Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 23, 2012, 04:09 AM   #26
MorphingDragon
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The World Inbetween
Send a message via Skype™ to MorphingDragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
You guys are drinking too much "business is evil" cool aid.
There is no greater evil than unfettered capitalism.
MorphingDragon is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 06:13 AM   #27
thewitt
macrumors 68000
 
thewitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorphingDragon View Post
There is no greater evil than unfettered capitalism.
Spoken like a true progressive - read Marxist....

Even the former Soviet Union has abandoned Socialism as the great failed experiment. Why you guys want to go back there is completely beyond my ability to comprehend human behavior.
thewitt is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 06:43 AM   #28
MorphingDragon
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The World Inbetween
Send a message via Skype™ to MorphingDragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
Spoken like a true progressive - read Marxist....

Even the former Soviet Union has abandoned Socialism as the great failed experiment. Why you guys want to go back there is completely beyond my ability to comprehend human behavior.
It reflects more on your ability to think beyond binary terms and your ability to read.

You say Socialist like its on your word of the day calendar, it's time to get a new calendar. Maybe this calendar will include words like Labour Rights, Social Responsibility and The third Way.

Last edited by MorphingDragon; Nov 23, 2012 at 06:55 AM.
MorphingDragon is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 11:04 AM   #29
TheNewDude
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Wow, excellent chatter...

Regarding the "Consipiracy by pharmas", I do agree that is a far fetched idea, but Pharmas making a business decision to not pursue certain beneficial research because it's not profitable is possible. Not saying that's exactly what's happening, but it is definitely possible.

A lot of business make decisions which are not in the interest of consumers but are profitable for them. For example, the Ford Fiesta incident. (I believe it was the fiesta.) Where Ford decided it was cheaper to settle some lawsuits of people dying cause of issues with the car than to issue a recall and fix all the cars.
__________________
Flickr Page
TheNewDude is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 11:57 AM   #30
chrono1081
macrumors 604
 
chrono1081's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Isla Nublar
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Yep. I could not agree more. The medical establishment is more interested in selling drugs than actually fixing problems. Many people in the medical field deny this, but in my own experience, they'd rather give you a pill than tell you what you should really do to fix a problem. It's not until you tell them that you won't take the pills that they give you other options that are actually better.
This.

The U.S. blows as far as medical care. Doctors here do nothing but prescribe pain meds (or physical therapy). The only time I started to make progress in getting my back fixed is when I sat and argued with the fourth doctor I went to telling him I wasn't blowing $6k on useless physical therapy anymore and I refuse to pick up any pills prescribed to me at the pharmacy for pain.

Now I have an appointment to look at other options.
__________________
Mac Pro (2010): 3.33Ghz Intel Xeon (6 core) - 24 GB RAM - NVidia Quadro k5000
Macbook Air (2010): 2.13 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM
chrono1081 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 02:32 PM   #31
mrsir2009
macrumors 604
 
mrsir2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
I didn't watch the video but there are too many causes for cancer for there to be only one cure. Today, many of the causes of cancer are poor lifestyle choices. Smoking and obesity top the list.
Indeed. Many types of cancer can not develop without sugar... So there ya go
mrsir2009 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 02:45 PM   #32
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
There is no conspiracy to keep cancer alive.

You guys are drinking too much "business is evil" cool aid.
Ah, okay. then you are saying humans are too incompetent to figure out things anymore then. Because that is what you are left with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iStudentUK View Post
The common problem with 'conspiracy' theories is that they would require a concerted effort by many people working together without making mistakes to maintain. Unfortunately, human beings aren't that competent. All pharma companies are quite big (eg in turnover) because the industry is huge there are still many companies out there. The idea that they could somehow have cooperated for so long to conspire not to 'cure' anything is laughable. First of all I'd like to see sources for people who say "they never cure anything anymore" because I really don't think it is the case. Secondly, alleviating the symptoms of a disease or slowing it down often only requires interfering with one of its processes, curing a disease is often inherently a more difficult task.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy that everyone gets together on, has a meeting about, and then has to maintain. You've been reading too many spy novels. It can be as something as simple as economics that makes a company (or an industry) gravitate a certain direction. As for the source, like you who doesn't think it is the case, I am saying what I think. I can't remember the last time when something was truly cured. That's a problem. Given that situation there are only two reasons I can think of. Either we don't want to cure things anymore, or we are too dumb to do so. And given the part I bolded above, it looks like you are definitely saying humans are too stupid. Guess we are all doomed to find a cure for anything else then.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 03:40 PM   #33
MorphingDragon
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The World Inbetween
Send a message via Skype™ to MorphingDragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrono1081 View Post
This.

