• 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

Then I have a question for you, CC. When doctors find a cancerous tumor, why do they seek to remove the whole tumor (if possible) then often follow up with chemotherapy to try to eradicate any remaining cancer cells? If ongoing treatment has such a larger potential for profit, wouldn't it make more sense to leave a few cancer cells behind to assure the need for future treatment?

Medical ethics. Pharmaceutical companies are under no obligation towards these kinds of ethics.


But there is huge profit potential in all three.

All three cannot exist at the same time. Tell me how much profit is there, currently, in the treatment of polio?

Hummmmm, ok, good point.

Good. You see what I'm getting at. The issue isn't profit. The issue is profit without looking at larger issues, also.
 
Medical ethics. Pharmaceutical companies are under no obligation towards these kinds of ethics.
But it would be those medical professionals that would be prescribing and utilizing the drugs.


All three cannot exist at the same time. Tell me how much profit is there, currently, in the treatment of polio?
Is there even treatment available for polio once someone has it?



Good. You see what I'm getting at. The issue isn't profit. The issue is profit without looking at larger issues, also.
I don't oppose reasonable regulation, but I do oppose over-regulation as well as any notion the profit is inherently evil.
 
Interesting, though I'll point out it's from 2007, but here's the original study, so if anyone with a brain can tell us what it means. *cough*Digsbe*cough*

I'll do my best to explain it :mrgreen:

Here is some background information that might help things clear up. Apoptosis is programmed cell death. Things that trigger apoptosis are events like DNA damage. Cancer is a disease of accumulated mutations that cause healthy genes to become abnormal. Oncogenes are genes, when mutated, may cause the cell to proliferate out of the norm. Tumor suppressor genes function just as their name suggests. These genes typically function in pathways that recognize DNA damage and attempt to fix it, others regulate apoptosis. P53 is the grand daddy of tumor suppressors and is mutated in the majority of cancers.

Apoptosis has a complex molecular pathway within the cell so I'll condense it. Essentially, the cell recognizes DNA damage and tries to fix it, if it can't fix it the cell will attempt to kill itself via apoptosis. There is a protein called cytochrome C that is within the mitochondrial membrane. Certain proteins like BCL-2 will latch onto the mitochondrial membrane and weaken it. When it's weakened cytochrome C may leak out of the mitochondria and into the cytoplasm. From here, cytochrome C then acts upon another molecular pathway (the apoptotic caspase cascade) which ultimately ends with the cell committing cellular seppuku (apoptosis).

What these researchers are saying is that cancer cells use aerobic glycolysis in the cytoplasm as their form of metabolism. Most normal cells will preform oxidative glycolysis within the mitochondria. The researchers are saying that they can inhibit aerobic glycolysis in the cytoplasm by inhibiting a protein that is necessary for it to function. Pyruvate is a product of the glycosidic pathway, and pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK) is a protein involved in this (a kinase phosphorilates things. Based on the name I would imagine that it phosphorilates a dehydrogenase kinase that acts upon the pyruvate molecule. I would have to look it up though). If the aerobic glycolysis is inhibited, this would cause the cell to move its metabolism more so into the mitochondria like a normal cell would. They believe that in doing so, it would help prevent the apoptotic resistance by normalizing the mitochondria in this way.

My personal interpretation of this is that more research must be done. Anyone that claims to have a universal cure for cancer is a scientific charlatan. Each cancer is unique with it's own genes and mutations. No to skin cancers will be identical just as no to cancers of any system will be identical. One thing cancer cells must accomplish is become resistant to apoptosis. However, this doesn't always have to be via a stabilizing of the mitochondrial membrane that prevents cytochrome C from leaking out. These cells may have mutations in BCL-2 or P53 which could also inhibit apoptosis in a different way. Sure, this drug may have some promise in cancers that have apoptotic resistance, but I don't think it would have much of an impact. Once a cell divides it believes it's new DNA is perfect, thus it believes that the mutations it has are perfect because it doesn't know any better. If anything this drug would be a helpful co-therapy with chemotherapy if the cells have apoptotic resistance because their mitochondrial membranes are too stable to allow cytochrome C to leak out. I think much more research must be done, and I do not believe that this is a cure for cancer.
 
We all seem to agree that the pharmaceutical industry is profit motivated and thus cannot be relied on to provide us with actual cures. So WHY are people using its products then? Are there no alternatives?

Furthermore, why doesn't there exist non for profit organizations that receive private and public funding in order to create actual cures? The university in the OP for example, with enough funding they could produce drugs.

The pharmaceutical industry isn't just a benign profit seeker. It actively seeks out and destroys any other agency trying to cure diseases that it has a profitable monopoly on. It simply has so much money that it could lobby government to do practically anything against rivalries.

How does the cycle get broken so that people don't have to suffer from terrible disease anymore?
 
We all seem to agree that the pharmaceutical industry is profit motivated and thus cannot be relied on to provide us with actual cures. So WHY are people using its products then? Are there no alternatives?

