Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

thats right. it seems the media has determined that a possible cure for most if not all cancers is not really newsworthy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html



http://media.www.studentprintz.com/media/storage/paper974/news/2007/01/23/Opinion/Scientists.Cure.Cancer.But.No.One.Takes.Notice-2667600.shtml



i dont get it at all. how is this not news? not sexy enough? doesnt reach a marketable target audience? nothing to put a spin on and get people blood boiling?

Originally posted by PVS
i dont get it at all. how is this not news? not sexy enough? doesnt reach a marketable target audience? nothing to put a spin on and get people blood boiling?




I guess that's your answer. It really is too bad. I know I'd appreciate a cure for cancer. Even more, I'd appreciate not having to go bankrupt to pay for it. News like this get's buried because there's no profit to be made.

Originally posted by PVS
thats right. it seems the media has determined that a possible cure for most if not all cancers is not really newsworthy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html



http://media.www.studentprintz.com/media/storage/paper974/news/2007/01/23/Opinion/Scientists.Cure.Cancer.But.No.One.Takes.Notice-2667600.shtml



i dont get it at all. how is this not news? not sexy enough? doesnt reach a marketable target audience? nothing to put a spin on and get people blood boiling?

Say its secret ingredient comes from kittens.

Don't be silly, the patent reason is not the problem. If it WAS the problem, someone would brand name an off-shoot, market it and make a killing. A true anti-cancer drug would be worth a fortune to the first company to market it right.

Don't blame corporate greed- such greed would flog this thing like mad if it really worked.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't blame corporate greed- such greed would flog this thing like mad if it really worked.

Does it cost more to be sick? Or does it cost more to be healthy?

There never WILL be a 'cure' for cancer. Until society stops giving a damn about profit and actually starts caring about the fellow man.

Of course this will never happen.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Does it cost more to be sick? Or does it cosy more to be healthy?

It cost much more to be sick. If they had a cure for Chronic Kidney Failure I'd pay anything for it, and people with cancer would proably pay what ever to cure there cancer.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't be silly, the patent reason is not the problem. If it WAS the problem, someone would brand name an off-shoot, market it and make a killing. A true anti-cancer drug would be worth a fortune to the first company to market it right.

Don't blame corporate greed- such greed would flog this thing like mad if it really worked. There's more money to be made off of expensive treatments.

Originally posted by Strangelove
There's more money to be made off of expensive treatments.
That screams of something false... This thing is cheap to produce... With correct marketing they could be huge profit margins.

It's not a drug... DCA is an acid. After reaseach and development it may become a drug.

however the patent would be superficial considering the active ingrdient is easily and cheaply obtainable. it would be like trying to patent vitamin c.

Why would the media care? I'm sure that Mel Gibson's rambling about Jews or that Kramer's going off on black people somewhere.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Why would the media care? I'm sure that Mel Gibson's rambling about Jews or that Kramer's going off on black people somewhere.

*suddenly loses interest in topic and turns on cnn*

Originally posted by PVS
however the patent would be superficial considering the active ingrdient is easily and cheaply obtainable. it would be like trying to patent vitamin c.
Not saying they'll ever be able to patent it. This doesn't prevent someone from racking in though.

Originally posted by PVS
it prevents sole ownership of a cure or treatment and could also eliminate lengthy and expensive treatments like chemotherapy. that would be a dent in the industry wouldnt it?
Of course, not a particular recipe of an effective drug though.

Originally posted by Strangelove
There's more money to be made off of expensive treatments.
Nonsense. If there was a reasonable chance someone would invest in it..because there would be money to be made of it. There's something else that must prevent it.

Sure, always fun to blame corporations, but it is usually unreasonable.Originally posted by PVS
however the patent would be superficial considering the active ingrdient is easily and cheaply obtainable. it would be like trying to patent vitamin c.
Is that so? Then why don't you just fix up that cancer cure in your basement?


