TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- VICE Special Report: Killing Cancer
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred No, this one:

so you're asking me to prove a negative? well lews was nice enough to do that already. please refer to his earlier post.

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred Holland is not the US, which my original post was in reference to.

sorry buddy, "big pharma" is BIG. it knows no boundaries.

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred "The FDA has approved a once-a-day pill...reported at $1,125 per tablet. 'The therapy is called Harvoni, and it combines two new drugs into a single pill that's taken once a day. Gilead says the pill cures more than 93 percent of patients, sometimes in as little time as eight weeks.'"

and? what is your point? didn't I just fucking say that? wtf is wrong with you?

I'm going to bed, I can't handle this much stupid shit.

Honestly, Alpha, if Iboga helped you, I'm truly pleased for you. That's great. If it's a miraculous plant, I can't wait till it's been capitalized and turned into a nice legal drug. But there is no giant conspiracy of big pharma companies trying to keep us all ill because profits they make off treatment. There is not only no evidence to support that, but it is completely illogical and goes in the face of what capitalism does.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews So it costs a MINIMUM of $63,000 and normally costs more. Are you sure the Iboga helped your head work better? Your seeming to have some serious problems with general math here.

$63,000 is not hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Honestly, Alpha, if Iboga helped you, I'm truly pleased for you. That's great. If it's a miraculous plant, I can't wait till it's been capitalized and turned into a nice legal drug.

Thank you, sir, I appreciate it.

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred $63,000 is not hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars.

you're a fuckwit.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I fucking love how illogical this shit is. 'They're all in a cartel together to keep down cancer research! All they care about is profit! None of them are human at all!' 'But also, despite their love of money, genius, and indecency, they totally couldn't figure out a way to make FUCK TONS of money off of their invention that would be loved by all of mankind.' Weapons-grade twattery is, I believe, the correct term for such a thought process.

Lews, while it's dumb to use a wide brush to paint the entire pharma industry as "evil:, you have to be be so fucking naive to think that huge corporations, that make money off slow, sometimes ineffectual treatments that in turn also require huge amounts of medical care and supporting therapies and drugs, don't look at these things as business models.

A vaccine that get's injected once and not just "treats" but CURES cancer in a few weeks is, I promise you, a huge threat to a massive and ongoing revenue stream. The average cost for a chemo (by itself, no aftercare, no other medicine etc) is around $30,000 in the USA.

Now how much do you think they can charge for one injection? It's not going to be $30,000. And then think. You're cured. No aftercare. No extra drugs.

So you say there not "keeping it down?" Did you actually watch the video?

The Doctor who pioneered the most promising vaccine (the one with the 90% cure rate), and already had the first stage FDA trials behind him as proof, COULD NOT GET ANYONE TO FUND THE NEXT STAGE. I wonder why big pharma didn't want in? I mean after all, they'd end up owning a cure. Funny that they didn't want this this going to stage two?

He had to publish his findings (incredibly rare for a trial to publish at that early stage) just to get funding, and thankfully, he got it, and expanded the trail from 4 to 39 people.

Again, I don't think you watched it. Some of the patients had been fighting their forms of cancer for 10+ years, throwing every form of radiotherapy, stem cell therapy and chemo they could at it.....Now think about what that cost is. It's in the millions and the companies that make these drugs aren't doing it for free. They made a huge profit off all these people.

If you think giant multinational corporations do not protect their existing revenue streams, then you really have no idea how business works, and healthcare is a business. BIG business in the states. And cancer treatment is sadly big business. They may not bury it, but not investing in it, not fast tracking it, not facilitating trials? That is "keeping it down"?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN A vaccine that get's injected once and not just "treats" but CURES cancer in a few weeks is, I promise you, a huge threat to a massive and ongoing revenue stream. The average cost for a chemo (by itself, no aftercare, no other medicine etc) is around $30,000 in the USA. Now how much do you think they can charge for one injection? It's not going to be $30,000. And then think. You're cured. No aftercare. No extra drugs. So you say there not "keeping it down?" Did you actually watch the video? The Doctor who pioneered the most promising vaccine (the one with the 90% cure rate), and already had the first stage FDA trials behind him as proof, COULD NOT GET ANYONE TO FUND THE NEXT STAGE. I wonder why big pharma didn't want in? I mean after all, they'd end up owning a cure. Funny that they didn't want this this going to stage two?

but all of this assumes that all the available capital for such a product is tied up in existing pharmaceutical companies and/or that all existing pharmaceutical companies are involved in existing cancer treatments to such an extent such a break through is ignored. I don't find either implicit assumption credible.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN He had to publish his findings (incredibly rare for a trial to publish at that early stage) just to get funding, and thankfully, he got it, and expanded the trail from 4 to 39 people.

