Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
When Does 'Harmless' Cross a Line?
Replies
-
Throughout history people have tried a lot of dumb things to try to cure themselves or look better. Some people believe their cures while others are just out to make money from vulnerable people. There is an interesting medical history podcast called Sawbones that covers a lot of this kind of stuff. Really fun to listen to. There is an episode on urine. http://www.maximumfun.org/sawbones/sawbones-urine
I doubt many people are going to inject themselves with urine to cure allergies. It is probably too gross compared to just taking allergy meds for most people. Telling people to inject things into their body is definitely crossing a line into harmful though.
Hello. My name is lorriemb and I am a Sawbones addict.2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
4 -
canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand. 4 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.5 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
People talk about how cures would cut their profit but they could charge whatever they want for it. Just look at the price of the Hep C cure. It's very very expensive. Also think of the fame and fortune they'd get if they found a cure. A thing that bothers me is that people act like cancer is one disease. Nope cancer is hundreds of different diseases and different causes. There will never be one thing that cures them all. There are some forms that have 90+% survival rate and some with basically 0%.5 -
singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
People talk about how cures would cut their profit but they could charge whatever they want for it. Just look at the price of the Hep C cure. It's very very expensive. Also think of the fame and fortune they'd get if they found a cure. A thing that bothers me is that people act like cancer is one disease. Nope cancer is hundreds of different diseases and different causes. There will never be one thing that cures them all. There are some forms that have 90+% survival rate and some with basically 0%.
You're absolutely spot on that cancer has many different causes. I was using it in the general, collective term for simplicity here. I doubt that a one-shot-cures-all type of deal would be possible, but only time with tell. Perhaps possible as a preventative across-the-board, but as a cure for all types once established? Not likely.
Don't know what the cost of the Hep C cure is, but I do recall when the HPV vaccine first came out and I paid for the shots for my daughter. I wondered how lower income families could afford to get them, or if there was some geared-to-income program that would provide it to them at no cost. I certainly hope so.1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
People talk about how cures would cut their profit but they could charge whatever they want for it. Just look at the price of the Hep C cure. It's very very expensive. Also think of the fame and fortune they'd get if they found a cure. A thing that bothers me is that people act like cancer is one disease. Nope cancer is hundreds of different diseases and different causes. There will never be one thing that cures them all. There are some forms that have 90+% survival rate and some with basically 0%.
You're absolutely spot on that cancer has many different causes. I was using it in the general, collective term for simplicity here. I doubt that a one-shot-cures-all type of deal would be possible, but only time with tell. Perhaps possible as a preventative across-the-board, but as a cure for all types once established? Not likely.
Don't know what the cost of the Hep C cure is, but I do recall when the HPV vaccine first came out and I paid for the shots for my daughter. I wondered how lower income families could afford to get them, or if there was some geared-to-income program that would provide it to them at no cost. I certainly hope so.
I wasn't referring to you about the cancer thing just how there are so many people who think big pharma is hiding the cure (singular).
The hep C drug costs at least 100k if I recall correctly1 -
If people are willing to GO BEYOND what is just basic dieting and exercise to lose weight, chances are it ain't "harmless" especially if it means ingesting something or injecting something that's not a "regular" out on the market.
Common sense comes into play here. Dumb people will do dumb things without questioning it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
If you want to find unscrupulous profit mongering schemes look no further than hair loss and wrinkle creams. The claimants don't have to worry about class actions and the "ailment" is not life threatening.
I'd say second tier are the symptom managing treatments like cold cures, stomach settling and vitamins. Let's not forget the libido enhancement aids.
Third tier are weight loss aids. Also low risk and low cost; just add a little caffeine.
Pain treatments are fourth tier with potentially building an addict base; a nice steady profit stream until the patent/copyright expires.
Just look at the energy being put in to advertising and the rows of shelving dedicated to these types of products. That's where the money is.
Where I would like to see big pharma do better is in collaboration. The funding model and copyright laws create hoarders.
