A cure found for cancer... that no one will ever get.

[Cryozombie]

New discoveries at the University of Alberta overseen by Evangelos Michelakis suggest a milestone in the cure for cancer in the form of a drug called dichloroacetate - or DCA for short - that targets cancerous cells' safeguard against self-destruction.

Awesome news until we find out that Pharmacutial companies are refusing to fund research into it because they cannot Profit from the drug...

No trials have yet been undertaken in human patients, only in human cells outside the body-and the laboratory mainstay, rats-but officials remain hopeful. It may require public funding, as pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to fund research that they cannot control and exclusively sell. DCA is unpatented and thus unprofitable. This issue has plagued cancer research before;

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/130413/dichloroacetate_dca_a_cure_for_cancer.html

Personally... Call me a conspiracy nut, but I believe we have found or could very easily find, cures for everything from Aids, to Cancer, to even things like MS... if it wasnt so damn PROFITABLE to treat them.

 

[fireman00]

While I agree that Pharmaceutical companies have a moral/ ethical obligation to develop medicine their primary obligation is to the shareholders - just like any other business.

Which is more important return on investment or developing a cure for 'n' number of people at a loss of millions of dollars? If my 401K has a blend of Pharmaceuticals I want them to look out for me and not waste $$ on low return drugs.. on the other hand my grandfather suffered 7 years of Alzheimer's where were they?

Another issue is how much do you want to pay for a prescription? Or better yet - how much is your insurance company willing to pay?

What are the side effects of new drug that might come out in a couple of years? Can they afford to lay out millions in R&D only to find out that the risk of lawsuits?

Issues that need to be addressed

 

[Cryozombie]

Yeah well, we have a right to Life, not a right to profit. If the Drug companies are unwilling to do the research, the government should step in and do it, and if the resulting product kills profits on "treatment drugs" then **** em. They had the opportunity to profit, albiet a much smaller amount from the Cure, and decided to go with the bigger profit at a larger human cost. I lost my mom my dad and my sister to cancer in the past 4 years... it pissed me off to no end that expensive, toxic treatments are approved by the FDA because they are the enforcement arm of the damn Drug Pushers... but a simple effective variant of chemotherepy was developed in the late 60's, proven to work, and then outlawed by the FDA because, like this drug, it couldn't be patented for profit.

 

[arnisador]

While I agree that Pharmaceutical companies have a moral/ ethical obligation to develop medicine their primary obligation is to the shareholders - just like any other business.

Agreed. If this result is indeed promising, the govt. should fund further research into it.

 

[exile]

Agreed. If this result is indeed promising, the govt. should fund further research into it.

100% right. Compare the staggering, out-of-control cost of health care in this country (among others), much of it due to the surreally expensive technology of cancer treament, along with followup maintenance and hospice care, with the relatively paltry amount that would need to be invested out of public funds to develop a drug regime that had the claimed properties to the point where it was available and affordable. We are talking a yearly savings of on the order of a hundred billion dollars, to say nothing of the 'human capital' investment—all those lives saved, all those families still intact.

 

[grydth]

I spend a good deal of time practicing Tai Chi and Qi Gong with a good friend, a woman is in the midst of her 3d bout with cancer. The issue is a personal one.

As we have seen with offshorings, outsourcings, factory closings and political contributions, corporations will generally act only in their own financial interest. But "Government" itself does not function nearly as efficiently as the corporate form.

So I would think the government should let this as a contract to a high bidder, much as it would a contract for a fighter aircraft. Instead of subsidizing companies who move operations overseas, how about we reward them for acting in saving lives?

 

[Doc_Jude]

Personally... Call me a conspiracy nut, but I believe we have found or could very easily find, cures for everything from Aids, to Cancer, to even things like MS... if it wasnt so damn PROFITABLE to treat them.

It's amazing how Pharmaceutical Companies, who would have you believe that they actually have everyones' best interests art heart, in the end really only give a damn about themselves (the executives) and their stock holders.

You're too right, bro.

 

[SensibleManiac]

"Personally... Call me a conspiracy nut, but I believe we have found or could very easily find, cures for everything from Aids, to Cancer, to even things like MS... if it wasnt so damn PROFITABLE to treat them."

It's really sad but I agree. The profit of the drug companies is to treat illnesses and in a way they can profit. What's truly sad is how much this has probably held medicine back.

 

[MA-Caver]

For those wanting their Pharmaceutical companies investments to be sure that they get a high rate of return... remember this...

if you get cancer or any other life threatening disease...

you can't take it with you.

 

[Sukerkin]

A very good point there, Caver.

I am often saddened at the way that capitalism malfunctions when it comes to essential services, which is why so-called mixed economies like we used to have here in Britain pre-Thatcher worked so well.

When it comes to health care tho', I have a special place in my heart reserved for the hatred of the bean-counters in charge of private pharmaceutical companies.

Which politician was it that thought that it would be a good idea to place the lives of it's population in the hands of a system that only cares about profit?

As an example of the mindset that drives private-sector companies, a British energy corporation made massive record-breaking profits last year (20-odd BILLION pounds) and they are laying people off because the profits weren't as high as predicted :faints:.

 

[Cryozombie]

So I would think the government should let this as a contract to a high bidder, much as it would a contract for a fighter aircraft. Instead of subsidizing companies who move operations overseas, how about we reward them for acting in saving lives?

There is actually a program like this and it does get used FROM TIME TO TIME by drug companies called the Orphan Drug Act, which rewards companies who pick up drug projects that dont get patents and gives them money... but again, it doesnt stop companys from ignoring drugs that will cut into the profitablilty of their other drugs.