The U.S. blows as far as medical care. Doctors here do nothing but prescribe pain meds (or physical therapy). The only time I started to make progress in getting my back fixed is when I sat and argued with the fourth doctor I went to telling him I wasn't blowing $6k on useless physical therapy anymore and I refuse to pick up any pills prescribed to me at the pharmacy for pain.

Now I have an appointment to look at other options.
Well if you come to NZ, I know people that will crunch your back for free.
MorphingDragon is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 03:46 PM   #34
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
First, big pharma is incompetent, not evil (or at least not wholly evil). The swallowed the molecular biologists' ludicrous claims about being able to cure everything (gene therapy, then gene sequencing, then stem cells, etc... where are all those cures that were promised?). All that big pharma has learned over the past two decades is that cultures are not the same as organisms because whole organisms have massive, multiple feedfoward and feedback loops in biomolecular pathways.

Second, big pharma is probably already jumping over this finding, but they will attach some sort of side chain to the molecule so they can file a patent. You never know, they might even find something better. They'll also be looking at the molecular events caused by the original drug to see if they can find something that is even more potent. You won't hear about this because they like their secrecy.

Third, big pharma is motivated by stockholders interest, but they are not as money-grubbing as one might think. Many people working in big pharma are dedicated to finding cures, but the easy ones have been found (frankly, due mostly to luck than understanding). The obscure ones are the only ones left, and being conscious of the price of developing a drug is not about greed, but about survival. I don't know whether you've noticed, but many of the big pharma companies are closing up shop. They simply cannot sustain research because the cost is so high.
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
VulchR is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 04:25 PM   #35
iHeartapple2
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Watch the movie "Burzynski" on Netflix.
__________________
iHeartApple2.com
iHeartapple2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 05:58 PM   #36
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by fox10078 View Post
Quite pretentious aren't you?

Explain to me what the FDA making sure the drug is safe has to with a companies business tactics and pricing schemes, since you know oh so much.
I'll wait.
The FDA "making sure the drug is safe" takes years. It's estimated that the average cost to get a new drug developed and through FDA approval is in the billions.

And when (if) that drug gets approved, the drug company can have a patent for a specified amount of time (I want to say 10-15 years).

In that time, they need to try and recooperate as much of that development cost as possible before the patent ends and the drug goes generic, at which point breaking even or making profits is much more difficult.

So while I certainly understand everyone's frustration with pharmaceutical company prices and tactics, I definitely stop short of calling them evil. They are merely operating under the system as it currently exists. All companies need to be profitable in order to exist, it's a little more complicated to turn a profit as a drug company than most people realize.
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 07:33 PM   #37
LIVEFRMNYC
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
I didn't watch the video but there are too many causes for cancer for there to be only one cure. Today, many of the causes of cancer are poor lifestyle choices. Smoking and obesity top the list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aziatiklover View Post
Dont forget drinking too!
And throw genetics in there. Although I wonder if genetics are one of the causes or does it just make some more vulnerable. Some scattered places across the globe don't deal with cancer at all.
LIVEFRMNYC is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 08:14 PM   #38
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
The FDA "making sure the drug is safe" takes years. It's estimated that the average cost to get a new drug developed and through FDA approval is in the billions.

And when (if) that drug gets approved, the drug company can have a patent for a specified amount of time (I want to say 10-15 years).

In that time, they need to try and recooperate as much of that development cost as possible before the patent ends and the drug goes generic, at which point breaking even or making profits is much more difficult.

So while I certainly understand everyone's frustration with pharmaceutical company prices and tactics, I definitely stop short of calling them evil. They are merely operating under the system as it currently exists. All companies need to be profitable in order to exist, it's a little more complicated to turn a profit as a drug company than most people realize.
Agreed. The FDA protocol for non-fast tracked drugs is long and expensive. While arguably necessary for the sake of safety, it does cost a lot of money and the FDA is not the one paying (believe it or not, their $4-5 billion yearly budget doesn't go all that far considering how many different things they oversee). There are certain drugs in which bringing them to the market will clearly result in a financial loss, and if pharmaceutical companies make drugs that lose money, they won't be a company for long. I am not saying this validates the sometimes outrageous pricing and I am surely not saying that FDA approval is a bad thing, but it does affect the situation greatly, but it does explain some of the disconnect between public need and pharma R&D.
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in ENGLISH, thank a Veteran.
NickZac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 12:52 AM   #39
AhmedFaisal
Guest
 
<snip>

Last edited by AhmedFaisal; Nov 11, 2013 at 09:44 AM.
  0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 01:34 AM   #40
tech4all
macrumors 68040
 
tech4all's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NorCal
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNewDude View Post
What do you guys think?
It's all about the money. I believe they have a cure, but there's no money in it.

Same as people on death row...look at the Colorado killer. He did plain and simple. Take 'em out back and put a bullet in him or life in prison with hard labor. He's not a 'suspect.'

In both cases it's all about the money. Whether it's the medical industry getting money or a lawyer who needs to a new Mercedes to defend a murder because he was abused a child or something and wasn't in his right mind. Give me a break!
__________________
I use OS X because of Windows. And I use Android because of iOS.
tech4all is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 01:44 AM   #41
AhmedFaisal
Guest
 
<snip>

Last edited by AhmedFaisal; Nov 11, 2013 at 09:44 AM.
  0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 01:56 AM   #42
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
The FDA "making sure the drug is safe" takes years.
Because no drug is "safe". They never will be. That's why there are huge lists of side effects. Now, I'm not saying that no drug is helpful.

What disturbs me is that drugs are the first things offered when there are clearly healthier options that treat many problems long term.

Granted, most of those options take work, like diet and exercise. When I got diagnosed with osteo-arthritis in both my knees at 35, the first thing the doctor suggested was Vioxx. I refused. He played a good game, "Oh, it's worked miracles for people like you". Oops. Just a year later, we found out it was killing people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib

I told my doctor then, "No ********** pills. There has to be another way." Then he offered physical therapy and other non drug-related treatments.

I am now 45 years old, still play hockey and have never had another arthritis related flare up in my knees. They don't even tell the weather anymore. My doc has told me that my knees should now last me maybe til my 60's without replacement, and has advised me to keep playing hockey, because the movements are fluid.

Our healthcare system is designed to make money, not help people. Until we get capitalism out of health care, this will continue to be the case.

Had I taken the "easy way" out with Vioxx? I shudder to think what might have happened.

Last edited by leekohler; Nov 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM.
leekohler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 04:05 AM   #43
AhmedFaisal
Guest
 
<snip>

Last edited by AhmedFaisal; Nov 11, 2013 at 09:43 AM.
  0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 11:18 AM   #44
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
I believe these people are taking the right approach.

Cancer starts in the cells, and must be fought at a cellular level.

Perhaps this will finally allow the immune system to be "trained" to finally see the cancer cells as foreign tissue, and destroy them.

Poisoning and burning cancer cells, and many other healthy cells in the process, is not getting us a cure, just greater longevity at the cost of quality of life.
iJohnHenry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 12:02 PM   #45
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrono1081 View Post
This.

The U.S. blows as far as medical care. Doctors here do nothing but prescribe pain meds (or physical therapy). The only time I started to make progress in getting my back fixed is when I sat and argued with the fourth doctor I went to telling him I wasn't blowing $6k on useless physical therapy anymore and I refuse to pick up any pills prescribed to me at the pharmacy for pain.

Now I have an appointment to look at other options.
I wish you luck, but what exactly do you think your "other options" are going to be?

About the only think I can think of that isn't pain meds or PT is steroid injections, or surgery. Both of which are likely out of your Doc's scope of practice (hence the reason you haven't been offered them yet). Your doctor is trying everything he/she can for you before sending you on to less safe/more $$$ treatments.