I cannot conceive however that there are cures being actively suppressed.3 -
singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
People talk about how cures would cut their profit but they could charge whatever they want for it. Just look at the price of the Hep C cure. It's very very expensive. Also think of the fame and fortune they'd get if they found a cure. A thing that bothers me is that people act like cancer is one disease. Nope cancer is hundreds of different diseases and different causes. There will never be one thing that cures them all. There are some forms that have 90+% survival rate and some with basically 0%.
You're absolutely spot on that cancer has many different causes. I was using it in the general, collective term for simplicity here. I doubt that a one-shot-cures-all type of deal would be possible, but only time with tell. Perhaps possible as a preventative across-the-board, but as a cure for all types once established? Not likely.
Don't know what the cost of the Hep C cure is, but I do recall when the HPV vaccine first came out and I paid for the shots for my daughter. I wondered how lower income families could afford to get them, or if there was some geared-to-income program that would provide it to them at no cost. I certainly hope so.
I wasn't referring to you about the cancer thing just how there are so many people who think big pharma is hiding the cure (singular).
The hep C drug costs at least 100k if I recall correctly
Yikes!
0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
People talk about how cures would cut their profit but they could charge whatever they want for it. Just look at the price of the Hep C cure. It's very very expensive. Also think of the fame and fortune they'd get if they found a cure. A thing that bothers me is that people act like cancer is one disease. Nope cancer is hundreds of different diseases and different causes. There will never be one thing that cures them all. There are some forms that have 90+% survival rate and some with basically 0%.
You're absolutely spot on that cancer has many different causes. I was using it in the general, collective term for simplicity here. I doubt that a one-shot-cures-all type of deal would be possible, but only time with tell. Perhaps possible as a preventative across-the-board, but as a cure for all types once established? Not likely.
Don't know what the cost of the Hep C cure is, but I do recall when the HPV vaccine first came out and I paid for the shots for my daughter. I wondered how lower income families could afford to get them, or if there was some geared-to-income program that would provide it to them at no cost. I certainly hope so.
I wasn't referring to you about the cancer thing just how there are so many people who think big pharma is hiding the cure (singular).
The hep C drug costs at least 100k if I recall correctly
Yikes!
I was a little off. The top 4 most expensive prescription drugs in the USA are all hep c drugs
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/americas-10-most-expensive-prescription-drugs.html
2017
30 days of:
#1 harvoni is 87 800
#2 Sovaldi 73 800
#3 Epclusa 73 300
#4 Zepatier 52 600
#6 Daklinza 49 400
#10 Viekira Pak 34,600 though this one needs to be taken at least twice as long as the others (24 weeks)
1 -
If there's one thing I've learned in my 62 years on the planet, it's that common sense isn't.If people are willing to GO BEYOND what is just basic dieting and exercise to lose weight, chances are it ain't "harmless" especially if it means ingesting something or injecting something that's not a "regular" out on the market.
Common sense comes into play here. Dumb people will do dumb things without questioning it.
1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
People talk about how cures would cut their profit but they could charge whatever they want for it. Just look at the price of the Hep C cure. It's very very expensive. Also think of the fame and fortune they'd get if they found a cure. A thing that bothers me is that people act like cancer is one disease. Nope cancer is hundreds of different diseases and different causes. There will never be one thing that cures them all. There are some forms that have 90+% survival rate and some with basically 0%.
You're absolutely spot on that cancer has many different causes. I was using it in the general, collective term for simplicity here. I doubt that a one-shot-cures-all type of deal would be possible, but only time with tell. Perhaps possible as a preventative across-the-board, but as a cure for all types once established? Not likely.
Don't know what the cost of the Hep C cure is, but I do recall when the HPV vaccine first came out and I paid for the shots for my daughter. I wondered how lower income families could afford to get them, or if there was some geared-to-income program that would provide it to them at no cost. I certainly hope so.
I wasn't referring to you about the cancer thing just how there are so many people who think big pharma is hiding the cure (singular).
The hep C drug costs at least 100k if I recall correctly
Yikes!
