If We Can't Kill Cancer, Can We Control It? 140
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from The New Yorker:
In April, [Dr. Eytan Stein] presented his findings to a packed auditorium at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, in San Diego. It was the first public airing of the results of AG-221; patients with progressive [acute myelogenous leukemia] had never improved so quickly and definitively. ... The breakthrough is notable in part for the unconventional manner in which the drug attacks its target. There are many kinds of cancer, but treatments have typically combated them in one way only: by attempting to destroy the cancerous cells. Surgery aims to remove the entire growth from the body; chemotherapy drugs are toxic to the cancer cells; radiation generates toxic molecules that break up the cancer cells' DNA and proteins, causing their demise. A more recent approach, immunotherapy, co-opts the body's immune system into attacking and eradicating the tumor. The Agios drug, instead of killing the leukemic cells — immature blood cells gone haywire — coaxes them into maturing into functioning blood cells. Cancerous cells traditionally have been viewed as a lost cause, fit only for destruction. The emerging research on A.M.L. suggests that at least some cancer cells might be redeemable: they still carry their original programming and can be pressed back onto a pathway to health.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, ozone is fatal to most cells, so I suppose that if you exposed cancerous cells to it, it would kill them. Hydrogen peroxide is easier, though, and just as deadly. Hell, even pure O2 is pretty deadly.
My wife just died of cancer this week (Score:4, Interesting)
My wife just died of breast cancer this week -- she did not live to be 40 -- so articles and research like this give me hope that, when our child grows up, cancer will not be something that takes people's lives away from them so quickly and so young. This is a site for geeks, so I am sure a lot of people know about the brilliant nobel-prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman [wikipedia.org], and how his wife Arline Greenbaum died of tuberculosis in the 1940s.
Today of course, tuberculosis is no longer a death sentence the way it was in the mid-20th century, and I think, well before end of this century, cancer will no longer become a death sentence either.
Re:My wife just died of cancer this week (Score:4, Interesting)
Somewhat ironically, we finally seem to be making progress in the fight against cancer at the same time we are losing the fight against bacteria. Take tuberculosis, for example, there are only a few drugs left that work. In fact, the fda just approved a drug bedaquiline [nejm.org] that would have failed its clinical trial had it been practically any other kind of drug. You see, people who were taking it were dying at an alarming rate. It was approved because we don't have any other weapons against multi-drug resistant TB.
In 2013 in the US more people died of antibiotic resistant bacteria than died of AIDS.
Re:My wife just died of cancer this week (Score:5, Interesting)
In a sense this is a self-regulating problem. If a LOT of people start dying from bacterial infections you'll see new antibiotics developed. The problem today is that there isn't much public funding for antibiotics, and there isn't much demand for new ones. Sure, the few who need them REALLY need them, but stuff like MRSA is still fairly rare. Nobody wants to pay $100k for a 10-day supply of antibiotics.
The problem is that developing a new antibiotic costs around $100M or so. (Well, it would be more accurate to say that the new antibiotic would cost $10-20M, but to find it you'd have to spend $80M on a bunch of other antibiotics that don't work out.) Whether you believe in patents or not, SOMEBODY has to spend that money if we want a new antibiotic. The market just doesn't exist for that kind of expenditure, so you won't see private companies doing it until the market grows (ie, more people start dying). Governments don't seem to care much about the issue either - any of the first world nations could easily fund this research but they all want somebody else to do it for them so that they can just do compulsory licensing of the resulting products and get them for cheap (well, the US won't do this since they're in bed with Pharma, but they're busy bombing people in Iraq). Tragedy of the commons...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
stuff like MRSA is still fairly rare.
No. No, it isn't. You're wrong and are disseminating dangerous disinformation.
I'll go ahead and cite my med school lecture from last week on that, but if you want more feel free to google on your own. I'll throw you a bone from
http://www.mrsasurvivors.org/s... [mrsasurvivors.org]:
MRSA infections and colonization has steadily increased over the years and in 1974. 2% of all staph. aureus infections were MRSA, 22% in 1995 and in 2004 it was 64% with an estimate of over 70% of all staph is now MRSA. In the community, it is estimated that 60% of all skin and soft tissue infections that doctors treat are MRSA infections.
Also, FYI, the current cost to bring a new drug to market is $~1 billion. Plenty of cites trivially available on google for that, too.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost to develop a drug is actually a matter of considerable debate. I'll agree that $100M is a lower-end figure for it. Most of the cost depends on how many failed candidates you factor into the calculations. The cost to actually develop a successful drug is probably $50M or so. The problem is that for every one of those you have many failures, but most of those tend to be abandoned before the full $50M gets spent.
