Stop Treating Cancer

[The Introvert]

A cynical and probably Ni-infused fearful Part of me wonders if a cure to cancer does not exist because health industries don't want it to exist.

This is not a well-formulate opinion or idea, just a random thought. It's probably been discussed here before.

If companies make billions each year on treating patients (whether they even be salvageable or not, that's another question entirely) over extended periods of time, why would they opt for a quick cure, like a pill or procedure?

I wonder what would happen if people began opting out of treatment entirely. Would there suddenly be breakthroughs in cancer treatment?

 

[Red myst]

I don't think it is a "conspiracy"....
The cause for other illnesses have been isolated, and vaccines created for them. I don't see cancer as being any different. What exactly do you mean by "cure"? Some treatments work for some people. Do you mean like a pill you take and it goes away like a bad cold? Or vaccine you take so you are immune like Polio? A quick fix?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Population control is important, so such a theory is plausible, but I would argue that it would need to be more manipulative and applicable, such as AIDS, which can be contracted, warded off, etc.

Cancer is something which may be benefitial to some, but in my opinion, not something we currently have full potential power over and knowledge on.

 

[Pyropyro]

There's no quick cure for cancer because there are different cancers. Thinking that there's a quick cure is like thinking that duct tape can solve all of your house's disrepair.

Big pharma is also isn't being evil (for now anyways ) since it's really expensive to develop new drugs to combat cancer. I think you'll need a decade and at least 1 billion dollars to release a new drug in the market. Even then you're not sure if there's any undiscovered ill long-term effects.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

There's no quick cure for cancer because there are different cancers. Thinking that there's a quick cure is like thinking that duct tape can solve all of your house's disrepair.

Big pharma is also isn't being evil (for now anyways ) since it's really expensive to develop new drugs to combat cancer. I think you'll need a decade and at least 1 billion dollars to release a new drug in the market. Even then you're not sure if there's any undiscovered ill long-term effects.

This, the feeling isn't unjustified as it's not like money hasn't inhibited progress before, and pharmaceuticals already involve monopolies.

I think it would take a big research team to develop something so comprehensive which wold be hard to keep secret, and then there's the cost of research that team would want to recover.

 

[Grayman]

Cancer varies from person to person on the genetic level. Part of the issue is that it is difficult to attack the cancer cells without hurting all the good ones.

There is a cure that is just comming out but there are big issues with mass producing it. The cure basically is made differently for each individual. It is done by injecting the cancer dna into a benign virus. The virus is injected into the patient and the patients body produces antibodies to kill the virus. These antibodies then see the cancer cells as the virus because they have the same dna. Thus the body kills off the cancer utilizing the immune system. This requires that the patient has a healthy immune system. Another issue with this is that it takes a long time and a lot of effort for the FDA to approve a drug. This is even more complicated that other drugs because it is dynamic. It is basically a vaccine but it is complicated to make and has to be done separately for each individual.


The biggest problem I have with conspiracy theories is thst people utilize the paranoia and desperation of the sick by claiming to have a cure. People jump on this cure and many die because they xont get the proper treatment.

 

[Variform]

Pharmaceutical companies have shareholders. They work for them. The expectations and demands or interests of shareholders and clients do not necessarily match.

The shareholder wants a dividend and doesn't really care how that is accomplished, as long as the long term dividend expectations aren't risked by bad management.

The client wants a safe medicine that has been properly tested for risks for a reasonable price and that is readily available.

It is my opinion that all Pharmaceutical companies need to be nationalized because health care should not be left to capitalist markets. I find that immoral. Our health and the public health status of citizens in a country in relation to the needs of all of society, is our most prized possession. And we depend on science to come up with medications that are helpful based on what we need, not on the interests of shareholders, who would pressure a company to research a medicine for a popular diagnosis rather than do research into a more difficult diagnosis.

So I think medical research needs to be a matter of us all, that is that the government together with independent scientists come together with representatives of patient foundations to decide what conditions need to be cured and how the funds should be divided between different research projects.

 

[Grayman]

And we depend on science to come up with medications that are helpful based on what we need, not on the interests of shareholders, who would pressure a company to research a medicine for a popular diagnosis rather than do research into a more difficult diagnosis.

So I think medical research needs to be a matter of us all, that is that the government together with independent scientists come together with representatives of patient foundations to decide what conditions need to be cured and how the funds should be divided between different research projects.

Corporations will pursue any avenue that will be cost effective. Even if the government had control of the facilities I would hope they would do the same. Wasting money in false hopes will only keep others from benefiting from thos resources.

 

[Pyropyro]

Pharmaceutical companies have shareholders. They work for them. The expectations and demands or interests of shareholders and clients do not necessarily match.

The shareholder wants a dividend and doesn't really care how that is accomplished, as long as the long term dividend expectations aren't risked by bad management.

The client wants a safe medicine that has been properly tested for risks for a reasonable price and that is readily available.

It is my opinion that all Pharmaceutical companies need to be nationalized because health care should not be left to capitalist markets. I find that immoral. Our health and the public health status of citizens in a country in relation to the needs of all of society, is our most prized possession. And we depend on science to come up with medications that are helpful based on what we need, not on the interests of shareholders, who would pressure a company to research a medicine for a popular diagnosis rather than do research into a more difficult diagnosis.

So I think medical research needs to be a matter of us all, that is that the government together with independent scientists come together with representatives of patient foundations to decide what conditions need to be cured and how the funds should be divided between different research projects.

Well I suggest that pharmas should working closely with gov't R&D Institutions (RDI). RDI's can handle the risk of failing a drug discovery project since they're not into profits anyways. On the other hand they'll need companies to sell any useful cures that they generate since they're not mandated to sell stuff. R&D is slow but at least the risk is lessened for both clients and shareholders.

 

[Variform]

This world is insane in that we use the capitalist open market paradigm to dictate how we spend the money on science and medicine, that we cream off of the Gross National Product through taxation.

Many cures could have been found for terrible diseases if we stopped spending so much on warfare and military hardware.

My 'flat affect' will allow me to say we need war because it kills off lots of people, who would otherwise grow up and breed. And since we also adopted the paradigm of not giving a shit about the environment, our climate and other species' right to exist, we think that the more the merrier.

Since we do not allow any population control because we fool ourselves that all people have an innate right to breed kids as if they are a bunny farm, a right based either on christian doctrine or the individualistic society we so love, our climate and way of life will continue to offset the balance of life on Earth. And so we need war to cull the herd.

Unfortunately, the rich west are the cullers and yet they waste the Earth the most. It is a shame that the usa in that sense, with its vast armies doesn't kill more people. We need more dead people, very badly. Either kill them off, or adopt population strategies globally and restrict the number of children a woman can have to one.