I was a little off. The top 4 most expensive prescription drugs in the USA are all hep c drugs
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/americas-10-most-expensive-prescription-drugs.html
2017
30 days of:
#1 harvoni is 87 800
#2 Sovaldi 73 800
#3 Epclusa 73 300
#4 Zepatier 52 600
#6 Daklinza 49 400
#10Viekira Pak 34,600 though this one needs to be taken at least twice as long as the others
Even though it's not $100K, that's still something only the truly wealthy could afford right now.
0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
If there's one thing I've learned in my 62 years on the planet, it's that common sense isn't.If people are willing to GO BEYOND what is just basic dieting and exercise to lose weight, chances are it ain't "harmless" especially if it means ingesting something or injecting something that's not a "regular" out on the market.
Common sense comes into play here. Dumb people will do dumb things without questioning it.
QFT!0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
People talk about how cures would cut their profit but they could charge whatever they want for it. Just look at the price of the Hep C cure. It's very very expensive. Also think of the fame and fortune they'd get if they found a cure. A thing that bothers me is that people act like cancer is one disease. Nope cancer is hundreds of different diseases and different causes. There will never be one thing that cures them all. There are some forms that have 90+% survival rate and some with basically 0%.
You're absolutely spot on that cancer has many different causes. I was using it in the general, collective term for simplicity here. I doubt that a one-shot-cures-all type of deal would be possible, but only time with tell. Perhaps possible as a preventative across-the-board, but as a cure for all types once established? Not likely.
Don't know what the cost of the Hep C cure is, but I do recall when the HPV vaccine first came out and I paid for the shots for my daughter. I wondered how lower income families could afford to get them, or if there was some geared-to-income program that would provide it to them at no cost. I certainly hope so.
I wasn't referring to you about the cancer thing just how there are so many people who think big pharma is hiding the cure (singular).
The hep C drug costs at least 100k if I recall correctly
Yikes!
I was a little off. The top 4 most expensive prescription drugs in the USA are all hep c drugs
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/americas-10-most-expensive-prescription-drugs.html
2017
30 days of:
#1 harvoni is 87 800
#2 Sovaldi 73 800
#3 Epclusa 73 300
#4 Zepatier 52 600
#6 Daklinza 49 400
#10Viekira Pak 34,600 though this one needs to be taken at least twice as long as the others
Even though it's not $100K, that's still something only the truly wealthy could afford right now.
And #1 went up 13k from 20161 -
Fascinating stuff. Amazing what people will believe or pitch.0
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
People talk about how cures would cut their profit but they could charge whatever they want for it. Just look at the price of the Hep C cure. It's very very expensive. Also think of the fame and fortune they'd get if they found a cure. A thing that bothers me is that people act like cancer is one disease. Nope cancer is hundreds of different diseases and different causes. There will never be one thing that cures them all. There are some forms that have 90+% survival rate and some with basically 0%.
You're absolutely spot on that cancer has many different causes. I was using it in the general, collective term for simplicity here. I doubt that a one-shot-cures-all type of deal would be possible, but only time with tell. Perhaps possible as a preventative across-the-board, but as a cure for all types once established? Not likely.
Don't know what the cost of the Hep C cure is, but I do recall when the HPV vaccine first came out and I paid for the shots for my daughter. I wondered how lower income families could afford to get them, or if there was some geared-to-income program that would provide it to them at no cost. I certainly hope so.
I wasn't referring to you about the cancer thing just how there are so many people who think big pharma is hiding the cure (singular).
The hep C drug costs at least 100k if I recall correctly
Yikes!
I was a little off. The top 4 most expensive prescription drugs in the USA are all hep c drugs
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/americas-10-most-expensive-prescription-drugs.html
2017
30 days of:
#1 harvoni is 87 800
#2 Sovaldi 73 800
#3 Epclusa 73 300
#4 Zepatier 52 600
#6 Daklinza 49 400
#10Viekira Pak 34,600 though this one needs to be taken at least twice as long as the others
Even though it's not $100K, that's still something only the truly wealthy could afford right now.
I recently found out that the medication I'm on twice daily for the foreseeable future if $65,000 a year in the USA...
1 -
Oh, light magic is even better.If you want to find unscrupulous profit mongering schemes look no further than hair loss and wrinkle creams. The claimants don't have to worry about class actions and the "ailment" is not life threatening.
