First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Cancer cure found?
41050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/17/11 , edited 5/17/11

Kokashiba wrote:

Medical student or not, I think your overly defensive response is is a little ridiculous. Like the real world tends to require things aren't as black and white as some statements would lead people to believe. True, big pharmaceutical companies aren't great evil corporations out to watch us suffer unless they can turn a buck. But also I don't believe that they're these saintly businesses as you might lead people either. They only sell them for the sometimes ridiculous prices they do just to divert the cost of development? Please, they're still a business out to MAKE MONEY and it wouldn't surprise me that much if something that might help out patients got swept under the rug for a bit just so they can make money.
What's more, I don't believe I read that any DOCTORS had fingers pointed at them in this case. Perhaps I missed it but I really don't remember anything about doctors being blamed for any of the problems.


I believe I wrote that pharmaceutical companies "recoup their development costs and show some profit margins to their shareholders," so we are more in agreement in our positions about Big Pharma than you think.

My irritated response is a reaction to the general skepticism and hostility towards the medical community that I detected in both this thread and the OP's posted link. Granted, the hostility was in much greater quantity in the posted article and the comments that followed, which is why I prefaced the last major paragraph with "in regards to the linked article in the OP."

@Tycho, yes I suppose you can look it at that way. But your tone is unrealistically negative and implies that treatment is almost futile since every patient is a "walking time bomb." It shouldn't be that way with recent advances in medical technology for many cancers.
12301 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Valhalla
Offline
Posted 5/17/11
Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can’t make money



No seriously WTF
59084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Tacodome
Offline
Posted 5/17/11 , edited 5/17/11

hitokiri2486

I believe I wrote that pharmaceutical companies "recoup their development costs and show some profit margins to their shareholders," so we are more in agreement in our positions about Big Pharma than you think.

My irritated response is a reaction to the general skepticism and hostility towards the medical community that I detected in both this thread and the OP's posted link. Granted, the hostility was in much greater quantity in the posted article and the comments that followed, which is why I prefaced the last major paragraph with "in regards to the linked article in the OP."

@Tycho, yes I suppose you can look it at that way. But your tone is unrealistically negative and implies that treatment is almost futile since every patient is a "walking time bomb." It shouldn't be that way with recent advances in medical technology for many cancers.


The reason it's generally negative is it's because it's plausable. I never once implied that it's futile. If anything I have said this article would be GREAT if it's true. My father is going through cancer right now, I would love for something like this to be researched properly to find out if perhaps it could help treatment if for no other reasons than my personal ones. My layman's understanding of the article suggests to me that maybe it could help. Perhaps your more experienced viewpoint would understand it better.
But my generally negative view of the situation is based on the fact that corporations wouldn't spend any efforts to help find out if it would because there is NO money in it for them. It would be an investment with little returns.
Perhaps you mistake the "walking time bomb" statement from the other poster who quoted you?
60713 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 5/17/11
its stupid but companies have not produced known cures to illnesses and disease because it is not profitable. This is not news but i have seen this going around lately as if it was new...

It probably does work for most cancers but the trouble would likely be how to use it and even if it did make it into the commercial market it would be about 10 years before it would be deemed safe for public use...
41050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/17/11

tycho0042 wrote:


hitokiri2486

I believe I wrote that pharmaceutical companies "recoup their development costs and show some profit margins to their shareholders," so we are more in agreement in our positions about Big Pharma than you think.

My irritated response is a reaction to the general skepticism and hostility towards the medical community that I detected in both this thread and the OP's posted link. Granted, the hostility was in much greater quantity in the posted article and the comments that followed, which is why I prefaced the last major paragraph with "in regards to the linked article in the OP."

@Tycho, yes I suppose you can look it at that way. But your tone is unrealistically negative and implies that treatment is almost futile since every patient is a "walking time bomb." It shouldn't be that way with recent advances in medical technology for many cancers.


The reason it's generally negative is it's because it's plausable. I never once implied that it's futile. If anything I have said this article would be GREAT if it's true. My father is going through cancer right now, I would love for something like this to be researched properly to find out if perhaps it could help treatment if for no other reasons than my personal ones. My layman's understanding of the article suggests to me that maybe it could help. Perhaps your more experienced viewpoint would understand it better.
But my generally negative view of the situation is based on the fact that corporations wouldn't spend any efforts to help find out if it would because there is NO money in it for them. It would be an investment with little returns.
Perhaps you mistake the "walking time bomb" statement from the other poster who quoted you?




Ah, you're completely right about the misquote. Sorry about that But we are in general agreement about our attitudes; I also think it'd be great if this article were true, but sadly there's no real evidence for it yet.

Although flattering, I don't think I'm competent enough to have an "experienced viewpoint" on cancer treatment, since I'm just a 2nd year medical student studying for the USMLE boards. Although this thread helps me memorize some cancer pathways and drug pathways for my exam, I think this is something you can definitely bring up with your father's oncologist as an adjunct treatment with whatever his current regimen is.

In that regard, I sincerely hope your father successfully defeats his cancer. I can understand the hardship; I had a grandfather who died of bile duct carcinoma, and my mother recently had breast cancer, though thankfully they found it very early and she is in complete remission after a dual mastectomy. My terrible family history with cancer is one of the reasons I became a doctor.
Posted 5/17/11
I doubt it. Cancer is something you can't find a cure for unless you extensively research a cure for it. So far they're only really pissing money away, it'll be awhile yet.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.