they are.  With the industrial revolution, people have a much higher exposure to a wider range of carcinogens than in the past.  At the same time, our ability to treat cancer has vastly improved.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19329383 - 12/26/13 03:41 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

LungCheeseFungus said:
They are essentially making it illegal to truly cure cancer. Understand that, and the gears will begin to turn.

Kind of goes into the vaccine debate, but why does such a hugely increased percentage of people have all these cancers in the first place? We didn't used to. Something changed.






Firstly, no it's not illegal to cure cancer.  You don't even know what kind of cancers now have curative treatments, do you?

They're not illegal.  What you're saying sounds like more conspiracy theory talk...




Also, this whole argument of "there's more cancers than before".  Well you do realize that cancer in general is a more recent discovery, right?

And that technology for diagnosis is leaps and bounds in the past few decades than it's ever been before. 



Stating that there's been "increases in cancer" without realizing that they're only recently being discovered is like blaming your headlights for making the wall your car ran into"


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: badchad]
    #19329387 - 12/26/13 03:44 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

badchad said:
Quote:

something cool said:
Who cares what bottled water sellers make? They're not Pharma, and Pharma doesn't get bottled water revenue same as they don't get revenue from commercially available inexpensive materials that might serve as a cure, which anyone can purchase for themselves - same as they don't get insurance company revenue, being as they're not insurance but Pharma. You're not following this at all.




Let me simplify this for you even further:  You can sell almost any product and profit from it, drugs included.  There are numerous active pharmaceutical ingredients that are very cheap to purchase in raw form, that are also sold as drugs.  For profit.

Examples include  acetylsalicyclic acid (aspirin), caffeine (also sold in drug form as no doz) and others.  Anyone can purchase these for themselves from a chemical supply company.

The synthesis of a chemical doesn't account for the cost and/or profit of drug.  Its the approval process that is costly.  I'll say it again for you to follow along:  There are lots of cheap chemicals that are readily available to the public that are also sold (for profit) as drugs.






badchad's response pretty much nails it on the dot.



And I'll add another point.  Just because big pharma is greedy and sucks, doesn't mean magic beans or random outdated powders cure cancer.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19329415 - 12/26/13 03:51 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

LungCheeseFungus said:
When Burzynski was dealing with the FDA, they never denied that he was saving lives and curing cancer. They disputed the legality of it. That alone shows their true colors. And then they took him to court again and again after that.

Lets think. What if I found a way to run my car on water instead of gasoline. I would expect there to be some pretty pissed off rich people. If they were really rich, they may even have people to help keep the cat in the bag. Would they make more money off the petroleum, or by teaching people how to run their autos on water? In the long term, they would make more money off the petroleum. Same deal here. What happens after everyone is cured of cancer?

We all know the old saying. Build a man a fire, and he is warm for the night. Light a man on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life.






I see this is the analogy that stemmed this further discussion.


Even though it's not really any kind of rebuttal or relation to my initial reply to you, I'll still talk about this.



The pharmaceutical industry is probably one of the most cut-throat competitive markets out there.  Because of the billions of dollars at stake. 

This stems immense competition for better products.  Simply coming up with a drug that has less side effects and less harm but equal efficacy can mean BILLIONS in profit.


So what you have is a constant race for one thing, who makes the best product.  This means what drug will best treat any given condition, not JUST cancers.  Which drug increases survival, minimizes side effects, etc etc.

If you look at the history of pharmaceutical companies and their success, it all boils down to one thing: The best treatment will always make the most money

I can point out numerous examples of this. 

The pharmaceutical industry is NOT some sort of cooperative among people to impede medical progress for cures.  That's the furthest thing from the truth.


It's literally a constant arms race on who can treat what better, faster, etc.  I KNOW this because I work in cancer drug development and direct studies that companies use for FDA approval.

I literally work with two of the biggest titans in cancer drug research, in the top research institute in the country.


If you have any questions about what kind of work is being done, then ask away.  But to label my job with these false ideas and conspiracies is just dumbfounding to me.

How people come up with these kinds of theories and chose to BELIEVE in them is what baffles me.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAltered
Stranger


Registered: 08/21/13
Posts: 36
Last seen: 10 years, 14 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #19330972 - 12/26/13 10:45 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Naked Mole rats are immune to cancer, but they are blind...and they dont have hair... So what if they find the cure to cancer, but you go blind?

I heard apple cider vinegar can prevent/cure cancer, & I heard cannabis oil cures melanoma.

Who knows really... /:

There are genes that people have that make them more susceptible to cancer. Which means they have to stand very far away from microwaves and be careful what chemicals they put inside their bodies to ensure that their cells don't get confused and accidently make cancer.


