Cancer cure possible? But too cheap and unprofitable for pharmas to invent in?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by TheNewDude, Nov 22, 2012.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Mar 17, 2010

    What do you guys think?
    Is this guy full of hot air or has he really found a possible cure for cancer?
    Are we really living in a world where Dollars and Cents determine if people live or die?

    I suppose that already happens, but this is pretty big. Cancer is a big killer. I lost my grandmother to cancer.

    What is everyone's opinion on the matter?
  2. Ugg
    macrumors 68000


    Apr 7, 2003
    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.
  3. macrumors 65816


    Feb 4, 2011
    New York
    You have to understand that at any give moment of the day there are thousands of research studies going on for a given compound or drug to treat some kind of cancer. Most are done in vitro or in animal and show promising results, but it means nothing until it can be done successfully in humans.

    DCA is definitely a possible treatment method for specific cancers and I'm sure research is ongoing. Until successful results in human testing is published, its just another drug.
  4. macrumors 68030


    Jul 12, 2011
    Location: and
  5. macrumors 65816


    Dec 16, 2004
    Birmingham, AL
    The money is in the medecine, not in the cure.
  6. macrumors G5


    Dec 22, 2004
    Chicago, Illinois
    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.
  7. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Mar 17, 2010
    Yeah the video did mention that this cure was only for specific type of cancers, but it supposedly increases the ability of good cells to overpower the cancer cells.

    It's a cheap drug and the video goes on to say that's why the Pharmas are not interested in investing money in it because anyone can then use the drug. There are no patents on it so the pharma can't corner the market.

    It's sad how human life is just dollar and cents to some.

    So is the world we live in!
  8. macrumors 6502


    Nov 6, 2009
    Same reason big Pharma hates Medical Marijuana, has a lot of benefits for people, but you can't patent a plant, so they can't rule it.
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Jan 5, 2011
    Yes, yes, "big pharma" is evil and wants to kill your grandma for her money. No, of course it isn't because new drugs take decades to develop and test, and most of them don't get past the animal testing stage.
  10. macrumors 65816


    Mar 22, 2010
    I'm not a believer of the OPs theory. Even without cancer there are endless ways to make money.
  11. macrumors 68020


    Feb 20, 2007
    America's Third World
    Snopes: DCA Cancer Cure

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan)
  12. macrumors 65816


    Mar 8, 2009
    Personally, and probably contraversially, I don't think "big pharma" are evil. I started work this year (hooray for not being a student anymore!) in a large commercial law firm. Due to my scientific background I work on a lot of pharma cases with some of the biggest pharma companies in the world, and meet some quite senior people. It's shown me that the media perception of evil big pharma is grossly over exaggerated. If they could find a cure for cancer they would jump on it - firstly because it's what they do (develop new drugs) and secondly because it would be a gold mine. Remember cancer is not something that can be wiped out in the same way as smallpox.
  13. macrumors 6502


    Nov 6, 2009
    Wow the ignorance in this post is just astounding, wake up and do some research dude.
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Jan 5, 2011
    Haha, I know more about this than you could possibly know from the 5 minute google search you did for "big pharma is evil". Are you familiar with the FDA certification process for new drugs?
  15. macrumors 6502a


    Jul 30, 2006
    If the Gates Foundation will spend tens of millions of dollars to throw at the eradication of Malaria, I think if this showed the promise claimed, they'd throw a bit of money at it, obviating any issue with big pharma funding.

    Did you get this in an email from Great Uncle Bill? The same one who believes that Obama took the Christ out of Christmas and that a medical panel is even now compiling death lists of who to kill off first to save healthcare?

    Fact Check-Still a Christmas Tree...
  16. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Mar 17, 2010
    Very interesting.

    Well the reason that was pointed out in the story was that Pharmas possibly won't make money because they can't patent DCA and therefore they can't sell it at high profits because without a patent, anyone would be able to make the drug.

    But seems like the snopes article posted by localoid puts things in a bit more prespective.
  17. fox10078, Nov 22, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012

    macrumors 6502


    Nov 6, 2009
    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.
  18. macrumors 6502a

    Jan 5, 2011
    My point is that when you see a miracle cancer cure (which actually happens quite often) it is usually for a new drug that has not gone through the evaluation process. From the time it is announced it will be at least 10 years, if ever, before it is approved and can actually be used. If your miracle cancer drug kills all the monkeys it probably isn't such a miracle, is it?
  19. macrumors 6502

    Aug 26, 2001
    Cleveland, OH
    Why do people think that a cure for cancer would be unprofitable? I can't think of anything where the demand would be higher.
  20. MorphingDragon, Nov 22, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012

    macrumors 603


    Mar 27, 2009
    The World Inbetween
    Effective human rhinovirus treatments.
  21. macrumors 68000


    Dec 11, 2010
    Biomedical research interest has never coincided with public need, so it doesn't surprise me. Notice that most effort goes into chronic disease treatments. If you look at the list of antibiotics released by year, they continue to decrease. Many people argue this is because if you need an antibiotic, you take it for a few days and you get better (or die). If you have high BP, you take it for years.

    As of right now, there are bacterial infections that we do not have any antibiotics to treat. Most are hospital acquired and only affect the old-old and young-young but there are strains of bacteria that are resistant to even the most recent generation of 'last resort' antibiotics, such as Zyvox. And if you take a look at current antibiotic research, you won't find much. There isn't much in the pipeline at all and more and more strains become more resistent. There is a potential for an influenza strain to develop that would make the 1918 incident look small, and no anti-viral meds to combat it, and relatively small amounts of research given the level of a threat this is. And we don't know a damned thing about prions other than they are bad and we can't seem to kill them.
  22. macrumors 6502


    Apr 20, 2009
    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.
  23. macrumors 68000


    Sep 13, 2011
    There is no conspiracy to keep cancer alive.

    You guys are drinking too much "business is evil" cool aid.

    This is the same crap thinking that fueled the 300mpg carburetor rumors that the oil and automotive industries bought and killed.

    It never happened, and would be impossible to silence if it did.
  24. macrumors 68000


    Dec 11, 2010
    Biomedical interests have not coincided very well with public need. A conspiracy is far fetched. However, developing a new drug costs billons, takes many years to get approved, and sometimes decades to recover the initial investment. That makes it difficult to develop short-term treatments. If you look at the amount of new meds for infection diseases, you will notice there are very few.
  25. macrumors 65816


    Mar 8, 2009
    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.

Share This Page