OT Have they cured Cancer?
- Thread starter HerrosHeroes
- Start date
Nah, but we could've got here sooner probably. Look how much money we dump into HIV vs how much we dump into cancer.
There is a hell of a lot more spent on developing cancer treatments than HIV ones!
Never understood how not curing cancer would benefit drug companies. Old people need all kinds of drugs, and you don’t get old if you die.
Imagine making such a statement being totally clueless on the matter. Rich, elite non-elected old people do, atleast try, run the world. Where have you been? It is all public knowledge and all of their documents and plans are laid out for us to see. Surely you have heard of The Great Reset powered by The World Economic Forum? You know, they tell us by 2030 we will own nothing and be happy? Oh, and that we will not eat meat anymore, but bugs. In ending, this is very true and an enormous threat to all of us.
There could be a cure announced tomorrow and a large number of people wouldn't take it because 'there's no way they invented a cure for cancer'.
It’s amazing that “they” don’t get or have died from cancer, like Steve Jobs one of the most powerful people in the world. Or do they have the cure for cancer in their pocket and then when “they” or one of their friends or families get cancer they give it to them and tell them to keep it all hush hush so that “they” can make s their money from chemo.
The number of absolute wackjobs on this board is unsettling.
Didn't turn out so good for will smith
. no more cancer. Yes. But not many ppl left either. If you kill cancer but kill the host its not really a win. Right?
. no more cancer. Yes. But not many ppl left either. If you kill cancer but kill the host its not really a win. Right?
State of the world man. Just feels like this is the one that gets us this time.
Conspiracy people, newsflash for you.
People look out for themselves. Also not all medicines come from “big Pharma”, in fact more don’t than do. If a big Pharma, or a small Biotech developed “a cure for cancer”, the big decision makers and shareholders for that company would become very wealthy having the entire pie, whereas currently even the biggest Pharma only has a small slice of the pie.
People look out for themselves. Also not all medicines come from “big Pharma”, in fact more don’t than do. If a big Pharma, or a small Biotech developed “a cure for cancer”, the big decision makers and shareholders for that company would become very wealthy having the entire pie, whereas currently even the biggest Pharma only has a small slice of the pie.
And let's face it with approximately 10 million dying each year from it I'm not so sure from a population control standpoint they want to eliminate it. According to cancer.gov that estimate is around 16 million dying each year by 2040. It may sound cruel but there have been lots of instances of genocide and population control in countries throughout history.
I guess it would depend on if it's in the form of a vaccine or if it's in the form of a horse wormer.
That's actually a mild conspiracy theory in today's world
No no no, that’s not true. 2 million people per year are diagnosed with cancer. A company/companies that had the cure for cancer would be able to easily charge 10,000 for the cure, all while saving billions on the infrastructure involved to run and manage and constantly update cancer centers, as well as save billions paying oncologists and nurses. This would result in literally trillions of profit over the course of a decade. Why the hell would “they” allow that?!
And those same companies that would would make money while saving cancer patient’s lives also manufacture and sell maintenance meds for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, arthritis, etc. People live even longer, and purchase maintenance meds for more years. It’s a win on top of a win.
Yep. And I find it funny that some people yell whackjob, nut and conspiracy theorist when they choose to believe the beautiful lie instead of the ugly truth. But you hit the nail on the head, they want population control. This isn't a "conspiracy theory" at all.
You must have forgot or unaware that average lifespans are at an all-time low for modern civilization, and keeps getting lower and lower.
And you must have been busy making **** up again. Average lifespan has taken a temporary dip in the last two years due, in large part, to one million Covid deaths. But the average is not at an all time low.
Conspiracies lol... did they catch the unarmed grannies that almost took over the US on Jan 6th yet?
Doesn't matter what age you die, but your medical costs are concentrated very heavily in your last 1-2 years.
Good friend is kidney cancer-free 8 months in on immunotherapy & tumor removal. Five years ago or even less KC was a death sentence in around 6-9 months. He was even told that last Sept. He's still on the two drugs because docs have no idea if/when he'd be considered cured due to the newness of it.
"Cancer researchers and drugmakers are beginning to broaden the benefits of immunotherapies by zeroing in on patient or tumor characteristics to better predict who might respond to the powerful treatments.
In research presented at a major scientific meeting this week, oncologists made early but promising inroads into various cancers with immunotherapy drugs from GSK PLC, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and others that harness the power of the immune system to fight cancer—generally with fewer side effects than other therapies.
The drugs tend to work in a fraction of patients. Researchers are scouring common traits in some patients’ biology that could help anticipate how well they might respond to certain therapies, in the hope that such precision would improve treatment options and avenues for future research."