Aspirine is easy to make and Bayer makes a ****ing fortune selling it to anyone and everyone. Their arguments seem pretty stupid and shallow and also biased. I guess it is cool nowadays to be against big corporations and capitalism and such... but hey, you are wrong.

Originally posted by PVS
you cant possibly tell me that pharmacutical companies and the medical industry would welcome such a disasterous dent in profit just to rake in some change for some pill that can easily be released in generic form by any company?

Look, dude, you know I like you, if you are so sure that this stuff will work. Go to a bank, get convince them and get a credit and invest in it.
If it is as sucessful as they claim you'd also make a profit.

Originally posted by PVS
however the patent would be superficial considering the active ingrdient is easily and cheaply obtainable. it would be like trying to patent vitamin c.

Or Salicylic acid, hmm?

The lack of patent is totally irrelevant. Like I say, somone simply patents a brand name and makes a fortune.

Saying they make more by keeping people sick is bunkum. Big cures bring in big money, doubly so for a disease that cannot be eradicated like it was a virus. It would be a permnanent money maker until someone worked out a vaccine (which, incidentally, pharmaceuticals are working hard on, which gives the even bigger lie to claims that they try and keep people sick for money.) Even if you are right and it would not remain cheap, the fact remains that they would still do it.

First company to get Cure for Cancer right makes more money than you can comfortably imagine. They'd undercut all their rivals too.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

The last disease that was cured was polio....in like 1955. What the hell has the medical community been doing for the last 50 years?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Or Salicylic acid, hmm?


acetylsalicylic acid was patented till 1917. it was impossible for bayer to keep the market cornered, or they certainly would have.

Originally posted by PVS
acetylsalicylic acid was patented till 1917. it was impossible for bayer to keep the market cornered, or they certainly would have.

1917...Bayer still big business...interesting.

Also, you could patent the cure, jsut because it isn't patented doesn't mean you can't do it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
1917...Bayer still big business...interesting.

Also, you could patent the cure, jsut because it isn't patented doesn't mean you can't do it.

if the acid in itself is the cure that could be difficult, ya think?

Originally posted by PVS
if the acid in itself is the cure that could be difficult, ya think?

Probably not.

So what is it that you want to say, I think you should stick to one:

1. The cure has to be researched and heavily funded

2. The cure is the easiest thing we will ever see...so easy a garbage men could pull it out of their ass and there won't be a chance to make any money of it because it is soooo easy


?

Originally posted by Bardock42
1. The cure has to be researched and heavily funded

yes

Originally posted by Bardock42
The cure is the easiest thing we will ever see...so easy a garbage men could pull it out of their ass and there won't be a chance to make any money of it because it is soooo easy

and imho would prove disasterous for the cancer patient market. and lets face it, there is a strong market for cancer patients...its sad, its morbid, but profits are soaring. so, wild exhageration of the situation aside, yes

Originally posted by PVS
yes



and imho would prove disasterous for the cancer patient market. and lets face it, there is a strong market for cancer patients...its sad, its morbid, but profits are soaring. so, wild exhageration of the situation aside, yes
Okay why does it need so much research when it is so easy to obtain?

Someone that had an actual cure (and they could patent it) would make unreasonable amounts of money...so maybe the pharma industry fears to lose their profits, oh well, if it was so likely, then someone would pick it up...someone that isn't involved in the industry yet maybe, but someone would. The real problem probably is not that the big corporations are evil...that's bullshit, but that this oh so great "potential" cure is not as...potential as people would like one to believe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay why does it need so much research when it is so easy to obtain?

to see if it works?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Someone that had an actual cure (and they could patent it)

ok, lets say "an apple a day" really did keep the doctor away and cured all disease. now, how would they patent apples?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The real problem probably is not that the big corporations are evil

yes they are

Originally posted by Bardock42
...that's bullshit,

no its not

Originally posted by Bardock42
but that this oh so great "potential" cure is not as...potential as people would like one to believe.

thus research

Originally posted by PVS
to see if it works?



ok, lets say "an apple a day" really did keep the doctor away and cured all disease. now, how would they patent apples?



yes they are



no its not



thus research

I am sure there are desperate cancer patients that will try it (especially since it is so easy to obtain) ...


