It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cancer breakthrough!

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Health care costs are rising world wide. Most of these costs are new, associated with new drug developments. Budgets in socialized medical insurance systems are stressed to the breaking point, and governments have responded by developing "cost-effective treatment strategies." The European approach refers to disease management programmes or "DPM's."

This article identifies key issues and a big question being asked around the world, "Can we afford the costs of new developments in intensive care medicine?"




Intensive care medicine is one of the most fast growing segments in medicine. New substances that may improve therapy of the critically ill dramatically have entered the market. Improvements include therapy of methicilline-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections (linezolid), severe heart failure (calcium sensitizer levosimendan), intractable bleeding (recombinant factor VIIa) and severe sepsis (recombinant activated protein C (aPC)). The anticipations concerning this new strategies of intensive care therapy are high, but use of the new substances is associated with extreme costs. In the past, pharmaceutical therapy represented only a small aspect of all costs in the intensive care unit (ICU). Using this new substances, we are entering a new dimension of costs. One case of recombinant factor VIIa or recombinant aPC increases costs by approximately 10000,- Euro. At the moment, this costs are not covered by extra-budgets. It is still unclear whether by using this new therapeutic strategies other costs can be reduced and the extreme extra-costs can be balanced. The elderly population will increase dramatically in the next years. Looking at this development, it is not only the question whether we can afford intensive care medicine, but the question has to be enlarged whether we can afford the new developments of intensive care medicine. All responsible persons (intensivists, pharmaceutical companies, politicians) are urged to define solutions in the near future.

Can we afford the costs of new developments in intensive care medicine? Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2004 Jan 2;129(1/2):36-40. PMID: 14703580




Bottom line?

It's the bottom line that determines the quality of your healthcare - whether your provider is your government or a private health insurance company.

Chronic disease is the budget killer. Most epidemic chronic diseases are linked to pollution - and prevention involves a global clean-up.

It's not happening. So back to the money markets, reinsurance industry - and "cost-effective treatment strategies."

Translation? Let them eat, drink and breathe poison, get sick, and then withhold effective treatment because it's too expensive and not "cost-effective."








posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   




Bottom line?

It's the bottom line that determines the quality of your healthcare - whether your provider is your government or a private health insurance company.

Chronic disease is the budget killer. Most epidemic chronic diseases are linked to pollution - and prevention involves a global clean-up.

It's not happening. So back to the money markets, reinsurance industry - and "cost-effective treatment strategies."

Translation? Let them eat, drink and breathe poison, get sick, and then withhold effective treatment because it's too expensive and not "cost-effective.


Soficrow, you are basically proving my point for me, as does your "research", read spamming. Health care costs are rising, chronic treatment costs more, so why would a socialized healthcare system with hold a cheaper treatment like a cancer vaccine? It's cheap, it's quick, it saves the government money they can instead line their pockets with. Also, I don't know where you got the idea my links were by "big pharma giants" ?? They were from the Universities of Torino and Milano, not exactly pharmaceutical companies so much as universities that are known for biomedical research. Try again.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Health care costs are rising world wide. Most of these costs are new, associated with new drug developments. Budgets in socialized medical insurance systems are stressed to the breaking point, and governments have responded by developing "cost-effective treatment strategies." The European approach refers....

Totally agree with this satement, and you won't find any people in healthcare who disagree. However I fail to see the conspiracy angle, or any support to the "Drs are evil" statements that others have been posting.



It's the bottom line that determines the quality of your healthcare - whether your provider is your government or a private health insurance company.

Again, pretty self evident.



Chronic disease is the budget killer. Most epidemic chronic diseases are linked to pollution - and prevention involves a global clean-up.

Woah up there. "Most epidemic chronic diseases are linked to pollution" - I'd love to see the evidence to back up that bold claim. Certainly it plays a part in some diseases, and this is often a small effect. What about diabetes, HIV, care of the eldery, heart disease, renal diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, endocrinological conditions, mental health etc etc. Even the link between something like asthma and pollution isn't clear.

There are however strong links between lifestlye, especially poverty related issues, and chronic disease. Smoking and poor diet have some of the strongest links to chronic disease. I would totally agree that not enough is being done to attack poverty in the West, which would prevent a lot of chronic disease.