--------------------
.β€’*ΒΊ*β€’.Floating Endlessly in the Expanse.β€’*ΒΊ*β€’.



Edited by Altered (12/26/13 10:46 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepoke smot!
floccinocci floofinator
Male


Registered: 01/08/03
Posts: 5,248
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? *DELETED* [Re: Altered]
    #19332833 - 12/27/13 12:35 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Post deleted by poke smot!

Reason for deletion: x



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAltered
Stranger


Registered: 08/21/13
Posts: 36
Last seen: 10 years, 14 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: poke smot!]
    #19337998 - 12/28/13 05:48 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Of course... Money, big business, Pharma. industry...

CEO's.. corporations, mass consumption, consumerist society.

Ect.

>>everyone is healthy
>>hospitals go out of business
>>health occupations would be unnecessary


--------------------
.β€’*ΒΊ*β€’.Floating Endlessly in the Expanse.β€’*ΒΊ*β€’.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Altered]
    #19338757 - 12/28/13 08:31 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Altered]
    #19344374 - 12/30/13 12:34 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Altered said:
Naked Mole rats are immune to cancer, but they are blind...and they dont have hair... So what if they find the cure to cancer, but you go blind?

I heard apple cider vinegar can prevent/cure cancer, & I heard cannabis oil cures melanoma.

Who knows really... /:

There are genes that people have that make them more susceptible to cancer. Which means they have to stand very far away from microwaves and be careful what chemicals they put inside their bodies to ensure that their cells don't get confused and accidently make cancer.




The whole "cannabis oil cures cancer" propaganda was absurd.  I've seen those images that they claim were melanoma that cleared away with cannabis oil.


It's quite sad actually that people are bent on spreading misinformation like that (not eluding to you, but to those who started that rumor)


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Altered]
    #19344378 - 12/30/13 12:35 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Altered said:

Ect.

>>everyone is healthy
>>hospitals go out of business
>>health occupations would be unnecessary





That's kind of an absurd thing to say.  You act like illnesses are a production of for-profit corporations instead of you know....nature.


Death and illness are inevitable, no matter how pure of a life you choose to live.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Altered]
    #19345159 - 12/30/13 06:19 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Altered said:
I heard apple cider vinegar can prevent/cure cancer, & I heard cannabis oil cures melanoma.



I heard your brain is riddled with holes.

Quote:

Who knows really... /:



You don't, that's for sure.

Sorry about picking on you so much, but boy, do you spout inane nonsense all the time. This is the Science forum. I suggest you try your luck in the Spirituality section and/or the Conspiracy forum. Seems like this is not a place where you fit in very well. Sorry again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLungCheeseFungus
Stranger Everyday
Male

Registered: 05/01/13
Posts: 75
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: koraks]
    #19349558 - 12/31/13 01:29 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

"How people come up with these kinds of theories and chose to BELIEVE in them is what baffles me. "

Likewise.

In the federal governments own studies, cannabis has anticancer properties.

People have been cured of many/most kinds of illnesses through time by natural means. Everyone has their time to leave their body ("die"), though now for many people it's an agonizing and terrible experience. Now a days it's the tylenol approach. Your body is telling you something is wrong, through pain, so let's just try to ignore the pain and the problem causing it.

The idea that people were too ignorant to know they had cancer before modern medicine came along, is incredible. You may not know right away, but you will know. BUT, aside from that, cancer rates have exploded in the last 50 and 100 years. Detectable, observable, curable cancer.

So, anyone who says they work in the cancer business should have already seen Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business. In fact, I think most everyone should see this movie. Because the implications are vast, and make obvious the medical tyranny that so many will suffer from in this day. I suppose the makers of the movies believe that also, and that is why they have made it free to watch online, no signup or anything. They apparently aren't fueled by greed, as has become expected from most people today.

But to the skeptics, I understand it is indeed easier to believe...something other than this truth, because doing so is the only real way to avoid some startling revelations. To each their own. Myself, I took the red pill.

Interestingly, this isn't the only cure or preventative for cancer.


--------------------
If you have not found something worth dieing for, you have found nothing worth living for.

The most effective barrier to knowledge, is the illusion of it.

Is there any long time member here that used to have the handle "Mr. Cool" elsewhere? PM me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19356492 - 01/01/14 10:45 PM (10 years, 29 days ago)

Quote:

LungCheeseFungus said:


Now a days it's the tylenol approach. Your body is telling you something is wrong, through pain, so let's just try to ignore the pain and the problem causing it.







I don't think your knowledge of pharmaceuticals is sufficient, if this is what you believe.