Christians believe that any child that could possibly be fucked into existence, necessarily MUST be fucked into existence. That is why you have so many of these 14- child families. It disgusts me. It has been estimated that for every single child using resources in the western world, in fact, an american child is equal to 100 babies in some poor nation. Now you have these christians families with 10 or even more kids. Do the math on how much resources are wasted.

So we should either create more wars, allow westerners to die off relatively more than poor people or implement population controls.

We can abolish military hardware spending and put all those hundreds of billions in medical research, find cures that save lives and in doing so create more 'successful couplings'. Add to the curve of population growth. If we do that, we must also implement population maximums. And that means we need to give up the right to procreate without limitations.

So medical research is connected to the choices we make in society (military spending), our ingrained rights based on on rampant individualism and the state of our Earth.

We can only funnel so much money in medical research if we allow ourselves never to have more than one child. If you want the right to more kids, we must kill more people off in wars. If we don't want that, there should be no medical research aimed at saving lives by curing deadly diseases.

A diabolical choice.

 

[Cognisant]

A cynical and probably Ni-infused fearful Part of me wonders if a cure to cancer does not exist because health industries don't want it to exist.

Aside from the other aspects of rampant idiocy in that statement I'd like to point out that if there was a cure for cancer whichever company came up with it will make a shit-ton of money in goverment sponsorship, let alone actually selling it to patients who are willing to put themselves I'm debt to afford it.

But okay lets assume there's this MASSIVE conspiracy among businessmen who don't like making money, it's unlikely but not impossible, in such a situation that cure for cancer would the the most valuable thing on the planet that someone could steal and reasonably get away with, I mean for the owners to claim that you stole it they'd have to admit they were keeping the cure for cancer a secret, who in their right mind would admit that?

 

[Vrecknidj]

I count among my friends a couple of researchers working on cancers. There is no conspiracy. Cancer, like a great many other medical issues, is tough to beat.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

I'd like to point out that if there was a cure for cancer whichever company came up with it will make a shit-ton of money in goverment sponsorship, let alone actually selling it to patients who are willing to put themselves I'm debt to afford it.

they already get all of that from selling drugs/treatments that don't work very well. not to mention plenty of repeat business from the poor people who survive the first lot of treatments only to have the cancer mysteriously reappear.

 

[Anktark]

I thought this thread is going to be about stopping cancer treatments entirely and letting the people die off, preferably without leaving offsprings. Basically, returning an almost lost part of natural selection back to this species.

I feel mislead.

 

[Hadoblado]

Thinking that there's a quick cure is like thinking that duct tape can solve all of your house's disrepair.

What are you implying?

 

[The Introvert]

Corporations will pursue any avenue that will be cost effective. Even if the government had control of the facilities I would hope they would do the same. Wasting money in false hopes will only keep others from benefiting from thos resources.

Yes. But there is a distinction between cost-effective and profit.

If your goal is to heal people, it would seem to align, morally speaking, with cost-effective, not profit. But that isn't the case in the west (at least USA).

Aside from the other aspects of rampant idiocy in that statement I'd like to point out that if there was a cure for cancer whichever company came up with it will make a shit-ton of money in goverment sponsorship, let alone actually selling it to patients who are willing to put themselves I'm debt to afford it.

I think this quote answers nicely:

they already get all of that from selling drugs/treatments that don't work very well. not to mention plenty of repeat business from the poor people who survive the first lot of treatments only to have the cancer mysteriously reappear.

I thought this thread is going to be about stopping cancer treatments entirely and letting the people die off, preferably without leaving offsprings. Basically, returning an almost lost part of natural selection back to this species.

I feel mislead.

Honestly, I would love for the thread to turn in that direction. I'm all for discussion on biological concepts, especially when considering humans and how we've altered our own evolutionary paths (but necessarily not the mechanisms that drive them, which is why it's so cool).

By 'curing' as many people as possible, are we creating a world in which people eventually have no resistances (for there is no need)? Are we setting ourselves up for a massive pandemic?

Or could it be like a buffer? Increasing the total genetic diversity. Interesting stuff. Wish I had more time right now to make a longer post.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I thought this thread is going to be about stopping cancer treatments entirely and letting the people die off, preferably without leaving offsprings. Basically, returning an almost lost part of natural selection back to this species.

I feel mislead.

The people that survive cancer, using technology and then have offspirng, who may or may not have cancer and then continue to reproduce and survive relying on technology are an evolved form of a human being.

Technological progress is a part of human evolution as a species. So when there would be a cure for cancer, it would be similar to the evolutionary/genetic leap that makes people resistant/unaffected by it.

The difference is the time it takes and the fact that your evolved self extends beyond your body to the interfaces that you are dependent on (a shell).

 

[Pyropyro]

What are you implying?

You should also use WD-40 from time to time But seriously though cancer is a class of diseases. There's no magic bullet for it.

 

[Duxwing]

Yes. But there is a distinction between cost-effective and profit.

Not every cure is necessarily unprofitable: some diseases have been profitably cured.

If your goal is to heal people, it would seem to align, morally speaking, with cost-effective, not profit. But that isn't the case in the west (at least USA).

You seemingly assume that profit and "cost-effectiveness" mutually exclude, which they do not because some cheap cures and even prophylactics can be profitable; e.g., PeptoBismol and Trojan condoms. Furthermore, companies making such goods as these two do only research they believe most profitable because, whatever their morals, they need money to function and therefore must compete with other drug companies for consumers' and investors' money. These companies obviously will neglect some important research--perhaps even potentially cancer-curing research--which government research can perform.

I therefore doubt that corporate greed has stifled an easy cure for cancer and wonder whether this conspiracy theory feels better: a corrupt cabal can be fought, giving those believing it exists a sense of control, whereas a disease can only be suffered until medicine defeats it.

Honestly, I would love for the thread to turn in that direction. I'm all for discussion on biological concepts, especially when considering humans and how we've altered our own evolutionary paths (but necessarily not the mechanisms that drive them, which is why it's so cool).

We might upload our minds before the question becomes relevant.

By 'curing' as many people as possible, are we creating a world in which people eventually have no resistances (for there is no need)? Are we setting ourselves up for a massive pandemic?

We will achieve herd immunity for each disease we eradicate and, eventually, stop vaccinating ourselves against it. Lacking immunity and exposure to eradicated diseases would not risk a pandemic because we would immunize ourselves to whatever might beset us.

Or could it be like a buffer? Increasing the total genetic diversity. Interesting stuff. Wish I had more time right now to make a longer post.

Go on.

-Duxwing

 

[AngelOne]

It's easy to say that it's better for people to die instead of receiving cancer treatment when speaking in rhe abstract. As soon as you're talking concrete reality, most people find that they have a different point of view. While having this discussion, pretend that you (or the love of your life or your parenys or your child) have cancer right now. Without treatment (which will also almost certainly be effective), that person will die within a year.

Cancer is not just one disease but a class of diseases. Growth and spread mechanisms vary depending on the original location of the mutant cells and sometimes also on the subtype of cancer. Some of these mechanisms are partly understood but the science is still new.

The fact that cancer isn't just one disease is the reason why there is no cure for cancer out there. If or when a cure for any cancer is found, the finders of that cure will make bucket loads of money.

The biggest problem with Big Pharma is that individual companies want to make the most money possible. Therefore, they want to invest in sure things - or as close to sure things as possible. Obviously this limits experimental or exploratory research; perhaps less obviously, companies also operate as siloes and don't share information because doing so might reduce the number of bucket loads of money they make. The effects of this situation are felt most strongly in the development of psychiatric drugs: the cost to bring them to market is much greater than it is for other drugs because development times are longer and neurochemistry is not well-understood.

Each company has a piece of the puzzle but investing based on that piece is very expensive. If companies could find a way to pool some of their research or at least split up some of the tasks there's a greater chance of developing something new and making bucket loads of money. Cooperation (to a limited degree) might be a good strategy for success and for making bucketloads of money. On the other jand, privatizing these companies would add a layer of bureaucracy and might stall research. Most new ideas come from the private sector, not a company controlled by the government.

 

[CrayCrayPoTayTay]

Pharmaceutical companies have shareholders. They work for them. The expectations and demands or interests of shareholders and clients do not necessarily match.

The shareholder wants a dividend and doesn't really care how that is accomplished, as long as the long term dividend expectations aren't risked by bad management.

The client wants a safe medicine that has been properly tested for risks for a reasonable price and that is readily available.

It is my opinion that all Pharmaceutical companies need to be nationalized because health care should not be left to capitalist markets. I find that immoral. Our health and the public health status of citizens in a country in relation to the needs of all of society, is our most prized possession. And we depend on science to come up with medications that are helpful based on what we need, not on the interests of shareholders, who would pressure a company to research a medicine for a popular diagnosis rather than do research into a more difficult diagnosis.

So I think medical research needs to be a matter of us all, that is that the government together with independent scientists come together with representatives of patient foundations to decide what conditions need to be cured and how the funds should be divided between different research projects.

Of course health care is the best in capitalist markets (which, from the "health care should not be left to capitalist markets" I am extrapolating the previous sentence for obvious reasons) and it is primarily from the competition for that all-too important dollar, that it continues to be great. Big Pharma pursuits a new medication as you indicated, for profit. What is common, what is consistent vs. cancer and its many forms as described by many others in their posts, the previous providing the highest return on investment. Here is where I draw discrepancy: you are indicating a desire for an altruistic society to exist, one that is contrary to the one that has afforded our country the earned luxury of being on the forefront of discovery; what are we talking about here, other than the ownership of creation? To have a society that creates, it must have its champions. The way you destroy the desire of the best, and most worthy minds to pursuit research and move this society forward, is by indicating to that same mind that it exists out of your (society's) good graces, and furthermore that anything it creates is to be given out to those who could not otherwise create it.

Here is a "for instance":

I am the Chief Executive Officer of a facility that diagnoses and treats sleep and neurological illnesses. I spent 11 years in primarily the field of sleep medicine, studying every single caveat of the industry, so that I could open my own facility, that would eventually fund its own research (as I pursuit my musical side) because, ultimately, I want the ability to create. I will not stand for this ability to have been "afforded" me (which, by the way, did you know that if you were a service-disabled veteran, are a minority or a woman, work in a Historically Underutilized Zone or fit within Section 8(a), you will get special preferences on government money?) by a society filled with those who would lay claim to my discoveries as soon as they are made (well, researched, since they have already been "made").

I also find your final paragraph to be nonsensical, as you initiate the response with an indication that the general populous should be involved in the research, but expound further into a belief that there should be 3 systems? to manage the money? So there will be one decision maker for the patients, one for the scientists, and one for the government? Which, aside from indicating the previous lunacy, I have no more time to spend on expounding further than to indicate the astute interpretation to you, of your words.

 

[kris]

I will not stand for this ability to have been "afforded" me ... by a society filled with those who would lay claim to my discoveries as soon as they are made (well, researched, since they have already been "made").

If you have people working under you, researchers, who make discoveries, they are free to walk out the door at any time with their discoveries?

 

[Variform]

Aside from the other aspects of rampant idiocy in that statement I'd like to point out that if there was a cure for cancer whichever company came up with it will make a shit-ton of money in goverment sponsorship, let alone actually selling it to patients who are willing to put themselves I'm debt to afford it.

But okay lets assume there's this MASSIVE conspiracy among businessmen who don't like making money, it's unlikely but not impossible, in such a situation that cure for cancer would the the most valuable thing on the planet that someone could steal and reasonably get away with, I mean for the owners to claim that you stole it they'd have to admit they were keeping the cure for cancer a secret, who in their right mind would admit that?

You make a mistake. You poor man.

There is no single cure for cancer possible because all cancers are different. That is why they hype the Next Big Thing in cancer study, the personal approach, a cure per client, because of the genetic component of cancer, which pushes science now towards personalized genetic treatment. They will take your genes, study them and find the exact reason for the cancer and then design a cure for the individual.

DNA scans are getting cheaper by the nanosecond. DNA scanning techniques are getting better. In 20 years we might have one in our watch. Wait, I heard that younglings no longer wear watches, that era is over, because smart phones have clocks in them.

If money is to be made, it will be through DNA scanners and specific treatment procedures. The mixing of a gene therapy will cost ya. But medicines in bulk will no longer be required.

So a cure for cancer will never be the most valuable thing on Earth. I suspect that cancer treatments will be cheaper in time than having your tonsils removed.

 

[AngelOne]

There is no single cure for cancer possible because all cancers are different. That is why they hype the Next Big Thing in cancer study, the personal approach, a cure per client, because of the genetic component of cancer, which pushes science now towards personalized genetic treatment. They will take your genes, study them and find the exact reason for the cancer and then design a cure for the individual.

There's much more to cancer than a person's genome or the genetic makeup of a cancer. It will not be possible to cure every cancer in one person (ie a cure per client) because each kind of cancer uses different growth mechanisms and different metastatic pathways.

 

[Variform]

The people that survive cancer, using technology and then have offspirng, who may or may not have cancer and then continue to reproduce and survive relying on technology are an evolved form of a human being.

Hahaha oh my dear!

No they are not. And I will prove it yo you through reasoning. Which is very INTP, we should do more of it.

Technological progress is based on science. Science is a function of the paradigm of capitalism. Because science is paid for by creaming off society through taxation, universities can be build.

But capitalism is a function of cheap and abundant energy! Capitalism and the open market strategies have flourished tremendously with the discovery of oil. Oil drives our Western lifestyle of individualism, where in the market we can consume matter of all kinds and services. The demand is very high because we like to satisfy Maslow's pyramid. All these products are the result of scientific progress made possible because we have an economic system allowing a specialization in society whereby some of us become researchers.

Science lies in bed with Big Business, through capitalist open market systems, to research, then take the findings to create goods and services through engineers. Who then put it in the market.

And so science is a function of energy. We can do so much of it because our economic model allows for this specializxation. and it can be afforded because you and I buy junk materieal goods. Which is the case because science became reductionist, that is, it studies matter, which can be turned into consumable goods, it does not deal with spirit or Descartes' 'Secondary properirtes'.

Therefore, people who survive cancer and have children, those children are not superior because it was not nature who found a cure, but technology, out of cheap energy.

Now what do you think will happen when cheap and abundant energy is no longer available? Science will come to a grinding halt, because without oil or a sufficient replacement (which isn't available - no seriously, it isn't, and I will reason that for you as well one day) And so if our future offspring is to be named superior in any way, it won't be because it was paid for by science i.c.w. capitalism. The future Homo Non-Cancerous will not be that because of energy but because nature found an evolutionary remedy to fight many kinds of cancer.

Technological progress is a part of human evolution as a species. So when there would be a cure for cancer, it would be similar to the evolutionary/genetic leap that makes people resistant/unaffected by it.

No it is not. Technology is based on science is based on economic theory is based on cheap, abundant energy=oil. Oil drives technology and progress. Little else. Evolution is a natural process. Technology is an artificial process.

The difference is the time it takes and the fact that your evolved self extends beyond your body to the interfaces that you are dependent on (a shell).

No, the difference is not temporal but energetic. Science and technology, as I said and proved, is a function of energy. Energy is fundamental for every human endeavor.

My girlfriend has cancer. But now she is more or less cured, but with cancer you never really know. But I would not call her evolved and had we had kids, they would not be genetically superior, most likely, percentage-wise more prone to getting it themselves.

 

[Variform]

Of course health care is the best in capitalist markets

Then explain Cuba.

(which, from the "health care should not be left to capitalist markets" I am extrapolating the previous sentence for obvious reasons) and it is primarily from the competition for that all-too important dollar, that it continues to be great.

What is great then? Wait! You seem to explain it below!

Big Pharma pursuits a new medication as you indicated, for profit. What is common, what is consistent vs. cancer and its many forms as described by many others in their posts, the previous providing the highest return on investment.

Profit and high returns. Is that what is 'great'? Why?

Here is where I draw discrepancy: you are indicating a desire for an altruistic society to exist, one that is contrary to the one that has afforded our country the earned luxury of being on the forefront of discovery; what are we talking about here, other than the ownership of creation?

American centrism. Your country did not earn anything. What it does is pay. Your universities pay for people to come study and research in the usa, bribe them away from other nations using money and a lot of assitence, like offering them free secretaries e.g. Maybe we can also talk about other nations.

Did you know that The Netherlands, a country of 16.5 million people, does comparingly better than many other nations if you by patents filed e.g. (Source 'New Scientist Jobs - Focus on the Netherlands')

"The Netherlands punches above its weight in scientific research. Though the total amount spent on R&Din the Netherlands - $6.8 billion in 1998 - is about one-sixth that of its far larger neighbour, Germany, it's the world's 10th most prolific country when it comes to writing scientific papers. And the quality of those papers - as reflected by the number of times they are cited by other researchers - ranks third in the world. In terms of numbers of patents filed, the country is second only to Switzerland in Europe. Impressive for a population of only 16 million.

Altruism has nothing to do with your perceived advances in science. It is not a good measure.

To have a society that creates, it must have its champions. The way you destroy the desire of the best, and most worthy minds to pursuit research and move this society forward, is by indicating to that same mind that it exists out of your (society's) good graces, and furthermore that anything it creates is to be given out to those who could not otherwise create it.

The Netherlands is a highly inventive and creative business oriented society. We invented the damned corporation here, lol. We are a nation of entrepreneurs. You learned it all from us basically. We have our champions alright.
Your capitalist defense is nonsense. Scientists are rarely hero's and don't earn a whole lot of money and yet still, people find it reasonable and take it upon themselves to advance knowledge and painstakingly puzzle for years on end to find a cure for cancer or a new type of battery or whatever. Altruism is a scientific fact: it exists in nature.

Capitalism would deny that and there is only advancement through exploitation and self-important goals of individuals. Preposterous!

Here is a "for instance":

I am the Chief Executive Officer of a facility that diagnoses and treats sleep and neurological illnesses. I spent 11 years in primarily the field of sleep medicine, studying every single caveat of the industry, so that I could open my own facility, that would eventually fund its own research (as I pursuit my musical side) because, ultimately, I want the ability to create. I will not stand for this ability to have been "afforded" me (which, by the way, did you know that if you were a service-disabled veteran, are a minority or a woman, work in a Historically Underutilized Zone or fit within Section 8(a), you will get special preferences on government money?) by a society filled with those who would lay claim to my discoveries as soon as they are made (well, researched, since they have already been "made").

You can summarize this by just admitting to your greed.

I also find your final paragraph to be nonsensical, as you initiate the response with an indication that the general populous should be involved in the research, but expound further into a belief that there should be 3 systems? to manage the money? So there will be one decision maker for the patients, one for the scientists, and one for the government? Which, aside from indicating the previous lunacy, I have no more time to spend on expounding further than to indicate the astute interpretation to you, of your words.

No, that is not what I said. I think (medical) science needs to be put on a leech. And that I, as a layman and citizen participating in society and having relations with my fellow man have the right to be made understood what the options are for the money we have to do scientific research in medicine when it is state controlled by society at large.

That means I want to participate in discussions about what we are gonna research, I want to be informed, I want real scientists to state the facts on what they can do, what they need to research and what the benefit of it will be and then I want a well-controlled department or organization consisting of all members representing the various interests in society, like patient organizations, scientists and citizens, to control that department, just as a parliament checks on the government.

Science is out of control. It has served us only partially well. If we focus our research, perhaps even globally, and let not capitalist idiocy dictate what is 'best' but let people decide what society needs the most, then science becomes democratic.