Furthermore, why doesn't there exist non for profit organizations that receive private and public funding in order to create actual cures? The university in the OP for example, with enough funding they could produce drugs.

The pharmaceutical industry isn't just a benign profit seeker. It actively seeks out and destroys any other agency trying to cure diseases that it has a profitable monopoly on. It simply has so much money that it could lobby government to do practically anything against rivalries.

How does the cycle get broken so that people don't have to suffer from terrible disease anymore?

I won't deny that the pharmaceutical industry is driven by profits, but all industries are. There are multiple pharmaceutical companies, and if one of them patented a miracle drug they could sell it fairly expensively and hurt their competition by removing the need for patients to buy chemotherapeutic drugs for cancer treatment. I don't think that profit would prevent them from creating this drug.

The physicians also profit from cancer. There have been physicians who get kick backs from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing their chemo drugs. As far as cures go, the government does fund cancer research through the NIH. The government also provides us with a wonderful utility called the NCBI which allows free access to an enormous amount of information. They also have thousands of free published papers for scientists to read.

I don't believe that the pharmaceutical drug companies are trying to prevent cures. I believe they are in a race to find effective drugs and to market them so that they can profit. Billions of dollars is spent by pharmaceutical companies on drug research to create new drugs.

I believe the way to break the cycle is to change how we administer cancer therapy, and I see these changes being made slowly. We need to move away from the mindset that the physician is the know all-cure all and allow people in other branches of science to work with physicians to treat cancer. I don't want to demonize physicians in any way because their job is necessary, but we need a more incorporated healthcare model that allows people in other areas of science to aid in the treatment of cancer.
 
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.

It would major money for 20 years til the patent ran out.. What would suck is all the people that would keep dying of cancer because they would be too poor to afford the med. to cure them. Brand name or generic something that would cure cancer would probably cost too much that only those with money and/or decent health bennies would benefit from it.
 
Shall we get into semantics about what "cure" means? If it cures cancer, that means once implimented, the individual no longer has cancer.

but cancer is a by product of cell division and replication. So as long as such processes are occurring you'll have cancer.
 
Hmmm... so, since the medical business profits, monetarily from the individual being sick and needing treatment, which would the medical business profit from more... a complete cure, or continuing treatment?

this seems to presuppose that everyone is going to act in a nice orderly and rational fashion, and that all possible actors see themselves as profiting from this scenario.

Such circumstances are highly unlikely
 
but cancer is a by product of cell division and replication. So as long as such processes are occurring you'll have cancer.

Not really. Cancer is the result of mutations in DNA which lead to abnormal cell proliferation. If you can kill all of the cancer cells then that person will be cured of that cancer. It's not a byproduct of cell division, it's the product of mutations. Although, mass cell proliferation can increase your risk of cancer because it gives more mutations a "pass" on to the next generation of cells.
 
Not really. Cancer is the result of mutations in DNA which lead to abnormal cell proliferation. If you can kill all of the cancer cells then that person will be cured of that cancer. It's not a byproduct of cell division, it's the product of mutations. Although, mass cell proliferation can increase your risk of cancer because it gives more mutations a "pass" on to the next generation of cells.

I didn't mean it as in "that once someone has cancer they can't be cured", but that as long our cells continue to divide people will develop cancer

PS and isn't mutation a byproduct of cell division?
 
Skip the lecture, ok? You're the only one who's wringing his hands. The discussion's been a good one.

I noticed you ignored the rest of the post, that address the issue from the OP. Not a shock.
 
And all I see is the typical naivate and inability to see the big picture of a libertarian. One issue affects many other issues. Isolating one thing from everything else is neither how society operates or how people operate... even capitalists. It's something very basic that extreme libertarians never seem to understand. The belief that things like this live in a vacuum, as you seem to be suggesting is far more like a conspiracy theory than anyting that I am saying.

Now, if you want to discuss this seriously, I'm around. If you just want to spew silly extreme libertarianism that has no basis in reality... I'll just dismiss it.


It seems you will be holding to the argument that capitalism is preventing a cure for cancer?

Also, what's with the libertarian stuff? I'm pretty sure that this particular debate is only an economic issue (the profit motive). Are there social liberties involved? Anyway, I'm not a libertarian even if I defend capitalism against nonsense. If you bring some ridiculous crap against socialism, I'll defend it and next you'll be calling me is an extreme communist.
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean it as in "that once someone has cancer they can't be cured", but that as long our cells continue to divide people will develop cancer

PS and isn't mutation a byproduct of cell division?

Not necessarily. Mutations do occur during DNA replication, but they aren't the typical major cause for them. The DNA polymerase makes a few mistakes (after all, it is copying several billion DNA base pairs). However, carcinogens also cause DNA damage. Carcinogens can mutate DNA along with radiation and several other things. It's mainly carcinogens that influence DNA mutations that lead to cancer in my opinion.
 
Well, we know you have a computer or some such similar device, so...

I could be using a public library or a friend's computer.