I'd say second tier are the symptom managing treatments like cold cures, stomach settling and vitamins. Let's not forget the libido enhancement aids.
Third tier are weight loss aids. Also low risk and low cost; just add a little caffeine.
Pain treatments are fourth tier with potentially building an addict base; a nice steady profit stream until the patent/copyright expires.
Just look at the energy being put in to advertising and the rows of shelving dedicated to these types of products. That's where the money is.
Where I would like to see big pharma do better is in collaboration. The funding model and copyright laws create hoarders.
I cannot conceive however that there are cures being actively suppressed.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
People talk about how cures would cut their profit but they could charge whatever they want for it. Just look at the price of the Hep C cure. It's very very expensive. Also think of the fame and fortune they'd get if they found a cure. A thing that bothers me is that people act like cancer is one disease. Nope cancer is hundreds of different diseases and different causes. There will never be one thing that cures them all. There are some forms that have 90+% survival rate and some with basically 0%.
You're absolutely spot on that cancer has many different causes. I was using it in the general, collective term for simplicity here. I doubt that a one-shot-cures-all type of deal would be possible, but only time with tell. Perhaps possible as a preventative across-the-board, but as a cure for all types once established? Not likely.
Don't know what the cost of the Hep C cure is, but I do recall when the HPV vaccine first came out and I paid for the shots for my daughter. I wondered how lower income families could afford to get them, or if there was some geared-to-income program that would provide it to them at no cost. I certainly hope so.
I wasn't referring to you about the cancer thing just how there are so many people who think big pharma is hiding the cure (singular).
The hep C drug costs at least 100k if I recall correctly
Yikes!
I was a little off. The top 4 most expensive prescription drugs in the USA are all hep c drugs
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/americas-10-most-expensive-prescription-drugs.html
2017
30 days of:
#1 harvoni is 87 800
#2 Sovaldi 73 800
#3 Epclusa 73 300
#4 Zepatier 52 600
#6 Daklinza 49 400
#10Viekira Pak 34,600 though this one needs to be taken at least twice as long as the others
Even though it's not $100K, that's still something only the truly wealthy could afford right now.
I recently found out that the medication I'm on twice daily for the foreseeable future if $65,000 a year in the USA...
Ouch! Something like that would sink my financial ship in under a month.
I'm glad to currently have a company health plan that includes prescription drugs with a small co-pay. Without it, my meds would run me about $400 a month. In a few years when I reach 65, the government health plan for seniors kicks in and will cover all drug costs.
I'm grateful to live in a country that takes care of its people - especially seniors - like that.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Our treatments are so effective that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
i love it when self-reference and paranoia combine to produce this kind of thing.
in a really sick, i-shouldn't-be-slowing-down-to-rubberneck-this kind of way.
Yes, if these "IV treatment" methods actually work in treating some legitimate medical conditions, (and that's a big "if" in my view,) I don't understand why the medical community wouldn't be all over it.
Or is the contention that the regular medical stream is so prescription drug enamoured that they would deny their patients something that could potentially be life-saving in favour of alleged financial kickbacks from BigPharma?
That's the gist of every "they're hiding the cure for X from us!" conspiracy theory, yes.
How incredibly misguided.
It's a slippery slope. On one hand, there are "cures" for diseases. I know there are, but they won't look at it, consider it, or study it. On the other hand, I tend to want to stick to what's been proven by science to work effectively.
Conspiracies are easy to manufacture in your mind. I used to think cures for cancer existed. But, after learning about it and talking to not only doctors, but lab scientists that were searching for a cure, it's a complicated mess. And of all the hundreds and thousands of research scientists trying to solve this puzzle, it would be impossible to squash. Yes, big money is behind it and has no interest in curing it. However, most people that are trying to solve it has lost a loved one to it, and therefore, one of those voices would reach out from the pile, and speak up.
Yes, there are some diseases I think can be solved, but "they" don't want to because it's not profitable for anyone. But, not to the extent people think. At least, that's my theory.
I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that a cure for cancer in general or for a specific cancer in particular actually exists and is being willfully and deliberately suppressed to line some people's pockets. As you stated, I don't know of a single person who hasn't lost someone they loved to this disease - whatever form it took - who would be willing to be silent for long.
And wouldn't the manufacture of the 'cure' drug garner its discoverers a fortune anyway? That's what I don't understand.
Personally, I think money and politics get involved as far as what potential cures get researched and what ones don't. A rare disease that only affects a few thousand people will not get the funding that something like cancer that affects millions does. In that way, I think there are cures out there that scientists have an idea as to what may work but don't have the wherewithal to research. Do I think there is a big conspiracy out there working to keep cures from the general public? No way.
Yeah, that's what I think, as well.
And if you think about it, if there *was* a cure for cancer in general - say a vaccine that could be administered to prevent people from getting it in the first place, for example - wouldn't everyone who could possibly access it opt to get it? That, on a world population scale, in and of itself, would be a *huge* profit center, would it not?
And then if you consider that if people were no longer dying of cancer, wouldn't that leave a larger, um, customer base (for lack of a better term) to utilize other drugs or treatments for other diseases they might develop instead, if only because they're not already dead from cancer? I mean you can't treat dead people.
People talk about how cures would cut their profit but they could charge whatever they want for it. Just look at the price of the Hep C cure. It's very very expensive. Also think of the fame and fortune they'd get if they found a cure. A thing that bothers me is that people act like cancer is one disease. Nope cancer is hundreds of different diseases and different causes. There will never be one thing that cures them all. There are some forms that have 90+% survival rate and some with basically 0%.
You're absolutely spot on that cancer has many different causes. I was using it in the general, collective term for simplicity here. I doubt that a one-shot-cures-all type of deal would be possible, but only time with tell. Perhaps possible as a preventative across-the-board, but as a cure for all types once established? Not likely.
Don't know what the cost of the Hep C cure is, but I do recall when the HPV vaccine first came out and I paid for the shots for my daughter. I wondered how lower income families could afford to get them, or if there was some geared-to-income program that would provide it to them at no cost. I certainly hope so.
I wasn't referring to you about the cancer thing just how there are so many people who think big pharma is hiding the cure (singular).
The hep C drug costs at least 100k if I recall correctly
Yikes!
I was a little off. The top 4 most expensive prescription drugs in the USA are all hep c drugs
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/americas-10-most-expensive-prescription-drugs.html
2017
30 days of:
#1 harvoni is 87 800
#2 Sovaldi 73 800
#3 Epclusa 73 300
#4 Zepatier 52 600
#6 Daklinza 49 400
#10Viekira Pak 34,600 though this one needs to be taken at least twice as long as the others
Even though it's not $100K, that's still something only the truly wealthy could afford right now.
I recently found out that the medication I'm on twice daily for the foreseeable future if $65,000 a year in the USA...
That sucks I was (and soon will be back on) an expensive biologic that is $5500 canadian which I get covered(way more expensive in the states as we get the iv price, saline, premeds, clinic and nursing time covered by healthcare). Without it I'm only on $150sh worth of prescription meds atm.
Also my ostomy supplies are about $500 a month ( 2 box of 10 bags $128, 4 boxes of 5 flanges $250 and 2 box of 10 rings $128) plus every second month I need adhesive remover wipes (50 for $30 but the aren't covered) and barrier spray 50ml for $48. Luckily it's covered but I can only imagine how stressful it is for people who have no insurance.
I'm in my provincial pharmacare program for low income. I know a few folks who don't have work drug insurance but just make a little too much to get pharmacare which totally sucks.
I actually saw a commercial yesterday for harvoni the 87800 per month drug. I bet the shock is huge when people who see the commercial ask their Dr about it.2 -
I'm in Canada, so drug costs aren't covered until age 65. That's why I'm grateful to have coverage through my husband's company. Major expenses like surgery, hospital stays, rehab, lab tests, etc. *are* covered by the Provincial health plan, but not drugs, dental, chiropractic, vision care etc.1
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »I've always been a bit fascinated at how unproven diets, supplements and 'cures' make their way into the mainstream consciousness and become fact in people's minds, if for no other reason than it's trendy and a lot of people are doing it. And it seems that many do really, really care about being all 'current' and latch onto whatever the latest derp-du-jour is. My Facebook page is rife with it, and each idea or product - to me at least - seems stupider than the last.
