• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't really agree. What is more profitable, one really awesome drug... that eliminates the need for 30 other drugs, or the 30 other drugs?
Click to expand...


You are in the business to make money. You are standing before the pot of gold. Do you leave it there, so that others can enjoy te rainbow? Maybe if you are a socialist. But a capitalist takes the gold and makes his investors rich. End of story. Stop confusing your rhetoric.

The previous rhetoric is trying to claim that capitalists are socialists to each other. That is fundamentally flawed. They take the pot of gold and 'see ya'.
 
Last edited:
OK. I got the link to work. Interesting read. Seems to me that this kind of research is in the VERY early stages and more needs to be done before it is declared a "cure".
 
ecofarm said:
You are in the business to make money. You are standing before the pot of gold. Do you leave it there, so that others can enjoy te rainbow? Maybe if you are a socialist. But a capitalist takes the gold and makes his investors rich. End of story. Stop confusing your rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You need to pay attention to what I wrote. The "pot of gold" eliminates many other "pots of gold". You are correct. The company is in the business of profit. And if maximizing profit means shelving a cure, as you so demonstrated, a company would certainly do that.

The previous rhetoric is trying to claim that capitalists are socialists to each other. That is fundamentally flawed. They take the pot of gold and 'see ya'.
Click to expand...

Which continues to support my point.
 
Let's also note that a cure for cancer is factors of power more profitable than ANY other 30 drugs. A cure for cancer makes you an instant billionaire and all of your investors instant millionaires. Its the boss of the level. You can go back through the level 10 times or you can kill the boss and get the same. Capitalists kill the boss, socialists send everyone back through the level endlessly.

Statists are interested in maintaining the status quo, not capitalists.


This idea that capitalists will protect each other, at the loss of unimaginable wealth, is retarded.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
There are generic manufacturers in multitude that produce this very same product, out of the patent, how is it possible for them to make money as well?
Click to expand...

Never said they didn't make money. But Tylenol is still a big money maker for the parent company. If the brand didn't matter, this would not be the case.

Acetaminophen can not be patented any longer.
So it kinda makes this whole theory a wash.
Click to expand...

No, as I explained, it does not.
 
ecofarm said:
Let's also note that a cure for cancer is factors of power more profitable than ANY other 30 drugs. A cure for cancer makes you an instant billionaire and all of your investors instant millionaires. Its the boss of the level. You can go back through the level 10 times or you can kill the boss and get the same. Capitalists kill the boss, socialists send everyone back through the level endlessly.

Statists are interested in maintaining the status quo, not capitalists.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. You keep developing "new" treatment drugs, that keep costing more and more. It keeps the train rolling. Once you have a cure, that's it. Nothing new. Initially, there would be lots of money to be made, but eventually, that dries up.

And the kind of capitalism you are presenting has one purpose: profit at any cost, regardless of the impact.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Never said they didn't make money. But Tylenol is still a big money maker for the parent company. If the brand didn't matter, this would not be the case.



No, as I explained, it does not.
Click to expand...

The initial knee jerk reactions were based on conspiracy theory, just like the birthers, truthers, what have you.

If it were such a good cure for cancer, then someone will sell it.
If not, give me a call, I'll put my whole live savings into starting the business to produce and sell it.

Two fold benefit, I get to be the guy who cures cancer and I'll make some nice change off it.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The initial knee jerk reactions were based on conspiracy theory, just like the birthers, truthers, what have you.
Click to expand...

It didn't sound like conspiracy theory. Just like it was a VERY premature declaration.

If it were such a good cure for cancer, then someone will sell it.
If not, give me a call, I'll put my whole live savings into starting the business to produce and sell it.

Two fold benefit, I get to be the guy who cures cancer and I'll make some nice change off it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is why I was skeptical. If it was really a cure, it would have been presented by now.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not in the least. You keep developing "new" treatment drugs, that keep costing more and more. It keeps the train rolling. Once you have a cure, that's it. Nothing new. Initially, there would be lots of money to be made, but eventually, that dries up.

And the kind of capitalism you are presenting has one purpose: profit at any cost, regardless of the impact.
Click to expand...

The cure for cancer is worth as much as the entire pharmacutical industry today.

Stop underestimating its value.


