Edmonton researchers find a cure for cancer

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No, seeing far reaching impossible conspiracies makes someone crazy.
This is just a good example of that.

Ignoring all reason, and jumping to wild conclusions is a sligthly different thing than "bringing in an alternative view".

Impossible conspiracies and I am still crazy huh? Ya, I am out in this thread. When some hack has to make it an insult thing I lose interest. I enjoy debating things but I hate the way things can turn into taking it personal on here much too often.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Yet how many times have we heard something like this come over the news? They had the same thing come out of the UWO once too and it disappeared. We heard they had a vaccine for HIV as well but you can't get it. If you catch HIV they can treat it so you can live an almost full lifespan providing you take the medication for your lifetime. Big bucks there. Coming up with a cure is one thing, getting it released to the public is a whole new ball game.

The HIV vaccine is a problem because of the properties of the virus, not because drug companies make money from treatments, in fact treatments fail precisely for the same reason that the vaccine is so difficult. But feel free to continue insulting scientific researchers who get paid piss poor salaries and work ultra ####ty hours to solve these kinds of problems. I was hoping you had just forgotten green text, but I guess it's just conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Really? How do you know? How many millions have been spent on cancer research with zero results? As much as I cannot prove my opinion neither can you.

Zero results?? Guess the hundreds of medical and surgical treatments for cancer Don't count?

As for the "how do I know?", is a PhD in molecular biology sufficient? Or perhaps ask my oncologist wife.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Impossible conspiracies and I am still crazy huh? Ya, I am out in this thread. When some hack has to make it an insult thing I lose interest. I enjoy debating things but I hate the way things can turn into taking it personal on here much too often.

Let me put it in a different way to you. Would it not be better for drug companies if people lived longer and therefore were more likely to need more drugs as the got older ? I have a feeling that wiping out cancer (as much as that isn't possible) would increase the revenues gained by drug companies due to the old age diseases like Hypertension, heart disease and cholesterol problems.

I posed that question to my buddy when he said the same thing as you and it got him to switch his tune.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by billybob123

The HIV vaccine is a problem because of the properties of the virus, not because drug companies make money from treatments, in fact treatments fail precisely for the same reason that the vaccine is so difficult. But feel free to continue insulting scientific researchers who get paid piss poor salaries and work ultra ####ty hours to solve these kinds of problems. I was hoping you had just forgotten green text, but I guess it's just conspiracy theory.



Zero results?? Guess the hundreds of medical and surgical treatments for cancer Don't count?

As for the "how do I know?", is a PhD in molecular biology sufficient? Or perhaps ask my oncologist wife.

Amen brother. PhD synthetic organic chemistry here.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Not the first time nor the last. I hate cancer as much as anybody but they will never release a cure for it. The medical industry makes billions in cancer treatment not to mention the population rate would be even more out of control. As much as it is nice to believe in the goodness of mankind the real truth is that they will never release a cure for cancer to the public, there is too much money to be made in the treatment.

Congrats you just came up with the stupidest post of the year on Dec 30.

I just lost my 11 year old niece to leukemia last week and if you think a researcher who has come out with a cure would take money not to release it, is insane.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Congrats you just came up with the stupidest post of the year on Dec 30.

I just lost my 11 year old niece to leukemia last week and if you think a researcher who has come out with a cure would take money not to release it, is insane.

Ah, but most cancers due to research can be treated now according to others. How could this have happened then? I don't understand, I am insane remember? I wish they could have saved your niece. Why can't they with the millions and millions of dollars they have sunk into reseach?

[sa226]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Impossible conspiracies and I am still crazy huh? Ya, I am out in this thread. When some hack has to make it an insult thing I lose interest. I enjoy debating things but I hate the way things can turn into taking it personal on here much too often.

Well, I hope you still read the thread.

Even though I don't share your completely misinformed opinion, I am learning a lot from those piling on.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Ah, but most cancers due to research can be treated now according to others. How could this have happened then? I don't understand, I am insane remember?

Lots of the money goes into early detection/screening as well.

Here is an example of a drug that decreases the mortality rate of breast Cancer.

Tamoxifen - It is usually given for 5 years post treatment of breast cancer.

Tamoxifen is currently used for the treatment of both early and advanced ER+ (estrogen receptor positive) breast cancer in pre- and post-menopausal women.[3] Additionally, it is the most common hormone treatment for male breast cancer.[4] It is also approved by the FDA for the prevention of breast cancer in women at high risk of developing the disease.[5] It has been further approved for the reduction of contralateral (in the opposite breast) cancer.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by sa226

Well, I hope you still read the thread.