I've wondered if an initial 'success' with something unproven but wildly popular would lead the inventor to ride their wave of possibly dubious popularity to greater heights (or depths, depending on your perspective) by suggesting even more improbable and perhaps potentially dangerous 'cures.'
Case in point:
Dave Asprey, whose claim to fame is being the Bulletproof Coffee Guy, is now promoting something entirely new, and, honestly, I can't imagine anyone being either stupid enough, desperate enough or enamoured enough of him to actually go ahead and do this based on his recommendation. But sadly, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people actually will.
Bulletproof Coffee, although certainly not something I would ever do (I actually prefer to eat my calories than drink them) is, in and of itself, relatively harmless. Yes, the claims of its 'benefits' are rather inflated, but that just heightens the hype and the popularity. To each their own, I say.
However, Asprey's latest recommendation, imo, crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. He is now advocating for an idea that people should consider injecting their own urine as a potential cure for allergies. Although not the inventor of this 'therapy' he certainly seems to have embraced it.
I'll just drop the link here and let the good people of MFP decide for themselves:
https://blog.bulletproof.com/can-urine-injection-therapy-relieve-your-allergies/
In the 19th century people took medications with heroin and cocaine in them.. some medications were even radioactive.
People are dumb.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/seriously-scary-radioactive-consumer-products-from-the-4980443800 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I'm in Canada, so drug costs aren't covered until age 65. That's why I'm grateful to have coverage through my husband's company. Major expenses like surgery, hospital stays, rehab, lab tests, etc. *are* covered by the Provincial health plan, but not drugs, dental, chiropractic, vision care etc.
If you are low income, on social assistance or provincial disability (not cpp d) there are provincial drug plans. I'm on NS pharmacare and because of the number of prescriptions i get my co pay has been waved but it was $5 per prescription. I'm on CPP disability and get topped up by social assistance ( I get $750 a month in total) so without this insurance having an ostomy would be impossible.2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I've always been a bit fascinated at how unproven diets, supplements and 'cures' make their way into the mainstream consciousness and become fact in people's minds, if for no other reason than it's trendy and a lot of people are doing it. And it seems that many do really, really care about being all 'current' and latch onto whatever the latest derp-du-jour is. My Facebook page is rife with it, and each idea or product - to me at least - seems stupider than the last.
I've wondered if an initial 'success' with something unproven but wildly popular would lead the inventor to ride their wave of possibly dubious popularity to greater heights (or depths, depending on your perspective) by suggesting even more improbable and perhaps potentially dangerous 'cures.'
Case in point:
Dave Asprey, whose claim to fame is being the Bulletproof Coffee Guy, is now promoting something entirely new, and, honestly, I can't imagine anyone being either stupid enough, desperate enough or enamoured enough of him to actually go ahead and do this based on his recommendation. But sadly, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people actually will.
Bulletproof Coffee, although certainly not something I would ever do (I actually prefer to eat my calories than drink them) is, in and of itself, relatively harmless. Yes, the claims of its 'benefits' are rather inflated, but that just heightens the hype and the popularity. To each their own, I say.
However, Asprey's latest recommendation, imo, crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. He is now advocating for an idea that people should consider injecting their own urine as a potential cure for allergies. Although not the inventor of this 'therapy' he certainly seems to have embraced it.
I'll just drop the link here and let the good people of MFP decide for themselves:
https://blog.bulletproof.com/can-urine-injection-therapy-relieve-your-allergies/
In the 19th century people took medications with heroin and cocaine in them.. some medications were even radioactive.
People are dumb.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/seriously-scary-radioactive-consumer-products-from-the-498044380
During WWII the military of some countries (most notably Germany) gave their solders crystal meth in order to be able to battle for days on end with very little sleep. This was before they knew the addictive qualities and very bad side effects.
ETA the US gave their military drugs like speed during the Vietnam war. I'm sure this practice wasn't unusual and used by many countries in many wars0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions