Scientists expect a cure for cancer in one year

The Lounge is for non-sport-related topics other than politics, war and religion. Order up your favorite beverage, kick back and enjoy the conversation! LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13

  • Call me skeptical, but it seems every year or two I hear something along the same lines, and it just doesn't seem to pan out. Don't get me wrong, I am glad for the effort being put forth, because every failure puts us that much closer to a success, but I'm definitely one to reserve any excitement over possible cures until something more concrete comes along.
    kidhawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 19841
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Bigb pharma would lose billions. Will never see a cure whether it exists or not.
    Cyrus12
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 6958
    Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:20 am
    Location: BC Canada


  • Cyrus12 wrote:Bigb pharma would lose billions. Will never see a cure whether it exists or not.

    There are cures but they get silenced one way or other..
    As above stated..Big Pharm and all those huge expensive hospitals..
    Doctors..They all lose money..Can't have that happening. :sarcasm_on:
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4725
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm


  • There are multiple different flavors of cancer now. They can only get one of them. They may be able to mutate the one cure, but that will take a lot of time. Big Pharma probably knows this too. THey will just make up another disease to take advantage of any way.
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8875
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • F Cancer
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13256
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • F cancer indeed. And the general public will never see a cure in the US or any other country where capitalism and $$$ is more important than anything else. I could definitely see cures becoming available in countries that have social healthcare, though.
    JGfromtheNW
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2120
    Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:37 am
    Location: Wenatchee


  • Echoing several of the previous replies, is it more profitable to treat cancer or to cure cancer? The answer to that question should tell you all you need to know regarding if we will ever see a true cure or not.
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3194
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:38 pm


  • Cyrus12 wrote:Bigb pharma would lose billions. Will never see a cure whether it exists or not.


    Winner winner chicken dinner.

    I still like to dream though.
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 13658
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:58 am
    Location: Just 4 miles from Richard Sherman!


  • No different then big Oil companies, there is said to be engines developed years and years ago that would get over 150 miles to a gallon and that was in the old gas guzzlers. The patents for Carburetors and Engines were bought up and never heard about again.

    Same deal can't have efficiency when their is billions of dollars of profit at stake and the loss of State and Federal revenue from taxes.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28157
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Unfortunately that old crap about Big Oil buying up patents for 150mpg carbs and whatnot tends to ignore stuff like physics, chemistry, engineering, and the myriad other reasons why you can't extract that much energy from burning gasoline and convert it to a car's kinetic energy. I suspect the same simplistic non-reasoning gets applied to "Big Pharma", even though people like that Shkreli (or however he spells it) dude tried to do a giant rip-off with the price of a generic drug he bought the rights to make.
    GeekHawk
    US Navy ET Nuc
     
    Posts: 7022
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:29 pm
    Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet


  • How did Lasik become available as a means to effectivelt permanently cure sight problems when frames and contact lenses are so much more profitable? What about plastic surgeries that have resulted in permanent results versus a long series of treatments? I guess those are areas where there is more breathing room as far as competition, so maybe that is why.

    I'm No fan of our mixed bag health care system in the US where literally no policy that makes any sense, but it doesn't seem like anyone would want an actual cure for cancer to not be available. Even the people getting rich off of cancer treatment are prone to getting cancer and would probably like to see themselves or a loved one be able to obtain it instead of die.

    Plus I just can't foresee a situation where you can get a cancer curing procedure done in Canada but not in the US. People would riot the streets.
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5206
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    Plus I just can't foresee a situation where you can get a cancer curing procedure done in Canada but not in the US. People would riot the streets.


    It's going on now, there are many many procedures, treatments and drugs that you can get done in other countries but not yet here.

    Most aren't super secret, or things we don't know about in the US, it's the fact that there are many more layers to getting all this stuff approved (mainly the FDA and their corrupt ties to the drug companies and politicians).
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15520
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sure, I don't disagree with that.
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5206
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:47 pm


  • I can get a years worth of contact lenses for a couple hundred bucks. I don't change them out as often as I'm supposed to so a years supply actually lasts quite a bit longer than a year.

    Lasik costs around $2000 per eye, so $4000 plus whatever taxes and fees.

    I'm not sure that contacts and glasses really are all that much more profitable than Lasik. In the very long run (like 20+ years) sure, but absolutely not in the shorter term. At the very least it's not super clear cut and probably varies considerably.
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3194
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:38 pm


  • Chapow wrote:I can get a years worth of contact lenses for a couple hundred bucks. I don't change them out as often as I'm supposed to so a years supply actually lasts quite a bit longer than a year.