It's not happening. So back to the money markets, reinsurance industry - and "cost-effective treatment strategies."

Please read what I've said. Here in the UK we do not have a reinsurance industry. Also our country is actually less polluted than it has been in hundreds of years and people have a longer life expectancy than ever before.

The real scandal is not healthcare in the rich West, but the fact that most of the population of the planet doesn't have access to healthcare at all!



Translation? Let them eat, drink and breathe poison, get sick, and then withhold effective treatment because it's too expensive and not "cost-effective."

Again this makes no sense to me, who is "Let[ing] them eat, drink and breathe poison"? The Drs? Health service managers? Medical insurance companies?

Nothing you have presented convinces me that researchers are intentionally not looking for "cures" to diseases (specifically cancer) as it will make more money for the evil Drs if they don't.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Even the link between something like asthma and pollution isn't clear.







"Unsafe water, air pollution, soil pollution, pesticides, hazardous waste, and chemicals in food are causing chronic disease, killing people, and preventing economic development, reports the World Bank. Climate change also is causing chronic disease and millions of deaths in poor regions, the report states. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that 388 million people in the world will die from chronic disease in the next 10 years."

More: Bird Flu and Beyond: Chronic Disease to Kill 400 Million


And check out some of the references in the second post here.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Also, I don't know where you got the idea my links were by "big pharma giants" ?? They were from the Universities of Torino and Milano, not exactly pharmaceutical companies so much as universities that are known for biomedical research. Try again.




The research was conducted through the universities - and funded by big pharma.

YOU try again.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I think it's really cute that you quote another poster on the CAUSE of chronic disease, and then bring up a WHO quote. So, since you brought up the WHO and seem to feel they are a fair and legal body, which I feel they are bit I know some people like Excitable hate them, let's look at some stuff the WHO says about chronic disease:


A relatively few risk factors – high cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity, smoking and alcohol – cause the majority of the chronic disease burden.
A change in dietary habits, physical activity and tobacco control, have a major impact in reducing the rates of these chronic diseases, often in a relatively short time.



A few, largely preventable, risk factors account for most of the world’s disease burden. Chronic diseases are the major cause of death and disability worldwide, and increasingly affect people from developing as well as developed countries. This reflects a significant change in diet habits, physical activity levels, and tobacco use worldwide as a result of industrialization, urbanization, economic development and increasing food market globalization.

Noncommunicable conditions, including cardiovascular diseases (CVD), diabetes, obesity, cancers and respiratory diseases, account for 59% of the 57 million deaths annually and 46% of the global burden of disease. Half of these (17 million annually) are CVD, the majority heart disease and stroke. Five of the top 10 selected global disease burden risk factors identified by World Health Report 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life - obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, alcohol and tobacco – independently and often in combination, are the major causes of these diseases.

The scientific evidence is strong that a change in dietary habits and physical activity can powerfully influence several of these risk factors in populations. Recognising this, WHO is adopting a broad-ranging approach and has begun to formulate a Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, under a May 2002 mandate from the World Health Assembly (WHA).This extensive, population-wide, prevention-based strategy will be developed over the next two years and presented to the WHA in 2004.

This will become the strategic backbone for WHO and its Member States to work together with other stakeholders in promoting global changes towards healthier diets and increased physical activity, to prevent chronic diseases and promote population health. who.int




That's odd...doesn't mention any type of pollution anywhere as a cause of chronic disease...weird!


The research was conducted through the universities - and funded by big pharma.


WRONG, source please. You honestly think a pharmaceuticals company would pay a university to research a vaccine that the company wants to hide? Wow, that's great logic there.

~MFP

[edit on 2/28/2006 by bsl4doc]
mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Quote Reference.
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

[edit on 28-2-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Even the link between something like asthma and pollution isn't clear.






Putting a load of laughing smilies is no substitute for a coherent argument. Pollution is now only considered one of the triggers to asthma, and not it's root cause:



Scientists have pinpointed a gene which has been found to be a major cause of asthma in a significant proportion of cases.
news.bbc.co.uk...


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


or check out the causes of asthma:



Genetic factors: asthma tends to run in families, and many people with asthma also have other allergic conditions such as rhinitis (inflammation of the nose lining). "Allergy" is a hypersensitivity to some proteins foreign to the body: a small dose of the "allergen" will produce a violent reaction in the person concerned.

Environmental factors: in wealthy, hygienic Western countries, most babies are not exposed to bacterial infections that "kick start" the immmune system in early life and may be important in directing the immune system away from allergic responses. They also grow up in warm, well-furnished, carpeted homes that don't allow much airflow. This encourages the rapid breeding of large numbers of house dust mites in bedding, carpets and furnishings. Many children, instead of playing outside in fresh air, spend most of their time indoors. This further increases dust mite sensitisation. Exposure to tobacco smoke, whether during the mother's pregnancy or in early childhood, predisposes children to developing asthma. It also makes their symptoms more severe. Children can also become sensitised to animals, pollens moulds and dust in the environment if they are genetically predisposed.

Dietary changes: changes in diet in Western countries, such as a high proportion of processed foods, a higher salt intake, a lower antioxidant intake and a lack of fresh oily fish (lower intake of omega-3 fatty acids) may contribute to the development of asthma.

Lack of exercise: spending more time inside in front of the television means that children get far less exercise. Reduced exercise may mean less stretching of the airways, and a greater tendency for the muscle in the airway walls to contract abnormally when exposed to minor irritants.

Occupational exposure: in adults, asthma can develop in response to irritants in the workplace - chemicals, dusts, gases, moulds and pollens. These can be found in industries such as baking, spray painting of cars, woodworking, chemical production, and farming.

www.healthinsite.gov.au...


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that 388 million people in the world will die from chronic disease in the next 10 years."

This is meaningless. 100% of people will die - Father Luke Duke

You still haven't shown why scientists should be supressing "cures" for cancer, which was what this thread was about.....



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Stay on the topic and stop with the bickering...NOW.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Of related interest:

Chairman of Monsanto Elected to Antigenics Board of Directors



About Antigenics

Antigenics’ mission is to enhance and extend human lives through the development of superior health care products for a wide range of cancers, infectious diseases, and autoimmune and degenerative disorders. The company’s cancer portfolio includes Oncophage®, a personalized cancer vaccine in Phase III trials and on the US Food and Drug Administration’s fast track development program for kidney cancer and melanoma; and two liposomal products in Phase II development: Aroplatin™, a third-generation platinum chemotherapeutic, and ATRA-IV, a form of vitamin A. Other products in development include QS-21, an immune adjuvant being tested in several advanced clinical vaccine programs in partnership with leading pharmaceutical companies, and AG-702, a genital herpes immunotherapeutic agent in Phase I testing.




About Monsanto. For example:

MONSANTO LIABLE - COVERED UP POLLUTION FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS


The jury in Gadsden, Ala., a town 20 miles from Anniston, yesterday held Monsanto and its corporate successors liable on all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. Under Alabama law, the rare claim of outrage typically requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."



Aside from tracking the ways biochemical corporations create disease to sell cures -

What I'm really interested in is "personalized medicine" - essential to effective treatment and cure. Here is a now-suppressed outline of potentially feasible personalized medicine:

Heat Shock Proteins’ Vaccine Potential: From Basic Science Breakthroughs to Feasible Personalized Medicine




A general link that indicates the established links between Big Pharma and universities: Current Pharmaceutical Design



ed - an oops

[edit on 28-2-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc


The research was conducted through the universities - and funded by big pharma.


WRONG, source please.



This is really basic stuff. Here's the poop:

1. Research is very expensive.
2. Drug and vaccine development is even more expensive.
3. So universities - in Italy and elsewhere - rely on corporate funding and sponsorships.
4. In turn, the universities lend corporations expertise, facilities and a much-needed aura of legitimacy and scientific rigour.

Here is a quick overview of a few corporation-Big Pharma-university associations in Italy, just to get you thinking:




Pevion Biotech is a privately owned biopharmaceutical company focusing on the development of vaccines for the
treatment and prevention of infectious diseases, cancer and neurodegenerative disorders.

Current alliances and collaborations: University of Siena, Italy...