What research would they need for apples?


It is probably not covered because it is just a bogus idea...you can't cover every shit that comes up.


What would you like to happen?

acknowledgement and research.

this obtuse brushing over of possibilities by the medical community and media is suspect, maybe?

Originally posted by PVS
acknowledgement and research.

this obtuse brushing over of possibilities by the medical community and media is suspect, maybe?

Well, they can research it on their own time and money.

Suspect maybe, suspect as in probably someone who tries to sell some shit to get fame or money....not the way you'd like it to be suspect. At least not to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, they can research it on their own time and money.

Suspect maybe, suspect as in probably someone who tries to sell some shit to get fame or money....not the way you'd like it to be suspect. At least not to me.

ok then. i fail so far to see why the argument, though highly debatable, is so easily refutible...but ok

Originally posted by PVS
ok then. i fail so far to see why the argument, though highly debatable, is so easily refutible...but ok

Well, I don't see what argument you have.

Lets assume all you say is right.

What should who do and why and how?

asperin is a drug which is used to alieve, and not cure. if you were able to take a few asprin and cure your head forever of pain, i doubt bayer would have done so well. there is no continual flow of money. unless there is a vaccine, but who needs a vaccine if the cure is hypothetically in a pill?

Originally posted by PVS
asperin is a drug which is used to alieve, and not cure. if you were able to take a few asprin and cure your head forever of pain, i doubt bayer would have done so well. there is no continual flow of money. unless there is a vaccine, but who needs a vaccine if the cure is in a pill?

Lots of people with Cancer. Lots of people that would like to be cured. Lots of cancer going to keep coming up anyways. Anyways, fast money for now, who cares for tomorrow.

Also, stop adding to your posts. You are like DrewB

Originally posted by Bardock42

What should who do and why and how?


...hope not to get cancer i guess.
btw i know that none of the studies = fact.
however imho its cartainly not rense.com-bound either.

Originally posted by PVS
...hope not to get cancer i guess.
btw i know that none of the studies = fact.
however imho its cartainly not rense.com-bound either.
Not to get cancer is generally the best way to go. Also, if it is really that great and easy to obtain I am sure there are lots of cancer patients willing to get it tested on themselves...probably for free even.


I guess. But it seems like anti-capitalist and anti-corporations and anti-media bias for sure. Which, is not bad as such, just when it is the purpose and not the conclusion it gets annoying.

Go Canada w00t

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not to get cancer is generally the best way to go. Also, if it is really that great and easy to obtain I am sure there are lots of cancer patients willing to get it tested on themselves...probably for free even.


I guess. But it seems like anti-capitalist and anti-corporations and anti-media bias for sure. Which, is not bad as such, just when it is the purpose and not the conclusion it gets annoying.

keep in mind that an editorial article does not discredit the study.
i want to know why there is absolutely nothing in the mainstream media about this? not so much as a breif frikin page 6 article.
thats what i cant get over.

:edit: maybe my mind would ease if sense was made of this.

Originally posted by PVS
keep in mind that an editorial article does not discredit the study.
i want to know why there is absolutely nothing in the mainstream media about this? not so much as a breif frikin page 6 article.
thats what i cant get over.

:edit: maybe my mind would ease if sense was made of this.

With that I agree actually. I guess it isn't seen as likely...or...the media is shit.

What startles me is that the University of Albany itself doesn't mention it. It seems weird.

U of Alberta you mean.

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8153

Originally posted by silver_tears
U of Alberta you mean.

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8153

Haha, jesus, I actually searched for Albany.

kudos at least to newsweek

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16776882/site/newsweek

A cure for cancer is not interesting to the different News Broadcasting Stations. They want sensationalism and violence. Not happy endings (lol). Nor science for that matter. No one cares about science anymore in this country. Everyone wants a business degree.

topic of curing disease draws ratings.