My point is just that MRSA isn't commonplace enough to be a priority for private inves
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't cost anywhere close to that to bring a new drug to market try more like 43 million, but actually a lot less.
http://www.pharmamyths.net/fil... [pharmamyths.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are an Idiot!
If a LOT of people start dying from bacterial infections you'll see new antibiotics developed.
How do you think that should/could work? Oh, it is like software development: requiremt, a stuff that kills bacteria. Solution: take this. Done.
Moron!
The problem today is that there isn't much public funding for antibiotics, and there isn't much demand for new ones.
The demand is huge, but finding one that "works different" than all the ones before, hence the bacteria are not immune is nearly imp
Re: (Score:2)
When I talk to the average person on the street in the US, they talk about ISIS. They might even talk about the NSA. They don't talk about MRSA.
The demand SHOULD be huge, but the reality is that it isn't.
This article [usatoday.com] suggests that we only JUST started spending $30M per year on antibiotic research. At that pace it seems like it would take years to come up with a viable drug, and that is only if the NSF/NIH spend some of the money on actual development and not just blue-sky research, which they rarely do.
Re: (Score:2)
Antibiotics are usually found by accident.
It is pretty difficult to make a systematic search.
However I have no idea how much actually is spent directly for antibiotics research.
I guess to tackle MRSAs a new antibioticum is not enough. I assume phages could perhaps help, but finding or 'crafting' one that attacks exactly that specific bacterium might be similar hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see any evidence for substantial spending on antibiotic R&D. If you can point to some kind of citation for this I'm certainly curious.
Antibiotics aren't really a chemical class either, since there are many mechanisms of action. A chemical class would be something like beta-lactam antibiotics, etc. I suspect that particular class is mostly played-out, but there are potentially as many mechanisms for attacking bacteria as there are unique metabolic pathways in bacteria.
I don't mean to tr
Re: (Score:2)
And no, there aren't massive swathes of potential avenues of attack. There are only the pathways that bacteria don't share with humans where the drug has no other toxic effect. There will be new antibiotics - no question - but its questionable whether there will ever be another sulphonamide or penicillin.
Re: (Score:2)
This is cancer spending, not antibiotic spending. Cancer gets a lot more attention, probably because most people know people who have died from cancer, many of them relatives, and fear dying from it themselves some day the way they don't fear dying from MRSA.
Re: (Score:2)
However it is well known how to prevent that bacteria become "multiple resistant" against antibiotics. ... e.g. forbidding antibiotics in animal breeding (just one thing).
Nevertheless the US does nothing against it
Re: (Score:2)
Mine passed a year ago last Saturday of uterine cancer; she was 33. You're probably feeling absolutely gutted right about now. Things will improve slowly, but they will improve. Just yesterday, I was looking through photos for something to illustrate a fund
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to hear that. I had an online friend who died before he reached 40. Same with my grandqueen. Cancer can hit anyone. :(
Anti-CD47 most promising (Score:3)
Innovation (Score:1)
I feel medical publishing needs to move away from the current paradigm [nature.com] even more than the open-access journals that have been discussed so widely. The company that made this advance, Agios [agios.com] doesn't seem to be a typical "big pharma" company: They are running lean on market cap (350 million in outstanding shares) and big dreams. Imagine a world with a hundred more companies like this could be creating equally innovative solutions. Then realize that the biggest drug company [google.com] has a market cap that could be fund
Re: (Score:2)
Choke on the barbed cock of Satan, asshole.
Opportunity to help someone with cancer (Score:1)
This is a link in case anyone on /. is feeling generous and wants to help someone try to survive their fight against cancer... https://www.givealittle.co.nz/cause/savesally/ [givealittle.co.nz]
Here's a crazy idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not work on prevention? Cancer rates have quadrupled in the last century, thanks to our increasing use of synthetic chemicals in food and environment. Why not try to get rid of the causes instead of finding out what other sort of drugs and chemicals we can add to reverse it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, everybody dies of something, sometime. If you start eliminating various things that kill people, the ones that are harder to treat are going to cause more and more deaths. Saying that a third of Americans die of cancer is meaningless in itself. Is the cancer rate among medically similar people growing?
Re: (Score:2)
We could try it, but I don't think you'd be very happy.
