Cancer Research Worthless?

by metatron 56 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “My personal theory is that the following is why so much research is ineffective: A drug development company finds 5 potential cures. They throw out 3 that are natural or unpatentable as uneconomic. They throw out a 4th because it is predicted to be modestly profitable and may only break even with regulatory costs. They pursue the 5th one and chance being what it is, it never gets to approval.”

  metatron,

  Research is effective if it leads to greater knowledge.

  The concern you raise above is of efficiency and benevolence. We live in a very violent universe and on a violent planet. Drug companies are not in the business of benevolence so looking to them to provide benevolent research is a mistake.

  Contemporary society does not hold it unethical or immoral to finance research for purposes of making economic profit, and this is the business of most drug companies.

  Anyone is free to finance medical research for purely benevolent reasons. The problem with this approach is finding adequate funding. Unfortunately governments are much better at wasting money to secure political outcomes for career politicians than at establishing efficient research operations for sake of benevolence. Hence we have for-profit drug companies who, though in it for profit, have nevertheless found a way to finance a furtherance of medical knowledge.

  To be offended because drug companies are running a for-profit businesses is silly.

  ___

  “Marvin, you don't know WTF you are talking about ... “

  talesin,

  I beg your pardon!

  I’m talking about the source article this topic is about, and it happens to address a field I know a thing or two about.

  Now, if it’s not asking too much, would you please explain why your rude behavior?

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  soontobe

  My personal theory is that the following is why so much research is ineffective: A drug development company finds 5 potential cures. They throw out 3 that are natural or unpatentable as uneconomic. They throw out a 4th because it is predicted to be modestly profitable and may only break even with regulatory costs. They pursue the 5th one and chance being what it is, it never gets to approval.”

  A lot of research takes place in academia where this isn't a consideration. Furthermore, even natural substances are patentable. Maybe not the molecule itself, but the application. But yes, development costs are fiendishly high. It can take a decade or more, and hundreds of millions to billions, to get a drug to market.

  And that's not a sure thing. Drug development isn't for the faint hearted.
• 

  metatron

  As I have invested in various drug company stocks over the years, I am no enemy of the capitalist system.

  As I said, I'm not sure how this system can be reformed. I do get angry when evidence emerges that some ray of hope has been stopped because large corporations interfered. That's where the 'psychopathic' behavior comes in, not mere profit-seeking. The amount of structural corruption in this field is stunning, once you become aware of it.

  Ever notice how a big drug company can openly and egregiously violate the law and then just pay a fine? As merely a cost of doing business? Even if people were killed? The FDA doesn't dare charge them with a felony because that could interfere with Medicare payments and the flow of needed drugs. How can this be stopped?

  Yes, you can get an application patent but that's often a futile pursuit. I loved a small company that had a potential treatment for aging related stiffness that died under the weight of its own debt before anything could be brought to market.

  I'm not sure how we can get more 'benevolence' into the system but we need to do so.

  metatron
• 

  soontobe

  You can start at the FDA.

  Especially this guy:

  

  http://www.deepcapture.com/tag/richard-pazdur/
• 

  bohm

  The good thing about cancer crackpottery is that it might accomplish something. Like, you might talk someone out of a life-saving treatment and instead make him by some random crap the cancer quack of the day is selling.
• 

  cofty

  I knew a lady with breast cancer who thought like Metatron and Tal.

  She's dead of course.
• 

  metatron

  Speaking of worthless, thank you for your strawman comments.

  metatron
• 

  still thinking

  To be offended because drug companies are running a for-profit businesses is silly.

  Who's offended. I'm just talking about keeping them honest...because ANY business that strives to make a profit can become corrupt and dishonest.

  And from what I have read, neither Tal or metaron are saying that you shouldn't do any treatment. They appear to me to be saying do that AND try other things. Keep your mind open to other possibilites. And lets try and keep big pharm honest. Where is the harm in that? Or should pharm be permitted to do what ever they like and NOT be accountable to the public they claim to be helping? If their drugs cause problems, is it because they have not tested them properly? What is the excuse when it does go wrong?
• 

  Berengaria

  I haven't read even one response (ok, I read Cofty's) but you might want to talk to JeffT.
• 

  JeffT

  I'm on vacation (sort of). I'd like to see the original article, I suspect it doesn't say what this article says it says.

  Year's ago, one of my Dad's patients yelled at a female doctor saying "no G---D--- woman is going to treat me." She ran out of the room crying and ran straight into the head nurse who told her to "get back in there and tell that stupid SOB that if doesn't like women doctors he can die of leukemia and see if he likes that better."

  Y'all have the same option. If you don't trust the treatments produced by scientific methods do something that suits you and let us know how it goes. I find it funny that people who slam religious fundamentalists for swallowing nonsense about Adam and Eve playing with dinosaurs six thousand years ago, will reject out of hand solid scientific work that doesn't line up with their notions. Survival rates for some cancers have increased dramatically. Fifty years ago a diagnosis of leukemia meant death within a few months. Sometime this year the number of living survivors will pass one million.

  I may not be able to check back in for a couple of days. I'm driving from Boulder to Seattle, we just celebrated my daughter's grad school graduation.