Oil is the most economically feasible energy source for transportation.
Alternatives can't match up.

Which field of alternative energy are you an expert in again?


Riiiight. :lol:

Riiight what? Would I need to live in the middle of the rain forest in a shack before I wouldn't be considered materialistic?

If you are going to alter the definition in THIS way, it changes the argument. We have been discussing monetary profits. Are you now discussing this alteration?



Hmmm... so, since the medical business profits, monetarily from the individual being sick and needing treatment, which would the medical business profit from more... a complete cure, or continuing treatment?



People are victims of both... if we must use the word "victim".

The answer should be obvious: Blood transplant appears to cure AIDS. Imagine if all it took was a blood transfusion to cure AIDS. Current costs for the medications to treat AIDS are $20,000 per year. hmmmm.
 
I really think people should never ever trust a journal or newspaper article on a scientific paper. They almost always misrepresent it. They push things for hype and don't tell you the truth of what the science says. Always go and read the primary scientific journal entry and use that as your basis of judgement. I would never trust a news report over anything related to science because they sensationalize everything. There will also never be a "cure for cancer" because each cancer is individual and unique. The future for cancer therapy should be to profile individual cancers and treat them as individuals instead of going to the big med school book of oncology and treating with the 3 chemo drugs that the book says to use for breast cancer, etc...
 
I'll do my best to explain it :mrgreen:
............................................................

Holy hell, I understood enough of that to get what you were saying, 2 years of falling asleep in biology class at school finally payed off. :lol: Thanks Digs. :thumbs:
 
Holy hell, I understood enough of that to get what you were saying, 2 years of falling asleep in biology class at school finally payed off. :lol: Thanks Digs. :thumbs:

See, don't discredit yourself. Scientists aren't English majors (as I re-read that post I cringed at my grammar mistakes haha). Once you learn the acronyms and terminology it isn't so bad.
 
See, don't discredit yourself. Scientists aren't English majors (as I re-read that post I cringed at my grammar mistakes haha). Once you learn the acronyms and terminology it isn't so bad.

Yeah, I can remember the basic structure and functions of cells and organelles, so I understood most of your summary, but the cemical side of biology buggers me up, though I do remember learning that orgasms releases endorphins, which have an analgesic effect, meaning a headache is a poor excuse not to have sex. :lol:
 
Here's the thing that I find most disturbing about this entire thread. Do people actually believe this tripe that if a cure for cancer were found, it would be hidden so "big pharma" could keep raking in $$ on less effective treatments? I mean really? Some of you would actually believe that?
 
Here's the thing that I find most disturbing about this entire thread. Do people actually believe this tripe that if a cure for cancer were found, it would be hidden so "big pharma" could keep raking in $$ on less effective treatments? I mean really? Some of you would actually believe that?

Maybe they haven't considered that hundreds of "Big Pharma" executives are themselves subject to getting cancer... and so are their wives, children, parents, siblings, friends, cousins... and if the "cure" was made available only for the big shots and their families, that would still be thousands of people.... you couldn't keep it quiet. If you give The Cure to your wife's favorite Auntie, what happens when Auntie wants the cure for her daughter? Give it to her? Then what happens when Auntie's daughter wants The Cure for her boyfriend's mother? The secret would be out quickly.
 
Last edited:
Maybe they haven't considered that hundreds of "Big Pharma" executives are themselves subject to getting cancer... and so are their wives, children, parents, siblings, friends, cousins... and if the "cure" was made available only for the big shots and their families, that would still be thousands of people.... you couldn't keep it quiet.

Big Pharma is a faceless entity of evil, that is not possible. :2razz:
 
Here's the thing that I find most disturbing about this entire thread. Do people actually believe this tripe that if a cure for cancer were found, it would be hidden so "big pharma" could keep raking in $$ on less effective treatments? I mean really? Some of you would actually believe that?

Hidden? No. It's all much too complex to suggest that it would simply be hidden. But if there is no money in it it certainly wouldn't be promoted by big pharma and yes, I believe it would be discredited in some ways.

As an example, I work with 3 people who have adult onset Diabetes 2. They all take copious amounts of meds from their doctors for diabetes and related maladies. Two guys that work out at the same gym I go to had Diabetes 2. They've reversed their disease and take no drugs for anything. One guy began a reversal diet and program and was off meds including blood pressure meds, cholesterol and insulin within 6 months. He told a friend of his, who had Diabetes 2 and now his friend works out with him at the gym and HE no longer has takes any meds.

I thought they were bs-ing me. I did some reading on the Internet. Even some doctors call the lifestyle change a cure, others say reversal, but the fact remains for many, many people who are type 2 there is apparently a way to either reduce or entirely stop medication for the disease and its complications.

Why don't drug companies shout that to the roof tops? They are certainly aware of the fact that lifestyle changes can help millions of people to get off drugs and reverse diabetes 2 and complications. That's huge information. But, you'll have to surf the Net to find it.
 
Back
Top Bottom