Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Years ago my mom worked for a huge pharmaceutical research company. There was a pill for clearing out your arteries. So why do we need heart surgery? Simple- money.
You think there isn't a cure for HIV? think again. In fact- it's been done plenty of times. And I guarantee there is a more openly available cure, that isn't on the market.
Why? Money. Everything is about money.
We can clone rabbits, but can't cure cancer..... Yea if you believe that- I have a beach front property in Arizona to sell you
It’s complex. Polio and Measles are caused by viruses and there really isn’t a cure. We can create vaccines to prevent people from getting them and to reduce the effects if they should, but if those viruses ever mutate then the vaccines will become useless. In addition even when given the vaccine some people will not develop the correct immune response to control the disease. The reason why Polio is rare is because Humans are pretty much the only known carrier of the disease and the vaccine makes enough people immune that those whose immune systems didn’t develop immunity are less likely to come in contact with people who are carriers of Polio( It is call the Herd immunity: Herd immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). Measles wasn’t quite eliminated when I was kid and is not quite eliminated now (The vaccine was only out for an about 20 years beforehand and for some reason it didn’t work so well on me and I caught it).
With cancer there are many causes and so stopping it isn’t so simple. Gardasil is the cancer equivalent of this.
Typhoid fever (and many others) was mostly eliminated by proving clean food and water. There are vaccines for it but they are not as effective and since it is a bacterial disease there are antibiotics that can be throw at it. It can still kill if you are unlucky enough to get it.
All three of those diseases are transmittable and so quarantine is also an option when dealing with outbreaks. Cancer has causes that are not affected by quarantine. Cancer can be caused by chemicals that cause a mutation, radiation, genetics, and viruses (and the viruses that do cause cancer are ones that are not easy to prevent the spread of). What makes cancer hard to fight is that it is a normal process(cell division) that has gone out of control.
Years ago my mom worked for a huge pharmaceutical research company. There was a pill for clearing out your arteries. So why do we need heart surgery? Simple- money.
You think there isn't a cure for HIV? think again. In fact- it's been done plenty of times. And I guarantee there is a more openly available cure, that isn't on the market.
Why? Money. Everything is about money.
We can clone rabbits, but can't cure cancer..... Yea if you believe that- I have a beach front property in Arizona to sell you
Because the pill may not work in all cases, may not be as effective, may have bad side effecets and so on.
As for HIV it is the fastest mutating virus known to man. A person infected with HIV isn't carring one strain of HIV virus but thousands. Where as with Polio there are only three strains of virus. Vacines are only effective against a small range of viruses of any type. Meaning we could develop an HIV vacine, but it would only cure one or a few strains of HIV, useless in an person infected with hundreds or thousands of strains.
Clone an rabbit easy as pie just take the nuclus out of an cell and put it into the an rabbit egg then implant the egg into a rabbit. Stopping cells that are dividing when they should not be divding, isn't so easy. Cloning vs. curring cancer is the difference between attempting to build or modify a car in an factory and attempting to repair a car while it is driving down the road.
"Mother nature" is not going to tolerate imbalance in her preserve. The herd is thinned somehow, someway. Until science can figure out a way to stop, or control mutations, then you have it until, that is, the new mutation shows up. As long as the sun shines and we have various forms of radiation hitting us (add cell phones to that), you will have mutation and some form of cancer.
I think there already is a cure...more than one...but like you said, there's too much money to be made supposedly researching and trying to find that cure.
There's no way the med industry's willing to give that up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket
It wouldn't be good for business.
Thank you. I was hoping that someone would say this.
Too many people are being suckered into believing that they're still 'trying' to find a cure.
Cancers are disorders that occur at the cellular level where not everything is yet well understood. There are more than 200 different kinds of cancer in humans. It isn't some single virus or bacteria that needs to be combatted.
Bingo.
As for the "no money for research " argument that is only the case with lung cancer and I've always felt that was terribly unfair. There are millions, perhaps billions, of dollars poured into various cancer research programs every year. The problem is it in not one virus to concur, it is a very complex issue with a lot of variances. As for lung cancer research the issue here is funding has been lagging because the general "well they did it to themselves" attitude has turned those dollars towards other cancer research.
I'm not a smoker but I think that is horribly unfair as Congress, among others, are making value judgements to determine literally who lives and who dies. I don't remember such value judgements being made with AIDS research funding. And just look at how far we've come with that horrible disease
It sounds like what you're really asking is why isn't there a vaccine for cancer. There is one already - the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, protects against cancer of the cervix, anus, vulva, and vagina.