Even though I don't share your completely misinformed opinion, I am learning a lot from those piling on.

I hope I am dead wrong. I hope they have a cure for most cancers within the next few years. I just don't have any faith that we will ever see the results of all that research.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Thor

Some cancer survival rates:

Is this second chart supposed to make me feel better? So at best with these different cancers you can expect a whole 3 years at best to live? That doesn't look like great progress to me.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Let me put it in a different way to you. Would it not be better for drug companies if people lived longer and therefore were more likely to need more drugs as the got older ? I have a feeling that wiping out cancer (as much as that isn't possible) would increase the revenues gained by drug companies due to the old age diseases like Hypertension, heart disease and cholesterol problems.

I posed that question to my buddy when he said the same thing as you and it got him to switch his tune.

Thats truly an outstanding point, well done.

People forget we are naturally meant to live only 30-40yrs, and its only very recent (a fraction of our existence) that we've doubled that. Old age is where the big money maker is in pharms, old people are very very expensive to keep alive and treat.

Imagine when we start living over 100yrs without much difficulty, we'll always be facing new issues in treatments and drugs to keep us going that long, and I have a sneaking suspicion the biggest barrier to keeping us alive for centuries or more will be human brain degeneration and how to beat that, we'll have the abilities to replace organs without much fuss eventually, but the brain, not sure how we'll figure that one out.

Oh well that's too far ahead to toy with now, but fun to imagine what issues they will be dealing with.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Is this second chart supposed to make me feel better? So at best with these different cancers you can expect a whole 3 years at best to live? That doesn't look like great progress to me.

Tell that to someone who has 2 to 3 more years to be with their family and friends.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Is this second chart supposed to make me feel better? So at best with these different cancers you can expect a whole 3 years at best to live? That doesn't look like great progress to me.

I think the chart was actually responding to your "Zero Results" claim.

Just for your reference, here is what that chart would look like if there really was zero results:

3
2 ********************
1 ---------------------------------------
0 _______________________________________________

[Thor]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Is this second chart supposed to make me feel better? So at best with these different cancers you can expect a whole 3 years at best to live? That doesn't look like great progress to me.

You have to consider that a lot of cancers are hitting people in old age, so thats why I posted a happy feel good child survival statistics first

Cancer is still brutal, and we can't pretend its not. But we've come a long way and the most exciting research is happening these last 10 years because of some major advances in technology, none of least is of course genetics which is responsible for so many of our biggest hopes of finally putting cancer in its place.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I hope I am dead wrong. I hope they have a cure for most cancers within the next few years. I just don't have any faith that we will ever see the results of all that research.

If there's no results, then why are some cancers survivable? Because they have drugs, like tamoxifen and taxol like Hesla said above.

Also said above, which you may have missed, is that not all cancers are the same. So, much like infectious diseases, there is no one cure.

Lucky for everyone, granting agencies look at published results and clinical trials instead of conspiracy bunk.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Is this second chart supposed to make me feel better? So at best with these different cancers you can expect a whole 3 years at best to live? That doesn't look like great progress to me.

Again, how does this in any way support your assertation about big pharma making too much money off treatment to bother with a real cure?
For that matter, if there are zero results, why is there so much money being spent? Seems like if you're right, that's one heck of a big money pit.


You honestly don't think there is more money to be made in curing people for life, than keeping them alive for 3 years?

[photon]

The "How many millions have been spent on cancer research with zero results?" notion is what gets me..

Why should we expect the universe to care at all about our notions of currency and budgets?

[bradster57]

Glenn Beck did a segment on this years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI5MkQSZrmI

I don't think this is anything new since it's still years away and the trials have been limited.

[SeeBass]

Early in my lifetime when somebody had cancer the first question was how long do they have to live. Today the first question is what kind?

I mentioned this when Steve Jobs died, if there was ever evidence for no secret cure for cancer his death is the best example I can think of.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Early in my lifetime when somebody had cancer the first question was how long do they have to live. Today the first question is what kind?

I mentioned this when Steve Jobs died, if there was ever evidence for no secret cure for cancer his death is the best example I can think of.

It didn't matter, his body may have died but they transfered his mind into an Apple Ipad.