The #1 cause of cancer is old age. People are dying of cancer in droves because they aren't dying of tuberculosis, or pneumonia, or cholera, or epidemic smallpox, or infected cuts, or any of the other causes of death we've eliminated in the past century.
DNA copying isn't perfect. It takes, on average, 70 years for enough mutation
How about the linked article? (Score:5, Informative)
Let me give you a brief summary of TFA:
- Some cancers have IDH1, IDH2 mutations that change cellular metabolism
- This drug is the first targeting the IDH2 enzyme that has been tested in humans
- 6 out of 7 patients whose disease (leucemia) had the specific IDH2 mutations had "objective response" to the drug, ie the disease burden was reduced. Note, this does not mean cure.
Now, this is obviously good news, in the same spirit as previous targeted agents like vemurafenib, erlotinib, trastuzumab, crizotinib, especially since it concerns a new aspect of cellular functioning (metabolism). It's too early to say whether the drug will have long lasting impact, but we'll know more after phase II/III trials. It does seem promising.
For patients with AML or MDS and documented IDH2 mutation, the study (NCT01915498) is still recruiting in several centers around the US and in Paris/France (Institut Gustave-Russy). More information can be found in clinicaltrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=NCT01915498&Search=Search).
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if the cancer cells are aneuploid (like the vast majority apparently are) and thus genetically unstable we shouldn't expect a targeted treatment like this to be effective for long.
Many targeted treatments have been disappointing in actual practice and very few are effective in the long term (imatinib is a good example). Nevertheless, having a targeted treatment is often better than no treatment at all. Furthermore, due to different, non-overlapping toxicites, these treatments are often feasible in patients who have received chemotherapy in the past or together with chemotherapy (trastuzumab, for example).
In the end, cancer is entropy. That's why it's hard.
Re: (Score:3)
"Nevertheless, having a targeted treatment is often better than no treatment at all."
Perhaps, but I doubt there is any good evidence for this. Weak effects and noisy data don't mix well, we are probably taught all sorts of incorrect things based on spurious results. I would suggest getting away from these targeted treatments of at most limited benefit and work on figuring out how to turn aneuploidy as a drug target.
FDA approval typically requires randomized controlled trials, so when a treatment is available it has been tested at least against placebo (if that was the best available treatment at the moment of approval). That's why I say "better than no treatment". A drug that is not better than placebo usually does not make it past the approval stage (and if it does, approval can be quickly revoked, for example bevacizumab in breast cancer: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11... [nytimes.com])
What sort of evidence would you expect? For
Re: (Score:2)
Your criticism of the study I mentioned is reasonable, but in the domain of cancer treatment, a hazard ratio for death (a hard endpoint) of 0.67 is good and, in that sense, if you require much stronger evidence and even better trials you may deprive patients of a useful drug in the meantime. The FDA wants to strike a balance between getting an effective drug to patients as soon as possible and not letting pass ineffective treatments. So, as with most things in life, the kind of evidence I cited is often con
AG-221 quick and unfair summary: (Score:4, Informative)
We are far from general cure for cancer.
The Holy Grail for Pharmaceutical Companies (Score:2)
I really doubt that it's possible (Score:3)
Hope for future treatment (Score:2)
My daughter was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia in July of this year. she is currently in her second round of chemotherapy.
I doubt whether she will be given the opportunity of being part of this research, but I am really glad that there are continuing advancements happening in this field.
And as a personal point of pride, my son (age 15) was tested, and confirmed as a match for stem cell therapy this weekend ! He agreed without hesitation to help his sister.
Another avenue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, naysayers will always naysay.
Re: (Score:3)
And some of us have had relatives and friends saved from cancer using the same treatments.
NB that treatment aren't the same all over the world, in the US the therapy will in many cases continue until death occurs while in many other countries the treatment will shift to make the patients remaining time and death as comfortable as possible once it's obvious that the cancer will be lethal.
Re: (Score:3)
Excuse me if you aren't the only one to have gone through that.
Or not. Different people react differently to differente chemotherapy treatments.
Sorry for that to be your case. Fortunately, chemotherapy actually avoids that fate in many cases.
Re:Baking Soda May Help! (Score:4, Insightful)
I have two objections on the "big pharma fighting the truth about cancer" point of view... maybe you can give this some thought and comment on them:
1) how can the pharma have a PERFECT bureaucracy that wins EVERY time a new alternative cure comes along? A lot of people say that big pharma has a big cover up operation in place and no cure will ever be publicised or made viable unless it suits big pharma. However, when articles about alternative cures come along, they are always revolutionary and obviously simple. If that's the case, why don't we see something as simple as gathering 100 or 1000 cancer patients, treat them, document the success and only then release the findings on Youtube/P2P/whatever?