The main issue is that not all cancers are the same. We haven't even come up with a completely effective vaccine for the flu, and that's because there are so many different strains of it. There are a lot of different types of cancers that come about for different reasons. So there's not going to be a one-size-fits-all vaccine possible. However, there are new targeted cancer therapies being tested (just read this article today, that talks about genetically programming a person's own blood cells to target cancer cells, wiping them out within days: Cancer meets its nemesis in reprogrammed blood cells - 25 November 2013 - New Scientist).
I don't think it's a case of the pharmaceutical companies wanting to make tons of money - after all, I think everyone would get a cancer vaccine if one was available, whereas not everyone will end up getting cancer, which means not everyone will need drugs for cancer treatment. As you pointed out, there were vaccines created for other diseases - the pharm companies didn't keep those from coming out so they could keep making money on treating diseases rather than preventing them.
Wow, those new trials are amazing. I think the future of cancer treatment is going to really change.
I've seen several new treatments being tried I think will really be a game changer.
As far as the op's question, it would be hard to find "one cure for cancer". Therefore it would be hard for a cure hiding conspiracy to take place. These treatments will just be expensive, but hopefully we find it within our nature to provide them for the common good. Your best bet would be to donate a portion of your money to a "save me" fund so that you could afford the cures found. At least in the beginning. So while I don't think they can hide a cure treatment, they can surely make it unaffordable for most people. But eventually, it will become standard practice as all treatments do. Unless, of course, you can't afford any medical care. Money does of course play it's part.
As for the "no money for research " argument that is only the case with lung cancer and I've always felt that was terribly unfair. There are millions, perhaps billions, of dollars poured into various cancer research programs every year. The problem is it in not one virus to concur, it is a very complex issue with a lot of variances. As for lung cancer research the issue here is funding has been lagging because the general "well they did it to themselves" attitude has turned those dollars towards other cancer research.
I'm not a smoker but I think that is horribly unfair as Congress, among others, are making value judgements to determine literally who lives and who dies. I don't remember such value judgements being made with AIDS research funding. And just look at how far we've come with that horrible disease
That does seem sad since it kills so many. I think a combination approach would be best, education and treatment/cure options. Since it kills so many people. Some of the smoking habits per country don't add up. In America we smoke a medium amount compared to Japan, Korea, but they don't have as much cancer from it. Still though, a high amount could be prevented if they outlawed it and then just treated the rest like any other cancer. You can have an increase of any cancer depending on what you eat, breath, where you live (pollution) etc. I don't think they will stop funding breast cancer research just because people drink alcohol.
Below are first, countries smoking habits, second, rates of lung cancer, third graph shows lung cancer is a major killer and should have plenty of funding.
Measles has NOT been "cured " at all. There IS a measles vaccine, that helps to prevent infection, but it certainly is NOT a cure.
Define cure. You are conflating eradication of Measles on the planet and individual prognosises (sp) for infected people. One can indeed be cured of ever getting Measles by being vaccinated. One might, however, live in a part of the world where such vaccines are unaffordable or politically suspect. That is a whole other issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadian citizen
Treatment outcomes, for many types of cancer are MUCH better than in the past, now.
You set a pretty low bar for the Allied Health/Big Pharma/Corporacratic, Axis of Evil. Outcomes for the big killer cancers, you know, the ones you and I might actually get, are scarcely changed from the 1930's when record keeping began. To be at all optimistic about this situation is to be part of the problem IMO. If their feet are not held to the fire by an outraged populace, the 1% will continue to deny that there is any problem... I'm sure Steve Jobs spent plenty when he found out he had pancreatic cancer... didn't do him any good did it? Nope... Allied Health bled him dry, and he croaked anyway. Had he spent a fraction of what he spent in the last year of his life by giving generously to cancer research, along with the thousands of other people in his income and wealth bracket, there might have been a cure waiting when the fickle finger of fate flipped that fateful file folder with his Future on it marked @#$%ed. Of course, that would simultaneously require that Allied Health/Big Pharma undergo drastic revision of their pricing policies. Allowing Pfizer to charge tens of thousands of dollars a year per patient for regimens of cancer drugs of questionable efficacy must cease. The big money gets paid to them when and if they come up with demonstrable success, not just shrugged shoulders and "um... this should possibly maybe add two months to your life... maybe...".
H
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
