So I was reading this article:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_c...e_takes_notice

Though I may be skeptic of it's validity, the part on farmaceutical companies seem spot on. Disease makes business for drugs and doctors. Especially if privatized.

I would like to ask for the validity of this on the Org's more intellectual and knowledgeable people.

~Jirisys (I thought this might not be frontroom-appropriate, that's why I posted here)

Hoax: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/cancercure.asp

There is no cure for cancer

Actual potential cure discovered in Ireland eat lots of curry

Heh, I've also seen reports of killer cells that deliver cancer drugs only to cancer cells allowing the use of stronger drugs with less side effects and some other methods that seemed very promising.

It's also true that I wouldn't be surprised if the pharma industry were to try and avoid the introduction of a quick and cheap cure as that would more or less destroy a huge industry built around cancer treatment.

On the other hand you'd think that insurances would be all over it.

If some clever people discovered a cure for cancer, they and whoever choses to work with them will become rich people. They would not have to care about the consequences of the pharmaceutical industry, but rather focusing on getting their own share of money. That's how the private market would work, is it not.

You can't cure cancer like that: it's natural growth. One of the more promising things in removing the excess growth, though, is the fact cancer cells don't turn on the help-me signals when they become infected with viruses.

I think there will be a lot of amazing cancer cures on the magical world that is the internet.

Curing cancer?

Most of those dying of cancer would've died of old age within a couple of years anyway.....

It's still IIRC the second highest cause of teenage deaths.

That should be drugs and alcohol, youth disappoints again

You know I used to be honestly suspicious about big Pharma withholding information about potential leads towards resolving some types of Cancer, but there isn't just one type of cancer so it's unlikely there's some big mysterious cure-all out there. When my Aunt was going through chemo for her neuro militus optica, she was literally the 3rd Person in the World to receive stem cell treatment for her illness, what I saw was a lot of medical researchers and Oncologists working around the clock, tirelessly in pursuit of unlocking the secrets behind NMO. These Researchers were actively consulting with specialists around the world, and the cost- to say the least- was staggering, however her insurance company covered the entirety of the costs (There would have been no other way of doing this treatment short of fundraising) because they were genuinely interested in finding an effective treatment or cure, Insurance companies have a stake in it too, perpetually ill people are a drag on their ability to turn a profit

Yeah, my skepticism level was high on this one.

Ah but tis the joy of Snopes, one of my favorite website. Ah, the joys of reading about the man stuck in a pool drainage hole

~Jirisys ()

There isn't "cancer" as one disease. There are many, many, many types. Some are innocuous that can easily be cured (lipomas, basal cell carcinomas, most testicular cancer). Others not. Even breast cancer is not one disease, but a whole variety of them, again some which are relatively easy to treat, others which are nigh on impossible.

My mother-in-law died of cancer aged 47. Her youngest son was 15 when she passed away.
An aunt died of cancer aged 63.
Two other aunts got cancer at the age of 55 (they are twins); they're still not entirely cured.
A close friend of my mom died of cancer aged 45. She had 4 children, the youngest was 10 when she died.
I've had at least 4 clients, all women with a loving husband and a child/ children (aged in the range of 2 to 7 years old), who died of cancer in their 30's.
Our former neighbours' son died of cancer, aged 2.
The son of a couple we know died of cancer, aged 4.
The grandson of a client died of cancer, aged 2.

While I see your point, I'm not very impressed by your suggestion that finding cures for all varieties of cancer isn't important.

And Horetores hubris is once again his undoing

INB4 "ANECDOTAL, MOST CANCER PATIENTS ARE OLD PEEPS"

Because, of course, old people, when catching a disease, should be left to rot. They're going to die soon anyway Maybe we should just execute everybody who has the nerves to become older than 75

I see his point. I can even see people arguing for it. I'm not one of them. I prefer to be human.

I find it interesting that a natural and dignified death is termed "left to rot".

As it is now, people of old age can perfectly decide to refuse treatment for whatever disease they catch. You suggest older people should not get treatment because they're going to die soon anyway. Who are you to make the choice to be treated or not to be treated for them?

I don't agree that it's not important to try looking for cures for diseases that hit mostly old people.

Even if I would agree, there are plenty of young people who die of cancer too. Should we stop looking for cures for them, because most people who die from it are old?

What is dignified about a dieasease that lays waste to your facilties?

What HoreTore also seems to miss is that plenty of diseases were lethal in the past and can now be easily cured or prevented.

Let research continue and maybe somebody will for real find something very, very cheap and simple yet effective against the most common forms of cancer?

The reality is different. When a patient becomes unconscious unless there is a legally binding document that says otherwise, the doctors do what they think is best. So, too ill to not be treated, not quite ill enough to die.
Also the options are often "do what we want, or we do nothing for you" - either full on treatment, or die in pain. Palliation is not allowed in cases where treatment would work.

I've seen 93 year olds fitter than 55 year olds. Unusual, I grant you (55 year old was an alcoholic), but to base people on their chronological age rather than their physiological age is less and less useful the older one gets.

That can be addressed, can't it?

The government could inform the public. People could get information about this each time they go the hospital. GP can tell their patients who are in bad condition. Make sure everybody knows he can write down such a document. Make it very simple. Distribute preprinted documents. Run a few campaigns with shocking and provocative ads, genre: "Old Joe here is unconscious, but he's suffering the most cruel pain 24/7, but he can't move, he can't yell. He has to undergo and it will last for months. If he would be conscious, he would no longer be human. He would be a broken man who has been mercilessly tortured for months and months. After it ends, his family will be bankrupt because of the expensive treatment by doctors who saw him as their test subject and treated him allthough there was only a 0,005 % chance of succes. If only he had written down a statement..."

You sure are reading a lot into three short sentences....

How else is one supposed to interprete :

Are you now going to say you didn't say what you said, because you don't want to admit you were wrong?

And don't go "Ah, but it's not wrong! Most people dieing of cancer ARE old. See: statistics!!111!"

What your statement implied, is crystal clear.

I don't really see any reason to prolong this.

Have fun.

Youtube Video

Logic is trumped by emotion: you are asking the government to advocate people choosing to end their lives rather than be treated? Is that how the cuts are going to be made, by murdering citizens?

I think I am going to pause this thread. The discussion has become heated and both valued principals would be missed. Thread will re-open in a bit.

Cancer panaceas are a staple of fiction and internet whimsy. But I encourage many of you to look at the issue -- the stuff they are doing with viruses as a meds carrier is fascinating.