Cancer cure being ignored by Big Business

[cdubb]

Literally to fund a proper clinical trial to get FDA approval it requires hundreds of millions (*correction*), billions of dollars and many years to run the trials. Same thing with orthopaedic implants.

So if you can't patent a drug to guarantee you are the only company which gets profits from it, then I can see why a big pharm company wouldn't fund it. They literally need to make BILLIONS AND BILLIONS from a drug to make it financially viable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...inical-trials/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewh...ing-new-drugs/

If the drug proves not to (a) be safe, (b) actually work, then you wasted a whole lot of moola. And a lot of drugs don't get approved (9/10 fail) so including costs of failed trials, it costs an average of $4 billion per drug approved (AstraZeneca spent $12B per drug approved)

Then again if it were a viable drug, there are lots of research foundations that give out very large grants.

[BlackGold]

I think you guys need to distinguish between your own personal values (which are noble and decent) and those of corporations which have no feelings and are largely (if not solely) driven to profit.

What's so profitable about a one-and-done cure? So a company gets a few months of positive press and then one subsequent year of record sales and earnings. And then what? How is that more profitable than the recurring profit stream from the LITANY of expensive, largely government-funded drugs, therapies and treatments that have been existence for the last several decades that patients continually have to rely on to survive?

I'm not arguing with you guys about what's right or wrong here... this is not an ethical discussion. Just pointing out the economic realities. I've interviewed the executives of these firms as part of our extensive due diligence on their companies before we invested hundreds of millions... I'm simply telling you guys how it is.

I think you are forgetting two key things here.

Every company is run by PEOPLE. Yes they are profit driven but they are also run by people with feelings just like you and I. I find the whole emotionless corporation thing too easy an excuse to use.

Secondly, if you find a cure for cancer in the form of a drug, you then have one of the most marketable drugs on the planet. This is a cure for a disease, not the destruction of the cancer gene. Even a vaccine for cancer would be profitable. The only way to not make money is to completely and utterly destroy any chance of cancer ever occurring in any person. So is there money in a cure? Hell yes.

[blayze]

I think you are forgetting two key things here.

Every company is run by PEOPLE. Yes they are profit driven but they are also run by people with feelings just like you and I. I find the whole emotionless corporation thing too easy an excuse to use.

Secondly, if you find a cure for cancer in the form of a drug, you then have one of the most marketable drugs on the planet. This is a cure for a disease, not the destruction of the cancer gene. Even a vaccine for cancer would be profitable. The only way to not make money is to completely and utterly destroy any chance of cancer ever occurring in any person. So is there money in a cure? Hell yes.

Well thank you Captain Obvious

[metaldude26]

Can I just point out that I think any argument that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want to see a cure for cancer is flawed from the standpoint that a cure for cancer wouldn't necessarily be a preventative cure so people would still have to pay out their ass for treatment every time they get cancer. Cancer isn't like polio where a simple vaccination can be used as a preventative and basically wipe it out in one fell swoop.

DCA offers a potential cure for some forms of cancer but people getting those cancers would still have to pay to receive the DCA treatment. And let's say for instance that the DCA worked and cured their cancer you'd still have to acknowledge the possibility of a recurrence.

There's also the fact that a person who gets one form of cancer has a pretty decent chance of getting another one. If you understand cancer at the cellular level it's basically what happens when you get enough mutations in the genetic code of a certain cell that the stop mechanisms involved in cellular growth and cellular division become impaired so the cell can grow and multiply out of control. This isn't just the result of one mutation but several mutations. Let's say for arguments sake it takes 10 mutations. A person who gets one form of cancer may have had five mutations pre-existing in their genetic code so all it took was for there to be five more mutations to create a cancer. So a smoker would be very likely to get lung cancer because of all the carcinogens they expose themselves to. Again, for arguments sake, let's say that this DCA cures the person of their lung cancer - just completely wipes out the tumour. Who's to say that later down the road through exposure to city pollution that person gets cancer again? Or maybe they get cancer of the colon because of their pre-existing mutations combined with a poor diet?

