Cancer is finally cured in Canada but Big Pharma has no interest

**zabster151** · 05-17-2011, 01:43 AM

i hope this works on humans

**TOkidd** · 05-29-2011, 09:13 AM

Good ole CTV News breaking the stories that really matter. This is very interesting and very sad. Nowadays, in the West especially, profit trumps everything. We're destroying our planet in the quest for more profit, setting ourselves up to be wiped off the earth like so many pestilential ticks on its back, but as long as the "economy" is growing, no one seems to care.
This is another great example. I've seen too many people die from cancer and to think that this potential breakthrough won't be available to the public because big pharma can't make any money off it just shows how far we've strayed as a species. I hope every CEO of every pharma company gets pancreatic cancer. I wonder how fast the trials will start then....

**Times Roman** · 06-09-2011, 04:11 AM

what's the solution? why should big pharm invest in trials if there is no profit motive? This is a normal function of "for profit" corporations. This is the same motivation "for profit" organizational type as Walmart and McDonalds have. Stockholders own the organization, and demand a return on their investment.

So we know that a "for profit" will not touch this. But what about other organizational types? such as a 501(c)(3)? This is your basic "not for profit" type organization, and would seem to be more inline with these type situations. But how to attract the funding necessary to underwrite these very expensive and lengthy trials? Should we tax big pharm? Oh, but now we have to fight the lobbiests and PAC's, which we know is very well funded, and we know very well how the politicians enjoy the financial benefits of donated contributions from these two. So the politicians will be lethargic in persuing such an idea.

But the "not for profit" is probably the right organizational structure to persue these type of trials.

I suggest the following:
Tax Big pharma a moderate amount
Health Benefits provided by Employers should kick in a couple of bucks per person
A national sales tax on pharmacy sales of say 1/4 of 1 percent

just some thoughts.....

**thegodfather** · 06-11-2011, 02:45 AM

Jesus christ dude...I'm going to have to spend the next week trying to correct all of the ASSumptions and bad information that you are polluting this forum with.

Your title alone is completely misleading, FALSE, and wrong.

1.) While indications of the efficacy of a drug in mice is promising for humans, since their genome is 99% similar to our own, it is by no means completely interchangeable, hence that 1%. If this were in fact the case, FDA trials would not require Stage III trails in humans, we could simply test drugs in rodents and then bring them directly to market. Unfortunately (or rather fortunately I should say, from a safety standpoint), human trials are required, they are extensive, and they are important. While efficacy is an important consideration, we must also determine DOSE, adverse drug reactions (what drugs does the proposed drug interact with in a deleterious manner?),etc, and so on.

2.) A profit motive is necessary to bring a drug to market, in most cases. Where a drug cannot be patented, it does NOT mean that pharmacopias will not explore the drug for profit. This is seen in drugs such as Penecillin, Androgel , etc, all drugs which have lost their patent, but which are still profitable in producing the raw material, packaging it for distribution, and selling it for a profit. A drug which "CURES" cancer (and that is a very big leap in assumption) would be hugely profitable for a pharamaceutical company to produce, distribute, and sell, REGARDLESS of a patent. If you are the only game in town PRODUCING AND SELLING the drug, it matters not whether the drug is patentable, because you are able to turn a profit in marking it up after its procurement.

3.) The bold statement that a "cure" for cancer has been found. Herein lays the probelm when those with no scientific education or background post articles, and make statements regarding scientific data or medical articles, when they do not understand the science or the conditions which the article addresses. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of individual types of cancer cells. Cancer cells which have varying degrees of hyperplasia and dysplasia, all of which respond to different treatments, DIFFERENTLY. Hence why some cancers respond to chemotherapy better than others, while some respond better to radiation treatment better than others. In the same way that ONE anti-biotic treatment does not treat ALL bacterias, there will not be ONE anti-tumor agent which attenuates ALL types of cancer cells.

The End.

**Bryan2** · 06-11-2011, 03:38 AM

They have released human trial studies recently May I believe that show promising results.....

**thegodfather** · 06-11-2011, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Bryan2

They have released human trial studies recently May I believe that show promising results.....

Thats not the issue Bryan...The issue is writing "CURE FOR CANCER"...... It may attenuate one TYPE of cancer, or SEVERAL types of cancer, but there is nothing on this earth that will attenuate ALL types of cancer known to man. There are existing drugs which are very good treatments for a lot of cancers, and there are some cancers without very good treatments. Thats really the point here.