This IS the science forum afterall, not the conspiracy theory forum.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Edited by LiquidSmoke (01/02/14 06:58 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19356498 - 01/01/14 10:47 PM (10 years, 29 days ago)

Quote:

LungCheeseFungus said:

In the federal governments own studies, cannabis has anticancer properties.






On pitri dishes and statistically insignificant animal studies.  They've failed to show any promise in clinical trials so far.  And it's been a couple decades.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLungCheeseFungus
Stranger Everyday
Male

Registered: 05/01/13
Posts: 75
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #19357238 - 01/02/14 03:49 AM (10 years, 29 days ago)

Keep digging. The facts are there. Along with the history.


--------------------
If you have not found something worth dieing for, you have found nothing worth living for.

The most effective barrier to knowledge, is the illusion of it.

Is there any long time member here that used to have the handle "Mr. Cool" elsewhere? PM me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19360834 - 01/02/14 09:30 PM (10 years, 28 days ago)

This is the Science Forum, not the Conspiracy Theory forum.


If you want to talk science, then do it here.  But all that other "dig deeper" and "read between the lines" discussion goes over there.


I'm here to talk science of pharmaceuticals.  You seem more interested in preaching your conspiracy theory beliefs.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLungCheeseFungus
Stranger Everyday
Male

Registered: 05/01/13
Posts: 75
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #19364167 - 01/03/14 04:24 PM (10 years, 27 days ago)

So the belief that a headache is a sign of disharmony in your body, or being able to read history books and studies, is a sure sign of being a conspiracy theorist? Gotch. Am I a witch too?

I watched an interesting documentary the other day. American Drug War 2: Cannabis Destiny. It shows the anticancer properties of cannabis.


--------------------
If you have not found something worth dieing for, you have found nothing worth living for.

The most effective barrier to knowledge, is the illusion of it.

Is there any long time member here that used to have the handle "Mr. Cool" elsewhere? PM me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19365731 - 01/03/14 08:56 PM (10 years, 27 days ago)

This forum is about science, so discuss it.


Tell me in specific mechanisms, how modern pharmaceuticals are only being geared to symptomatic treatment instead of treating the root causes, like you are claiming.


You claim to read books and be so informed.  Then let's talk pharmacology, since this is clearly what you need to be explaining your theory with.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr.alkaline
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/15/12
Posts: 684
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #19401020 - 01/10/14 08:29 PM (10 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
This forum is about science, so discuss it.

Tell me in specific mechanisms, how modern pharmaceuticals are only being geared to symptomatic treatment instead of treating the root causes, like you are claiming.

You claim to read books and be so informed.  Then let's talk pharmacology, since this is clearly what you need to be explaining your theory with.




I think it is somewhat true that pharma companies gear their efforts towards treatments and not cures. I am not a conspiracy theorist at all, and I think I can give a good explanation of why I think this is ture.

There are plenty of small molecule treatments available for many of the individual cancers, so drug companies know development of these products is an obtainable goal. Also, to get any drug to market is no small task, you need to provide a great deal of evidence(through preclinical work) to get what is called a biologics licence to perform clinical trials with your drugs. The FDA awards these and the list of drugs licensed for clinical trails each year is pretty small. Usually the minority of drugs on this list are so called" first in class" drugs meaning they have a unique mechanism of action. This means the majority of the drugs to receive a biologics licence are based on previously known mechanisms and are probably less likely to be a novel cure( and may even be very similar to already approved drugs). this type of imbalance may make drug companies less likely to go out on a limb with more risky, novel routes which may impede any effort for developing a cancer cure.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: dr.alkaline]
    #19403119 - 01/11/14 10:30 AM (10 years, 20 days ago)

Wow, an educated, intelligent, thoughtful response.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLungCheeseFungus
Stranger Everyday
Male

Registered: 05/01/13
Posts: 75
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #19407646 - 01/12/14 10:11 AM (10 years, 19 days ago)

"This forum is about science, so discuss it."

Waiting on you to follow the lead.



"Tell me in specific mechanisms, how modern pharmaceuticals are only being geared to symptomatic treatment instead of treating the root causes, like you are claiming."

You need to understand, I owe you nothing. You are in theory ~ as capable as anyone else to find the truth. That being said, what are most drugs for? To try to relieve the symptoms of an infirm person. Pick up most any bottle and read it.


--------------------
If you have not found something worth dieing for, you have found nothing worth living for.

The most effective barrier to knowledge, is the illusion of it.