If you've got a doctor who's willing to play it conservative with your back treatments, you've got a keeper.
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 12:26 PM   #46
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohnHenry View Post
I believe these people are taking the right approach.

Cancer starts in the cells, and must be fought at a cellular level.
Cancer stays in the cells too, you do realize that, right? Considering that life exists entirely as cells, it's impossible for Cancer to be anything but a "cellular" disease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohnHenry View Post
Perhaps this will finally allow the immune system to be "trained" to finally see the cancer cells as foreign tissue, and destroy them.
This is nothing new, we already have therapies that augment the immune response to destroy certain types of cancer. I have experience treating certain skin cancers with topical immunomodulators for example.

In fact, the immune system naturally kills cancer on it's own in many cases, just not always effectively enough. The problem is, cancer is not foreign tissue, and never will be. The cancer cells still have the host's genetic makeup, and are 100% unique to the host. That's not to say that there may not be a way to teach the immune system to better recognize cancer, just that it won't be accomplished by teaching it to recognize cancer cells as foreign tissue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohnHenry View Post
Poisoning and burning cancer cells, and many other healthy cells in the process, is not getting us a cure, just greater longevity at the cost of quality of life.
But it can and often does provide a cure. Maybe not the best or most ideal cure because of the risk of treatment, but with adequate surgery and adequate followup chemo/radiation, a non metastatic carcinoma can be (at least in theory) completely removed from a patient.

There's so much more to this topic than most realize though, so getting too excited over someone who claims to have a "magic bullet" is foolish.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 02:01 PM   #47
chrono1081
macrumors 604
 
chrono1081's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Isla Nublar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
I wish you luck, but what exactly do you think your "other options" are going to be?

About the only think I can think of that isn't pain meds or PT is steroid injections, or surgery. Both of which are likely out of your Doc's scope of practice (hence the reason you haven't been offered them yet). Your doctor is trying everything he/she can for you before sending you on to less safe/more $$$ treatments.

If you've got a doctor who's willing to play it conservative with your back treatments, you've got a keeper.
This guys supposedly a back doctor and its all he does. I've told numerous doctors something is sliding and moving out of place. I can feel it. Its definitely not muscular. Sometimes it pops into place and everything feels fantastic, until I have to bend or twist then it goes right back out again. Sadly most doctors don't listen and want to prescribe non-working solutions.

I've already spent $6k on physical therapy and about a thousand on medicine. I'm done with that route. A friend of mine had the exact same back issue (he described everything I had to a T) and got surgery for some little posts in his spine or something and now is perfect and good to go. Sadly he lives in Florida and I live in PA but I'm about ready to pay the money and take the trip to talk to his doctor.
__________________
Mac Pro (2010): 3.33Ghz Intel Xeon (6 core) - 24 GB RAM - NVidia Quadro k5000
Macbook Air (2010): 2.13 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM
chrono1081 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 04:14 PM   #48
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AhmedFaisal View Post
You want better prices, find a way to derisk pharma research. Average ptrs (probability of technical and regulatory success) for a drug entering late stage clinical research is in the single to low double digits. Combine that with program costs in the middle to high triple million range and a lead time of 6-7 years from phase II to first regulatory approval and you can do the math what type of margins investors expect for this to be an interesting deal. Think of your own money, i'll come to you and say, give me 1000 dollars and in 6-7 years you'll have a 15% shot that i give it back to you with a profit. You tell me what profit you want to see for that. And that is just regulatory risk. These days there is an ever increasing reimbursment risk meaning even when approved, private or public insurance will either not pay for it or demand a deep discount. So you either have to derisk the research or have government take over the big pharmas.
Again, it is a tough scenario. Government expenditure on biomedical research is currently less than 1% of GDP IIRC. Patent laws on drugs exist to allow research costs to be recouped...and also to allow recoup of the failed drugs that may have costed billions that you have never heard of. At the same time, the cost of some brand name drugs makes them unaffordable to people without (and even with) good insurance. It's a difficult area because if there is no financial incentive, there will not be any new drugs. However, the laws are clearly abused. The drug Nexium ($6 bil a year), which is nothing more than the drug it 'replaced' (Prilosec) plus magnesium and double the strength, was created and tested on different things than Prilosec, and hailed a wonderdrug. That leads in itself to a series of moral dilemmas. First, are the drugs we want/need being made? Second, are these drugs getting to those who need them? Those are two completely different topics that also do not always align.

This incentive has also resulted in infectious disease drugs not being made. If you look at the top ten drugs, NONE are for infectious disease (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin..._most_prof.php). If you look at the top 100, less than a handful are.

So where are new drugs for the strains of VRE and VRSA that are linezolid-resistent? They don't exist, they aren't many in the pipeline, and if you happen to get it, you are in deep ****. Our 'last resort' antibiotics do not kill the pathogens they once did. The Oxazolidinone antibiotic class is probably our only chance against gram positive MD resistent infections, but even pharmaceutical industries themselves have admitted that they take forever and a half to develop and they may not recoup R&D ever. There are about 3-5 in a phase of 'production hell' depending on how you define production. The FDA has also failed to help drug companies fast-track these by cutting costs and time, so it isn't just the "evil corporation thing". There are few new antibiotics being made for 'gram-neg superbugs', and even fewer 'last resort' widespectrum ones.

The solution of making government responsible for it all also doesn't work, or at least has not worked to date. Disease-management solutions are largely private sector-based. This all comes down to biomedical research and public need not aligning. Let's not even go as far as how we disregard and improperly use life-saving drugs, as that is a different topic all together, an important one but a different one mind you.

It is a very complicated legal, moral, strategic, logistical, and ethical situation.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2012, 01:25 AM   #49
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNewDude View Post
http://youtu.be/z1ifXxbxhZc

What do you guys think?
Finally watched the video after being away for a few days.

What do I think?

I think the story is bull.

"Just add it to water ... no side effects ... works by increasing the cells natural energy ..."



Sounds like snake oil to me.

Snake. Oil.
citizenzen is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 12:32 PM   #50
Capt Crunch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cleveland, OH
Send a message via AIM to Capt Crunch
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
A cure would be profitable, but "maintaining" the disease with a lifetime of needed prescriptions would be even more profitable. And that is where we are at. Notice how they never "cure" anything anymore? Either humans are dumb and we have reached the peak of our ability to solve problems and cure things, OR a cure is not the real goal.

Instead we get a laundry list of new drugs to maintain your life that get advertised on TV along with their horrific side effects. All so some company can make a buck. Great.
As far as I'm aware, after chemotherapy/radiation you either go into remission, or you don't. In the latter case, you're "cured" and in the former case, you often only go through treatment for the rest of your life because you die relatively soon after.

I'm not really aware of a cancer drug that requires you to take it perpetually until you die of natural causes.

Fact of the matter is, whichever pharmaceutical makes a cure for cancer (which is extremely difficult for a variety of scientific reasons), will be way, way bigger than Phizer for marketing reasons alone. They would have a de jure monopoly on cancer cures for decades, and people would pay whatever price they asked for, because healthcare would be picking up the tab. And believe me, healthcare would be picking up the tab, because who the hell would want healthcare that didn't cover the cure for cancer?

Basically, suppose the cumulative profit for standard cancer treatment is $X. A cure for cancer would obviously sell for $X+1. Already it's more profitable AND you have a monopoly on the entire market rather than some narrow brand of cancer. The increase in volume alone would make you the biggest thing since rock and roll.
__________________
His: 13" MBA i5 | iPhone 5S
Hers: 13" MBA C2D | iPhone 4G
HTPC: Unibody MacMini | Drobo S (6TB) | Plex is the shizzle for rizzle
Capt Crunch is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Tags
cancer, cure, greed, pharmaceutical

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wow. Did i just invent the wheel -BigMac- OS X Mavericks (10.9) 32 Jun 3, 2014 10:00 AM
Why won't Apple re-invent email? pmontanarella iCloud and Apple Services 16 Dec 10, 2013 11:38 PM
Apple maps invent airfield in Ireland Neart iOS 6 0 Sep 20, 2012 08:45 AM
How to cure a sweet tooth TSE Community Discussion 29 Sep 14, 2012 12:34 PM
Wonder if MacRumor users would get as hyped in a cure for cancer as the new iPhone? Big.Mac.Daddy Wasteland 39 Sep 12, 2012 11:52 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC