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.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

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.

Last edited by DJ RANN on Mar-05-2015 at 22:24

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.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike Social outcasts are often of the opinion that they must have a drink before being able to loosen up with their inhibitions, thus being able to have a good time. There's a word that sums up this sort of behaviour, and that word is 'reject.'

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.

Last edited by AlphaStarred on Mar-05-2015 at 23:10

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.

Last edited by AlphaStarred on Mar-05-2015 at 23:06

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.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)