posted Tue, 09/04/2012 - 09:55
2435
New cheap cure for cancer
ad
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9508895/A-virus-that-kills-...
Am I the only one who has a feeling politics/busniess for medical/drug companies will try to find a way to ruin this for every one?
Thoughts?
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
once the genetic engineering doctors start to actually get going, hopefully we will see some results about how to cure cancer, cancer is genetic , its an error in the cells, no virus will fix it. u need a a treatment that will go to the DNA. I hope they do find a cure, cancer took away my uncle, the person who i looked up to the most in my life
Theres been talk of snake venom working better than chemo.. This is some strange but cool stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8varU-eU30k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGjC4HReFL0
bro, i love weed but i dont think it can stop cancer or else it would be used to do so
CleyonMy brother in law is one of the biggest potheads I know, but the surgury and chemo is what fixed his prostate cancer.
CleyonEDIT
Sorry, my first response was very dismissive. I understand that marijuana lovers out there want for it to be the cure for everything, but this is way over the edge. I could lawyer the hell out of it, but it would do no good. It's like trying to talk sense to people who worship Dr. Burzynski, and think that his cancer cure is being suppressed. The old saying "if it sounds too good to be true it probably is" applies here in spades.
Speaking of a cure for cancer a girl at work told me her 87yr old grandmother had skin cancer on her nose. The docs wanted to cut her nose off and they said no. She said her mom did tons of research and came up with horse Iodine. She said it was constantly applied to the cancerious spot and then went back to the doc some time later with no signs of cancer. BAM! MIND BLOWN!!!!
I researched it to see if their was truth to it and come to find out there is
AnonMy Uncle is on a list to get a kidney transplant, he was told after the transplant the "ani rejection" medication will cost $29,000 a year. Cost to him will be 250.00 a month but still that price tag is outrageous.
CleyonI replied below, and said father, just noticed that it's your uncle. I understand that frustration, if you want I can help you pass along some private organizations that help people pay for medications they can't afford on their own.
AnonThanks Cley, he does have insurance so its just 250.00 a month to him. Although thats still not anything to sniff at, given that Im sure thats not the only script he will be filling.
Give them a vote if you find it helpful.PermalinkCleyonNo $250 a month is a hefty chunk, and I feel that pain. The medical bills for my brother are enourmous, and honestly if my siblings and I didn't help out my parents would be really hurting trying to care for him (especially right now, he's got pnumonia which is the #1 killer of bed ridden quadraplegics).
It's always difficult to deal with things like this, but I believe that relying on family and friends is always prefferable to trying to force other people to take care of you. Transplants are one of the most expensive proceedures in the world, and that's if they can even find a match. Rough stuff.
Even if it works in humans we won't see it for a long time. There is way too much money to be made off cancer treatments. It's really fucked up that this is how our big corperation work. Life saving new medical breakthroughs and new technologies are held back so to make a buck.
CleyonYeah, sounds a lot like the beginning of the movie "I Am Legend"! LOL, I love when you see this and assume that politics/drug companies will ruin it, not that the hypothesis might not pan out. As is said in this article, "Our results are only in the lab so far, not in humans, and many treatments that work in the lab can turn out to be not so effective in humans."
If it means losing money then those companies will push to say it's unsafe or find other reasons. Fact is if your going to die from cancer ANY ways I don't see anything being to unsafe at that point. There are plenty of situations where companies do things like this. If it turns out this doesn't work in humans then fine, but if it does work.. Well it wouldn't shock me if they push for reasons why it shouldn't be used.
CleyonUgh, I hate this type of rhetoric. A company spend billions (yes with a b) to bring a new drug to market, and they are evil for trying to make a profit. The truth is that the drugs that make huge profits aren't cancer drugs, or infectious disease drugs, they are things like Viagra, Cialis and Lunesta.
AnonI hate this "boo hoo" shit crying for sympathy for pfizer or another big drug company. I dont think there are many people that would suggest they be non proffit, but the proffits they make are obscene. Given that peoples helth is at stake its quite obvious that these companies are unscrupulous and keeping urgent medication from someone is fine as long as the CEO gets his ninth vacation house.
CleyonI don't think anyone was "boo hoo"ing for pharmacuetical companies, I know I wasn't, but there seems to be a lack of perspective on the profits that these companies make. People quote profit margins about how much it takes to make a pill vs how much it's sold for as if that's the actual margin. They don't take other things into consideration.