 

[Variform]

There's much more to cancer than a person's genome or the genetic makeup of a cancer. It will not be possible to cure every cancer in one person (ie a cure per client) because each kind of cancer uses different growth mechanisms and different metastatic pathways.

And they will know that. And the next time cancer occurs, they will find that out and mix the right cure together.

 

[CrayCrayPoTayTay]

If you have people working under you, researchers, who make discoveries, they are free to walk out the door at any time with their discoveries?

I do have researchers, but of course they do not own what my direction affords them to see. It is an errant belief that the acceptance of a job is synonymous with ownership of the tasks. When a construction worker builds a house for his boss, does he own any or part of it? Even if I were to hire an experienced construction worker that studied in college all the ways to construct a building, it would not be the expectation of this employee that they own a portion of the product. The same is true with many researchers, they are accomplished in doing great work. This is why CVs exist. Here in America, there is not a reward for doing great work save owning the creation and watching it do its work. The only real rewards worthwhile. Naturally, the problem for Americans, is that most don't have the salt to pursuit their investigational research in the manner I have. So they should probably relocate to somewhere less "competitive" (as many quality researchers do) where the result is still the same: no personal ownership of anything whatsoever.



Variform, your response seems to me emotionally charged. I can't (and don't care to) expound on markets in Cuba or the Netherlands. I'm sure with minimal time investment in the local culture I could quite easily come up with a conclusion that is contrary to yours, simply out of what I know about the human spirit (and I have traveled extensively). When I traveled, the research and information I gathered was of a much different importance. You have failed to address the primary issue of note as indicated in my response, so instead of Variform I would like to call you Robin Hood. The man who aims to steal from me.

 

[kris]

I do have researchers, but of course they do not own what my direction affords them to see. It is an errant belief that the acceptance of a job is synonymous with ownership of the tasks.

That is not my belief. The problem is, you've really only shifted the issue which you yourself contest from public ownership to private. Your "direction" means dick all in the grand scheme. With or without direction from you, the relationship remains the same. The only difference from the perspective of discovery ownership in a publicly funded scheme is you, personally, would be more likely to be the directed rather than the director.

Naturally, the problem for Americans, is that most don't have the salt to pursuit their investigational research in the manner I have.

Depends on what you mean by 'salt'.

 

[CrayCrayPoTayTay]

That is not my belief. The problem is, you've really only shifted the issue which you yourself contest from public ownership to private. Your "direction" means dick all in the grand scheme. With or without direction from you, the relationship remains the same. The only difference from the perspective of discovery ownership in a publicly funded scheme is you, personally, would be more likely to be the directed rather than the director.



Depends on what you mean by 'salt'.

Of your previous paragraph, that is correct, a shift exists. But not a shift in the issue (which is not public vs. private) which is productive research, with a focused outcome of creation. The field of research is the very literal translation of genius as I have come to understand it; connecting dots which have not previously been connected. The solution to more fruitful research is not more researchers working under the collaberative umbrella of controlled funding, its more competitive researchers driven by a more competitive bottom line. To correctly understand that statement you must not associate a derogatory connotation to competition; if indeed you ("you" being general populous) do, please continue to do as you already have, and stay out of everyone else's way but please also do so with your conclusions.

The difference between public and private, however, is not limited to what your shortsighted conclusion connotes; further indicator that you have no idea what you're talking about

I suppose 'salt' could certainly be interpreted relatively. But that form of fortitude certainly cannot be relatively interpreted without 'salt', so whichever you have extrapolated is probably fitting. So perhaps what I mean is, no it doesn't.

 

[CrayCrayPoTayTay]

That is not my belief.

Go on....

 

[Pyropyro]

If you have people working under you, researchers, who make discoveries, they are free to walk out the door at any time with their discoveries?

Pardon me kris but that would just be completely stupid. Any sane company owner should have a non-confidentiality and/or non-compete agreement with each of their researchers.

That is not my belief. The problem is, you've really only shifted the issue which you yourself contest from public ownership to private. Your "direction" means dick all in the grand scheme. With or without direction from you, the relationship remains the same. The only difference from the perspective of discovery ownership in a publicly funded scheme is you, personally, would be more likely to be the directed rather than the director.

I don't think real life research does that. It's more of a collaboration with each entity, both public and private, having their own tasks to do. There's no grand director pushing people around. The big guys who only shows up during press cons are usually just there for formally signing stuff. A Memorandum of Agreement usually just tells what each party plays for.

 

[kris]

Whatever conclusion you think I've reached, it's not in my post.

I haven't extrapolated anything on 'salt'.

 

[kris]

Pardon me kris but that would just be completely stupid. Any sane company owner should have a non-confidentiality and/or non-compete agreement with each of their researchers.

Pardon you? I never suggested anyone should do that. What am I supposed to pardon?

 

[CrayCrayPoTayTay]

Pardon me kris but that would just be completely stupid. Any sane company owner should have a non-confidentiality and/or non-compete agreement with each of their researchers.



I don't think real life research does that. It's more of a collaboration with each entity, both public and private, having their own tasks to do. There's no grand director pushing people around. The big guys who only shows up during press cons are usually just there for formally signing stuff. A Memorandum of Agreement usually just tells what each party plays for.

Oh snap, an INTP who does't understand common conversational courtesy (go figure :P). Usually "pardon me" is a respectful way to say "I hope my disagreement with you doesn't cause an emotional conclusion to this conversation" or something of relative association. But then again, I wasted a moment of my time providing you with a fish, instead of further facilitating for you a method by which to obtain your own. Contextually one can easily conclude the inferred meaning of the word: i.e. 'salt'

And you are correct on many accounts Pyro, but the original comments from Kris appear to have been a continuation on trolling. Let's bring the conversation back on topic:

cancer would already be cured if the government got out of our way. So pay us money government. You stopped our cancer cure, you owe me money because I know someone who once died of cancer and I underwent extensive emotional stress as a result.

 

[Variform]

failed to address the primary issue of note as indicated in my response, so instead of Variform I would like to call you Robin Hood. The man who aims to steal from me.

I am pretty sure I addressed it. However, I gave arguments and reasoning, backed it up with other sources. You ignore that all you will.

I tis not I who is emotional. It is you. For you, if I get you right, are an employer of researchers, so you have your own business. And as such that taints your perspective. Of course you are going to disagree with what I backed up.

You are no better than any other person on Earth in justifying your own behavior and perceptions.

 

[CrayCrayPoTayTay]

I am pretty sure I addressed it. However, I gave arguments and reasoning, backed it up with other sources. You ignore that all you will.