    Lasik costs around $2000 per eye, so $4000 plus whatever taxes and fees.

    I'm not sure that contacts and glasses really are all that much more profitable than Lasik. In the very long run (like 20+ years) sure, but absolutely not in the shorter term. At the very least it's not super clear cut and probably varies considerably.



    Its under 500 a eye down here....
    Ambrose83
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 811
    Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:54 pm


  • Ambrose83 wrote:
    Chapow wrote:I can get a years worth of contact lenses for a couple hundred bucks. I don't change them out as often as I'm supposed to so a years supply actually lasts quite a bit longer than a year.

    Lasik costs around $2000 per eye, so $4000 plus whatever taxes and fees.

    I'm not sure that contacts and glasses really are all that much more profitable than Lasik. In the very long run (like 20+ years) sure, but absolutely not in the shorter term. At the very least it's not super clear cut and probably varies considerably.



    Its under 500 a eye down here....


    I'm gonna go ahead and pass on the cheapie, discount eye surgery. There are serious repercussions if things go wrong, including loss of vision.

    https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Prod ... 061354.htm

    https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0 ... ye-surgery
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3194
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:38 pm


  • JGfromtheNW wrote:F cancer indeed. And the general public will never see a cure in the US or any other country where capitalism and $$$ is more important than anything else. I could definitely see cures becoming available in countries that have social healthcare, though.


    If drug companies have the ability to keep "cures" out of the U.S. it would be through the power of the FDA, which is a decidedly not capitalism government institution.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 106498
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:29 pm


  • Riiiiiiight. I'm sure the FDA, like all government institutions, is completely above corruption or politics affecting the way they operate.

    But you're right, if it's going to happen in the US, it's likely going to be a cure coming from outside of the country. No US pharma company is going to submit something for FDA review that will take away from their bottom line.
    JGfromtheNW
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2120
    Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:37 am
    Location: Wenatchee


  • It is too good to be true. As really you can only hope for it. Just like you want for Alzhemier's Disease or A.L.S.
    Passepartout
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 263
    Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:18 pm
    Location: Monty Python Home


  • JGfromtheNW wrote:Riiiiiiight. I'm sure the FDA, like all government institutions, is completely above corruption or politics affecting the way they operate.

    But you're right, if it's going to happen in the US, it's likely going to be a cure coming from outside of the country. No US pharma company is going to submit something for FDA review that will take away from their bottom line.


    Even if current drug companies didn't want to bring the drug up for FDA review, what would stop a new company from doing it? In a truly capitalist economy, nothing.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 106498
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:29 pm


  • HawkGA wrote:
    JGfromtheNW wrote:Riiiiiiight. I'm sure the FDA, like all government institutions, is completely above corruption or politics affecting the way they operate.

    But you're right, if it's going to happen in the US, it's likely going to be a cure coming from outside of the country. No US pharma company is going to submit something for FDA review that will take away from their bottom line.


    Even if current drug companies didn't want to bring the drug up for FDA review, what would stop a new company from doing it? In a truly capitalist economy, nothing.


    Little hope never hurts
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15726
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • God no kidding. Without hope in this messed up world, what's the point?

    I will continue to pursue the ideal of hope even in the face of everything that continues to rage against it.
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 13658
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:58 am
    Location: Just 4 miles from Richard Sherman!


  • So then all they have to do is charge $100,000 for the cure and they will still profit. I'd pay that.
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5206
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:47 pm


  • Yep. The value of a cure is at least equal to the discounted value of treatment.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 106498
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:29 pm


  • chris98251 wrote:No different then big Oil companies, there is said to be engines developed years and years ago that would get over 150 miles to a gallon and that was in the old gas guzzlers. The patents for Carburetors and Engines were bought up and never heard about again.

    Same deal can't have efficiency when their is billions of dollars of profit at stake and the loss of State and Federal revenue from taxes.

    Steam engines were around in the late 1800’s I believe.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25709
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • HawkGA wrote:
    JGfromtheNW wrote:Riiiiiiight. I'm sure the FDA, like all government institutions, is completely above corruption or politics affecting the way they operate.

    But you're right, if it's going to happen in the US, it's likely going to be a cure coming from outside of the country. No US pharma company is going to submit something for FDA review that will take away from their bottom line.


    Even if current drug companies didn't want to bring the drug up for FDA review, what would stop a new company from doing it? In a truly capitalist economy, nothing.

    Drug companies buying out the new company????
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25709
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • fenderbender123 wrote:How did Lasik become available as a means to effectivelt permanently cure sight problems when frames and contact lenses are so much more profitable? What about plastic surgeries that have resulted in permanent results versus a long series of treatments? I guess those are areas where there is more breathing room as far as competition, so maybe that is why.

    I'm No fan of our mixed bag health care system in the US where literally no policy that makes any sense, but it doesn't seem like anyone would want an actual cure for cancer to not be available. Even the people getting rich off of cancer treatment are prone to getting cancer and would probably like to see themselves or a loved one be able to obtain it instead of die.

    Plus I just can't foresee a situation where you can get a cancer curing procedure done in Canada but not in the US. People would riot the streets.

    LASIK isn’t the end all be all you think it is, at least for the folks I know that had it done.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25709
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • In the early 80s I was in automotive school in Arizona and an old man brought in a truck that he said he had a problem with
    The problem was that he was getting !00 + miles to the gallon
    Popped the hood and nobody knew what the heck we were lookin at
    Told him to take it to the dealer
    They accidentally sold him a experimental vehicle that should never have been there and traded him a new Lincoln town car every year of his life and like an idiot he took it , so yeah , if there's no money in it , it ain't happenin
    Effin big corporations
    hawxfreak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 606
    Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:04 pm
    Location: The Burbs in Lacey


  • Now would be a great time for a cancer cure, that's for certain. Not that there's ever been a bad time.
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 17037
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


  • Do we really think with all the people and all the money thrown at cancer that if somebody found a cure it's being covered up? I used to never believe in refs fixing a game or thing like this but i definitely am starting to feel like the minority these days. I saw this story on the news the other day and it seemed pretty far fetched but lets cross our fingers.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3593
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm


  • Wouldn't Paul Allen have found a way to pay for a successful cure if there were one?
    soxhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 309
    Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:27 pm
    Location: Back in Seattle.


  • I mean, who knows.
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 17037
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


  • JGfromtheNW wrote:F cancer indeed. And the general public will never see a cure in the US or any other country where capitalism and $$$ is more important than anything else. I could definitely see cures becoming available in countries that have social healthcare, though.


    If countries with social healthcare are so good then why do most of them come to the US to get high tech and complex surgeries. The reason why social healthcare does not put money into innovation is because they have to use all their funds for just regular care. So they don’t put any tax payer money into innovation. If a company wants to make money in heath care they put money into looking for cures and other innovations.

    I hope one day we go full socialist healthcare. So then maybe people will see it’s not that great. My wife is Canadian. They allocate to regions what surgeries and other health care services can be done and almost everything you’re put on a wait list. I know but we will do it right. And why would anyone go to medical school to then be paid crap money by the government for your services. Yes some people do it to help but after a while they can’t deal with the wait times and the constant paperwork just to be paid.

    Not saying we should help those who are disabled and elderly. But if we go to a full Medicare for all just remember our government can’t budget for crap. Now we want them to run healthcare and every aspect of our lives? I guess if you 100% trust our government then ok. Let the fun begin.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    12thmanNY
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 62
    Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:17 pm


  • 12thmanNY wrote:
    JGfromtheNW wrote:F cancer indeed. And the general public will never see a cure in the US or any other country where capitalism and $$$ is more important than anything else. I could definitely see cures becoming available in countries that have social healthcare, though.


    If countries with social healthcare are so good then why do most of them come to the US to get high tech and complex surgeries. The reason why social healthcare does not put money into innovation is because they have to use all their funds for just regular care. So they don’t put any tax payer money into innovation. If a company wants to make money in heath care they put money into looking for cures and other innovations.

    I hope one day we go full socialist healthcare. So then maybe people will see it’s not that great. My wife is Canadian. They allocate to regions what surgeries and other health care services can be done and almost everything you’re put on a wait list. I know but we will do it right. And why would anyone go to medical school to then be paid crap money by the government for your services. Yes some people do it to help but after a while they can’t deal with the wait times and the constant paperwork just to be paid.

    Not saying we should help those who are disabled and elderly. But if we go to a full Medicare for all just remember our government can’t budget for crap. Now we want them to run healthcare and every aspect of our lives? I guess if you 100% trust our government then ok. Let the fun begin.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    I guess you have not looked around lately, 4 weeks to get a simple doctors appointment, a month or more for a scheduled preocedure. Thats now in the US. We are already there and it's not Social. We are losing Doctors left and right because they can't practice medicine as much as they have to practice politics with the FDA, Court system over prescibing pain killers the Administrators that have now Monopolized the Market, very very few Private practices now and the Malpractice insurance premiums necessary for our Suit happy citizens.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28157
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Sounds like now would be a great time to start smoking.
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5206
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:47 pm


  • getnasty wrote:Do we really think with all the people and all the money thrown at cancer that if somebody found a cure it's being covered up? I used to never believe in refs fixing a game or thing like this but i definitely am starting to feel like the minority these days. I saw this story on the news the other day and it seemed pretty far fetched but lets cross our fingers.

    Cancer is a tough cookie to crack. It is a bunch of cells that have gone rogue that the immune system can't exactly counter. These cells propagate through the body, but don't do their job and essentially squeeze all the functional cells out. This isn't a simple problem like throwing antibiotics at bacteria and telling them to disappear. It's a tough problem to crack, especially since there is no way to really target the cancer specifically. If we get rid of cancer in the body there can always be rogue cancer cells in hiding. There is a good reason why a cure hasn't been found yet.

    Now, as far as profiteering goes, there would absolutely be ample profit for the big pharma execs from a cancer cure. There is also the incentive of personal gain. Paul Allen is a testament to no matter how rich you are as a person, cancer will not discriminate based on wealth, gender, social class, etc. Even if cured, cancer always has the chance to come back which means another round of profit, unless pharma execs have found a way to stymie that.

    Now, lets talk about the insane assertion that there was a 150 mpg carburetor. That is 100% BS. If that were the case don't you think auto companies would be using said carb to meet cafe emission standards? If this were the case oil companies could license the patent and make money on every sell with the design. The physics don't add up here either. Carbs of every type are incredibly fuel inefficient. They squirt fuel all willy nilly into the engine. It's like a controlled drip, or mist if you will.

    Modern day engines are fuel efficient for several reasons. First is the integration with computers. Cars started using computer controlled fuel injection. These injectors could spray fine fuel mist at very high PSI's, right near the cylinder. This makes fuel less affected by the elements, and it causes a more even, and controlled fuel delivery. The second advancement was variable valve timing systems. The most famous, and early implementations was Honda's VTEC system. The advantage of this is, cars could be tuned like benign commuter cars with a lack of power in every day driving. When you need the power though, you could harness it. When you go above a certain RPM, VTEC tells the engine to change the cam profile. There is an aggressive lobe on the cam of Honda's that rubs against a follower that leads to nowhere. When it comes time to activate the aggressive cam the computer tells the car to shoot a pin through a channel that connects other followers to the one that leads to nowhere. This lobe is aggressive and causes more air, and fuel to be injected into the engine, hence more power.

    Today we've gone even farther with a better understanding of materials, and material science in engines, things such as direct injection which spray high pressure fuel directly into the cylinder. The injectors are literally connected in the cylinder. Cars now have computer modules attached to every element monitoring every bit of the system. Computers are now controlling every facet of what a car does. The technological integration of cars has become outstanding, and there are even some motors being developed that have no cam shaft, with valves that are controlled by a computer. I call BS when I hear about a carb that can compete with the numerous advances in internal combustion vehicles, as well as the integration of hybrid systems.

    As far as battery cars go, electric cars never made any sense until recently. The battery technology wasn't there, and even today they come with significant drawbacks, mainly resource availability, recycling, and the issue of range, and charging times, plus a severe drop in cold weather of range. I don't think lithium ion is our future either, it is but a transitional technology.

    I don't buy the oil industry squashing some mythical carb one bit.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3027
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:31 am


  • FYI - there's a reason tiny drug companies who come up with new pathways to prevent certain cancers are bought for billions of dollars. There is no definitive cure to cancer and there is no giant scheme to prevent it from being accessible. Drug trials cost hundreds of millions - billions of dollars to go from phase I to phase III-IV with many, MANY cases failing to find efficacy around phase II, wasting their company millions of dollars and often times putting them out of business. If any question of safety comes up during the trial, FDA will shut that down.

    Majority of the employees at these companies, including all the brilliant R&D scientists, are average joe's like you and I who want to work towards the cure as well. Pathophysiology of cancer is incredibly complex with varying processes of uncontrolled spread and growth of cells. Of course the highest levels of management at these companies rake in absurd amounts of money but that's just where we are in this country.

    The minute cancer becomes fully curable is the minute these companies will shift their research into similar compounds that one company finds and will make incredible amounts of money.
    mistaowen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5010
    Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:54 pm




It is currently Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:18 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE .NET LOUNGE ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests