Do They Have Cures For Cancer And The Common Cold?

[VideoVidiVisum]

LoneKiller hon, I don't think anyone was seriously offended xoxo

 

[LoneKiller]

@LK: in my opinion it's good that you open this thread. My grandma died of cancer, but I don't feel offended at all. I believe this kind of thing should be disscussed more. If they are hiding something, our protests could make them release the drugs faster.

Thank you.
It is truly disturbing to see just how far some will go for the cash. Stealing human organs for profit, exotic animal theft and sale, even stolen babies have been sold to people. Maybe I should take the saying "..Money is the root of all evil.." more seriously.

 

[IgnoredOne]

Could anyone in all conscious really withhold a cure for cancer?

Welcome to the world.

A guy I know works for top pharmaceutical companies on a contractual basis. He's some sort of microbiologist or something (I forget what he does, exactly )... but he's told me before that every major drug company already has drugs and chemicals that are extremely effective against cancers of all types. In fact, he acquired some for his aunt who had cancer and it cleaned out her system of whatever cancer it was that she had; it saved her life.

True, I get this all as secondhand news from my friend, but I trust him.

I've heard of this before and its a common claim among people who work in the pharma industry; basically, its true that there are extremely effective drugs already available but many of them have side effects or only work on 70-80% of the population - which is too high of legal liability for them to consider it viable; at least, that's what I know from my people who are in the legal side of the pharma industry.

 

[LoneKiller]

LoneKiller hon, I don't think anyone was seriously offended xoxo

I sure hope not.

 

[TheSolitaryMan]

*Insert all that stuff I talked about in your medication thread a while back *

Yeah, lots of people have the sort of basic knowledge of "cancer" and how it works and start thinking of these sorts of conspiracies and so on.

I blame the fact that "cancer" is talked about to and with the general public as if it's just one huge disease that affects different areas of the body.

While that's sort of true with regards that all cancers share certain symptoms (tumour growth and so on) in reality cancer is caused by many, many different things, environmental and lifestyle factors, genetic mutations or traits and/or pure random chance. No two cases are the same really, which makes it hard to treat.

Plus it goes back to my "drug accuracy" argument again. It's really f***ing difficult to make a pill that can target even one type of cancer cell as opposed to every cell in the body, let alone nuke every type of cancer there is while leaving the patient unharmed.

The ultimate "dream" in cancer treatment would be a drug that could target cells with uncontrolled replication only.

To do that you would have to produce an intelligent medicine (possibly even a virus) that could be tailored to destroy everything belonging to a certain DNA pattern (that person's DNA, plus the broken replication part).

Of course, hypothetically such a medicine or engineered virus would potentially be extremely dangerous - you could use it as a weapon to assassinate certain individuals or even races of people with genetic traits.

I don't think we have the knowledge or technology to create something like that; probably for the best in some ways!

The whole reason people get sick with Chemotherapy at the moment is that the drugs used just bash the hell out of all kinds of cells including the cancerous ones, they only slightly distinguish between them.

So no, I'm afraid I can say with an air of finality that the information in the OP is total bollocks and there's no great secret conspiracy

 

[IgnoredOne]

*Insert all that stuff I talked about in your medication thread a while back *

Yeah, lots of people have the sort of basic knowledge of "cancer" and how it works and start thinking of these sorts of conspiracies and so on.

I blame the fact that "cancer" is talked about to and with the general public as if it's just one huge disease that affects different areas of the body.

This is true. Cancer is anything but one disease.

While that's sort of true with regards that all cancers share certain symptoms (tumour growth and so on) in reality cancer is caused by many, many different things, environmental and lifestyle factors, genetic mutations or traits and/or pure random chance. No two cases are the same really, which makes it hard to treat.

Due to replication errors in the DNA, cancer is inevitable. Those replication errors are, I believe, the greatest obstacle to indefinite/eternal human longevity.

Plus it goes back to my "drug accuracy" argument again. It's really f***ing difficult to make a pill that can target even one type of cancer cell as opposed to every cell in the body, let alone nuke every type of cancer there is while leaving the patient unharmed.

The ultimate "dream" in cancer treatment would be a drug that could target cells with uncontrolled replication only.

Not exactly. A simple biopsy can extract cancer cells with unique, malformed receptors; you simply need to create an antigen to match up with that receptor and the immune system will home in to the best of its ability.

The theory is reasonably sound, but every step of that process is still something we only understand partially. If we create an antigen that binds to healthy cells, then the autoimmune response can be more lethal than the cancer. Killing all cancerous pancreas cells doesn't help you a lot when you do so by killing all pancreas cells; a lot like ending cruelty to elephants by wiping out elephants.

But we do have that capability, even if its unreliable and experiment. This is what a lot of pharma researchers refer to at the moment. The obvious legal issues of introducing a drug that can potentially convince your body to SMASH ITSELF TO PIECES should be evident, too.

 

[Badjedidude]

I've heard of this before and its a common claim among people who work in the pharma industry; basically, its true that there are extremely effective drugs already available but many of them have side effects or only work on 70-80% of the population - which is too high of legal liability for them to consider it viable; at least, that's what I know from my people who are in the legal side of the pharma industry.

Yeah, there are a lot of reasons that these drugs aren't being utilized... but still. Using your example, I'm sure it would matter greatly to the 70-90% that it WOULD work on. Hell, I'd risk some pretty severe side effects if it meant I could stay alive, as well.