American Corps. fighting against improved labor rights/working conditions in China

yes one has to wonder if some in the medical business world want to find a cure for Cancer. It would collapse their industry.
 
uscitizen said:
yes one has to wonder if some in the medical business world want to find a cure for Cancer. It would collapse their industry.
Click to expand...


Or if people stopped eating processed sugars and carbohydrates, a vast array of illnesses would simply disappear. Can't have that.
 
People been eating sugar for many many many years, and the artificial stuff for a relatively short time.....

Rememeber when margarine was good for ya ? Then we discovered trans fats...
 
It's like clock work that those without college educations believe in conspiracy theory's the most.
Lame as tools, yeah wait tomorrow I'll wave my corp wand and cancer will go away. Retards.:pke:
 
the thing is spin is many of them in the medical industry would not wave tha magic wand if they could. Medicine is BIG money. Would you do something that would put chevron out of business ?
 
uscitizen said:
the thing is spin is many of them in the medical industry would not wave tha magic wand if they could. Medicine is BIG money. Would you do something that would put chevron out of business ?
Click to expand...

Actually, that's about 180 degrees from the truth. Can you imagine the prestige (not to mention all the financial and other perks) that would arise from someone finally discovering a "cure" for cancer?

Cancers are not all the same, though, and what's been developed to date has taken decades of difficult, cumulative research findings. There have been some important breakthroughs recently, all developed from that mountain of earlier work. All research proceeds like that. Cancer itself is too diverse and too complex to enable a simple solution. Detection and treatment have vastly improved, as has public awareness of the importance of early detection. These alone have not been enough, though, to erase cancer from the world. There will not be a single resolution to the cancer dilemma, and for now the goal is to help people to "live with cancer" instead of "dying of cancer". Small goals and "baby steps" are the way to find the answers.

That last point, BTW, is the hardest thing for an eager new researcher to learn!
 
Topspin said:
It's like clock work that those without college educations believe in conspiracy theory's the most.
Lame as tools, yeah wait tomorrow I'll wave my corp wand and cancer will go away. Retards.:pke:
Click to expand...


Wow. what a self righteous and ignorant fascist you are.
 
Thorn said:
Actually, that's about 180 degrees from the truth. Can you imagine the prestige (not to mention all the financial and other perks) that would arise from someone finally discovering a "cure" for cancer?

Cancers are not all the same, though, and what's been developed to date has taken decades of difficult, cumulative research findings. There have been some important breakthroughs recently, all developed from that mountain of earlier work. All research proceeds like that. Cancer itself is too diverse and too complex to enable a simple solution. Detection and treatment have vastly improved, as has public awareness of the importance of early detection. These alone have not been enough, though, to erase cancer from the world. There will not be a single resolution to the cancer dilemma, and for now the goal is to help people to "live with cancer" instead of "dying of cancer". Small goals and "baby steps" are the way to find the answers.

That last point, BTW, is the hardest thing for an eager new researcher to learn!
Click to expand...

Oh yes I realize all cancers are not the same. But still medicine is an industry concerned with making money.....
Presitige for one would not help the thousands of onocologists put out of work and billions invested in the cancer treatment industry.
IF a magical cure were found.

Greed exists in the medical industry as well.

Good people in the medical industry that actually want to help people are great and wonderful, but some are in it for the money. AKA investors and CEO's, shareholders, etc...
I am sure stockholders by a pharma stock just because of the good that company is doing....
 
OK, I see this sort of confusion a lot. Despite what ads for different drugs say on TV, the vast majority of physicians have absolutely no role in research whatsoever. In fact, they don't even understand the most basic of research principles. There is no conflict here. Whatever physicians might or might not gain from such a cure (which probably will not take place in lifetimes of any of the current crop) they have no say, no influence in the work performed by scientists, who are a completely distinct group who have nothing to do with the actual face-to-face longterm treatment of patients.

The likelihood of a coverup of any significant findings is infintesimal at best. The benefits to be gained by an enormous number of people are far too great, plus the number of researchers working independently on some of these solutions precludes any sort of massive squelching of data. To add to this, recently, NIH has issued a requirement that the raw data, not just the published findings, of any research funded by them, must be made available publicly.

I'm just as cynical as the next person about the altruism of general groups of people, but having a sort of inside view here, I can say with much confidence that such a withholding of information in this case wouldn't be feasible.
 
Thorn said:
OK, I see this sort of confusion a lot. Despite what ads for different drugs say on TV, the vast majority of physicians have absolutely no role in research whatsoever. In fact, they don't even understand the most basic of research principles. There is no conflict here. Whatever physicians might or might not gain from such a cure (which probably will not take place in lifetimes of any of the current crop) they have no say, no influence in the work performed by scientists, who are a completely distinct group who have nothing to do with the actual face-to-face longterm treatment of patients.

The likelihood of a coverup of any significant findings is infintesimal at best. The benefits to be gained by an enormous number of people are far too great, plus the number of researchers working independently on some of these solutions precludes any sort of massive squelching of data. To add to this, recently, NIH has issued a requirement that the raw data, not just the published findings, of any research funded by them, must be made available publicly.

I'm just as cynical as the next person about the altruism of general groups of people, but having a sort of inside view here, I can say with much confidence that such a withholding of information in this case wouldn't be feasible.
Click to expand...

You sound like a mason.;)
 
Thorn said:
OK, I see this sort of confusion a lot. Despite what ads for different drugs say on TV, the vast majority of physicians have absolutely no role in research whatsoever. In fact, they don't even understand the most basic of research principles. There is no conflict here. Whatever physicians might or might not gain from such a cure (which probably will not take place in lifetimes of any of the current crop) they have no say, no influence in the work performed by scientists, who are a completely distinct group who have nothing to do with the actual face-to-face longterm treatment of patients.

The likelihood of a coverup of any significant findings is infintesimal at best. The benefits to be gained by an enormous number of people are far too great, plus the number of researchers working independently on some of these solutions precludes any sort of massive squelching of data. To add to this, recently, NIH has issued a requirement that the raw data, not just the published findings, of any research funded by them, must be made available publicly.

I'm just as cynical as the next person about the altruism of general groups of people, but having a sort of inside view here, I can say with much confidence that such a withholding of information in this case wouldn't be feasible.
Click to expand...

Umm why did AZT a drug developed by NIH get a corporate patent....
 
uscitizen said:
Umm why did AZT a drug developed by NIH get a corporate patent....
Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't developed exclusively by NIH; in fact there are often research collaborations between NIH and industry that are funded in part by that industry. Drug development generally is at the very end of the process, following a lot of basic research that provides the biological knowledge to enable the development of treatments.

In the case of the AZT patents, I'd guess that the patent(s) was/were shared among named scientists from NIH, NIH itself, and the drug company. Usually, also, the proprietary extents of those patents are use-restricted depending on the contribution of the individual and the organization. In this case I don't know (or completely understand) the details.
 
things on drugs have gone downhill since Regans fast track to approval for aids drugs spread to all drugs. Once they got the door open.. Now we depend more on industry and less on govt watchdogs like NIH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top