***

[Chiron is legendary in terms of bad vaccines and its links to the Bush administration. Check out Chiron's links with Italian universities and some cancer vaccine marketing details.]

Chiron Italy Media Kit

***

December 2001 - March 2002: short-term fellowship at the University of Padova, Italy (Sponsor: GlaxoSmithKline, Verona, Italy). Research project: Molecular dynamics simulations of a protein-ligand complex of the P24 fragment of GyraseB with its inhibitor GR122222.
Bio-computing

***

Chemical Computing Group develops and markets MOE, the Molecular Operating Environment, a leading application for chemical researchers in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields. Its built-in applications cover the spectrum of drug discovery including: Protein/Homology modeling, High Throughput Screening, Combinatorial Library Design, Modeling/Simulations and Methods Development. MOEs unique architecture and platform independence allows it to be used corporate-wide by a variety of researchers - from methods developers to computational experts to medicinal chemists. Its customers include a worldwide roster of leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
Molecular Modeling Section Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Padova,




FYI - Wonder how it comes together? Universities hire "fund-raisers" to negotiate deals for corporate partnerships and funding. Here is a job posting from Italy that reflects the current "relationship" between Italian academia and the Bush administration:



John Cabot University, a regionally accredited US four-year college located in Rome, Italy, invites applications for the position of Director for Development and Institutional Advancement.

The Director will work in close collaboration with the University President and Board of Trustees to plan and execute all phases of a comprehensive campaign and will be asked to assist the President in leading the institution through significant capital campaigns and in piloting ongoing efforts to improve all aspects of the University's development operations.

Specific responsibilities will include development and coordination of annual and long-range strategic fund-raising plans, budget preparation and forecasting analysis, foundation administration and grant writing, as well as oversight and management of the identification, cultivation, solicitation and stewardship of annual and major gifts to the University from individuals, corporations and foundations. Superior organizational and writing skills are essential, as are a commitment to high performance and teamwork, a strong work ethic, and an understanding of the vital importance of higher education in an increasingly interdependent and multicultural world.

The successful candidate will possess a proven record of fund-raising success, preferably in higher education, with extensive experience in soliciting major gifts, and a drive to achieve ambitious institutional goals.

Corporate and Foundation Relationships: Director for Development and Institutional Advancement





[edit on 28-2-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I'll plug one of my threads, which usually don't attract much attention, in fact even the number of views is abysimal.. i really need to think of better titles...

Someone mentoned sauerkraut... what IF it's not magic cabbage but simple chemistry...?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps many plants are potentially beneficial, as long as they're grown on rich soil ! care to follow ?



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Soficrow, I really wish I could have as black and white a view on life as you do, however, life is full of gray areas. Yes, corporations help fund universities through grants, but they then give all rights to any discoveries to the scientist. Not to mention, you haven't answered my question. Why would the same companies you suggest are covering up a cure want to fund cure research? Seems a bit daft. Or stupid.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   


Pollution is now only considered one of the triggers to asthma, and not it's root cause:


The root cause is probably mercury poisoning.....as it is the root cause of many, many things.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

The root cause is probably mercury poisoning.....as it is the root cause of many, many things.


Attaching total causation for any condition as complex as asthmato one molecule or compound is scientifically irresponsible. No multisystem complex can be totally attributed just to mercury, pollution, etc. It's typically a combination of environment, genetic affinity, diet, etc.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Why would the same companies you suggest are covering up a cure want to fund cure research? Seems a bit daft. Or stupid.




Or very, very profitable.

Posted this earlier - guess you and lukeduke missed it.

Shows the link between Monsanto, a company that makes products that cause cancer, and Antigenics, a company that sells cancer 'cures.' ...Continued exposure to cancer triggers of course ensures 'recurrence,' and return sales.


Chairman of Monsanto Elected to Antigenics Board of Directors



About Antigenics

Antigenics’ mission is to enhance and extend human lives through the development of superior health care products for a wide range of cancers, infectious diseases, and autoimmune and degenerative disorders. The company’s cancer portfolio includes Oncophage®, a personalized cancer vaccine in Phase III trials and on the US Food and Drug Administration’s fast track development program for kidney cancer and melanoma; and two liposomal products in Phase II development: Aroplatin™, a third-generation platinum chemotherapeutic, and ATRA-IV, a form of vitamin A. Other products in development include QS-21, an immune adjuvant being tested in several advanced clinical vaccine programs in partnership with leading pharmaceutical companies, and AG-702, a genital herpes immunotherapeutic agent in Phase I testing.





About Monsanto

For example:

MONSANTO LIABLE - COVERED UP POLLUTION FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS


The jury in Gadsden, Ala., a town 20 miles from Anniston, yesterday held Monsanto and its corporate successors liable on all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. Under Alabama law, the rare claim of outrage typically requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."




Most diseases are "multifactorial" and involve multiple "causes." So-called 'pollution' involves a huge variety of factors - and 'environmental' includes the internal and cellular environments.

...But Monsanto gives ya cancer, and Antigenics sells the cure.

Kewl huh?



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   

quote: Originally posted by bsl4doc

Why would the same companies you suggest are covering up a cure want to fund cure research? Seems a bit daft. Or stupid.




Or very, very profitable.

Posted this earlier - guess you and lukeduke missed it.

Shows the link between Monsanto, a company that makes products that cause cancer, and Antigenics, a company that sells cancer 'cures.' ...Continued exposure to cancer triggers of course ensures 'recurrence,' and return sales.


Mio dio, soficrow, can you please stop jumping around the issue? We are talking about a ONE SHOT CURE, a VACCINE for cancer. You are discussing Monsanto being tied to a company which offers new TREATMENTS, which cna be very profitable in a non-socialized setting.

There has never been a cancer vaccine or cure offered to any patient, and if there were, you can bet the social governments would jump on it to reduce costs. But, people like you who can't even seem to except that not everyone in the world is out to get them probably won't get the vaccination by choice. I just can't stand how people like you and excitable seem to characterize all doctors as these evil money grubbers. Do you know how much I'll make as a public physician in internal medicine? In American dollars, I will make roughly 55-65 thousand a year. A decent living considering I have no children and a fiancee who has a job, as well. Now take into account the doctors who make the same or just barely more than me and have two or more children to take care of. Now, why would a doctor go into a field where they know they won't make much money (public health), if their ultimate goal is to get more money? That seems backwards.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

I just can't stand how people like you and excitable seem to characterize all doctors as these evil money grubbers.




Enough of your insults and accusations.


Please quote exactly what I said that "characterized all doctors as evil money grubbers." And provide a link too.





posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Okay, I have a question for everyone:
What is the topic of this thread and how does it relate to the current discussion?



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Please quote exactly what I said that "characterized all doctors as evil money grubbers."


Okay, gladly!

FYI - the rising costs of medical treatments are breaking budgets around the world, particularly in nations with socialized medicine. The preferred solution is to withhold new treatments, and also, to withhold the information that those treatments do, in fact, exist. You will note that most of the researchers quoted recommend early diagnosis and intervention to prevent disease progression and the inevitable array of costs associated with severe disease - these pleas remain unheard.


t's not happening. So back to the money markets, reinsurance industry - and "cost-effective treatment strategies."

Translation? Let them eat, drink and breathe poison, get sick, and then withhold effective treatment because it's too expensive and not "cost-effective."


This is really basic stuff. Here's the poop:

1. Research is very expensive.
2. Drug and vaccine development is even more expensive.
3. So universities - in Italy and elsewhere - rely on corporate funding and sponsorships.
4. In turn, the universities lend corporations expertise, facilities and a much-needed aura of legitimacy and scientific rigour.


In these quotes, you are suggesting that all doctors care about it the budget and whether or not they get the money they need for research. This is a gross generalization. Have you heard of Medicin sans Frontiers? Peace Corp? Public hospitals? These doctors sacrifice money and research funding in an attempt to get medical treatment to patients who truly need it but cannot afford it. Many programs of this nature function regardless of budget, and many doctors put their own money into the process.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
You guys have had two different mods try to get you to get back on topic and you continue to derail this thread.

The topic is...

"Cancer breakthrough!"

which seems to be a worthy enough topic of its own...right?

Let's discuss it!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join