In Girl's Last Hope, Altered Immune Cells Beat Leukemia

page: 2
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


As I mentioned in the other thread, this is amazing, and I am very happy for the little girl and her family. The only thing that is troublesome about this is that simply replace the modified HIV with measles and you have the beginning of the plot to I Am Legend. Fiction I know, but bothersome nonetheless...playing with the genetics of viruses to me, is just unnerving in general.

edit on 11-12-2012 by Osiris1953 because: Typing Gremlins




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by stupid girl
 





Pharma and many physicians are in bed with each other, no doubt.


I didn't say they were all bad but i've known quite a few who push medications on people that little trials have been done on and we see the end results of it when lawyers start suing pharmaceutical companies over bad drugs that end up giving people worse things than what they were suffering from, and my first thought is "i wonder what doctors prescribed those to people?" I've been seeing a rise in drugs and treatments that end up giving people cancer, then the conspiracy theorist in me takes over.
edit on 11-12-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: mispelling



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by big_BHOY
 



Unlike all these conspiracy theories revolving around this matter, there is plenty of money to be made by curing cancer.


No need to enter the realm of theory, capitalism isn't that mysterious. It isn't a matter of whether there is money to be made in curing cancer. Of course there is. What matters to corporate interests is whether it's the most profitable option. Cost of being cured versus prolonged medications and treatments.



You have used the correct word yourself...that of course being ''capitalism'!

Do you honestly believe that companies that make nothing from the existing treatment(s) are going to keep their 'invention' suppressed when they could gain an immediate 100% of the market-share (making themselves one of the richest companies in the world in very short order) is going to stay out of the game.

There is absolutely no way that it would be suppressed by people who have nothing to gain by doing so. I can of course see the pharmaceutical giant who has the lions share of the market buying up this smaller company & suppressing it. Even then, when you consider the potential worldwide client base your product has, you would have to be a complete idiot not to hold out for billions.

Even then, you will have others continuing to work for a 'cure' & sooner than later another will come along & then will have to do the same thing all over again.

Companies who make nothing from 'cancer' treatments or even have to share the market pool with others will not suppress something which will allow them to totally corner the market overnight. When it comes down to it, capitalism is all about the profits & with the amount of money to be made from providing a cure for cancer, then it's far too profitable to be totally suppressed from the masses.

With the internet, as well as the local, national & international media outlets, then all it takes is 1 story to get the ball rolling because other outlets will pick it up & swiftly re-distribute it thereafter. If I had a knock at my door by government suits telling me to keep it quite (a government who would make a fortune in taxes from your company btw), then I would take my business out of reach to another nation.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I too believe we have cures for nearly every disease. Look at it this way. If there are ten million people in the US with cancer, and you can give them a 100 dollar shot or pill, and they are cured, versus giving them years upon years of drugs, at say 10 thousand dollars per year, to keep them comfortable, which will a greedy corporation go for? Same with people with cancer in other countries. Ten years of comfort making drugs is one hundred thousand dollars, in that scenario.. That there is 100,000 reasons to keep cures under wraps.

Then you ask, how do the scientist's that developed the drug keep quiet? A high paying job, is one way. A death sentence is another. Wow, how did Frank end up in that accident? I just saw Frank two hours ago, now he's dead. I think one would think, how can people sleep at night, with a secret like that. $$$$$$$

Money can do funny things to people.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnsrings
I too believe we have cures for nearly every disease. Look at it this way. If there are ten million people in the US with cancer, and you can give them a 100 dollar shot or pill, and they are cured, versus giving them years upon years of drugs, at say 10 thousand dollars per year, to keep them comfortable, which will a greedy corporation go for? Same with people with cancer in other countries. Ten years of comfort making drugs is one hundred thousand dollars, in that scenario.. That there is 100,000 reasons to keep cures under wraps.
$$$$$$$

Money can do funny things to people.


Who says it has to be 100 for the new treatment. The patient doesn't have to suffer months/years of suffering from battling the disease as well as the ravaging effects of chemo etc. Bearing that in mind, you could charge anything you wanted be that the same as current treatment methods or even half that (which is the route I'd take if it were my company). I know which one I'd choose, the guaranteed cure or the slow lingering traditional way over a matter of months/years. You could even make it more expensive if you wanted & you would still be over-run with business.

In regards to all this thinking about the treatment being held back for monetary reasons by big pharma. Ask yourself this: Company A has the lions share of the market, Company B, C & D make up the rest split between them.

Companies E, F or G make nothing from it but have discovered/developed the cure. A method of making them uber, uber rich beyond their wildest dreams, why would they hold the treatment back or allow themselves to be hushed by big pharma. It can't be about money because any company with the 'cure' could make far more than big pharma would be willing to pay them to hush it up. Heck, a few years worth of being in business & you would be rivaling/overtaking them.

In a capitalistic society, money & profit rule the roost! In 2008, 7.6 million people died from cancer worldwide. That's people who couldn't get insurance, couldn't afford it or their governments wouldn't pay for their treatment. Either that or they got treatment but it didn't work for them. If you charged just 1000 for your live-saving cure you would have made 7.6 billion. Charge 10,000 & that's 76 billion. Almost all of which is pure profit! That's only for those for those who sadly couldn't shake off this disease. Think of the rest who either had just been diagnosed or those getting treatment but it wasn't going so well for them. Your talking insane numbers!

Even if you cure all your patients in a single go, it's not like business is ever gonna slow down with an ever increasing population. Heck, in China the cancer mortality rate has shot up by over 80% in the last 30 years. If you make your 'cure' cheap enough, more governments, insurance companies, bank loans & personal savings would be far more willing to pick up the tab for treatment.

Taking all that into consideration, does anyone really believe that any & all companies are actively hiding a 'cure' that would net them additional revenue of tens/hundreds of billions every year (once they were fully up & running worldwide)!!!



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Yes, if by not curing said illness with one treatment but years, yes.

Do the math, just using small #s, add the 0s if you'd like and just doing easy example.

Dieases X kills 1k a year, afflicts another 1k a year.

You develop and patent a cure, you can sell it for $10.

In the first year you'd have $20k (1k that would've died and the 1k new cases) and from then on a cash flow of $10k. In 5 years you would have made $60k. Math 20 + 10 +10 +10 +10)

You currently have a maintenance drug that you sell for $7 and it extends the life of a patient by 5 years. The first year you make $14k (7k + 7k). In 5 years you'd've made how much? $140k. Math is 14k yr 1 + 21 y2 + 28 yr3 + 35 yr4 + 42 yr5. Year 6 would "lose" year 1 folks but gain the same # lost so from them out you're making $42k a year.

In 10 years with the cure you'd've made $110k, in 10 years with the treatment you'd've made $350k.

Add as many 0s as you'd like to my simple exampe.

Which would you do if you were only about making as much $ as possible?

Derek
edit on 13-12-2012 by Viesczy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Well I think along similar lines but I reach it a different way.

I don't think cures are being invented and then "big pharma" is suppressing the cures.

I think the progress towards those cures are being greatly stunted because of a lack of funding towards its research/development. The lack of funding is due to a lack of interest i.e corporate interests $$$. Everyone thinks they want and would prioritize these cures.... but really most people settle for more immediate gratifications. This phenomenon can be witnessed with countless things we should but are not developing with priority.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by big_BHOY

Originally posted by saturnsrings
I too believe we have cures for nearly every disease. Look at it this way. If there are ten million people in the US with cancer, and you can give them a 100 dollar shot or pill, and they are cured, versus giving them years upon years of drugs, at say 10 thousand dollars per year, to keep them comfortable, which will a greedy corporation go for? Same with people with cancer in other countries. Ten years of comfort making drugs is one hundred thousand dollars, in that scenario.. That there is 100,000 reasons to keep cures under wraps.
$$$$$$$

Money can do funny things to people.


Who says it has to be 100 for the new treatment.
The 100 was just an example, but I think you knew that.

The equation is simple. Years and years of drugs (my mom in law is an example, as is my own mother) is far more profitable than a simple 1 dose cure. There are billions of reasons to keep cures under wraps.