2) Consider the annual sales and profits of Big Pharma. Then the same for Big Food. IF there's a simple cure using natural food and basic ingredients that big pharma cannot patent, what's Coca Cola, Pepsico and other similarly large companies waiting for to steal big pharma's lunch?
Re: (Score:1)
Personally, if I had cancer I would try everything else before I would accept barbaric chemotherapy treatments. As the saying goes, "if the cancer doesn't kill you, the chemo will". .
And in my case the chemo mopped up the excess cancer cells from all the cancerous lymph nodes they couldn't remove via (barbaric) surgery. So it might be barbaric but in my case it worked. One more nodule removed, several unremovable but controlled by (barbaric) Avastin. So chemo is bad, very bad, but it can work. Of course there are the alternatives..... (no thanks).
Re:Baking Soda May Help! (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Consider the annual sales and profits of Big Pharma. Then the same for Big Food. IF there's a simple cure using natural food and basic ingredients that big pharma cannot patent, what's Coca Cola, Pepsico and other similarly large companies waiting for to steal big pharma's lunch?
Actually, if a cure was "known" Big Pharma "A" would want to produce it first and charge $$$$$, before Big Pharma "B" does it. It's not like Big Pharma works as a single organism. Multiple companies, competition and all that. Furthermore, don't forget "little pharma". The drug mentioned in the article comes from a little drug company, Agios, not some multi-billion behemoth.Several new drugs have been created by start-ups and were later sold. In fact, Big Pharma mostly does the last part of the pipeline (human trials, FDA accreditations and marketing) but the first part of the drug-discovery process often comes from little inventors who are not afraid to take risks.
I happen to know two people who are in the drug "startup" business and would be quite happy to make $$$$$ selling a cure for cancer to Big Pharma. These are the people that actually do in vitro/in vivo experiments and, trust me, if compound ZZZ were very effective they would be very happy to test it immediately, even if it meant loss of billions for other companies.
Re:Baking Soda May Help! (Score:5, Interesting)
Please don't diffuse complete nonsense. The pH of the body is regulated within very strict limits, generally 7.35-7.45, and a therapeutic window ie a dose of drug X, in occurrence any alkaline agent, that does not kill the patient while killing the disease does not exist. You either don't kill any cancer cells or die with them by taking too much soda.
It would be extremely easy for any individual researcher to publish this research and become instantly famous. Hell, I could do it tomorrow since I am an oncologist and treat patients with cancer for a living. The problem is that it doesn't work.
Two weeks ago I saw a poor lady who was "treated" with soda infusions. Of course the disease spread and, in addition, she suffered a stroke because of the way the treatment was delivered (via intra-arterial catheter!). It's such a pity that patients, in their considerable emotional distress, actually believe that kind of stuff.
PS: Posting anonymously because the incident with the intra-arterial soda infusions got some legal attention.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it that you flunked statistics.
And calculus.
And biology.
But keep it up, positive thinking is good for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't diffuse complete nonsense. The pH of the body is regulated within very strict limits, generally 7.35-7.45, and a therapeutic window ie a dose of drug X, in occurrence any alkaline agent, that does not kill the patient while killing the disease does not exist. You either don't kill any cancer cells or die with them by taking too much soda.
I'm going to take you at your word that you're an expert, but as a listener you suck. He never said anything about anything 'killing' anything.
He said (to paraphrase): "It seems to make it harder to grow", and, "I'm not a researcher", and "I've seen more than one person go into remission, ostensibly as a result".
It would be extremely easy for any individual researcher to publish this research and become instantly famous. Hell, I could do it tomorrow since I am an oncologist and treat patients with cancer for a living. The problem is that it doesn't work.
Two weeks ago I saw a poor lady who was "treated" with soda infusions. Of course the disease spread and, in addition, she suffered a stroke because of the way the treatment was delivered (via intra-arterial catheter!). It's such a pity that patients, in their considerable emotional distress, actually believe that kind of stuff.
PS: Posting anonymously because the incident with the intra-arterial soda infusions got some legal attention.
Now see I don't think he said that either. Intravenous 'Soda Infusions' sounds like crazy nutter shit to me; I believe his people were eating the baking soda.