This entire line of thought is nothing more than the emotional and misguided slander of capitalists. I heard this line of argument when I was in highschool, over 20 years ago. "Greedy capitalists prevent a cure for cancer". It was childish BS then and it's childish BS now. A cure for cancer is a capitalists dream. Instant wealth beyond imagination and all investors instant millionaires. You want to destroy the motivation for curing cancer? Remove the intellectual property rights, like a socialist would - that would end the search for a cure.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
It didn't sound like conspiracy theory. Just like it was a VERY premature declaration.

Yeah, this is why I was skeptical. If it was really a cure, it would have been presented by now.
Click to expand...

Just remember that because a cure is developed, doesn't mean all other instances (of the disease) both now and in the future, will cease to exist.

The reasoning for the premature declarations are not based on logic.
 
ecofarm said:
The cure for cancer is worth as much as the entire pharmacutical industry today.

Stop underestimating its value.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I think you are underestimating the the monetary value of prolonged treatment.


This entire line of thought is nothing more than the emotional and misguided slander of capitalists. I heard this line of argument when I was in highschool, over 20 years ago. "Greedy capitalists prevent a cure for cancer". It was childish BS then and it's childish BS now. A cure for cancer is a capitalists dream. Instant wealth beyond imagination and all investors instant millionaires. You want to destroy the motivation for curing cancer? Remove the intellectual property rights, like a socialist would - that would end the search for a cure.
Click to expand...

Typical extremist. You are making my argument for me... which is really all I am doing. You seem to claim that profit is the sole motivation. If that is the case, it makes no sense for a company to eliminate a massive amount of their profits... long term profits for a one shot money-maker. You seem to be expousing is a PURE form of capitalism, which is as absurd as socialism. THAT is what I am pointing out and what you are helping me to point out.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Just remember that because a cure is developed, doesn't mean all other instances (of the disease) both now and in the future, will cease to exist.
Click to expand...

A cure is a cure.

The reasoning for the premature declarations are not based on logic.
Click to expand...

The declarations were premature. I don't think logic really had anything to do with that.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes because no start up company would market one of the most successful treatments known to man kind, nope not at all....:roll:

Sprinkle a little news about a potential cure and you guys run with your political imaginations.
Click to expand...

How would you market a cure that uses medications whose patents have expired? If you could do that, you too could get into the pharma business and make a billion.


I have nothing to contribute on the cancer cure issue. I'm not a pharmacist, nor a doctor. My point was a political one, that sure, a cancer cure would make a pharmaceutocal manufacturer many billions, but that cure would have to be patented. If it involves the use of something unpatentable the research required to bring it into clinical use would struggle to find funding. It would require non-commerical investment.

I suspect that had the DCA found funding from some source and proved its efficacy, we would have heard about it and doctors would be using it. I just spoke to my sister, a GP and she hadn't heard of any clinical trials. What she did say is that many studies show that in the field of anti-psychotic drugs, the second generation treatments that the UK NHS is using has rapidly shown itself less effective than the first generation, many of which drugs are out of patent. Nevertheless, the 2Gs are still being used despite their cost which, on average, is 12 times the price of 1G solutions.

I also listened to a very interesting programme on BBC Radio 4 yesterday which explains the 'decline effect', the statistical basis of the ongoing research on meds post-market-rollout. It's worth a listen. The programme generally has been a revelation to me. The series focuses on explaining the uses of statistical data in all fields and exposes some of the flummery that allows businessmen, scientists and politicians to 'prove' positions exploiting the general public's inability to understand the statistical methods employed. I do recommend it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010xzs5
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
How would you market a cure that uses medications whose patents have expired? If you could do that, you too could get into the pharma business and make a billion.
Click to expand...

Because they will still need to be sold based on the typical amount used for that condition, not only that but different manufacturers will set manufacturing standards for different levels of quality, efficiency and over all chemical composition.

There are loads of things that allow people/businesses to sell the same thing, in various ways.

A cure is still marketable because people will still get cancer.
 
Andalublue said:
How would you market a cure that uses medications whose patents have expired? If you could do that, you too could get into the pharma business and make a billion.
Click to expand...

This from you? Formulas and processes are protected, not just physical items. The stuff in between new chemicals and IP.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Disagree. I think you are underestimating the the monetary value of prolonged treatment.
Click to expand...
To who? The company? Are you on about capitalism or corporatist CT?

