Help me fight back!

Kiopa_Matt said:
I have a hard time believing chemotherapy is still our best treatment for cancer.
Click to expand...

Not everyone gets chemotherapy.. some get radiotherapy, who makes the money there? It isn't big pharma, it's the hospitals and the medical tech companies that build the machines.

Some people have surgery, who makes the money in that case? the surgeons and the hospitals.

Clearly if big pharma were to come out with a highly effective cure, they could patent it and charge whatever they want for it, and it will be the very first treatment chosen over chemo, radio and surgery. As I said, cancer will never be eliminated like polio, people are going to continually get it, and an effective treatment will make much more money than chemo drugs do today.

So the question is, what incentive would they have for holding a 'real' treatment back?

One notable advancement I read about was a radiotherapy machine that instead of firing ~3 radiation beams that converge on the tumor, it has a robotic arm that moves around the entire body firing something like 100 beams, all of which converge on the tumor. This way, very little surrounding tissue is damaged because each single beam is only 1% of the total energy but since they all converge on the tumor, it cops 100% of the radiation energy. Compared to the old machines in which 33% of the energy was delivered by each beam, this is a huge step and can allow a lot more radiation to be safely used. The machine even tracks the patient's breathing and compensates the angles. Amazing technology...
 


I think maybe Big Will has big insecurities so he tries to be the big man on a forum that has some people making big money representing big brands.

But he's not one of those people. He's just a big asshole.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
So after billions upon billions of dollars sunk into cancer research, 100s of millions sunk into nanotechnology labs by universities around the world, and the list goes on... you believe the best still available is chemotherapy? Chemotherapy was developed over a 100 years ago, first started being used in the medical field in the 1940s, and became widespread in the 60s and 70s.

Now think, this was a time before we sent men into space, the PC wasn't even a thought let alone the internet, and nuclear weapons weren't even developed when they first started using it. And nowadays, my cell phone has more computing technology than NASA had during the first space flights.

I don't know. I'm no doctor or medical researcher, but considering the technological improvements in nearly every other aspect of our lives over the past 50 years, I have a hard time believing chemotherapy is still our best treatment for cancer.
Click to expand...

cancer is clearly a topic outside of your scope of expertise (as well as mine, and everyone else here) so it's probably best to just take off your tinfoil hat and stop claiming conspiracy here. Just because you have an iPhone in your pocket doesn't mean the Man is hiding a cure for cancer from us.

To say that medicine hasn't also advanced substantially in the last 50 years is absurd.
 
mattseh said:
I think maybe Big Will has big insecurities so he tries to be the big man on a forum that has some people making big money representing big brands.

But he's not one of those people. He's just a big asshole.
Click to expand...

How am I trying to be a big man? I simply speak freely and voice my own opinions regardless of other peoples views...
 
johnmatrix said:
A treatment that can properly cure cancer is going to make just as much money as today's ineffective treatments.
Click to expand...

Not if it is something like DCA, which is relatively cheap and can't be patented :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH0BJKC_LLw]Sodium Dichloroacetate (DCA) - The Cancer Cure - YouTube[/ame]
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
So after billions upon billions of dollars sunk into cancer research, 100s of millions sunk into nanotechnology labs by universities around the world, and the list goes on... you believe the best still available is chemotherapy? Chemotherapy was developed over a 100 years ago, first started being used in the medical field in the 1940s, and became widespread in the 60s and 70s.

Now think, this was a time before we sent men into space, the PC wasn't even a thought let alone the internet, and nuclear weapons weren't even developed when they first started using it. And nowadays, my cell phone has more computing technology than NASA had during the first space flights.

I don't know. I'm no doctor or medical researcher, but considering the technological improvements in nearly every other aspect of our lives over the past 50 years, I have a hard time believing chemotherapy is still our best treatment for cancer.
Click to expand...

This just shows your total ignorance I'm afraid. Go learn something about molecular biology. It's a fascinating subject, and you'll quickly come to understand that it's tens of thousands of times more complicated than any computing device. We still don't fully understand what all the bits of a cell do, and how cells talk to each other.

Combine that with the fact treatments take ten years to get from the lab to the hospital (because consumers get bitchy if they're given drugs that kill them), it's no wonder progress seems slow.

It's not even true to say there has been no progress... chemotherapy has improved massively for some cancers (look up Hodgkin's Disease Chemotherapy for example)
 
nickycakes said:
i don't see any of you ballers donating
Click to expand...

I'm so proud that my domestic partner jeffrey allowed me to use our joint checking account to donate!

Thank you for letting me, hun!

b97TK.png
 
johnmatrix said:
Clearly if big pharma were to come out with a highly effective cure, they could patent it and charge whatever they want for it, and it will be the very first treatment chosen over chemo, radio and surgery. As I said, cancer will never be eliminated like polio, people are going to continually get it, and an effective treatment will make much more money than chemo drugs do today.

So the question is, what incentive would they have for holding a 'real' treatment back?
Click to expand...

I feel you are half right... Yes big pharma companies are itching to be the first to find a "cure" to cancer that they can bring to market, but the problem is they are all looking for a very specific type of cure.

You can't patent apples bro...

A natural cure will never receive attention because there is no money in it. Same with if they come up with a cure that was very simple and works with material too cheap/widely available. I'm not saying a natural cure or a cheap cure exists, just saying if it did, it wouldn't get marketed.

So sure they are looking for a cure, but they are looking for a specific type of cure.
 
p0ck3taces said:
I feel you are half right... Yes big pharma companies are itching to be the first to find a "cure" to cancer that they can bring to market, but the problem is they are all looking for a very specific type of cure.

You can't patent apples bro...

A natural cure will never receive attention because there is no money in it. Same with if they come up with a cure that was very simple and works with material too cheap/widely available. I'm not saying a natural cure or a cheap cure exists, just saying if it did, it wouldn't get marketed.

So sure they are looking for a cure, but they are looking for a specific type of cure.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think something as ridiculously complex as cancer will be magically cured by something 'natural'? If you think that then you really do not understand what you are talking about.

In fact there will very likely never be one drug that is a 'cure to cancer'. Cancer is so complex and varies so much there will be cures (or very effective treatments) for specific types of cancer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom