No money in curing cancer

LOUSWIFT

I was watching a talk/news channel last night and a report had come out of Canada that there was a possible cure for several types of cancer. It had been effective on mice but the drug companies were not interested because the chemical compound was very commonly available and there would be no profit in dong an expensive exhaustive clinical study and not make profit through sales of the drug. There is of course great profit in current treatments. The doctor was asked since the drug companies would not fund the studies why wouldn't the insurance companies? It would save them millions if it worked. The doctor responded because there is a law that prevents insurance companies from doing so. Private donations were coming in and in a couple of years or so they may be able to recommend the drug. The question was asked why not use volunteers who were certain to die from cancer? I guess the "do no harm" to the patient creedo was in force. In other words its okay if the patient dies of cancer but its not okay if the patient dies by something that the doctor does trying to save the patient. About six months ago the hospital sent me a survey and asked if I thought there would ever be a cure for cancer? My response was you bet just as soon as there is greater profit in curing as as there is in treating us. The research hospital was puzzled by my answer. I was then given a bill for $23,000 dollars. I know some would call me a cynic but I think I am a pragmatist. It you were on fire and the only current way to put it out and save your life was to pour a bucket of an unknow liquid on you. What would you do... assume its gasoline or water? If its gasoline you die faster and maybe with less pain. If you do nothing you still die. If its water well what do you know-a search for truth. If its water others will now be saved. If its gasoline I die and others may still be saved by looking elsewhere. The enigma is are you a fool or a hero? It is more sad that no matter the outcome others will make that decision about you. But you get to make a choice.

Monicaemilia

Lou: I thought the same thing when I watched the Dr. Sanjay Gupta report with Lance Armstrong a few weeks ago. They flat out said that metastized cancer is the #1 killer, and the one that has the least research funds,and the response from the 'experts' was that the answer was prevention and early detection, therefore it should never get to mets. I have a huge problem with this statement because screening would never have helped the very many of us that are under the screening age (50) for early detection. There is also an article in the Scientific American February 2007 issue about the many benefits of curcumin on cancer and many other diseases. They are going to start clinical trials, but this is another 'drug' that would be inexpensive and give the pharmaceutical companies cause for concern. Monica

alta29

Someone put these thoughts in my mind a year ago, and I havent been able to take it out of my mind...too much money involved...Early detection? I was only 45 when Dx...and there are a lot of younger people here...what about prostate cancer,or pancreatic...sorry about "feeling down on this again", but I am having a ct scan in 3 weeks...this will be it to see if the avastin is working or not...and I am very scared....

scouty

It's sickening that it is so true!!!!!! Makes you ask why The Lance Armstrong Foundation or ACS won't sponsor them.....again they too are in bed with Big Pharma.

I dream of starting a foundation that only funds clinical trials for non-toxic and more natural remedies that no one gets rich off of. If a medicine is natural, it can no longer be considered able to cure anything. The FDA changed the definition of cure a few years back (after extensive lobbying by Big Pharma) to something that has to be man-made......so an orange can not longer be considered a cure for scurvy. STUPID!!!!!! Just pisses me off that money does rule and no one really gives a rat's **** about our health and well-being.

Thanks Lou for getting my blood pressure up. I think I'll go make some bellpepper juice.

Lisa P.

nanuk

scouty said:

It's sickening that it is so true!!!!!! Makes you ask why The Lance Armstrong Foundation or ACS won't sponsor them.....again they too are in bed with Big Pharma.

I dream of starting a foundation that only funds clinical trials for non-toxic and more natural remedies that no one gets rich off of. If a medicine is natural, it can no longer be considered able to cure anything. The FDA changed the definition of cure a few years back (after extensive lobbying by Big Pharma) to something that has to be man-made......so an orange can not longer be considered a cure for scurvy. STUPID!!!!!! Just pisses me off that money does rule and no one really gives a rat's **** about our health and well-being.

Thanks Lou for getting my blood pressure up. I think I'll go make some bellpepper juice.

Lisa P.

The altruism that started these organizations dies a slow death along with the cancer patient. Those who make the decisions are bought and paid for long before they can address the real issues.

nanuk

alta29 said:

Someone put these thoughts in my mind a year ago, and I havent been able to take it out of my mind...too much money involved...Early detection? I was only 45 when Dx...and there are a lot of younger people here...what about prostate cancer,or pancreatic...sorry about "feeling down on this again", but I am having a ct scan in 3 weeks...this will be it to see if the avastin is working or not...and I am very scared....

when a single dose of avastin costs $25,000.00 what kind of decisions do you think they are going to make regarding a course of treatment?

for your consideration; Avastin has been known to reduce tumor size when administered in combination with other drugs.

JADot

Lou, who's the person interviewed, what's the compound and who's the pharma? I'll have to refrain until I know the facts ;-)

Ying

katefm

Monicaemilia said:

Lou: I thought the same thing when I watched the Dr. Sanjay Gupta report with Lance Armstrong a few weeks ago. They flat out said that metastized cancer is the #1 killer, and the one that has the least research funds,and the response from the 'experts' was that the answer was prevention and early detection, therefore it should never get to mets. I have a huge problem with this statement because screening would never have helped the very many of us that are under the screening age (50) for early detection. There is also an article in the Scientific American February 2007 issue about the many benefits of curcumin on cancer and many other diseases. They are going to start clinical trials, but this is another 'drug' that would be inexpensive and give the pharmaceutical companies cause for concern. Monica

Lou- thanks for such an interesting post. Too bad we're all draining our personal finances on our own cancer - wouldn't it be nice if every cancer patient had the funds to stand up, say no to big pharma, and fund it ourselves?! Wishful thinking, I know.

Monica- we're on the same page as you. Early detection! Come on! My husband was diagnosed at 37 - Stage IV. That's 13 years before insurance would have paid for his first colonoscopy. Shameful.

Cheers,
Kate

LOUSWIFT

JADot said:

Lou, who's the person interviewed, what's the compound and who's the pharma? I'll have to refrain until I know the facts ;-)

Ying

I didn't catch the doctors name but it was on CNN. I apologized for watching that channel but Fox was a repeat. He was with a Canadian University. There was no pharma involved because the chemical compounds (drug) is readily available via chemical companies. Sorry I didn't get the details I sorta went are you #%@&^%$ me? Unfortunately that tends to tune me out to relevant details.

LOUSWIFT

Monicaemilia said:

Lou: I thought the same thing when I watched the Dr. Sanjay Gupta report with Lance Armstrong a few weeks ago. They flat out said that metastized cancer is the #1 killer, and the one that has the least research funds,and the response from the 'experts' was that the answer was prevention and early detection, therefore it should never get to mets. I have a huge problem with this statement because screening would never have helped the very many of us that are under the screening age (50) for early detection. There is also an article in the Scientific American February 2007 issue about the many benefits of curcumin on cancer and many other diseases. They are going to start clinical trials, but this is another 'drug' that would be inexpensive and give the pharmaceutical companies cause for concern. Monica

Interesting so according to them its our fault if we get cancer because it coulda, shoulda, woulda been detected before its too late? I had a sigmoid at 50- clear. Blood tests clear age 55 no problems. I had a routine physical and doctor who cares about his patients suggested I get a complete colonscopy. He did so as a preventative step. I was careful and did what I was suppose to do when I was supposed to do it. What do you know I'm now a semicolon. So much for detection and prevention. Yes early detection and prevention is nice but it isn't the answer if you already have it. Cervical cancer is caused by a virus. How long did it take to discover that and how many died? How many more will be saved by a vaccine then by the detection of it?

LOUSWIFT

alta29 said:

Someone put these thoughts in my mind a year ago, and I havent been able to take it out of my mind...too much money involved...Early detection? I was only 45 when Dx...and there are a lot of younger people here...what about prostate cancer,or pancreatic...sorry about "feeling down on this again", but I am having a ct scan in 3 weeks...this will be it to see if the avastin is working or not...and I am very scared....

alta we are all scared every day especially before a test. $25,000 a dose... for that much money there should be a money back guarantee. My chemo cost $1600 a dose. I mused no wonder the nurse wears a mask "its a robbery"

JADot

LOUSWIFT said:

I didn't catch the doctors name but it was on CNN. I apologized for watching that channel but Fox was a repeat. He was with a Canadian University. There was no pharma involved because the chemical compounds (drug) is readily available via chemical companies. Sorry I didn't get the details I sorta went are you #%@&^%$ me? Unfortunately that tends to tune me out to relevant details.

Lou,

As far as over the counter stuff for treating cancer, for years the colon cancer mainstay was a drug called lavamisole, used with 5-FU. Prior to that, lavamisole was exclusively used for treating tape worms in farm animals. aaaggghhhh!

If you search the forum for "tapeworm", you will see an earlier thread put up by yours truly :-)

Cheers,
Ying

foxy

JADot said:

Lou,

As far as over the counter stuff for treating cancer, for years the colon cancer mainstay was a drug called lavamisole, used with 5-FU. Prior to that, lavamisole was exclusively used for treating tape worms in farm animals. aaaggghhhh!

If you search the forum for "tapeworm", you will see an earlier thread put up by yours truly :-)

Cheers,
Ying

Ying, believe me lavamisole is the most disgusting thing I have ever had to take. I can still smell it after 13 years. We are dairy farmers and I have a new understanding of what our stock are put through. That said maybe I would not be still around without my 12 months of the dreaded drug!


Foxy.

pink05

This is a very sore topic with me. It is unbelievable how money plays such a huge role in everything. I get so upset when I hear about these reports. Of course no one will sponsor a potential cancer curing drug. How would these large drug companies make any profits? There is so much money to be made off of people with diseases. I have researched so many natural remedies for all types of diseases. There is published documentation that some of these natural treatments work. Of course, you won't hear about it because the drug companies don't want us to know that. It seems like these large corporations, and maybe even some cancer centers want us to believe that the only hope for cancer patients is chemotherapy and/or radiation. I'm not saying that they don't work, but there are definitely other ways to treat diseases besides poisoning patients with toxic drugs. Why are these natural treatments so taboo among the medical community? It wouldn't hurt to try it, right? In my opinion, trying to treat diseases through supplements and diet can't hurt a person anymore than some of these toxic drugs would.

I do want to add, however, that I noticed a clinical trial for curcumin and cancer. I don't remember who is sponsoring the trial, but it can be found on the NIH website. We'll see how far they'll go with it.