Typical extremist.
Click to expand...
I am extreme. I'm not typical, by any measure. Don't be so Obama.
You are making my argument for me... which is really all I am doing. You seem to claim that profit is the sole motivation.
Click to expand...
I don't claim it is the sole motivation, I claim it is sufficient motivation.
If that is the case, it makes no sense for a company to eliminate a massive amount of their profits... long term profits for a one shot money-maker.
Click to expand...
I make the case that the one shot is SO BIG that future payments become someone else's concern.
You seem to be expousing is a PURE form of capitalism, which is as absurd as socialism. THAT is what I am pointing out and what you are helping me to point out.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you once again use the word 'seems'. I was not writing that 'pure' capitalism is the only reason that this conspiracy would be exposed. I was writing that profit, alone, was sufficient enough motive to expose the conspiracy. There are other reasons, as human nature is drawn to fortune, fame and long life; however, those motives can be left aside as the mere profit motive is sufficient. To deny a whistleblower in the face of the ability to cure cancer is not much different than denying a whistleblower in the case of truther or birther.

Now, we could discuss the other motives for exposing any such conspiracy. We can just leave it that profit alone puts this socialist propaganda into the CT section of the forum.

Enough nonsense. Serious, don't be a CTr.


ps. If one must play with this CT, for whatever agenda, do it with something smaller than cancer or one just looks dumb.
 
Last edited:
Medicor Cancer Centres - DCA Therapy


also from the wiki

Recognizing anticipated funding challenges, Dr Michelakis's lab took the unorthodox step of directly soliciting online donations to fund the research.[32] After 6 months, his lab had raised over $800,000, enough to fund a small Clinical Phase 2 study. Dr. Michelakis and Dr. Archer have applied for a patent on the use of DCA in the treatment of cancer.[33][34]
On 24 September 2007, the Department of Medicine of Alberta University reported that after the trial funding was secured, both the Alberta local ethics committee and Health Canada approved the first DCA clinical trial for cancer.[35] This initial trial is relatively small with enrollment of up to 50 patients.​
 
this idiocy should be moved to the conspiracy theory forum. this is as idiotic as 9/11 truth and birther bs.
 
It is clear that DCA is an intriguing drug - one of many currently being investigated by scientists around the world. It will be interesting to see the results of more extensive lab-based experiments and larger clinical trials of DCA. And cancer cell metabolism is certainly a productive area of research that we're actively funding.
The fact that DCA is off-patent is no barrier to its development as a treatment for cancer. For example, Cancer Research UK has secured a licence for an off-patent drug called fenretinide, which could be used to treat rare childhood cancers. And there is certainly no "conspiracy" by pharmaceutical companies to prevent research into DCA - there is just not enough evidence at the moment to support its widespread use to treat patients.

While these results are intriguing, it is unlikely that this one compound represents "the cure" for cancer - and it is also unlikely that DCA is the "wonder drug" that the headlines portray. Cancer is a complex and multi-faceted disease, and it can be caused by a range of different faults within the cell. It is unlikely that any single drug could ever treat all forms of the disease.

There are many promising new treatments for cancer currently in development, funded by organisations across the globe - including Cancer Research UK. If anything, these new results show why research is so important in bringing safe and effective treatments to people with cancer - they don't provide definitive answers, but they support further investigations which may yield benefits for patients in the future.
Click to expand...

Here is an article from last year discussing the possibility of DCA being used.

Dichloroacetate not yet an effective treatment for aggressive brain cancer : Terra Sigillata
 
A more accurate thread title would be "Preliminary results are hopeful that a cancer cure may have been discovered, but more studies are needed to confirm."
 
Jetboogieman said:
This is why government funding is so very important in the medical field.

Should companies bury cures to maintain profit on purpose, the CEO's of those companies should be arrested and executed in my opinion.

A little too regressive for some people? :lol:

I could live with it.
Click to expand...
By this line of logic, car companies should be arrested and executed (I didn't even know you were pro death penalty) for failing to make cars that top out at 25mph because doing that would clearly save lives.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not in the least. You keep developing "new" treatment drugs, that keep costing more and more. It keeps the train rolling. Once you have a cure, that's it. Nothing new. Initially, there would be lots of money to be made, but eventually, that dries up.
Click to expand...
This doesn't make sense, CC. How does finding a cure for cancer mean people won't still continue to get cancer and therefore need the treatment?

And the kind of capitalism you are presenting has one purpose: profit at any cost, regardless of the impact.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know, the profit motive is absolutely detestable to some, but, like it or not, it is a very effective motivator and some very good things have come about because of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom