Cancer Cure

Shizelbs

wingnut4772 wrote:

It sounds promising. I have a friend who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer last year. I wish they could try it on him.

I'm sorry to hear that. Its one of the most painful cancers.

Early B.

PhantomOG wrote:

Do you think they go so far as to secretly fund research on how to purposefully give people cancer in order to make money treating all the cancer patients?? Are we getting into tin foil hat territory here?

I don't know about that, but there is certainly similar precedent in this area -- **** experiments, Tuskeegee experiment, etc. There's also been lots of speculation about AIDS being a man-made disease. Kinda makes you wonder, though -- when AIDS first started (apparently in Africa), it was killing primarily blacks, drug abusers, and homosexuals. That's quite an interesting coincidence, isn't it?

Shizelbs

Early, what do you do for a living? What is your job that has you writing research grants?

Shizelbs

Early B. wrote:

I don't know about that, but there is certainly similar precedent in this area -- **** experiments, Tuskeegee experiment, etc. There's also been lots of speculation about AIDS being a man-made disease. Kinda makes you wonder, though -- when AIDS first started (apparently in Africa), it was killing primarily blacks, drug abusers, and homosexuals. That's quite an interesting coincidence, isn't it?

Its as if HIV (AIDS) were originally found in a part of the world largely black and spread through activities commonly done by homosexual men and injection drug abusers.

unc2701

Early B. wrote:

I don't know about that, but there is certainly similar precedent in this area -- **** experiments, Tuskeegee experiment, etc. There's also been lots of speculation about AIDS being a man-made disease. Kinda makes you wonder, though -- when AIDS first started (apparently in Africa), it was killing primarily blacks, drug abusers, and homosexuals. That's quite an interesting coincidence, isn't it?

Hmmm.... that is QUITE a coincidence. A disease that targets people with the highest risk profile. Kinda like fat people getting CVD- it was released by the supermodel mafia.

I forget what the population attributable risk proportion is on HPV and cervical cancer, but it's sufficiently high that you can basically call it the cause. You're knocking all this research that doesn't address the cause of cancer- I offer a perfect counter example.

Basically you're off in tin-foil hat land here, dude.

Shizelbs

I'm with UNC.

Do you criticize Parkinson's research because all the current treatments aren't getting at the cause?

unc2701

Found it- 99.7% of cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV. So with the vaccination, cervical cancer will be effectively cured.

Shizelbs

Don't forget Polio, that got vaccinated off the face of the earth... for a while.

read-alot

wingnut4772 wrote:

It sounds promising. I have a friend who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer last year. I wish they could try it on him.

I just lost two of my friends of 30+ years, Bobby had cancer in the neck and Benny had it in his lung. I will never forget them.

unc2701

& smallpox (with the exception of the CDC & Vektor samples). Although technically, you can't cure viruses- you can just teach the immune system to beat them.

markmarc

When it comes to this disease singer/songwriter Joe Jackson said it best, "Everything gives you cancer, there's no cure, there's no answer"

I firmly believe we all have potentially cancerous cells in our bodies, it's what triggers them to go active is the root of the problem. I, for one am glad studies are going from all sorts of angles. It's like unrapping layer after layer, sooner or later you get to the center.

jdhdiggs

I would think that any cure would be a huge cash cow, especially if it was cheap. Think about it, if it costs say $100/person to cure cancer, how much could you charge someone with cancer to cure it? $10,000? $20,000? $100,000? Not to mention the noble prize and going down in history as one of the most important scientists/doctors in history. No, your right. They're going to sit on it for addtional grant money...

Of course I am ignoring the ethics of charging $10K for $100 treatment...

unc2701

It's official. Anytime JDH & I agree on anything, the guy who disagrees has to be wrong

Shizelbs

And what about the drug companies that aren't in the cancer business? Whats to stop them from marketing easy cure, increasing their revenues by an unheard of amount, and killing their competition. Not to forget that they are the company responsible for killing cancer. Many companies would love to have such a drug.

PolkThug

I think the point is, that a HUGE amount of cash is made while researching for cures. Think about how much money has went towards finding the cure for AIDS over the last 20+ years. The majority of Americans don't need the cure. Its needed most in poor countries. Soooo, it is conceivable that it may take a really long time to get to the point where 'AIDS cure' sales are > 20+ years of paying researchers. No tin foil hats here, just economics.

jdhdiggs

unc2701 wrote:

It's official. Anytime JDH & I agree on anything, the guy who disagrees has to be wrong

Damn straight!

jdhdiggs

PolkThug wrote:

I think the point is, that a HUGE amount of cash is made while researching for cures. Think about how much money has went towards finding the cure for AIDS over the last 20+ years. The majority of Americans don't need the cure. Its needed most in poor countries. Soooo, it is conceivable that it may take a really long time to get to the point where 'AIDS cure' sales are > 20+ years of paying researchers. No tin foil hats here, just economics.

You are right to an extent, but no one would have done the following:

"Wow, we cured AIDs!"
"Shhhh, don't tell anyone, we need to milk the research grants"
"Oh yeah, forgot about that. Whoops, that whole report just went into the bunson burner, how about that...."

That's the point. If you could find the cure, you would publish and get the cash. There are always more diseases and when they go away, then you can start working on aging, intelligence, the grants won't dry out....

Shizelbs

PolkThug wrote:

I think the point is, that a HUGE amount of cash is made while researching for cures. Think about how much money has went towards finding the cure for AIDS over the last 20+ years. The majority of Americans don't need the cure. Its needed most in poor countries. Soooo, it is conceivable that it may take a really long time to get to the point where 'AIDS cure' sales are > 20+ years of paying researchers. No tin foil hats here, just economics.

What is the alternative? Just blindly try stuff see if it cures people? The research is not just stalling while the cash rolls in, its necessary. That HUGE amount of cash is not just salaries, its paying for lab animals, materials and instruments.

DarqueKnight

When you look at any natural environment that has not been tampered with, spoiled, or encroached upon by humans, you find that there is one predatory species (the apex species) that sits at the top of the food chain. The populations of the lower plants and animals are kept in check by whatever species it is that preys on them.

What keeps the population of the apex species in check? Nothing. They are genetically programmed to keep their populations in synchronous proportion to their food supply. For example, tigers are the apex species in their natural habitat. When food was plentiful and their habitats were not encroached upon by man, female tigers had typical litter sizes of 5 to seven cubs. When their habitats, and food supply, began to diminish due to encroachment by humans or natural changes in the environment, female tigers began to have litters of two to three cubs.

Human beings are the apex species on the entire planet. However, unlike the apex species among plants and animals, most human beings seem to be unable to reach a synchronous equilibrium with their environment. Unfortunately, we have no genetic predisposition to breed in numbers proportional to the resources available to support us. It would appear that we are doomed to never ending population explosions because we do not have any natural predators...or do we?

It is true that nature abhors a vacuum. It is also true that nature abhors environmental non-equilibrium. Throughout history, terminal diseases like various plagues, cancer, and AIDS have fulfilled a necessary function in keeping human populations down. Natural pathogens have also received some "assistance" from warfare and environmental pollution.

If cancer, AIDS, and all other terminal diseases were cured tomorrow, something equally or even more deadly would take their place. One or more benign organisms would mutate into deadly pathogens and the long, slow process of finding cures would begin anew.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, man is able to counteract the effects of most deadly pathogens through medical science. If you take medical science totally out of the picture, natural pathogens, along with warfare and environmental pollution, would do a very good job of keeping human population growth in check.

Early B.

Shizelbs wrote:

Early, what do you do for a living? What is your job that has you writing research grants?

I have my own consulting company that specializes in writing health care grants, among other things. I have worked on a variety of medical research grants for a local medical school.

hearingimpared

DarqueKnight wrote:

When you look at any natural environment that has not been tampered with, spoiled, or encroached upon by humans, you find that there is one predatory species (the apex species) that sits at the top of the food chain. The populations of the lower plants and animals are kept in check by whatever species it is that preys on them.

What keeps the population of the apex species in check? Nothing. They are genetically programmed to keep their populations in synchronous proportion to their food supply. For example, tigers are the apex species in their natural habitat. When food was plentiful and their habitats were not encroached upon by man, female tigers had typical litter sizes of 5 to seven cubs. When their habitats, and food supply, began to diminish due to encroachment by humans or natural changes in the environment, female tigers began to have litters of two to three cubs.

Human beings are the apex species on the entire planet. However, unlike the apex species among plants and animals, most human beings seem to be unable to reach a synchronous equilibrium with their environment. Unfortunately, we have no genetic predisposition to breed in numbers proportional to the resources available to support us. It would appear that we are doomed to never ending population explosions because we do not have any natural predators...or do we?

It is true that nature abhors a vacuum. It is also true that nature abhors environmental non-equilibrium. Throughout history, terminal diseases like various plagues, cancer, and AIDS have fulfilled a necessary function in keeping human populations down. Natural pathogens have also received some "assistance" from warfare and environmental pollution.

If cancer, AIDS, and all other terminal diseases were cured tomorrow, something equally or even more deadly would take their place. One or more benign organisms would mutate into deadly pathogens and the long, slow process of finding cures would begin anew.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, man is able to counteract the effects of most deadly pathogens through medical science. If you take medical science totally out of the picture, natural pathogens, along with warfare and environmental pollution, would do a very good job of keeping human population growth in check.

See God is a genius!!!

Early B.

unc2701 wrote:

Hmmm.... that is QUITE a coincidence. A disease that targets people with the highest risk profile. Kinda like fat people getting CVD- it was released by the supermodel mafia.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? A disease being made to fit a targeted profile. I don't know if was or not, I simply said that's the speculation.

unc2701

Early B. wrote:

I have my own consulting company that specializes in writing health care grants, among other things. I have worked on a variety of medical research grants for a local medical school.