if that's indeed the case, I suspect it was merely a case of aversion to risk, and when his research was published somebody sought merit in taking on that risk? who funded it btw?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN If you think giant multinational corporations do not protect their existing revenue streams, then you really have no idea how business works, and healthcare is a business. BIG business in the states. And cancer treatment is sadly big business. They may not bury it, but not investing in it, not fast tracking it, not facilitating trials? That is "keeping it down"?

and if you think every single multinational or biotechnology company is tied up in cancer profits already, then I feel you're exaggerating. corporations are not one homogenous group of buddies.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/..._n_5651855.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ich-people-sick

http://www.healthline.com/diabetesm...a-diabetes-cure

http://www.sott.net/article/228583-...ne-takes-notice

https://www.diabeteshealth.com/busi...itable-disease/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...le-africa.shtml

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/th...o-allow-a-cure/

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/...al-cancer-cure/

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/778709:

"Sixty percent of respondents of an international public-opinion survey believe that pharmaceutical companies are "more interested in treating cancer than curing it," according to a press release from poll organizers.

The survey, which was funded by Eli Lilly, used telephone interviews to uncover the public's knowledge and attitudes about cancer. It was conducted in 2012 and involved 4341 people from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Of the survey respondents, 3009 were members of the general public, 663 were cancer patients, and 669 were caregivers."

Yup, I'm gonna go with the majority here. To each their own, I suppose. I can't say for certain that I believe "big pharma" or the FDA is deliberately trying to prevent cures (no, I never liked "conspiracy theories," either) considering they're making huge profits from "treating" people, but I certainly don't think it's implausible, either.

I know, i'll post a poll showing 80% of Americans believe in an afterlife. that'll prove that angels are real!

Conspiracy theorists are feeble minded people who can't deal with the complexities of the world.

Diseases are immensely complex and rarely lend themselves to an immediate cure. Usually the best we can hope for is a series of treatments that improve upon the last.

There is no getting around the fact pharma is a business and risk/reward drives research into certain areas. But to suggest they're actively avoiding cures is laughable.

In summary: Ibouga, iboga, iblouga, imoran

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but all of this assumes that all the available capital for such a product is tied up in existing pharmaceutical companies and/or that all existing pharmaceutical companies are involved in existing cancer treatments to such an extent such a break through is ignored. I don't find either implicit assumption credible.

No it doesn't. It suggests those that have vested interests in existing cancer treatments would probably not like to see their lucrative, repeat and ancillary revenues depreciated by a one-hit cure from an other source, that they didn't develop or own. That jump is a hop, not a leap.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if that's indeed the case, I suspect it was merely a case of aversion to risk, and when his research was published somebody sought merit in taking on that risk? who funded it btw?

Well it would be nice if you had actually watched the video that this thread is about. Had you, you would already have the answer to this question. Little bit dumb to be arguing with someone on the subject a of a video when you haven;t bothered bothered to watch it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and if you think every single multinational or biotechnology company is tied up in cancer profits already, then I feel you're exaggerating. corporations are not one homogenous group of buddies.

Again, I didn't say that - is it just simply bizarre that renowned Dr's, at some of the top research institutes/hospitals can't get drug companies to invest in what may turn out to be one of the greatest medical discoveries/inventions in history, especially when he has proof the first animal tests and human FDA trials were an incredible success.

I may be more jaded than you about this as I have three friends who have gone through cancer in the last few few years, and all of them felt they were both reamed on costs by US drug companies (similar treatment in any other country would have been significantly less) and we all on cocktails of half a dozen drugs, some of which were just to reduce the side effects of some of the others.

I also have business interests in the medical field and can tell you I put nothing past big pharma. I hear on a weekly basis how yet another big company fudged their tests or trials results, or suppress findings about negative side effects, often at the cost of life.

What I've been saying this whole time is that I don't think it's difficult to imagine at least some of these companies not wanting to lose their revenue from existing drugs, and we also have both proof in this video and countless drug company scandals to support it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN No it doesn't. It suggests those that have vested interests in existing cancer treatments would probably not like to see their lucrative, repeat and ancillary revenues depreciated by a one-hit cure from an other source, that they didn't develop or own. That jump is a hop, not a leap.

I can certainly swallow that companies with existing interests in cancer treatments are in no hurry to develop any kind of instant cure, which is why they probably had no interest in financing this cure. However, I'm pretty sure pkc's point is that a company without any vested interests would surely jump at the chance of muscling in on the market with a solution that renders all existing treatments obsolescent. Cancer isn't smallpox. It won't disappear even if you discover a cure.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I can certainly swallow that companies with existing interests in cancer treatments are in no hurry to develop any kind of instant cure, which is why they probably had no interest in financing this cure. However, I'm pretty sure pkc's point is that a company without any vested interests would surely jump at the chance of muscling in on the market with a solution that renders all existing treatments obsolescent. Cancer isn't smallpox. It won't disappear even if you discover a cure.

Exactly, and that what these smaller companies eventually did, but in the bureaucracy that is medical trial funding, it's not easy to find them, that's why he had to open publish his early findings.

Again the video does show the investment company, but it's just telling that big pharma, with all their resources (and R&D budgets in the hundreds of billions globally) did not offer a penny.

It certainly won't disappear, if anything cancer rates are increasing - what i'm saying is the model will shift from managing the disease or prolonged treatments, to possibly being cured, with little to no aftercare.

What could be amazing, is there's potential promise to actually make you cancer resistant / protect against recurrence. Due to these new developments being based on virology such as vaccines are, there's evidence to suggest that you will keep the anitbodies in your system and if cancer cells were to come back, the virus would again attack. It's far too early, even for remission studies but this really could be a magic bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN No it doesn't. It suggests those that have vested interests in existing cancer treatments would probably not like to see their lucrative, repeat and ancillary revenues depreciated by a one-hit cure from an other source, that they didn't develop or own. That jump is a hop, not a leap.

huh? they would have developed it on their own? they fund these research projects and own the rights. what im saying is someone in the industry would have the capital and the lack of existing cancer-treatment revenue who would leap at the chance to patent a cure for cancer.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Well it would be nice if you had actually watched the video that this thread is about. Had you, you would already have the answer to this question. Little bit dumb to be arguing with someone on the subject a of a video when you haven;t bothered bothered to watch it.

i'm talking in generalities but if you're unable or unwilling to answer my direct questions that's fine. for what it's worth I prefer to read than watch, as it's easier to analyse and check.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN huh? they would have developed it on their own? they fund these research projects and own the rights. what im saying is someone in the industry would have the capital and the lack of existing cancer-treatment revenue who would leap at the chance to patent a cure for cancer.

Wat? just stop stabbing in dark. Your responses (and "questions") do make any sense in the given context. As I said to jack, prior to your post that's exactly what happened......

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i'm talking in generalities but if you're unable or unwilling to answer my direct questions that's fine. for what it's worth I prefer to read than watch, as it's easier to analyse and check.

.....and why if you watched the thing you're actually commenting on, you wouldn't be wasting Swamper's server space. you;re not talking generalities, you're talking about something you haven't even watched.

If this was a book, it would be like me making suggestions about the plot, which I haven't bothered to read, and completely missing the twist in the story line.

Watch it, then you might understand the subject matter, such as the entire point of this conversation, that the Dr. involved had to go to great lengths to get funding from other smaller companies that weren't invested in traditional cancer treatments.

I'm making the suggestion, AS THE PROGRAM ITSELF DID, that it was, let's say, "bizarre co-incidence", that none of the big companies that invest in to cancer treatment wanted to give anything towards these groundbreaking developments.

And then I say, it's not difficult to see why companies who make money off one thing, and won't fund another technology that would kill their extremely lucrative revenue stream. Again, I've made no claim about them trying to bury it or buy it and shelve it (as many a drug company have actually done in other circumstances), just that not giving funding is a form of suppression.

I'm sure these smaller companies that have invested are going to become incredibly wealthy.

So please, stop asking me to answer your "direct questions" because they are about as useful as me responding to them with interpretive dance.

Not sure where I stand on this issue.

Not related to Cancer drugs/treatment, but I've often thought the same about a Type 1 Diabetes cure, as a type I diabetic myself.

Whilst I'm sure they're (pharmas) not 'hiding' anything perse, the amount they rake in from permanent, mandatory purchase of their drugs, needles, test-strips, meters etc must surely diminish the motivation for them to find a cure...? A 'cure' by definition is one-off thing. No matter how much you charge for it, you can't charge it to the same person, twice.

For the record, if Iboga was legalized in the States, then no, pharma companies would be losing an extreme amount of their current revenue, rather than making a profit, because there are many Iboga clinics in other countries, where the plant/treatment is offered for dirt cheap, compared to what "ongoing treatment" for various drug addictions and mental/physical disorders are offered for here, and the revenue "big pharma," doctors, therapists and rehab centers are getting out of it.

What _Ocean_Drive_ and RANN just posted would be extremely relevant in such a case, as well.

I don't believe in "conspiracy theories," but I don't believe in mere coincidence, either.

Take a look at this, and feel free to skip to Richard Nixon and see how long the subsequent presidents have lived/are living for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...d_States_by_age

Kinda makes you think, don't it?

Seems like perhaps only one president, Ulysses S. Grant, (a heavy smoker) died from (throat) cancer, incidentally, and that was back in 1885.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN As I said to jack, prior to your post that's exactly what happened......

so we agree then?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN .....and why if you watched the thing you're actually commenting on, you wouldn't be wasting Swamper's server space. you;re not talking generalities, you're talking about something you haven't even watched.

so, answer my fucking question then? I can't watch this stuff at work champ.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so we agree then?

Yes, I think you agree with what I posted earlier, but I'm pretty sure there was an easier way for you to go about it

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, answer my fucking question then? I can't watch this stuff at work champ.

I'm in no rush. I don't think you understand that your question is dealt with in the video so watch the video, then you'll realize. I would insert some kind of 'your argument is invalid' meme here but I can't be bothered.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Yes, I think you agree with what I posted earlier, but I'm pretty sure there was an easier way for you to go about it

kk.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I'm in no rush. I don't think you understand that your question is dealt with in the video so watch the video, then you'll realize. I would insert some kind of 'your argument is invalid' meme here but I can't be bothered.

but I don't wanna spend 40 mins when you could easily just have said "biotech company X".

The reason I find it ridiculous to think pharma companies would not be interested in owning a cure to cancer is that if someone else gets it, they will get nothing. Better to have something less profitable than the current revenue stream than nothing at all. And in the globalised world of capitalism that we live in today, it is pretty easy to get something funded if it actually seems like it will work out. As you said, the guy did end up finding funding. Big companies tend to be very risk averse, I'd imagine they were not convinced the treatment would work, not that they want to keep cancer alive.

I'm friends with an immunology professor who has worked in the field in the US and is friends with several scientists tied to big-name pharmaceutical companies. They said that there is a possibility that these companies already have the final cure for cancer but that it's clearly much more profitable to keep a long-drawn battle for patients than having a one-shot miracle cure, because regardless of costs, the ethical implications would be huge, especially for people with less advantageous economical means around the world.

My personal/professional opinion is that cancer is too much of a complex disease to be able to figure out, not the core of it, but rather the complication. To connect this to what _Ocean Drive_ said about diabetes type 1, the problem is that although we know the function of cell, it's hard to program it in vitro to do a certain protein/function.

I do not hold part on either side, just wanted to throw this in.

My aunt, 45 years of age died last week of brain-cancer (glioblastoma multiforme), leaving behind a 10-year old son and a husband. Ever since her diagnosis in late 2013, the family invsted roughly 60.000� (65.000 $) trying to beat it, although this cancer form is incurable.


Food for thought: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jan2011/nci-12.htm

I'm sorry for your loss.

In the video, they explain that there's 300 types of cancer, and only certain methods and virii will work for certain cancers, but again, if this just cured one or two types in 50% of cases, that would probably save billions a year in cancer costs for patients globally.

The other thing is this is about concept; it's about harnessing a genetically engineered virus to attack cancer cells, rather than poisoning the body and hoping the cancer cells die before the host does.

I too have spoken to several doctors I know who are involved in a large Stem Cell research program here in LA and they too believe cancer "cures" are already known but big pharma need time to maneuver themselves in to market position (i.e ween us off the technologies which they still have money to be made from) before they will release them. They explain the long trials and approval process for any drug is actually an advantage to them in this case.

It's the same reason we're not all driving electric cars; the technology exists, it has done for over 100 years, but the car industry is so entwined with oil, that they have no interest making it happen faster and then a small company with big funding comes along like Tesla and puts market pressure on them. Imagine if say GM used all it's resources to just focus on an electric car (rather than killing it when they happened to nail it the first time, and then offering us the $40k Chevy Volt lol).

The concept is fantastic, but it's really curious as to which degree it can be implemented. Aggressive cancer cells replicate at an extremely fast rate, the more aggressive it is, the less characteristic the degree of anaplasia (condition whereby cells lose the morphological characteristics of mature cells) is present. So basically this virus would need to be able to identify all types of "broken" cells and destroy them. It's not simply a cancer/non-cancer cells issue.

To engineer a virus to such a degree where it's possible to read beyond the white/black of our cells is pretty incomprehensible to me. Not to mention the heaps of complications such as necrosis, neoformation vessels, but those can already be fixed with current non-citostatic medication.

I know that some months ago they were proposing a type of mechanisms where gold nano-particles would attack the core of cancer cells.

quote:

They explain the long trials and approval process for any drug is actually an advantage to them in this case.

Yea...it's funny though. In the US almost anything can be lobbied but not faster drug-approval. I guess the FDA are untouchable :P

Cancer is truly the hold grail of research.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.