• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is the "cure for cancer" a scam?

I've been wondering about this. Everywhere I see someone asking for a donation to cure cancer, and every time I think about the scientists and physicians fattening their wallets. Obviously, drug companies and the medical industry are making good money from treating cancer, and it may not be in their best interests to cure cancer. Of course, the first to come out with a cure would profit for a certain period of time, but in the long run is it more profitable to be continuously treat patients?

Also, I have noticed that little attention is paid to the causes of cancer- carcinogens in food, herbicides, fungicides, pollution, etc. Some searching found this article.

It turns out the cancer industry has some conflicts of interests, just as I assumed.

Every October, the sponsors of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month go into overdrive to spread their message, "Early detection is your best protection." Organizers stage walks, hikes, races, and other events around the country "to fill the information void in public communication about breast cancer"-the sponsors' official goal. For the most part that void is filled with the mantra: "Get a mammogram." As for reducing risk, the campaign's elaborate 1998 promotion kit says only that "current research is investigating the roles of obesity, hormone replacement therapy, diet, and alcohol use."

In other words, the people who bring you Breast Cancer Awareness Month tell you to find out if you already have the disease. And they tell you to take personal responsibility for staving off what's become a scourge throughout the country. What they go to great lengths to avoid telling you is what the country can do to help stop the scourge at its source.

It's no mystery why prevention gets the silent treatment. The primary sponsor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, AstraZeneca (formerly known as Zeneca), is a British-based multinational giant that manufactures the cancer drug tamoxifen as well as fungicides and herbicides, including the carcinogen acetochlor. Its Perry, Ohio, chemical plant is the third-largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the United States, releasing 53,000 pounds of recognized carcinogens into the air in 1996.
....

State and federal agencies sued ICI in 1990, alleging that it dumped DDT and PCBs-both banned in the United States since the 1970s-in Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors.
....

The American Cancer Society has the vice president of a major herbicide manufacturer sitting on its board of directors. High-ranking officials in the National Cancer Institute routinely accept lucrative posts in the cancer-drug industry.
....

"General Electric is a major polluter in PCBs in the Hudson River. GE also manufactures mammogram machines," says Ross Hume Hall, a biochemist who advised the Canadian government on environmental issues in the 1980s.
....

After public outcry in 1978 forced the Israeli government to ban the pesticides-benzene hexachloride, DDT, and lindane-something remarkable happened. Breast cancer mortality rates, which had increased every year for 25 years, dropped nearly 8 percent for all age groups and more than a third for women ages 25 to 34 by 1986.

Unimpressed by such findings, the American Cancer Society (ACS) sided with the Chlorine Institute and issued a joint statement against the phaseout.
....

The Cancer Society's anti-prevention efforts include opposing the now-defunct Delaney Clause, passed in 1958 to safeguard food from substances that cause cancer in animals
....

While serving as chairman of the National Cancer Advisory Panel (a three-member committee appointed by the president) in 1990, Armand Hammer announced a drive to add a billion dollars to the NCI's budget "to find a cure for cancer in the next ten years." At the time, he was also chairman of Occidental Petroleum, which would later have to pay the federal government $129 million and New York State $98 million to clean up its infamous toxic dump, Love Canal.


Holy conflict of interest Batman! Is it reasonable to consider the cure-for-cancer machine a charity?
 
My dad's a pharmacist. He told me a dirty little secret: most of the top 'drug companies' do little or no R&D. They let others do it, then buy the formula IF they think they can market it. These companies exist solely to make their shareholders happy.

Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.
 
Originally posted by: sixone
My dad's a pharmacist. He told me a dirty little secret: most of the top 'drug companies' do little or no R&D. They let others do it, then buy the formula IF they think they can market it. These companies exist solely to make their shareholders happy.

Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.
I won't take your word for it. A member of my immediate family works for one of the largest drug companies in the world, and her company literally has billions of dollars invested in R&D.

You are simply wrong.

Also, the company/university that discovers a cure for cancer will be able to rake in trillions of dollars in revenue. There is a motivation to work for a cure for cancer.
 
i know its not really pop control. they do make more money from treatment than cure, thats why there is no rush on the pharm companys part to find one.
 
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: sixone
My dad's a pharmacist. He told me a dirty little secret: most of the top 'drug companies' do little or no R&D. They let others do it, then buy the formula IF they think they can market it. These companies exist solely to make their shareholders happy.

Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.
I won't take your word for it. A member of my immediate family works for one of the largest drug companies in the world, and her company literally has billions of dollars invested in R&D.

You are simply wrong.

Also, the company/university that discovers a cure for cancer will be able to rake in trillions of dollars in revenue. There is a motivation to work for a cure for cancer.

all dedicated to finding a cure? or just better treatment drugs? i would imagine the latter, as if you kill the cash cow you kill the flow of cash.
 
It's true that Pfizer and Lilly are in no hurry to cure cancer, but they don't collect donations to do research either.

University researches that receive grants from charities do have incentives to succeed: a Nobel prize, book deal, money, fame, adulation, and the respect of their peers. Curing cancer would also be a sure-fire way to get tenure.
 
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: sixone
My dad's a pharmacist. He told me a dirty little secret: most of the top 'drug companies' do little or no R&D. They let others do it, then buy the formula IF they think they can market it. These companies exist solely to make their shareholders happy.

Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.
I won't take your word for it. A member of my immediate family works for one of the largest drug companies in the world, and her company literally has billions of dollars invested in R&D.

You are simply wrong.

Also, the company/university that discovers a cure for cancer will be able to rake in trillions of dollars in revenue. There is a motivation to work for a cure for cancer.


Did I say ALL drug companies? Did I mention her company specifically? Maybe you should read for comprehension before you start arguing a point no one has asserted and make yourself look like a jerk.
 
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: sixone
My dad's a pharmacist. He told me a dirty little secret: most of the top 'drug companies' do little or no R&D. They let others do it, then buy the formula IF they think they can market it. These companies exist solely to make their shareholders happy.

Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.
I won't take your word for it. A member of my immediate family works for one of the largest drug companies in the world, and her company literally has billions of dollars invested in R&D.

You are simply wrong.

Also, the company/university that discovers a cure for cancer will be able to rake in trillions of dollars in revenue. There is a motivation to work for a cure for cancer.


Did I say ALL drug companies? Did I mention her company specifically? Maybe you should read for comprehension before you start arguing a point no one has asserted and make yourself look like a jerk.

You said most of the top companies dont spend any money on R&D, and he offered a counterpoint of a company who spends billions. Is it so hard to imagine other large companies will do this as well?
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: sixone
My dad's a pharmacist. He told me a dirty little secret: most of the top 'drug companies' do little or no R&D. They let others do it, then buy the formula IF they think they can market it. These companies exist solely to make their shareholders happy.

Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.
I won't take your word for it. A member of my immediate family works for one of the largest drug companies in the world, and her company literally has billions of dollars invested in R&D.

You are simply wrong.

Also, the company/university that discovers a cure for cancer will be able to rake in trillions of dollars in revenue. There is a motivation to work for a cure for cancer.


Did I say ALL drug companies? Did I mention her company specifically? Maybe you should read for comprehension before you start arguing a point no one has asserted and make yourself look like a jerk.

You said most of the top companies dont spend any money on R&D, and he offered a counterpoint of a company who spends billions. Is it so hard to imagine other large companies will do this as well?


Again is this to cure or "treat" cancer.
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
You said most of the top companies dont spend any money on R&D, and he offered a counterpoint of a company who spends billions. Is it so hard to imagine other large companies will do this as well?

What does imagination have to do with the price of beans in China?? 😕
 
Originally posted by: sixone
My dad's a pharmacist. He told me a dirty little secret: most of the top 'drug companies' do little or no R&D. They let others do it, then buy the formula IF they think they can market it. These companies exist solely to make their shareholders happy.

Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.

duh, why do you think they started the companies, to make money
 
Originally posted by: brigden
There are a lot of tinfoil hats in this thread.


right. because we all know that pharm companies really care about people and curing diseases, and not keeping the shareholders happy with lots of cash.

 
When they say "cure for cancer," they are referring to treatment. Something that will kill tumors with high degree of reliability with little side affects.

"Cure for cancer" does not mean finding a vaccine like preventative medicine. Cancer is uncontrolled growth of cells caused by mutations. Preventing random mutations that cause cancer is simply impossible.

And yes, some companies do exist simply to make drugs for profit with little R&D. They have to wait until patents of the originating company expires though. What did you think "generic drugs" refers to?
 
Originally posted by: flashbacck
When they say "cure for cancer," they are referring to treatment. Something that will kill tumors with high degree of reliability with little side affects.

"Cure for cancer" does not mean finding a vaccine like preventative medicine. Cancer is uncontrolled growth of cells caused by mutations. Preventing random mutations that cause cancer is simply impossible.

And yes, some companies do exist simply to make drugs for profit with little R&D. They have to wait until patents of the originating company expires though. What did you think "generic drugs" refers to?


good point. i guess the only "cure" is to remove the carcinogens.

so maybe the pharm companies are doing all they can, as that would garner them the most profits.
 
there would be better way to control population than cancer. war without end? introduce highly addictive, cheap and destructive drugs into a certain populace like crack? fast-acting virus like the new super-aids?
although i enjoy a good crackpot theory...go ask Art Bell. he'll know.

 
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Its Perry, Ohio, chemical plant is the third-largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the United States, releasing 53,000 pounds of recognized carcinogens into the air in 1996.

Got a link for that?

Just wondering, as the house my wife and I spend our first 6 years or so in is within about 1 mile of that plant (it's in a different city and about 6 miles driving distance, so we never really thought about it, but looking at it from an overhead map....kinda unsettling).
 
Originally posted by: PatboyX
there would be better way to control population than cancer. war without end? introduce highly addictive, cheap and destructive drugs into a certain populace like crack? fast-acting virus like the new super-aids?
although i enjoy a good crackpot theory...go ask Art Bell. he'll know.


read my other replies.....
 
Back
Top