"Immunotherapies have transformed treatment in particular for some advanced cancers including melanoma, lung cancer and blood cancers. World-wide sales for immuno-oncology drugs reached $40 billion in 2021 and are projected to grow, according to market-research firm EvaluatePharma. Oncology is a leading area of research investment for pharmaceutical companies, and many have shifted toward cancer research from other areas.
Despite the progress and investments, immunotherapies have worked inconsistently across cancers and patients. Overall, oncologists estimate that the response rate is around 20% across cancer types. The drugs can wipe out cancer for some people but fail to work for others, subjecting patients to costs and side effects without restraining their disease."
"Cancer researchers and drugmakers are beginning to broaden the benefits of immunotherapies by zeroing in on patient or tumor characteristics to better predict who might respond to the powerful treatments.
In research presented at a major scientific meeting this week, oncologists made early but promising inroads into various cancers with immunotherapy drugs from GSK PLC, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and others that harness the power of the immune system to fight cancer—generally with fewer side effects than other therapies.
The drugs tend to work in a fraction of patients. Researchers are scouring common traits in some patients’ biology that could help anticipate how well they might respond to certain therapies, in the hope that such precision would improve treatment options and avenues for future research."
"Immunotherapies have transformed treatment in particular for some advanced cancers including melanoma, lung cancer and blood cancers. World-wide sales for immuno-oncology drugs reached $40 billion in 2021 and are projected to grow, according to market-research firm EvaluatePharma. Oncology is a leading area of research investment for pharmaceutical companies, and many have shifted toward cancer research from other areas.
Despite the progress and investments, immunotherapies have worked inconsistently across cancers and patients. Overall, oncologists estimate that the response rate is around 20% across cancer types. The drugs can wipe out cancer for some people but fail to work for others, subjecting patients to costs and side effects without restraining their disease."
You make zero sense!!! Pharma/Biotech companies don’t own/run cancer centers, nor have many oncologists. Their only profit is from the sale of medicines/vaccines. So you are saying a company finds “a cure”, then they ignore all of the money that would make them so that other businesses (even competitors) can make a profit. Not to mention the ability to keep researchers silent on their discovery, researchers who are good people some of whom may even have a relative with cancer. The (6’) Easter Bunny is much more believable.
Only a very few (the biggest Pharma) are like that. There are well over 500 Biotech companies, most of whom specialize in a certain therapeutic area. I would estimate probably 100 do only or primarily oncology.
Good grief, I can't.And you must have been busy making **** up again. Average lifespan has taken a temporary dip in the last two years due, in large part, to one million Covid deaths. But the average is not at an all time low.
I guess you missed the part where he wrote that "Average lifespan has taken a temporary dip in the last two years due, in large part, to one million Covid deaths."
Also, I seem to remember somebody on this thread posting this:
"Let me guess, you got your information from a CNN article? Lmao"
(that was you)
It's definitely a choice to voluntarily downplay a half assed insurrection by fools who believed they were doing their "patriotic duty". Bizarre way to spin things when you didn't need to.
I always laugh at the “the treatment is worth more than the cure” crowd. That’s sooo false. Whomever comes up with type cure will make waaaaaaay more than they do with treatments. It does make it sound easier to say that “they don’t want to do it” rather than to speak truth and say that “despite all the crazy advancements in medicine, we’re still so very far away from doing things like curing cancer.....which is not a single thing but a large host of things.”
It’s amazing how many delusional people there are. It really seems like a big chunk of the population was not mentally prepared to receive media and social media.
Exactly. Common sense. Would you rather have a sliver of the pie, or the entire pie to yourself?
Also, most high level decision makers are older (baby boomers or at least 1st half of Gen X), and would love the huge payday (stock values, bonuses) a "cure" would bring them at their company.
Not to mention the world wide notoriety/free publicity. All major news outlets would be on that for a solid month. It would replace sliced bread as “the biggest thing since….!”
Cancer is an incidence driven business, not a prevalence driven business.
As long as there are new patients diagnosed with cancer each year, pharma companies will make just as much selling cures as they do selling treatments..
We’re already inching closer to cures for blood cancers with CAR-T therapies, and prices for the first generation of these one-time therapies are $350K+. Pharma companies know there is a lot of money to made from selling cures (likely more than they make from selling treatments).
The only reason we’ve not had cures yet is because of the complexity of discovering one and our lack our scientific understanding. Not because of some conspiracy against cancer cures.
Winner winner chicken dinner!
Most people don't understand the difficulty and complexity and cost of discovering, testing, and getting approved treatments/cures/vaccines/medicines/biologicals.