 

[terryl965]

For those wanting their Pharmaceutical companies investments to be sure that they get a high rate of return... remember this...

if you get cancer or any other life threatening disease...

you can't take it with you.

This is a very great point

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally Posted by MA-Caver
For those wanting their Pharmaceutical companies investments to be sure that they get a high rate of return... remember this...

if you get cancer or any other life threatening disease...

you can't take it with you.

This is a very great point

Well I appreciate that but honestly, I'm sick of hearing how this world, this life (for all of us) could be SO much better if it were not for corporations wanting more profit more money more income more sales more more more.
Maybe my being poor for most of my life has made me jaded to the idea of wealth and riches and the good life that can bring ... but jeez how much $$ do you NEED? Especially when your health is more important. The health of others that the pharm companies supposedly are supposed to be improving with their products. I would NOT be at all surprised that 80% of the drugs they sell are nothing but placebos. So really they're candy companies selling sugar pills.
How much harm is done to the well being of people who lie in hospital beds or sit at home worn out from chemo treatments that could be better if these "cures" are produced.
Cancer is just ONE type of disease that we have to battle against. And probably this one drug only fights a few of the many types of cancers.
Just makes me sick that there's the double standard and hypocrisies given by these corporations and our government who could surely take over these research projects and create the cures themselves for production and distribution.

SIGH!

 

[Marginal]

Awesome news until we find out that Pharmacutial companies are refusing to fund research into it because they cannot Profit from the drug...



http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/130413/dichloroacetate_dca_a_cure_for_cancer.html

Personally... Call me a conspiracy nut, but I believe we have found or could very easily find, cures for everything from Aids, to Cancer, to even things like MS... if it wasnt so damn PROFITABLE to treat them.

Doesn't stop those same companies from packaging iffy herbal blends and shipping'em to stores. A cure for cancer would be profitable even if there wasn't any direct control over a patent.

 

[mrhnau]

"Curing" cancer might actually be favorable for pharma. If people are living longer, there are still other illnesses that the pharma companies can profit from. If a person does not from cancer in their 40's but instead lives into their 80's, they have 40 more years of drug consumption, rather than concentrating all of their medical spending into 1-5 years. Has this ever been considered? Cancer is a big killer, but its not the only killer, and everyone must die from something eventually...

 

[punisher73]

Personally... Call me a conspiracy nut, but I believe we have found or could very easily find, cures for everything from Aids, to Cancer, to even things like MS... if it wasnt so damn PROFITABLE to treat them.

I agree, I was watching special on this. It talked about how drug companies charge outrageous prices during the first years of their "new drug" to gain as many profits as they can because there was a 7yr window (might have been shorter) that only they can make the drug and then after that other companies can manufactor it with their brand and the market is saturated with like drugs so they don't make money on the product anymore.

They also intereviewed someone who worked for a large drug company and they pay money to go to different tribes and find out what herbs/plants the indiginous people use and then try to chemically replicate the active ingredients in it for new drugs because you can't put a patent on a natural thing.

Also, look at ephedra. It is the only effective weight loss supplement that was proven to work. Drug companies couldn't make money off of the supplement and couldn't sell their primo synthetics when people could get it for cheaper and without a prescription. So they REALLY pushed to get it taken off of the market and get it banned. Statistic wise, more people die each year from allergic reactions to asprin yet you don't hear any companies pushing to take that off the market.

Their whole research and product development is profit driven. They are not going to look at something that they can't make a profit on, and they are going to try and supress anything that is effective that they can't make money off of.

 

[JWLuiza]

I agree, I was watching special on this. It talked about how drug companies charge outrageous prices during the first years of their "new drug" to gain as many profits as they can because there was a 7yr window (might have been shorter) that only they can make the drug and then after that other companies can manufactor it with their brand and the market is saturated with like drugs so they don't make money on the product anymore.

They also intereviewed someone who worked for a large drug company and they pay money to go to different tribes and find out what herbs/plants the indiginous people use and then try to chemically replicate the active ingredients in it for new drugs because you can't put a patent on a natural thing.

Also, look at ephedra. It is the only effective weight loss supplement that was proven to work. Drug companies couldn't make money off of the supplement and couldn't sell their primo synthetics when people could get it for cheaper and without a prescription. So they REALLY pushed to get it taken off of the market and get it banned. Statistic wise, more people die each year from allergic reactions to asprin yet you don't hear any companies pushing to take that off the market.

Their whole research and product development is profit driven. They are not going to look at something that they can't make a profit on, and they are going to try and supress anything that is effective that they can't make money off of.

Yeah, I guess markets don't always correct themselves. Hopefully in 4 years I'll be in residency and in the medical community and able to do something about this from a research standpoint.

 

[DatFlow]

If the world dident revolve around money, we'd all be fine... well thats not happening anytime soon... lmao

 

[little_miss_fracus]

So you guys all think that doctors don't want to give the supposed "cure" for cancer to people because of money???

 

[Kacey]

So you guys all think that doctors don't want to give the supposed "cure" for cancer to people because of money???

Do I think doctors don't want to give a supposed cure? Not at all. Can I believe that business practices (which, after all, revolve around profit - not philanthropy) prevent researchers from receiving the funding necessary to investigate low- and no-profit treatments? Yes, I do. That is why the non-profit research centers are so important... and yet, even they are driven by the need to make money so that they can continue their research.