I tis not I who is emotional. It is you. For you, if I get you right, are an employer of researchers, so you have your own business. And as such that taints your perspective. Of course you are going to disagree with what I backed up.

You are no better than any other person on Earth in justifying your own behavior and perceptions.

You could be right

 

[The Introvert]

Not every cure is necessarily unprofitable: some diseases have been profitably cured.

You seemingly assume that profit and "cost-effectiveness" mutually exclude...

No.

I said there is a distinction between profitable and cost-effective. That is to say, almost any company will strive for efficient use of money, but it isn't necessary for large profits to be made. As an example, government-issued food; the point isn't to make money off poor people, but they still want to be cost-effective to keep their costs low.

If a medical corporation were interested in making profit, I assume they would also want (need?) to be cost-effective; higher production/distribution costs etc. would only drive up their retail prices without creating larger profit margin (rather than selling the same product made more cheaply for the same price).

Ergo, my point was that if you have medical companies not worried about making profit but still concentrating on making their product cost-effective (like the government situation above) then the prices of that product would (should) be cheaper than if it were made by a company concerned with making money, assuming they have equal access to manufacturing, distribution methods etc.

BUT... the post/thread was not intended to be a debate on semantics or small points. I would like to keep the general ideas large, as they have been by other posters ITT.

We will achieve herd immunity for each disease we eradicate and, eventually, stop vaccinating ourselves against it. Lacking immunity and exposure to eradicated diseases would not risk a pandemic because we would immunize ourselves to whatever might beset us.

The herd can still be wiped out by just one disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nose_syndrome

Go on.

For reference:

Or could it be like a buffer? Increasing the total genetic diversity. Interesting stuff. Wish I had more time right now to make a longer post.

Essentially just your herd immunity comment. But in more detail, by effectively eliminating natural selection (by cancers or other diseases), the genes and their possibly bound associates that are susceptible to those diseases are retained in a population.

Over time, if having those genes is no longer a burden (for cancer has been exterminated), they could in fact turn into desirable traits that could increase fitness, if they happened to be beneficial for some other reason down the road. Biological tradeoffs. As an IRL example:
Ugh. I have one, but it isn't coming to me ATM and I have somewhere to be. I'll update this when I have the time.

 

[Duxwing]

No.

I said there is a distinction between profitable and cost-effective. That is to say, almost any company will strive for efficient use of money, but it isn't necessary for large profits to be made. As an example, government-issued food; the point isn't to make money off poor people, but they still want to be cost-effective to keep their costs low.

If a medical corporation were interested in making profit, I assume they would also want (need?) to be cost-effective; higher production/distribution costs etc. would only drive up their retail prices without creating larger profit margin (rather than selling the same product made more cheaply for the same price).

Ergo, my point was that if you have medical companies not worried about making profit but still concentrating on making their product cost-effective (like the government situation above) then the prices of that product would (should) be cheaper than if it were made by a company concerned with making money, assuming they have equal access to manufacturing, distribution methods etc.

Both profit and cost-effect motivations can produce cheap goods.

A for-profit organization can produce cheap goods when they must compete with other other organizations producing them because consumers will buy the cheaper good, defunding the higher-priced organizations, which, seeking profit, will lower their price below their competitors'. The other organizations will do the same, continuing this price 'war' until they will not sell for less than some price, which for such mass-produced goods as drugs will be low.

A non-profit organization also can produce cheap goods. Driven by charity, it seeks to heal the sick and therefore minimizes its price to maximize sales.

BUT... the post/thread was not intended to be a debate on semantics or small points. I would like to keep the general ideas large, as they have been by other posters ITT.

These ideas are huge, and the devil is in the details.

The herd can still be wiped out by just one disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nose_syndrome

Quarantine and vaccinate. The remaining risk would be negligible--like that of nuclear armageddon or large asteroid impact.

For reference:

Essentially just your herd immunity comment. But in more detail, by effectively eliminating natural selection (by cancers or other diseases), the genes and their possibly bound associates that are susceptible to those diseases are retained in a population.

Who would care? The diseases would be gone.

Over time, if having those genes is no longer a burden (for cancer has been exterminated), they could in fact turn into desirable traits that could increase fitness, if they happened to be beneficial for some other reason down the road. Biological tradeoffs. As an IRL example:
Ugh. I have one, but it isn't coming to me ATM and I have somewhere to be. I'll update this when I have the time.

I'm patient.

-Duxwing

 

[AngelOne]

Originally Posted by The Introvert
No.

I said there is a distinction between profitable and cost-effective. That is to say, almost any company will strive for efficient use of money, but it isn't necessary for large profits to be made. As an example, government-issued food; the point isn't to make money off poor people, but they still want to be cost-effective to keep their costs low.

If a medical corporation were interested in making profit, I assume they would also want (need?) to be cost-effective; higher production/distribution costs etc. would only drive up their retail prices without creating larger profit margin (rather than selling the same product made more cheaply for the same price).

Ergo, my point was that if you have medical companies not worried about making profit but still concentrating on making their product cost-effective (like the government situation above) then the prices of that product would (should) be cheaper than if it were made by a company concerned with making money, assuming they have equal access to manufacturing, distribution methods etc.

Both profit and cost-effect motivations can produce cheap goods.

A for-profit organization can produce cheap goods when they must compete with other other organizations producing them because consumers will buy the cheaper good, defunding the higher-priced organizations, which, seeking profit, will lower their price below their competitors'. The other organizations will do the same, continuing this price 'war' until they will not sell for less than some price, which for such mass-produced goods as drugs will be low.

A non-profit organization also can produce cheap goods. Driven by charity, it seeks to heal the sick and therefore minimizes its price to maximize sales.

Pharmaceutical companies are for-profit companies but they have a slightly different profit model than, say, a manufacturer of a commodity. A pharmacutical company attempts to recover the cost of developing the new drug at the beginning of sales, before generic versions become available. They may not have the lowest production costs at that point; they will still set their prices at a very high level (beyond the level needed to make a profit) to maximize their profits. That's why there is such a huge price differential between branded and generic versions of drugs.

If drug companies were to make individualised drugs that cured cancer, these drugs would be priced at the brand-name price. Even generic prices would be high because people would pay lots of money to be cured.

 

[Variform]

cancer would already be cured if the government got out of our way. So pay us money government. You stopped our cancer cure, you owe me money because I know someone who once died of cancer and I underwent extensive emotional stress as a result.

Do you realize you are phrasing an ideology here that persists in parts of society?

Is is very apparent in the usa. There are these think-tanks that propagate this notion. That the government is pretty much 'evil' and should stay away from enterprise, This notion accepts no governmental interference whatsoever, so no controls on environmental pollution e.g. Big Oil is a big sponsor of this ideal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

You need to be aware of what you advocate. Free market enterprise does not follow the needs of the people or values or societal norms.