I guess the problem that Shizelbs & I are having here is that you're knocking your own profession. Which is pretty weird since you own this company. When you say you worked on the grants at the med school what were you doing? What was your major that you're doing this?

Demiurge

Early B.

unc2701 wrote:

I guess the problem that Shizelbs & I are having here is that you're knocking your own profession. Which is pretty weird since you own this company. When you say you worked on the grants at the med school what were you doing? What was your major that you're doing this?

Well, I'm simply pointing out the problems in the profession, just as any professional finds fault in his/her profession. Likewise, there's aspects of the grant business that I don't like, but I gotta pay the bills somehow just like anybody else. My job is to help the researcher get the grant. Anything beyond that is out of my control.

Does medical research do any good? Of course it does. But there's a lot of questionable activities in it, too.

My major was health administration. It's a long story, but I didn't plan to do what I do. Eventually, I'll do something different.

Early B.

Demiurge wrote:

That's cool!

unc2701

Fair enough. I know I could tell you a lot of things that are wrong with pharma, but I'm just working for the man.

Shizelbs

First of all, I didn't know people could be hired to write grants for others. Makes sense anyways. Maybe we can talk, I'd love to do some research out of my store.

Second, what specifically do you think researchers should be doing differently? I just don't see writing for grants with the main goal of curing X disease being realistic for one lab under one grant. How do you think positive change can be made?

DarqueKnight

Early B. wrote:

Well, that's the point, isn't it? A disease being made to fit a targeted profile. I don't know if was or not, I simply said that's the speculation.

I have read some of the conspiracy theories postulating that AIDS is a man-made biological weapon designed to wipe out certain populations.

The trouble I have with these biological weapon conspiracy theories is that they don't make sense. For a biological weapon to be truly effective, it would have to be contained to the target population, otherwise, the deployer of the biological weapon risks the weapon backfiring on him. Furthermore, wars are commonly fought for the acquisition of land and natural resources. Biological weapons cantaminate both. This is why biological weapons have not been widely deployed in warfare scenarios.

Let's assume, hypothetically, that the U.S. Army created the AIDS virus as a means to eradicate the homosexual male population in the United States. The following problems would have to be dealt with:

1. How to "contain" the AIDS virus within the target population. This is complicated by the facts that (1) some homosexuals do not confine their sexual activities to other homosexual partners, (2) some homosexual males are either married to heterosexual females or have sex with (promiscuous) heterosexual females, and (3) some homosexual males are exclusively pursue sexual relationships with male pre-teens or adolescents.

2. What do you do when the virus "crosses over" into a non-target population?

3. How do you deal with the inevitable mutations that will occur once the virus starts proliferating through the challenges presented different peoples immune responses?

4. Some high ranking Army officers and government officials have a homosexual orientation. How would you prevent the plan from being sabotaged by these individuals?

Let's make another hypothetical assumtion: The U.S. government funded the development of the AIDS virus for deployment in Africa. The purpose being to kill off the African population in certain areas and facilitate the easy acquisition of lands rich in mineral resources. Here are the problems with that plan:

1. The African continent has a population of over 800 million people. Again, the problem of containment raises its head. Some of the infected Africans would migrate to other countries within and outside of Africa. Some of those migratory Africans are going to have sex with non-Africans. Populations in Mediterranean European countries will be at risk because of their proximity to Africa. Populations in Scandinavian countries are going to be at risk because, while they are relatively far from Africa, there has proven to be some mutual sexual attraction between very fair skinned Scandinavians and very dark skinned Africans. Each considers the other to be sexually exotic.

2. I have discussed the challenges to containment by migratory Africans. Many countries have business interests in Africa. Some of these visiting or resident alien business people will become sexually involved with local Africans, whether the relationship is the prostitute/client type or the normal romantic type. Since the government's plan would have to be clandestine in nature, there would be no way of preventing the migration of the disease to the "four corners" of the world.

3. Let's assume that the containment issue was not a problem and that the AIDS virus was successful in killing off every native person in a particular area in Africa. Do you think other countries would just sit idly by and not try to move in? We would be in the unfortuanate position of having to fight for the territory all over again. Woe to us if China decided they wanted it after we had done all the "dirty work" and cleanup.

DarqueKnight

Shizelbs wrote:

First of all, I didn't know people could be hired to write grants for others.

Grant writing is a highly lucrative, highly competitive business. If an organization is interested in submitting grant proposals for the huge, multimillion dollar, multi-year type of government grants, you have to learn all the rules (written and unwritten) pertaining to the funding organization.

Many organizations, particularly smaller ones, simply do not have the time and manpower needed to do the tedious work required to prepare a grant proposal that has a fighting chance at getting funded.