Cancer and other diseases vs. Those with $$$

Well, some time back in early to mid 90's something that caught my attention was the relationship between Cancer and other uncurable diseases and those that had lots of money. Curremly, I haven't done an in depth statics on it because perhaps I suspect my fears to validated. It's....wierd. It's like anyone with alot of money 'seems' to come down with some sort of uncurable disease. How so?

Just today my brother-in-Law said that his neighbor saved all his extra money since he was a teen, prolly in the upper hundreds of thousands, but has MS (whish was invented by the Russians during the cold war according a NBC documentray I saw in which they went into a facility where they made it)

It seems like everytime I hear that it's like.. hmmmmmmmmmm......


Anyone else ever thought this? Anothe thing, what if they found a cure for Cancer....who would win and what is there to loose? Think about this: who would lose the most money and who would lose their jobs if a cure was found.

I posted this in hopes that some of you know how to grab data alot qucker than I do from the web and put it in a readable format with perhaps staticale graphs. It would be intresting to see.....

is it all just concienedience? (sp)

there is a cure for cancer and its a proper organic diet and off course cyanide inside the bitter nut from fruits like peaches, nectarines and plums etc. the occasional puff of marijuana doesnt hurt either btw

O

[edit on 28-4-2008 by Herbal Oli]

To me it just seems like you haven't really gotten out and met a lot of people. The last job I had forced me to deal with people in unfortunate situations, and at least a few of them had cancer and were in treatment.

The reason it seems like these people are getting these incurable diseases is for 2 reasons:

1) Those are the people you hear about. The news isn't going to report some poor lady getting cancer.

2) Everyone dies from something. Yes, even the rich get diseases.

When my non smoking mother contracted lung cancer I started to take note of two facts I learned during her treatment and before her death, number one: more people were there with lung cancer that were non smokers than there were smokers, only one patient that I met during a 3 year period was actually a smoker, and she was only 23 years old. Most of the lung cancer patients were in their 50-60's, and had either never smoked or quit many years before they got cancer.

Number two: the wealthy got a different kind of treatment than those with insurance , like say the insurance that my mom had, from her old job, or those who had no insurance and were getting treatment by going to a low income program for assistance. The wealthy, more insured people would get their chemo dispensed with a white bag covering the medication so no one could read the bag and tell what they were getting. Those with insurance like my mom's would get all different types of chemo meds, like they were trying different types on everyone in treatment, even when the diagnoses were identical. The indigent would usually not even be dispensed chemo in the same area with the rest of the patients, and also not live very long, we noticed they would start treatment and then die within months, regardless of age and health at the start of treatment.

Have you guys seen the South Park about AIDS/HIV that talks about money being the cure?

[edit on 28-4-2008 by vapedson]

Magic Johnson has that cure for AIDS. And you know its true.

reply to post by vapedson

---

I saw that one, actually I have seen every Southpark made! I love their not so subtle way of approaching current topics! That one was definately not subtle, and got it's point across very well.

I was just thinking this past weekend after watching a Susan G Koman commercial, that why would they want to cure cancer. They are making billions in the search for a cure. Really if you think about the vast amount of money being spent and people employed in the cancer industry why would they kill the golden goose. This train of thought bled over to the common cold. Now just think about how many products are made to combat the common cold. Cough drops, hand wipes, nasal spray, airborne, vicks, whole isle of cough medicine, when I started thinking about it if they did find a cure and the common cold was a thing of the past there would be thousands of people out of work. And what if cancer can't be cured, what if you are going to get it no matter what you do? Then we are spending billions on a futile search.

reply to post by dreamsnatcher

---

That's EXACTLY my point! thank you for re-posting it. It's exactly what I said in my OP; who stands to win and who looses. At this point, not exactally sure when I'll be digging deeper into this, only because I'd rather not have the men in black show up at my door.

space cadet,

Deeply sorry to hear about your mom, mine passed 2 years ago with the same. my heart goes out to you and your in my prayers.

There is general acceptance in medicine of the fact that almost everyone will die from cancer. Just majority of us simply do not live that long and die from other things. It is based on the fact that the more our cells divide, the more information they loose in the process. So once regulatory mechanism will be damaged enough , it will lead to cancer eventually.
This brings me to your question of who will loose. Since chance to get cancer rises with the age, cure for it will raise life expectancy,and very dramatically. Thus a lot of financial structures probably are not interested in this. As far as pharmacy companies, the holy grail for them will be something needed chronically so they will maximize the profits. Just like with HIV, there is a cocktail of several medicines that is preventing it from developing to AIDS and eventually death. The cocktail costs a lot and has to be taken for as long as person lives.

I personally did not made up my mind if majority of cancers are not treated with high success rate right now for financial reasons or simply because the issue is very very complex. Maybe it is because of the combination of the two.