 

[Variform]

No.

I said there is a distinction between profitable and cost-effective. That is to say, almost any company will strive for efficient use of money, but it isn't necessary for large profits to be made. As an example, government-issued food; the point isn't to make money off poor people, but they still want to be cost-effective to keep their costs low.

All this reminds me of a recent issue in my country. There is a group of ill people that need a medication that is very expensive. They cannot possibly afford it. We must keep the cost down.

Health insurance companies do not want to pay for it, yet these people will suffer terribly if they don't get it. The pharmaceutical company isn't interested in making it any cheaper because...they say they cannot, because only a few people use it. Of course, they make no move to let their heart speak and insist it must be cost-effective. The only reason they enter in negotiations with the government, who cannot do more than ask nicely if there can be made any sort of deal so that these insurance companies will pay for it, is because of bad publicity. If it were up to them, a bottle of pills would be €400,- It takes several people hours of work to synthesize it, production is low. The market dictates this as a price and they barely make any profit on it, if at all.
Patients need it, it is patented. The government believes in capitalism and open markets and cannot demand anything, only ask nicely. Insurers cannot demand much either, that is the way the world works!

We cannot let these patients suffer in agony. What do we do? Tough luck? Die in agony? Pay it yourself...live on the street...in your damned wheelchair? No, that is not a world I wanna live in.

That is why I think medicine must be nationalized. So that I as a citizen can demand that these people get their medicine and a low cost and that we all, as society, will muster up the solidarity. Because a person in a white coat synthesizing a drug in a few hours for 200 people in all the country doesn't have to be paid a very high salary, the cost price does not have to be so high when the company also makes other medicines they sell in bulk. And there doesn't have to be a profit margin of 20% on it either.

It is immoral for companies to hide behind capitalism and make profit off the backs of really sick people and blackmail society because these sick people need it so abdly and that as a result, for all of society health care insurance costs rise, in the favor of shareholders for said company.

I want to be solidair with my fellow man but I want not to spend a cent extra for some shareholder. These sick people need the medicine at a low cost price and only a non-profit organization can do so.

At some point we all die and before it go through diseases and medical problems. It is in our best interest to nationalize medicine.

 

[Valentas]

Let's be honest with cancer stuff. People are given medicines to keep them going and be hooked onto pills or chemo because it pays to do so. Simple truth. It's like subscribing to the magazine, you will receive it every month for some cost. So you subscribe yourself to "treatment" that lasts long time and you might eventually die anyways while paying ton of money with side effects from the drugs. I wonder whether cancer patients with their drugged brain understand that. Another example would be those elderly care homes where children of the parent pays 2-3k a month just to keep the parent going where nurses cannot kill them because if they die, the income stream shuts off. It's that simple. Even though there are plenty of old people out there if someone in your care home gives up the ghost. Nursing homes pop up like mushrooms after rain around the world because it pays well for the owners to keep those miserable old people going.

I am very torn apart two camps: just treating old people as liability to society and letting them die(especially in socialized medicine like Canada because it costs treasury a lot of money to keep that "useless eater" going...However, my morals dictates to me that it is inhuman to treat elderly this way because they gave decades of their labour to the country and they won't take as much from the country as they paid in taxes and spent energy to improve the world.

However, I do think that people deserve more destructive treatments because they do not research how to take care of themselves and eat empty foods and then wonder why they are sick. I have no sympathy for those people and if they are ignorant about choices they can make even when you tell them to do so, I say fuck them. Ignorance is a bliss for some but once they get sick, they will wake up. Everybody does. At least smart people who had no time to take care of themselves immersed in this rat race we live in. People must keep two things in mind: you're what you eat and you will have to find time for illness later if you cannot find time to take care of yourself now. The Internet is full of videos on how to treat certain things. For instance, I had mild acne and found out magnesium group on FB with 12k members. I bought magnesium oxide, made milk of magnesia and used it on my face as well as supplement my magnesium levels. Surprise, acne is gone and my levels of energy soared. I sleep better and next step for me is to clean my colon with natural stuff(no enemas or anything). I was convinced that people find ways to cure themselves and the ways are usually from the past when people actually used natural stuff for various ailments. They work today but ignorance of those pussified people prevents them from enjoying full life for stunningly smaller costs because getting sick is too expensive nowadays.

 

[Duxwing]

Pharmaceutical companies are for-profit companies but they have a slightly different profit model than, say, a manufacturer of a commodity. A pharmacutical company attempts to recover the cost of developing the new drug at the beginning of sales, before generic versions become available. They may not have the lowest production costs at that point; they will still set their prices at a very high level (beyond the level needed to make a profit) to maximize their profits. That's why there is such a huge price differential between branded and generic versions of drugs.

You seem to have contradicted yourself: are you claiming the drug-inventing companies trying to price-gouge or that they must sell high enough to recover their research investment?

If drug companies were to make individualised drugs that cured cancer, these drugs would be priced at the brand-name price. Even generic prices would be high because people would pay lots of money to be cured.

One cannot prove that it will or will not because the question is empirical: someone might 'generally solve' cancer by inventing some means to cheaply manufacture individualized cures, which could become cheap due to inevitable genericizarion and therefore economies of scale.

-Duxwing

 

[AngelOne]

You seem to have contradicted yourself: are you claiming the drug-inventing companies trying to price-gouge or that they must sell high enough to recover their research investment?

No, I haven't contradicted myself: both can occur at the same time.

One cannot prove that it will or will not because the question is empirical: someone might 'generally solve' cancer by inventing some means to cheaply manufacture individualized cures, which could become cheap due to inevitable genericizarion and therefore economies of scale.

-Duxwing

History tells us that the price of a new drug will start high. These drugs will be expensive to manufacture (I see them as similar to monoclonal antibodies which are expensive to make). Competition and generic drugs will eventually lower the cost but the original company will fight hard to prevent generics from being made.

Let's be honest with cancer stuff. People are given medicines to keep them going and be hooked onto pills or chemo because it pays to do so. Simple truth. It's like subscribing to the magazine, you will receive it every month for some cost. So you subscribe yourself to "treatment" that lasts long time and you might eventually die anyways while paying ton of money with side effects from the drugs. I wonder whether cancer patients with their drugged brain understand that.

It seems that you don't understand how cancer treatment works. A person diagnosed with a cancer that is confined to a particular area will receive treatment for a finite amount of time. That time varies depending on the cancer.

It's only once a person is diagnosed with metastatic cancer, or cancer that has spread beyond the initial site, that they stay on treatment until they go into hospice or die.