Is there any long time member here that used to have the handle "Mr. Cool" elsewhere? PM me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19409419 - 01/12/14 05:52 PM (10 years, 18 days ago)

This is an old and silly argument.  Drug preperations derived from naturally occuring substances can be patented and even a naturally occuring substance can get an exclusivity period in the US.  i.e. "nobody will use marijuana cuz big evil drug companies can't make money off of it...."  meanwhile Marinol was approved and the manufacturer got a monopoly on THC, sativex was developed from whole marijuana extract, et cet.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Mage
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,795
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19432503 - 01/17/14 10:08 AM (10 years, 14 days ago)

I just want to say for those with a personal interest in this drug: It is Sodium dichloroacetate and though big pharma has no interest in it, there are companies on the internet where you can order the compound and use it on your own accord, an offshoot of the Reseach Chemicals trend where people get their own pharms directly.

For most people Sodium dichloroacetate treatment is relatively harmless and benign and can be added to most treatments for cancer, but consult your doctor before doing so.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Asante]
    #19432656 - 01/17/14 10:52 AM (10 years, 13 days ago)

Thanks, WS!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,086
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 7 hours, 6 minutes
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19503391 - 01/31/14 08:56 PM (9 years, 11 months ago)
Log in to view attachment

^




















--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month:  The Apple-Glass Cyndrome - Someday



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: johnm214]
    #19521242 - 02/04/14 04:17 PM (9 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
This is an old and silly argument.  Drug preperations derived from naturally occuring substances can be patented and even a naturally occuring substance can get an exclusivity period in the US.  i.e. "nobody will use marijuana cuz big evil drug companies can't make money off of it...."  meanwhile Marinol was approved and the manufacturer got a monopoly on THC, sativex was developed from whole marijuana extract, et cet.




I can appreciate that it's old. The OP isn't a statement of opinion, but a question of plausibility. The viewpoint is that it's indeed plausible, and has likeness, even exact-likeness in associated things. It's therefore of full-plausibility, detectable-likeliness, but unknown-certainty.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetripp23
Kratom Freak
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 4,030
Loc: Florida, US
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19530519 - 02/06/14 01:07 PM (9 years, 11 months ago)

exactly why money is to blame. money = root of all problems. If it never existed, this would go viral.


--------------------
Experience my nightmarish first time of smoking Ganja!



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 7 hours, 35 minutes
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: tripp23]
    #19550837 - 02/11/14 12:53 AM (9 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

tripp23 said:
If it never existed, this would go viral.





The thing is though, this treatment probably doesn't even work at all.  There is no magic bullet for cancer - cancer is many diseases, there will never be any one molecule you can take the fixes all of them.  If someone claims to have cured all cancer, that's your clue that it probably is BS.

The video never said why they think it even cures cancer.  Cancer in a test tube is easy to cure - Turkey tail mushrooms, salt, fire, a hammer, etc....who knows if this stuff works in real cancer cases where someone's life is on the line.  Probably not.

It's not like this chemical is controlled or hard to get.  The government is not stopping cancer patients from taking this stuff, it just can't be marketed that way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetripp23
Kratom Freak
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 4,030
Loc: Florida, US
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #19555312 - 02/12/14 12:21 AM (9 years, 11 months ago)

hey, I'd definitely give it a go. :thumbup:

i understand.  But I don't understand why they don't do testing.. 

Just wish the government would do something right for a change..


--------------------
Experience my nightmarish first time of smoking Ganja!



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: tripp23]
    #19555767 - 02/12/14 03:11 AM (9 years, 11 months ago)

> But I don't understand why they don't do testing..

Who says they don't?  The conspiracy yoyo's that want you to believe that there is a cure for cancer, but that "big pharm" is somehow hiding it because a cure wouldn't be profitable?  The pharmaceutical companies do not have that kind of power.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Go to the store and name your price! with re-code.com
( 1 2 all )
Lana 4,329 39 06/03/03 10:22 AM
by Raadt
* Electronic nose 'sniffs out cancer' TackleBerry 928 2 05/08/03 06:01 AM
by TackleBerry
* Is the HIV virus a hoax?
( 1 2 3 all )
Baby_Hitler 8,895 42 05/08/03 04:38 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* I need a way to hide folders Chemical_Smile 2,581 19 08/16/02 04:53 PM
by tps
* Wormwood as an anti-cancer agent.... Randolph_Carter 563 1 09/01/04 02:21 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* lava lamp cure(wax lamp) butterflydawn 1,236 7 08/10/04 01:54 AM
by funkymonk
* This Week in Tech - Episode 6 available now Fungi_x 1,038 10 05/27/05 08:55 AM
by debianlinux
* best music store ever allofmp3.com AhronZombi 1,156 9 05/13/04 12:08 AM
by AhronZombi

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
3,827 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.047 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.