The only reasons I can think of is they think it's unreliable, and don't want to create mob scramble over a cure. shrug

Well apparently Newsweek did cover it already. I guess all the right sources would know anyways. And, yeah.

Originally posted by silver_tears
The only reasons I can think of is they think it's unreliable, and don't want to create mob scramble over a cure. shrug

you trying to tell me that news outlets dont risk creating mob scrambles just for ratings?

Originally posted by PVS
you trying to tell me that news outlets dont risk creating mob scrambles just for ratings?

I got nothing else.

I am so excited at the prospect of this drug even though I have never known anyone afflicted with cancer. Thinking about though, imagine they do cure cancer, then all the funding can go into curing things like AIDS and other terminal illnesses, and eventually relative immortality will be ours, until old age catches you or some accident involving pianos.

Although imagine the overcrowding of the planet if that was to happen. shock

I'm just rambling now, I'm sorry to anyone who read that. It's just all such an amazing interconnected chain. hmm

Originally posted by PVS
acetylsalicylic acid was patented till 1917. it was impossible for bayer to keep the market cornered, or they certainly would have.

Err, the entire bloody point of my post is that the fact that salicylic acid was naturally occuring never stopped people making HUGE amounts of money from it, so the entire thrust of your argument was incorrect.

Couple of minor changes, and you have yourself a brand. Salicylic-acid based painkillers are all patented variations (no-one actually uses the stuff 'neat', as it were) and very profitable ones too. It's easy and it happens all the time.

"now, how would they patent apples?"

They'd grow their own variety. Plenty of protected elements in the apples industry. You always pay above the mark for brand-name apples even though you are perfectly free to grow your own. naturally occuring means bugger all difference as far as profits are concerned.

Big business is not stopping this happening. That's a fantasy. Like I say, big business would make a fortune out fo this and demolish their rivals in one swoop. They would do it. The fact they haven't says something about this really being a miracle cure.

not trusting the intentions of big buisness doesn't mean that those people who doubt the virtues of an indesputably corrupt pharmicutical industry are wacky conspiracy theorists. Attempting to paint them as such is silly.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
not trusting the intentions of big buisness doesn't mean that those people who doubt the virtues of an indesputably corrupt pharmicutical industry are wacky conspiracy theorists. Attempting to paint them as such is silly.

Not trusting big companies for silly conspiracy (or worse, socialist) ideas is silly as well though.

Also, what has it to do with trust? If you trust a big company to support something that has absolutely no advantage to them then that's your fault. They have no obligation to do that. And shouldn't.

Originally posted by PVS
you cant possibly tell me that pharmacutical companies and the medical industry would welcome such a disasterous dent in profit just to rake in some change for some pill that can easily be released in generic form by any company?
Of course not, they will not get any investors from pharmaceutical companies, not until there is more proof that it will work at least.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"now, how would they patent apples?"

They'd grow their own variety. Plenty of protected elements in the apples industry. You always pay above the mark for brand-name apples even though you are perfectly free to grow your own. naturally occuring means bugger all difference as far as profits are concerned.

Big business is not stopping this happening. That's a fantasy. Like I say, big business would make a fortune out fo this and demolish their rivals in one swoop. They would do it. The fact they haven't says something about this really being a miracle cure.

you missed the point about the application s of asprin and the application of a cure-drug. an asperin cures a headache, but you'll get many more.

and as for the "miracle cure" ffs i never said it was. even in the thread title i clearly specify this. i just want to know why the only ones to touch a legitimate study which could possibly be revolutionary was newsweek? go on. google it. prove me wrong. when our media would forsake ratings to pretend something doesnt exist, im concerned. for you its perfectly acceptable. i find that to be an overly trusting and obtuse outlook, but fine. dont try to make me out to be a david iche cult follower though.