He said another thing: If it appeared to
Re: Baking Soda May Help! (Score:4, Insightful)
As another doctor and Internist (not the same as the AC), it absolutely hurts to keep talking about the same quackery that has been discussed and dismissed decades ago. It brings false hope to desperate people. It keeps people away from legitimate treatments (Eg: Steve Jobs) which may lead to worse outcomes because of the delay. And it wastes the precious time of both the patient and the medical staff, and promotes distrust of the very people who could likely help cancer patients the most. This is not a benign discussion.
On the technical aspects, anyon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true for "general" treatments. (Treatments applied to the whole body, EG-- "General Anesthetic") However, there are also local treatments that are more targeted that can change the environment locally.
Several such treatments exist. In the feild of cancer specifically, you have the various direct radiation treatments, the various nanoparticle+radiowave treatments, and of course, local excision treatments.
In the case of colon cancer, the inner wall of the colon has evoloved to handle some pretty extr
Re:Baking Soda May Help! (Score:5, Insightful)
The main proponent of sodium bicarbonate as an alternative cancer treatment is Tullio Simoncini, MD. ..
According to the Cancer Treatment Watch Web site, "[Dr. Simoncini] has been using unsubstantiated cancer treatments for 15 years in 2003, his [Italian] license to practice medicine was withdrawn, and in 2006 he was convicted by an Italian judge for wrongful death and swindling"
Re: (Score:2)
If it were anything so simple as ozone or baking soda, we would have known it years ago.
Re:Can't or don't want? (Score:4, Informative)
Bullshit. I've seen lots of friends die of AIDS in the early 90s. Now HIV/AIDS is under control. It's now a chronical disease that people can live long productive lives with, as long as they take their drugs. When treated early, most infected people will be asymptomatic except for the (relatively mild) side effects of the drugs. I wish we could say that for most cancers.
Of course unlike cancer, HIV is communicable. And unlike Ebola, it killed many rich white men. These factors might have contributed to the success story of its treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically once? If the chance is 50% that's the odds of a coin flip landing favorably.
Re: (Score:3)
If cancer was insta-kill instead of the slow-death-money-milking disease that it is
This ignores a basic fact about cancer treatment: standard chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery aren't very profitable for pharmaceutical companies, and for many cancers, that's all we have. They may be profitable for other sectors of the medical system, but these are also a huge drain on the economies of rich-world countries, who have a big incentive to keep costs down. If you get one of the cancers for which there
Re:Of course we can (Score:5, Insightful)
you are full of shit. As a cancer victim I can say that it is down to risk, if the numbers are against you, age, over weight, lack of exercise, genetics, environment exposure, then you'll be more likely to get some form of cancer. These may go undetected for years, at which point it is too well established to be totally eradicated. Early detection is very important, survival is dependant on early detection and the effectiveness of treatment, sadly the cost of drugs is high and people are not always able to afford them, even in 1st world countries. As for the conspiracy theory, improvements are there, but the thoughts that there are magic bullets out there, being suppressed, is crap. If you want to survive, do the right things, loose weight, build fitness, eat better, look out for body changes, get regular check ups. You can't live forever.
Re:Of course we can (Score:4, Funny)
I've seen one analysis that estimates that if all medical causes of death were eliminated, we would enjoy an average lifespan of about 650 before some accident would kill us. With a lifetime like that, imagine the tall tales you could tell your descendants. And if, in such a society, the most cautious individuals made it to age 1000, would they get birthday cards from Skynet?
Re:Of course we can (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not ready as a society for elimination of aging. Currently, with money and power generally growing with age, death is the great equalizer. Rich or poor, everybody dies. This is the only thing stopping unfettered hoarding of wealth. Would Bill Gates give away his money if he never aged? I don't know, but it does seem less likely. We'd be stuck in a society where the elders own and control everything, and the young would fight to survive. Murder would replace age-related illness as the leading cause of death.
For this society to work, the time value of money has to be negative, not positive. Money has to decay with time, not grow. This is the way money should work today, but good luck convincing our overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like all the other times, we will have to adapt to the elimination of aging when the time comes. In the good old days before civilization and technology, there was no such thing as grandparenthood. As soon as the longest-lived individuals started to survive plague and war to live that long, we adapted to the new reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure grandparents existed long before agriculture.
Re: (Score:2)
> This is the only thing stopping unfettered hoarding of wealth.
Except for corporations, which have no lifespan limit.
Re: (Score:2)
All accidents are "medical" in nature in that they cause damage to the body that is medically treatable to an extent, just like any other illness. Therefore, if we could "eliminate all medical causes of death", we would be immortal.