Although it is true that some treatment side effects last until the person dies, most people want as much time alive as possible and if the treatment gives them more time, they'll take it.

However, I do think that people deserve more destructive treatments because they do not research how to take care of themselves and eat empty foods and then wonder why they are sick. I have no sympathy for those people and if they are ignorant about choices they can make even when you tell them to do so, I say fuck them. Ignorance is a bliss for some but once they get sick, they will wake up.

Did you know that even people who do take care of themselves get cancer? It's true. A person can treat their body like the temple it is by eating healthy foods, getting exercise, avoiding smoking and drinking, and then still wind up dying from cancer.

 

[Milo]

I was diagnosed and treated for lymphoma when I was young only to find out later that I never had cancer and it was a misdiagnosis related to an overactive immune system that caused my body to attack itself. Had it my whole life, no doubt now that it was a mistake by the doctors. My family paid thousands to cure a lie.

 

[Variform]

Let's be honest with cancer stuff. People are given medicines to keep them going and be hooked onto pills or chemo because it pays to do so. Simple truth. It's like subscribing to the magazine, you will receive it every month for some cost. So you subscribe yourself to "treatment" that lasts long time and you might eventually die anyways while paying ton of money with side effects from the drugs.

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. My gf had breast cancer and meta's in her bones. That is pretty bad. Her cancer is hormonal in nature.

So she takes hormone therapy for it, after we had chemo and radiation therapy. The hormone therapy pretty much aged her skin prematurely and removed al lot of her libido. This haunted our relationship.

You think she uses these medications just for fucks sake?

I wonder whether cancer patients with their drugged brain understand that.

I think you are full of shit and you owe everybody, especially me, an apology for you stupid rambling.

 

[Valentas]

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. My gf had breast cancer and meta's in her bones. That is pretty bad. Her cancer is hormonal in nature.

So she takes hormone therapy for it, after we had chemo and radiation therapy. The hormone therapy pretty much aged her skin prematurely and removed al lot of her libido. This haunted our relationship.

You think she uses these medications just for fucks sake?



I think you are full of shit and you owe everybody, especially me, an apology for you stupid rambling.

My understanding about cancer is limited to 'usual' cancer and not hormonal one. So, thank you for pointing out that there are other cancers out there even though I am sure if you'd dig deep enough, you'd find ways to deal with the core of the issue instead of supplying hormones. I spent hours researching and talking with people because for my mild problem, acne, no freakin ointments or whatever ever helped. What I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe there are people out there who can aid you. For every serious illness there are people who found a way to treat it either by accident or sifting through old medical journals where my grandmother, a doctor and herbalist actually learned a lot of stuff that treated people.

And I'm not full of shit. I spend hours educating myself and then trying stuff out on myself before I speak about it to anyone. If it worked for me, it's good enough and might help other people. If you find the post offensive, then I'm sorry.

Also it's a forum and I don't feel any guilt for writing about my understanding about health problems and health system. I'm not an expert and if my logic is flawed, then it's my own thoughts and not parroting of other people ideas.

BTW, the subscription metaphor applied to my grandfather who had prostate cancer and was hooked on bimonthly injections of some crap to keep him alive. It helped but then we took matters in our hands now he's cancer free and feels well. Of course, his cancer is not hormonal one and solution for you might be different. Just because doctor said you need inject hormons to keep you going, it doesn't mean there are no other ways to deal with the issue.

This is the way I see it and investigation to the past will show you that cancer was quite rare and there you can start to look for differences in our lifestyle and people from the past. And it takes time.

 

[AngelOne]

My understanding about cancer is limited to 'usual' cancer and not hormonal one. So, thank you for pointing out that there are other cancers out there even though I am sure if you'd dig deep enough, you'd find ways to deal with the core of the issue instead of supplying hormones. I spent hours researching and talking with people because for my mild problem, acne, no freakin ointments or whatever ever helped. What I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe there are people out there who can aid you. For every serious illness there are people who found a way to treat it either by accident or sifting through old medical journals where my grandmother, a doctor and herbalist actually learned a lot of stuff that treated people.

And I'm not full of shit. I spend hours educating myself and then trying stuff out on myself before I speak about it to anyone. If it worked for me, it's good enough and might help other people. If you find the post offensive, then I'm sorry.

Also it's a forum and I don't feel any guilt for writing about my understanding about health problems and health system. I'm not an expert and if my logic is flawed, then it's my own thoughts and not parroting of other people ideas.

BTW, the subscription metaphor applied to my grandfather who had prostate cancer and was hooked on bimonthly injections of some crap to keep him alive. It helped but then we took matters in our hands now he's cancer free and feels well. Of course, his cancer is not hormonal one and solution for you might be different. Just because doctor said you need inject hormons to keep you going, it doesn't mean there are no other ways to deal with the issue.

This is the way I see it and investigation to the past will show you that cancer was quite rare and there you can start to look for differences in our lifestyle and people from the past. And it takes time.

Acne is not cancer. The two things can't even be compared. The fact that you did something and your acne went away has absolutely no relationship to cancer treatments.

Cancer appears to have been rarer in the past but your "explanations" for this make no sense. There are several reasons why it appears that there was less cancer before:

• People didn't know they had cancer. Scanning and diagnostic equipment was rudimentary at best so cancer was diagmodd when it was quite advanced.
• People didn't live long anyway. Most cancers show up later in life and people just didn't live long enough to develop cancer.
• When people did develop cancer, it usually killed them. Surgery was the most prevalent treatment but by the time cancer was noticed the person was half-dead anyway.

I don't care that you're not an expert on cancer. However, it irritates me to read the kinds of unfounded claims you've been making. It isn't that you don't know much about the subject that's so irritating; it's that it seems like you don't want to know anything and that you don't want to let facts get in the way of your arguments.

 

[Duxwing]

No, I haven't contradicted myself: both can occur at the same time.

You were speaking in absolutes. Whatever you spoke, we will continue with the current argument.

History tells us that the price of a new drug will start high. These drugs will be expensive to manufacture (I see them as similar to monoclonal antibodies which are expensive to make). Competition and generic drugs will eventually lower the cost but the original company will fight hard to prevent generics from being made.

I was unclear before: I am not describing any drug but some method to cheaply make personalized caner treatments and asserting that this method could render the question of individual cancer drugs meaningless.

If people know that developing world-changing drugs yields enormous cash rewards, then some people and organizations will try it because of greed or feeling safe in research investment. If this increased participation so increases the likelihood and timeliness of success as to save more cancer patients than will die for lack of money during the price war, then allowing people to freely charge for drugs is more humane than limiting drug price; vice versa.

-Duxwing