Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
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: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,373
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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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: 13,373
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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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: 13,373
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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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: 7 months, 20 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, 2 months 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: 7 months, 20 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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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: 13,373
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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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: 13,373
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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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: 13,373
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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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: 13,373
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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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, 2 months ago)

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


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

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   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 4,333 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 1,237 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, 0 guests and 2 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 0.026 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.