Potential breakthrough in cancer treatment, ignored by drug companies
- The Mentaculous
- Member
- Posts: 879
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:21 am
- Location: The boonies, NJ
-
DeathBySnooSnoo
- Member
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:30 pm
- Location: Toronto Canada
- The Deacon
- Member
- Posts: 25717
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:33 am
- Location: Upstate SC, USA
- Contact:
You can argue that it was prevention, rather than cure, and your definition of major may be different from someone who grew seeing pictures of kids his age in iron lungs, but I don't think Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin, or the drug companies that manufactured the Polio vaccines they created got rich from them. In less than ten years, the number of new cases of polio reported annually in the USA dropped from an average of 20,000 to 161.DeathBySnooSnoo wrote:Well, not cured...not yet. But it seems like its a pretty good step towards it!
And no major disease will ever be cured unless there is mass profit to be made.
Paul
My Personal Website ---- Beginners Guide to Spyderco Collecting ---- Spydiewiki
Deplorable :p
WTC # 1458 - 1504 - 1508 - Never Forget, Never Forgive!
My Personal Website ---- Beginners Guide to Spyderco Collecting ---- Spydiewiki
Deplorable :p
WTC # 1458 - 1504 - 1508 - Never Forget, Never Forgive!
Looks like BS to me. If the drug is already on the market for other purposes what do the drug companies have to do with it? It's already available to be tried by researchers if they see merit.
Our reason is quite satisfied, in 999 cases out of every 1000 of us, if we can find a few arguments that will do to recite in case our credulity is criticized by someone else. Our faith is faith in someone else's faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case.
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897
-
DeathBySnooSnoo
- Member
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:30 pm
- Location: Toronto Canada
I meant going forward. I think (and I could very well be wrong) but back 50 years or so ago, drug companies were not the massive global corporations that they today, making billions upon billions of dollars in profits with a desire to continue growing their profits while the whole country (world) is suffering in a pretty bad economy.
And even though a drug is available on the market, in order to have it made available for use as a cancer drug it would still probably have to be proved to be viable and then probably produced in vast quantities that would require a drug company to do, that they would probably not be willing to do without making a large profit and taking a patent out on it which would drive the cost of the drugs through the roof.
But if you read further, this drug has proved semi useful at some types of cancer. But I would say that it will take a few years more research before it would be able to be used as a treatment or even preventative against cancer.
And even though a drug is available on the market, in order to have it made available for use as a cancer drug it would still probably have to be proved to be viable and then probably produced in vast quantities that would require a drug company to do, that they would probably not be willing to do without making a large profit and taking a patent out on it which would drive the cost of the drugs through the roof.
But if you read further, this drug has proved semi useful at some types of cancer. But I would say that it will take a few years more research before it would be able to be used as a treatment or even preventative against cancer.
On the hunt for...
The drug companies do control things to as considerable extent in the US IMO, but don't forget that India has a huge pharmaceutical industry which ignores patents and provides over a billion people with cheap drugs. If the drug is useful it will emerge in India or South Africa or China regardless of what big pharma wants.
Our reason is quite satisfied, in 999 cases out of every 1000 of us, if we can find a few arguments that will do to recite in case our credulity is criticized by someone else. Our faith is faith in someone else's faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case.
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897
- Pinetreebbs
- Member
- Posts: 1834
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:55 am
- Location: SC
Uhm, isn't there another thread about this same topic? 
Have you joined Knife Rights yet?
Go to: http://www.KnifeRights.org
Protecting your Right to own and carry the knives YOU choose.
Go to: http://www.KnifeRights.org
Protecting your Right to own and carry the knives YOU choose.
- Teddy Thompson
- Member
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:01 am
- Location: Northeast
Thing is, cancer is huge, so there's plenty of money to be made if even one specific kind could be conquered. Even though I wish it were otherwise, I can understand the logic behind pharmaceutical companies not wanting to invest in research for a disease only a small number of people will ever get. On the other hand, even if it were generic, there'd be a fortune to be made from a cancer cure. So the logic of sitting on it escapes me. If they're ignoring it, perhaps they know something we don't.
Support your right to keep and arm bears!