If there is even a shred of truth to this is it not our GOV responsibly to make sure this happens. They make laws to protect people from smoking drinking and driving is this not the responsible thing to do here?
Guess big pharma would do anything to make sure this never see’s the light of day cause if there was a cure a whole branch of their income would stop.
More profit in the treatment than the cure.
Capitalism has failed us all if this is true.
their; than
If people keep getting this wrong I believe cancer actually IS the cure and not the problem.
[quote]dirtbag wrote:
If there is even a shred of truth to this is it not our GOV responsibly to make sure this happens. They make laws to protect people from smoking drinking and driving is this not the responsible thing to do here?
Guess big pharma would do anything to make sure this never see’s the light of day cause if there was a cure a whole branch of there income would stop.
More profit in the treatment then the cure.
Capitalism has failed us all if this is true.[/quote]
Dirt I know its easy to demonize Big Pharma, however they would get rich off of curing CA.
Why does big Pharma get demonized? However Big Insurance companies get a pass?
I have read about something similar, about pharmaceutical companies not making a generic pill that treats a bunch of disease without side effects for cheap because there is no money in it. I hope the medicine in the story exists. This is a case where privitizing everything is not for the best.
Wouldn’t there be ways to slightly alter the drug into a patentable one?
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I have read about something similar, about pharmaceutical companies not making a generic pill that treats a bunch of disease without side effects for cheap[/quote]
Suuuuuuuuurrrrreeee.
Just like that zero-cal ice cream.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I have read about something similar, about pharmaceutical companies not making a generic pill that treats a bunch of disease without side effects for cheap because there is no money in it. I hope the medicine in the story exists. This is a case where privitizing everything is not for the best.[/quote]
Hold on guys, do you know how much money it costs to study, test and release a new medication? Do you know how many FAIL Govt regulation?
Yes they want to make their money back with a profit, how is that a bad thing? After 10 years they lose the patent and generics can be made no matter what Big Pharma does, any drug producing company can take that patent after ten years and make a generic form.
If you really believe that our Govt that cant fund Medicare and Social Security would do a better job making medication for the US then I just dont know what to say.
There’s been a cure for Cancer for a long time…don’t have sex 9 months before July.
Ugh…sorry, shitty Horoscope joke.
There’s many ways to cure cancer, the trick is not killing the patient as well.
This article is ridiculous. First, drug companies will patent everything and anything they can including fish oil (Lovaza). If there were truly a cure for cancer in a pill, drug companies would be all over themselves to get a piece of it. And, even if they weren’t, there’s about a thousand drug companies in SE Asia that would love to produce it. They can make money selling boner pills, you don’t think they could figure out how to make some rupee’s curing cancer?
[quote]Nards wrote:
There’s been a cure for Cancer for a long time…don’t have sex 9 months before July.
Ugh…sorry, shitty Horoscope joke.[/quote]
That was pretty bad, man.
A for effort though.
I’m still of the thinking that education is the key. You know… an ounce of prevention etc.
Many cancers (despite what we’re told about genetic predisposition) appear when the person engages in particular risk factors. Sure, some of them are uncontrollable (environmental toxins, etc). That’s why it’s important we keep up the clean water and air regulations, as well as keeping known carcinogens out of our food and beverages.
Instead of putting a band-aid on the wound, find ways of not getting wounded.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I’m still of the thinking that education is the key. You know… an ounce of prevention etc.
Many cancers (despite what we’re told about genetic predisposition) appear when the person engages in particular risk factors. Sure, some of them are uncontrollable (environmental toxins, etc). That’s why it’s important we keep up the clean water and air regulations, as well as keeping known carcinogens out of our food and beverages.
Instead of putting a band-aid on the wound, find ways of not getting wounded. [/quote]
ID but look across America we are not a society that plans ahead any longer. The expectations are to do what I want and then have someone fix it.
I agree 100% but look we are on a fitness website so that is to be expected.
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynksi has an interesting documentary on netflix about a cure he found and the ensuing conspiritorial action against it, including multiple successful defenses in court against govt agencies, including the FDA, trying to shut him down at the behest of other pharma companies worried about market share.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I’m still of the thinking that education is the key. You know… an ounce of prevention etc.
Many cancers (despite what we’re told about genetic predisposition) appear when the person engages in particular risk factors. Sure, some of them are uncontrollable (environmental toxins, etc). That’s why it’s important we keep up the clean water and air regulations, as well as keeping known carcinogens out of our food and beverages.
Instead of putting a band-aid on the wound, find ways of not getting wounded. [/quote]
x2… it seems some people get offended when you say it’s not largely genetic, as if you’re blaming them for their cancer. Well you know what, I just lost a dog to cancer and with what I know now about dog food, vaccines, and topical flea stuff, I’m at peace with the idea that I am mostly or all responsible for her death.
It sucks, but I’ll be sure not to make the same mistakes again.
I do believe there is some genetic risk, but it’s no where near what many think.
Just like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s by many is still thought to be largely genetic when in fact recent studies show only a 5-10% genetic component and even then only half those get it.
First of all there is no generic cancer, that behaves universally and could be cured by one single medicine. The various “types” of cancers all behave differently.
Even more frightening than the ignorance of people not knowing that was that freaking website. Did any of you guys read some of the other stuff those battling retards were talking about?
It was like the interesting of where tinfoil hat meets meth addict…
This article is full of shit, anyone with a bit of biochemistry knowledge will laugh at “there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria”…umm no mitochondria are not fucking cells they are inside cells.
Anyway curing cancer is like trying to cure poverty, there is no ‘simple’ cure ; there are so many causes and different disease progressions that you can’t just throw one drug at it and solve it, cancer is a complex disease (and it includes a wide range of tissues and cell types that would respond differently to medication).
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I’m still of the thinking that education is the key. You know… an ounce of prevention etc.
Many cancers (despite what we’re told about genetic predisposition) appear when the person engages in particular risk factors. Sure, some of them are uncontrollable (environmental toxins, etc). That’s why it’s important we keep up the clean water and air regulations, as well as keeping known carcinogens out of our food and beverages.
Instead of putting a band-aid on the wound, find ways of not getting wounded. [/quote]
x2… it seems some people get offended when you say it’s not largely genetic, as if you’re blaming them for their cancer. Well you know what, I just lost a dog to cancer and with what I know now about dog food, vaccines, and topical flea stuff, I’m at peace with the idea that I am mostly or all responsible for her death.
It sucks, but I’ll be sure not to make the same mistakes again.
I do believe there is some genetic risk, but it’s no where near what many think.
Just like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s by many is still thought to be largely genetic when in fact recent studies show only a 5-10% genetic component and even then only half those get it.[/quote]
Reminds me of an interview with the same oncologist (NPR interview). He spoke of a female patient concerned about her chances of getting breast cancer. The woman told him her mother and aunt both had breast cancer, and she wanted to know her chances of getting it. He told her roughly 12% greater possibility than the general population. Then she told him she smoked cigarettes. He replied “Your chances just jumped to around 80%!”
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I’m still of the thinking that education is the key. You know… an ounce of prevention etc.
Many cancers (despite what we’re told about genetic predisposition) appear when the person engages in particular risk factors. Sure, some of them are uncontrollable (environmental toxins, etc). That’s why it’s important we keep up the clean water and air regulations, as well as keeping known carcinogens out of our food and beverages.
Instead of putting a band-aid on the wound, find ways of not getting wounded. [/quote]
x2… it seems some people get offended when you say it’s not largely genetic, as if you’re blaming them for their cancer. Well you know what, I just lost a dog to cancer and with what I know now about dog food, vaccines, and topical flea stuff, I’m at peace with the idea that I am mostly or all responsible for her death.
It sucks, but I’ll be sure not to make the same mistakes again.
I do believe there is some genetic risk, but it’s no where near what many think.
Just like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s by many is still thought to be largely genetic when in fact recent studies show only a 5-10% genetic component and even then only half those get it.[/quote]
Reminds me of an interview with the same oncologist (NPR interview). He spoke of a female patient concerned about her chances of getting breast cancer. The woman told him her mother and aunt both had breast cancer, and she wanted to know her chances of getting it. He told her roughly 12% greater possibility than the general population. Then she told him she smoked cigarettes. He replied “Your chances just jumped to around 80%!”[/quote]
Your chance of getting some diseases such as Parkinsons, cancer or Alzheimers depends on both your genetics and your environment; however some diseases such as Huntington’s are entirely dependant on genetics whereas others such as cancer from asbestos are purely environmental.
[quote]Prolifik wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I’m still of the thinking that education is the key. You know… an ounce of prevention etc.
Many cancers (despite what we’re told about genetic predisposition) appear when the person engages in particular risk factors. Sure, some of them are uncontrollable (environmental toxins, etc). That’s why it’s important we keep up the clean water and air regulations, as well as keeping known carcinogens out of our food and beverages.
Instead of putting a band-aid on the wound, find ways of not getting wounded. [/quote]
x2… it seems some people get offended when you say it’s not largely genetic, as if you’re blaming them for their cancer. Well you know what, I just lost a dog to cancer and with what I know now about dog food, vaccines, and topical flea stuff, I’m at peace with the idea that I am mostly or all responsible for her death.
It sucks, but I’ll be sure not to make the same mistakes again.
I do believe there is some genetic risk, but it’s no where near what many think.
Just like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s by many is still thought to be largely genetic when in fact recent studies show only a 5-10% genetic component and even then only half those get it.[/quote]
Reminds me of an interview with the same oncologist (NPR interview). He spoke of a female patient concerned about her chances of getting breast cancer. The woman told him her mother and aunt both had breast cancer, and she wanted to know her chances of getting it. He told her roughly 12% greater possibility than the general population. Then she told him she smoked cigarettes. He replied “Your chances just jumped to around 80%!”[/quote]
Your chance of getting some diseases such as Parkinsons, cancer or Alzheimers depends on both your genetics and your environment; however some diseases such as Huntington’s are entirely dependant on genetics whereas others such as cancer from asbestos are purely environmental.
[/quote]
That’s a given. I was just trying to make the point that we all seem to want a cure, yet don’t want to take responsibility for things we CAN control.
I read somewhere a good anecdote about getting cancer is like choosing a card out of a deck. Imagine everyone has a huge deck of cards and one Joker. You blindly choose a card with a certain chance of getting the Joker. However, every time you smoke a pack you are adding another Joker to that deck. Every time you get a sunburn you add a Joker. Some things are so bad that you add two or three Jokers to the deck.
Heard someone else say that Everyone WILL get cancer but many die of other things first.