Now these are all just very basic generalizations about what the situation of a cancer patient might be but the reality is that everyone who gets cancer will have gotten it a slightly different way. Some people have cellular systems built to last long term even under heavy carcinogen exposure. Others will get cancer even if they take as many precautions to avoid it. It's kind of luck of the draw.

A drug like DCA is not a magic cure all. It could help cure some forms of cancer but it won't stop cancer from happening. The only way to do that is to get into the cells themselves and fix the genes gone haywire that cause the cancer.

So if you really think that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want a drug like DCA were it to actually work, you're wrong. They would love to get their hands on DCA (if it works) because it is just another band-aid solution (albeit a potentially good one).

[doulos]

Exactly! If there is one thing that us scumbag humans are good at - it's monetizing ANYTHING!

[blayze]

Can I just point out that I think any argument that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want to see a cure for cancer is flawed from the standpoint that a cure for cancer wouldn't necessarily be a preventative cure so people would still have to pay out their ass for treatment every time they get cancer. Cancer isn't like polio where a simple vaccination can be used as a preventative and basically wipe it out in one fell swoop.

DCA offers a potential cure for some forms of cancer but people getting those cancers would still have to pay to receive the DCA treatment. And let's say for instance that the DCA worked and cured their cancer you'd still have to acknowledge the possibility of a recurrence.

There's also the fact that a person who gets one form of cancer has a pretty decent chance of getting another one. If you understand cancer at the cellular level it's basically what happens when you get enough mutations in the genetic code of a certain cell that the stop mechanisms involved in cellular growth and cellular division become impaired so the cell can grow and multiply out of control. This isn't just the result of one mutation but several mutations. Let's say for arguments sake it takes 10 mutations. A person who gets one form of cancer may have had five mutations pre-existing in their genetic code so all it took was for there to be five more mutations to create a cancer. So a smoker would be very likely to get lung cancer because of all the carcinogens they expose themselves to. Again, for arguments sake, let's say that this DCA cures the person of their lung cancer - just completely wipes out the tumour. Who's to say that later down the road through exposure to city pollution that person gets cancer again? Or maybe they get cancer of the colon because of their pre-existing mutations combined with a poor diet?

Now these are all just very basic generalizations about what the situation of a cancer patient might be but the reality is that everyone who gets cancer will have gotten it a slightly different way. Some people have cellular systems built to last long term even under heavy carcinogen exposure. Others will get cancer even if they take as many precautions to avoid it. It's kind of luck of the draw.

A drug like DCA is not a magic cure all. It could help cure some forms of cancer but it won't stop cancer from happening. The only way to do that is to get into the cells themselves and fix the genes gone haywire that cause the cancer.

So if you really think that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want a drug like DCA were it to actually work, you're wrong. They would love to get their hands on DCA (if it works) because it is just another band-aid solution (albeit a potentially good one).

I think at this point you're really just debating semantics. Nobody knows what DCA does or doesn't do at this point, everything you've discussed is hypothetical.

In the framework of the discussion we've had so far, we're talking about the economics of a potential cure-all vs. recurring revenue from the perspective of pharmaceutical firms.

Beneath all the hypothetical mumbo jumbo you've laid out, essentially what you are saying is recurring revenue wins, which is the same thing I was saying.

[metaldude26]

I think at this point you're really just debating semantics. Nobody knows what DCA does or doesn't do at this point, everything you've discussed is hypothetical.

In the framework of the discussion we've had so far, we're talking about the economics of a potential cure-all vs. recurring revenue from the perspective of pharmaceutical firms.

Beneath all the hypothetical mumbo jumbo you've laid out, essentially what you are saying is recurring revenue wins, which is the same thing I was saying.

Isn't this whole topic a discussion of hypotheticals? I mean we don't have a cure for cancer so any discussion has to involve the hypothetical.

[icevenom]

Anytime an industry is motivated by profits... I wonder about their intentions.
Do you NEED a flu shot? heck no... I NEVER get one and probably 9 out of 10 years... I wont get the flu.

Our bodies (if healthy) can naturally fight off stuff... but their is no business in that. Sleep, eat, drink, be active... and you will more than likely be fine.