How our minds would survive such an ordeal is a whole different story.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing with this is not the average, but the change in the distribution. Currently, the population curve has a sharp drop-off around the age of 70; with the elimination of medical causes of death, the curve will assume the shape of a decaying exponential, making that 650-year life expectancy more akin to a "half life".
If
Re: (Score:2)
And if you don't like the politics of today's 60-year-olds, imagine the political values o cautious, ultraconservative 20,000-year-olds.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would be a medical cause of death....
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't every cause of death medical?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on what you mean by die. Seems pretty clear today, but technology is always blurring things. Did Henrietta Lacks die in 1951?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
These may go undetected for years, at which point it is too well established to be totally eradicated.
Sorry bud. But that is some tiny thinking. There will be time, soon enough, where cancer will be no more dangerous than a simple infection.
Human cells get "cancerous" ALL THE TIME. But it's only some very specific ones that are ignored by the immune system and grow. The key to kill ALL types of cancers is to find a markers that the immune system can be stimulated to clean up. That is all.
These are not easy things to do and definitely require research, but these are not insurmountable problems. The days of b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck cancer and fuck big pharma fucking patients over over money, so fuck money too.
Re: (Score:3)
Think about it: If a company finds a cure for all cancers (emphasis on the plural form, cancer is not just one disease) they could demand any price at all and people would pay it. "Let's discuss payment plans." The inventors would receive hero status and could retire rich as kings of old. You don't think this would sound appealing to the people allegedly sitting on this cure-all?
Re:Of course we can (Score:5, Insightful)
My response to those "they're sitting on a cure" conspiracy theorists is that though pharma may be the most powerful lobby in the US, there's a whole world out there. A number of other countries would love the sheer prestige attached to announcing a cure. And even if they gave that treatment away through nationalized health care systems, they would reap huge income from American medical tourists.
Re: (Score:1)
lol no doubt..scientists in general can also be some of the most ego driven people alive, and there is a LOT of cancer researchers out there. we couldn't keep our own hemorrhoids secret if they were publishable. probably not a chance in hell any of us could sit on any significant finding without our head exploding. getting a well-cited paper in a high impact factor journal is too critical to career and epeen/testicular fortitude. hell, i'd kill everyone in my current lab for a Cell paper. :
Re: (Score:1)
Won't happen. If any country finds a cure we'll bomb the shit out of them because, as Madeleine Albright stated so clearly, WE ARE AMERICA. Submit to our rule or be destroyed!
Could you please go back to reading the backs of road signs and trying to map out UN invasion routes?
Re: (Score:3)
If they found a cure that worked very well, was easy to administer, safe to administer, and cheap to produce - it'd mean they'll be throwing out their billion dollar -treatment- routines that people keep having to come back to otherwise.
That's what patents are supposedly for. No matter how cheap it is to produce, they would have a limited monopoly on it, so they could charge much more than a free market would normally allow.
Not that I normally endorse free markets, I believe from a consumer point of view they break in half once you get two or three large players that shut out other competition.
Re: (Score:3)
If a company finds a cure for all cancers (emphasis on the plural form, cancer is not just one disease) they could demand any price at all and people would pay it.
It's even bigger than that. The best statement I've ever seen on the subject came from a Slashdot poster, and since I can't remember the specific post (or user, sorry!), I'll just paraphrase:
"Curing cancer" implies an incredibly high level of technical competence, so advanced that anything you touch would turn to gold. You could start to treat a
Re: (Score:2)
Go to Youtube and search for "Run from the Cure"
It seems marijuana cures most cancers and many other diseases.
Of course, this will never be official news due to the Medical Industry, the Government with their U.N. treaty against marijuana, the Media with their livelihood dependent on government and all the people who see it as "too good to be true" because they never heard it from a doctor, the government or the media.
Not actually medicine that makes you high, this comes from vegetative plants in the pre-fl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, a load of bull. "If we can't kill Cancer". You'd like that, wouldn't you? No, the Medical industry and corporations would like that disinfo so they can keep selling placebo medicine and useless overpriced medicine to people, as well as all the devices and aperture. If we get a cure for Cancer, the corporations and medical industry stand to lose billions and trillions in the long term.
We've had the means and we know the means, to kill Cancer, for years. We've had the means to make a special bacteria, or use a special solution, that identifies a specific type of cell in the human body, any specific type.
If you have the means to identify it and designate it, then you have the means to eliminate it. Nano-technology helps there, if not specially designed bacteria.
I know! Let's improve this discussion by talking about vaccines.