If the cure for cancer (I believe we have it) were to be made public, and the cost was say a million dollars, how could that cost be justified, and which insurance companies would cover it?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnsrings

Originally posted by big_BHOY

Originally posted by saturnsrings
I too believe we have cures for nearly every disease. Look at it this way. If there are ten million people in the US with cancer, and you can give them a 100 dollar shot or pill, and they are cured, versus giving them years upon years of drugs, at say 10 thousand dollars per year, to keep them comfortable, which will a greedy corporation go for? Same with people with cancer in other countries. Ten years of comfort making drugs is one hundred thousand dollars, in that scenario.. That there is 100,000 reasons to keep cures under wraps.
$$$$$$$

Money can do funny things to people.


Who says it has to be 100 for the new treatment.
The 100 was just an example, but I think you knew that.

The equation is simple. Years and years of drugs (my mom in law is an example, as is my own mother) is far more profitable than a simple 1 dose cure. There are billions of reasons to keep cures under wraps.

If the cure for cancer (I believe we have it) were to be made public, and the cost was say a million dollars, how could that cost be justified, and which insurance companies would cover it?


There's a an illness called atrial fibrillation.
It's the most common heart complaint around affectin millions in the US alone.
It tends to affect the older generation so as people live longer there will be more people who have it.
It causes lots of problems, not least it's the major cause of strokes in adults.

Up until fairly recently all that could realistically be done was to medicate the patients. These medications are very expensive and have some really unpleasant side effects. The pharma companies make a lot of money out of them.

However, there's a cure (of sorts). If the AF is found early enough various parts of the heart can be burned by high frequency electricity and this will stop it for good (it may need a couple of treatments to completely rid it).
As I said it needs to be done relatively soon after the AF has started as the longer you have AF the harder it is to get rid of.

This is a cure for a previously incurable disease which as I've said the pharma companies had a complete monopoly on.
This other method has not been suppressed by big pharma even though it costs them in the 100's of millions of dollars per year and as cardiologists become more proficient at using this method it will cost them even more hopefully to the point where very few people need regular medication for it.

To state again, pharma hasn't suppressed this at all yet they've lost a fortune.
They won't lose a fortune with a cancer cure.
The company who finds one will rule the world.

Now only if we could find a cure for ignorance....

edit on 14/12/12 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Well I think along similar lines but I reach it a different way.

I don't think cures are being invented and then "big pharma" is suppressing the cures.

I think the progress towards those cures are being greatly stunted because of a lack of funding towards its research/development. The lack of funding is due to a lack of interest i.e corporate interests $$$. Everyone thinks they want and would prioritize these cures.... but really most people settle for more immediate gratifications. This phenomenon can be witnessed with countless things we should but are not developing with priority.


I was just giving an example to put #s to it... I believe that we're now filled with technologists and not scientists. Folks who specialize in getting the most from X technology, if X technology isn't the path to a cure it doesn't matter to them as their job is getting the most out of X technology, Y technology is someone else's concern.

Either way, all decisions are made based upon profit. Corporate decisions, political lies.. what equals the most $$$? That's the course to take.

Derek



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by saturnsrings

Originally posted by big_BHOY

Originally posted by saturnsrings
I too believe we have cures for nearly every disease. Look at it this way. If there are ten million people in the US with cancer, and you can give them a 100 dollar shot or pill, and they are cured, versus giving them years upon years of drugs, at say 10 thousand dollars per year, to keep them comfortable, which will a greedy corporation go for? Same with people with cancer in other countries. Ten years of comfort making drugs is one hundred thousand dollars, in that scenario.. That there is 100,000 reasons to keep cures under wraps.
$$$$$$$

Money can do funny things to people.


Who says it has to be 100 for the new treatment.
The 100 was just an example, but I think you knew that.

The equation is simple. Years and years of drugs (my mom in law is an example, as is my own mother) is far more profitable than a simple 1 dose cure. There are billions of reasons to keep cures under wraps.

If the cure for cancer (I believe we have it) were to be made public, and the cost was say a million dollars, how could that cost be justified, and which insurance companies would cover it?


Now only if we could find a cure for ignorance....

edit on 14/12/12 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)
Indeed.

Second.





top topics
 
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join