Obviously there is no black and white issue... and some people may need to get help fighting off (people with weaker immune systems for whatever reason... sickness, elderly, some children, etc...) stuff but the average person doesnt.

Problem is, we don't know what happens behind closed doors. Maybe they have looked at the "cancer cure"... maybe they havent. Perhaps they don't believe in it... perhaps they don't see profits... who knows. Sometimes I think back to the whole "Lorenzo's Oil" situation and wonder how many cures or treatements are available for things that medical industry just doesn't bother wasting time in.

No 'For Profit' company will just create a cure for sheer altruistic joy... that's for sure. It isn't a good business model

It's easy to be critical of the industry but regardless... I'm sure there are treatements/cures out there that one day we will find out about.

I think certain things like this could probably be backed better by governments than relied on by private companies for research... or non profits which get funded by companies. Sometimes altruistic research needs altruistic funding.

[Ballsakic]

Guys I was diagnosed with Lymphoma 6 months ago.
I underwent my first chemo treatment and almost died from a reaction
to it. I pray none of you get this disease because it sucks the life right out of you.

I am now supposed to get these damn drugs again in Jan and I really am considering passing.

Any drug for cancer patients that works without side effects should be approved.

My first treatment cost $5600.00 for 1 session.

[icevenom]

Wow 5600? any coverage from healthcare?

[Axeman33]

Guys I was diagnosed with Lymphoma 6 months ago.
I underwent my first chemo treatment and almost died from a reaction
to it. I pray none of you get this disease because it sucks the life right out of you.

I am now supposed to get these damn drugs again in Jan and I really am considering passing.

Any drug for cancer patients that works without side effects should be approved.

My first treatment cost $5600.00 for 1 session.

I wish you nothing but the best.

[Ross The Boss Palmer]

Guys I was diagnosed with Lymphoma 6 months ago.
I underwent my first chemo treatment and almost died from a reaction
to it. I pray none of you get this disease because it sucks the life right out of you.

I am now supposed to get these damn drugs again in Jan and I really am considering passing.

Any drug for cancer patients that works without side effects should be approved.

My first treatment cost $5600.00 for 1 session.

Kick that cancer right in the ballsak(ic)!

[Pengwin7]

Guys I was diagnosed with Lymphoma 6 months ago.

Hang in there buddy!
You have to be our Lemieux!

[Ballsakic]

Hang in there buddy!
You have to be our Lemieux!

Thanks guys.
I 'll do my best.

[Bomm Bastic]

Do you NEED a flu shot? heck no... I NEVER get one and probably 9 out of 10 years... I wont get the flu.

You can thank Herd immunity for that.

Unfortunately by refusing to get vaccinated, people such as yourself jeopardize others who legitimately are unable to be vaccinated. People with already suppressed immune systems due to cancer, AIDS, diabetes and other chronic/auto-immune illnesses, as well as the very young/old depend on the vaccinated herd for protection.

So I might withhold patting yourself on the back.

Our bodies (if healthy) can naturally fight off stuff...

lol...and probably because you've been vaccinated as an infant. And if you weren't, I'd avoid travel abroad.

This notion of your body naturally fighting off "stuff" (whatever the eff that means)...is true only to a degree. Polio is a good example of "stuff" your body can't fight off with a good night's rest.

...and before you say "Oh, bomm, don't be silly. Polio's been eradicated!"
Just remember, that's what they said about Pertussis

Sleep, eat, drink, be active... and you will more than likely be fine.

Again, true to a point. In fact, very true, despite being vague ("fine"?). Proper diet, rest, exercise, and NO smoking will alleviate a whole host of problems in your adult life.

I laugh continually at my neighbor when he complains about his "knee" problems. Failing to acknowledge his "100lb beer gut" problem may have something to do with it.

But all of the proactive healthy lifestyle behavior in the world will only do so much. It's in the genes baby!

Gene mutations handed down from mother to daughter causing breast cancer. High cholesterol and heart disease...etc...etc...etc...

Obviously there is no black and white issue... and some people may need to get help fighting off (people with weaker immune systems for whatever reason... sickness, elderly, some children, etc...) stuff but the average person doesnt.

I don't even know what that means....