A typical pharmacuetical company makes @ 15.5% NET profit. If that sounds like a grossly inflated profit margin, then you've never been in business. Every business I've ever been in has strived to get a MINIMUM 25% profit. In reality in order to grow a business you need a 30% or greater net profit margin.
Also the statements deamonizing a CEO because they are well compensated is rediculous. Start bitching about the ludicris salaries that sports start are paid at the same time. They command those types of dollars because that is what the market allows. For anyone who thinks that the guys at the bottom of the org chart are the ones that do the "real" work, and the CEOs really don't do anything... you're on crack. The people on the bottom punch a clock and do a job, they don't have to consider how a million different things work together, or have the responsibility of making a company profitable for all their investors and stake holders. The executives that I've worked with during my career put in more hours and understand more about what is going on in an organization than people comprehend.
Just last week I had the CEO of the company I work for ask me about a very specific network change that we made the weekend before. This was just a chance meeting in the elevator, I didn't realize he even knew that change was happening, and he hadn't been in any of the meetings or planning sessions. These guys/gals make it to the top for a reason.
AnonThere is a point to what your sayi8ng that I will agree to however I dont care how you made it to the top, the sallaries getting handed out up there have gotten out of control. When I was a kid the blue collar guy made 20-30 k and the rich guy in town made 75-100, look at it now.
Interestingly but not suprisingly I disagree about sports stars or entertainers, I could care less how much they make. If they can sell their crappy music or movies, or bounce a ball around and make millions Im fine with that. But when your company makes and sells medicines at a point where people cant afford them then I take issue with a CEO getting a multi million dollar bonus.
CleyonThat's sad that you don't see how they are exactly the same thing. Franchise owners bring in top teir athletes to in order to boost sales. When Mark Cuban bought the Dallas Mavericks he needed to fill the seats, so he brought in Dennis Rodman to play four games at a cost of $1,000,000! In the same vein companies bring in executives to perform. Those bonuses and raises they get are based on performance (this isn't union mentality where everyone has guarenteed bonuses), if they fail to meet the performance metrics on which their bonuses are based then they are not getting those bonuses.
Denver hires Peyton Manning because they believe that his talent and skill will get them to the Super Bowl, that's the same reason a company hires a CEO, because they believe that his talent and skill will increase their bottom line. Believe it or not, a companies bottom line increasing is good for a lot more people than just the employees. It's really good for investors, like you and me. If you have a 401K or mutual funds, you are probably invested in these same companies. Which means you should be rooting for them to succeed, and in turn wanting them to hire the best people possible to run the company.
I know that athletes get a pass because they aren't "that" rich, but look at the wealth an athlete produces vs what a CEO produces. An athlete may help a franchise sell more tickets and merchendise, but they probably aren't going to add jobs. When a company is successful they add a lot of jobs. When a company like Merc is successful that means it has the ability to hire more accountants, researchers, IT personel, janitors, and more. If they are even more successful they may build new offices which provides work for construction workers, electicians, plumbers, and possibly steel workers.
AnonWell I do see a difference in a business that sells a product that saves lives or heals children and something thats worth a few hours of entertainment.
Viagra, I do call that an optional drug for most who take it, some may really need it but most dont. I dont know if you are aware of this but a 10 pill bottle of 100mg will cost you 240.00. There are however many other drugs with absurd price tags that arent optional . I cant remember the drug, but my child needed a med for some respiratory trouble he was having, it was well over 200.00. The prices of medications is out of control. P&L statements can and are "cooked" dont you think they watch the proffits and keep what they report at a given level ? I know I do.
Yeah you can call me selective but I do feel there should be different rules for different industry. I have no objection to the creator of facebook, Sony or Apple making millions or billions.
CleyonWell, that's exactly where we dissagree, I think that a business is a business. If we try to limit the amount of profit some companies can make they will just quit trying to make as much profit, and that will mean worst products and less inovation.
I appreciate your opinions though, and I understand the frustration that you feel. The rules of supply and demand still rule when it comes to medication. It sucks that some medicines are really expensive, but if you can't afford it there are a LOT of private programs available to help with those costs. I hope your father gets the help he needs, and will keep him and your family in my prayers.