Crasher Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/big-pharma-ignoring-potential-cancer-cure-dca-1697/ It's too long to give a preview, so go ahead and read the full article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnWayne Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 good info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kami Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 For a slightly different view on this you might want to check: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anc7Tw2j6vk Happy *in' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crasher Posted September 28, 2011 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 Who knows if that guy was paid by Pharmaceuticals to say these things, as long as they are making money off dying old people or people real sick then they will never truly pursue a cure for cancer. When they really need money then they will start trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novice Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Truly sad world we live in, as the saying goes "The money is in the treatment, not the cure" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kami Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Who knows if that guy was paid by Pharmaceuticals to say these things, as long as they are making money off dying old people or people real sick then they will never truly pursue a cure for cancer. When they really need money then they will start trying. Well, i mainly trust his words more because he states his sources, which are mainly peer reviewed studies searchable in pubmed, right in the description, while "lifeslittlemysteries" just quotes themselves without giving any source at all. Happy *in' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators daredevil Posted September 28, 2011 Administrators Share Posted September 28, 2011 It's corporate BS. They can make the medicines but those jack assess will not. because if they cure it, who is gonna buy medicines every week.. here they claim 'cold sores' HSV-1 is not curable but in India it is within 5 years with ancient Ayurveda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kami Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 It's corporate BS. They can make the medicines but those jack assess will not. because if they cure it, who is gonna buy medicines every week.. here they claim 'cold sores' HSV-1 is not curable but in India it is within 5 years with ancient Ayurveda. Science: if you can't give any peer reviewed sources, you're doing it wrong (Well, you're not doing it at all) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crasher Posted September 28, 2011 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 ...What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperonipizza Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 To be honest I don't think they could keep such a cure (or a successful attempt at) secret even if they tried it. Imagine that whoever brings it on the market is going to be bombarded with money. Nice vid kami Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuckun Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Pepper the point is, noone can really 'bring it on the market' because it's non-ownable.. Nobody will fund it / lose money on it if they can't profit from it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kami Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Pepper the point is, noone can really 'bring it on the market' because it's non-ownable.. Nobody will fund it / lose money on it if they can't profit from it. Okay... The next paragraph will be paraphrasing what one of my economics professors once said in class: The prize and therefore the profit that one can make out of something is not based on how much it costs to research or produce a product but how much the customers are willing to pay for said product. For example, lets say the cure for AIDS is a component of dog poo. Easy and cheap to get to. How much would you think a person with AIDS would be willing to pay for a cure for his/her disease? Not being afraid that the next cold might kill him/her. 100$? 1000$? Regardless the first company making that medicine will get massive amounts of revenue because they can dictate the prize till others get into the market. Happy *in' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuckun Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Okay... The next paragraph will be paraphrasing what one of my economics professors once said in class: The prize and therefore the profit that one can make out of something is not based on how much it costs to research or produce a product but how much the customers are willing to pay for said product. For example, lets say the cure for AIDS is a component of dog poo. Easy and cheap to get to. How much would you think a person with AIDS would be willing to pay for a cure for his/her disease? Not being afraid that the next cold might kill him/her. 100$? 1000$? Regardless the first company making that medicine will get massive amounts of revenue because they can dictate the prize till others get into the market. Happy *in' Read the news article if you're going to comment. It's non-ownable and therefore non-profitable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kami Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Read the news article if you're going to comment. It's non-ownable and therefore non-profitable. Thank you, I did read the article But my argument stands, if I put air in a jar and sell it for 100 € it is profitable even though air is "non-ownable". Unless you think the jar is 100 € worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuckun Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Thank you, I did read the article But my argument stands, if I put air in a jar and sell it for 100 € it is profitable even though air is "non-ownable". Unless you think the jar is 100 € worth. Yes of course.. But there's no big money to be made, because no single person can own it and distribute it. And not only does that make it non-valuable to investors, but it also means that revenue made from other cancer treatments (yes, they all harvest revenue), will decline or cease if a superior drug comes into play. So unless someone can patent a drug and yield high revenue from it due to noone else being able to sell such a thing (which in this case is not possible) then they will not allow a superior drug to enter the equation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.