Go Canada!
Reminds me of what CS Lewis said about pride: (The Devil) is perfectly content to see you becoming chaste and brave and self-controlled provided, all the time, he is setting up in you the Dictatorship of Pride - just as he would be quite content to see your chilblains cured if he was allowed, in return, to give you cancer. For Pride is spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense.
As of '09 it hadn't shown any promise on various cancers in humans. The lastest research of the 2010 clinical trials states:
In the 5 patients tested, the drug took 3 months to reach blood levels high enough to alter the tumor's metabolism. At those levels, there were no significant adverse effects. However, at some of the higher doses tested, DCA caused nerve malfunction, i.e. numbing of toes and fingers. Importantly, in some patients there was also evidence for clinical benefit, with the tumors either regressing in size or not growing further during the 18 month study.
Original study: www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Media/artic...
2010 update: www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/201...
That link is 4 years old...
As of '09 it hadn't shown any promise on various cancers in humans. The lastest research of the 2010 clinical trials states:In the 5 patients tested, the drug took 3 months to reach blood levels high enough to alter the tumor's metabolism. At those levels, there were no significant adverse effects. However, at some of the higher doses tested, DCA caused nerve malfunction, i.e. numbing of toes and fingers. Importantly, in some patients there was also evidence for clinical benefit, with the tumors either regressing in size or not growing further during the 18 month study.
Original study: www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Media/artic...
2010 update: www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/201...
Thanks for that; I think I've found that link through dA.
It still seems like companies aren't interested though.
It's funny how apparently the cure for cancer is only interesting when it's expensive. Yay, humanity.
reminds me of the fact that medicine should be bitter.
That link is 4 years old...
As of '09 it hadn't shown any promise on various cancers in humans. The lastest research of the 2010 clinical trials states:In the 5 patients tested, the drug took 3 months to reach blood levels high enough to alter the tumor's metabolism. At those levels, there were no significant adverse effects. However, at some of the higher doses tested, DCA caused nerve malfunction, i.e. numbing of toes and fingers. Importantly, in some patients there was also evidence for clinical benefit, with the tumors either regressing in size or not growing further during the 18 month study.
Original study: www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Media/artic...
2010 update: www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/201...
Thanks for that; I think I've found that link through dA.
It still seems like companies aren't interested though.
Why would the companies be interested? There isn't money in cures. There is only money in research and treatment. As long as cancer is uncured, people are going to continue to throw money at it.
Cancer also was cured through diet and the pharmaceutical companies ran Gerson out of the country and buried the information...you guys should all check out the documentary The Beautiful Truth. Pharmaceutical companies are some of the biggest goddamn scumbags in the entire universe.
This could potentially cure some types of cancers some of the time, with some side effects. So it's pretty much just like every other cancer treatment out there. The field as a whole keeps improving, slowly, every day. Unfortunately, this treatment option has been mostly shelved years ago in favor of other, more effective treatments.
If you're looking for a magic bullet you're better off reviewing the Zapruder footage on a loop. Those who promote conspiracy theories about big pharma are part of the problem of why medicine costs so much. They spend their time attacking the producers of treatments instead of the real cause of the problem - the regulators.
This could potentially cure some types of cancers some of the time, with some side effects. So it's pretty much just like every other cancer treatment out there. The field as a whole keeps improving, slowly, every day. Unfortunately, this treatment option has been mostly shelved years ago in favor of other, more effective treatments.
If you're looking for a magic bullet you're better off reviewing the Zapruder footage on a loop. Those who promote conspiracy theories about big pharma are part of the problem of why medicine costs so much. They spend their time attacking the producers of treatments instead of the real cause of the problem - the regulators.
While there is some validity to what you say, the pharmacology companies who mark things up to absurd levels to make a profit are also complicit. Moreso than the regulators.
So we are complaining about companies priceing their goods in such a way that it causes them to make a profit?
Same thing with medicine. Fact is that in most cases the price you pay is at a huge profit for the pharmeceutical company, well above and beyond recouping their research and regulation expenses. And people will pay it because they need it to live.
So a profit? Nah, people aren't protesting the profit. They're protesting what's perceived as obscene profits when the person's only real choice is to pay up or, in many cases, die, or at least be immensely misreable. It's perceived as not a fair choice, and the pharmaceutical companies are perceived as unethical for forcing it.
...
So we are complaining about companies priceing their goods in such a way that it causes them to make a profit?
Not profits persay. Price gouging. When they charge $100 for a pill that costs them 3 cents to make, that goes beyond wanting to mak a profit and right into price gouging territory. $1 would be a healthy profit for a 3 cent pill.
...
So we are complaining about companies priceing their goods in such a way that it causes them to make a profit?
Not profits persay. Price gouging. When they charge $100 for a pill that costs them 3 cents to make, that goes beyond wanting to mak a profit and right into price gouging territory. $1 would be a healthy profit for a 3 cent pill.
Agreed.
At least; I'm getting the impression that these new, better, solutions are simply too cheap to bring to the market at all, even without price gouging. They'd rather stick to expensive and less effective methods.
(But reading I'm reading too much into it)
When people say "profit" what they really mean is "enough gross income to cover billions in FDA-mandated development and testing expenses while a patent is still allowed to exist."
If you think that profit is actually price-gouging, take a look at the P&L statements of the company in question and I think you'll be surprised at what you find. It's because of the hurdles put in place by the regulators that the producers have to overcome before they turn any profit at all. If those hurdles didn't exist, you wouldn't see much "price-gouging."
Once again, people are attacking the producers instead of the regulators. The reason why most drugs are so expensive is because of the millions or billions required to pass FDA regulatory hurdles and the short time window the pharma company has before their patent is eliminated (another word for STOLEN) by the same government agencies, allowing other companies to sell the same drug for a fraction of the price. They have to charge high prices in the decade or so that their patent is in effect in order to make up their development cost and pay off their investors. If they don't, they go out of business. Once their patent expires other companies can produce the same drug for a fraction of the price, and often do.
The regulators (FDA and tort lawyers) are the reason new drugs are so expensive. Without a profit, the drug producer goes out of business and you have no new drugs. Zero profit = zero new drugs. Minimal profit = minimal new drugs. People don't work for free and they don't invest in an idea unless there is a reasonable expectation of payoff.
Regulators produce nothing. They don't even protect the consumer as effectively as they should. (See phony drugs like homeopathics still being legal).
There are exceptions to this situation, of course. I'm speaking generally.
...
So we are complaining about companies priceing their goods in such a way that it causes them to make a profit?
Not profits persay. Price gouging. When they charge $100 for a pill that costs them 3 cents to make, that goes beyond wanting to mak a profit and right into price gouging territory. $1 would be a healthy profit for a 3 cent pill.
Some people don't understand the difference between profit and revenue. (Plus I call shanagans on your example.)
Ideally, a healthy profit is whatever the market will bear. But we live in the real world. The problem with market-plus costing that is that in this situation the market for drugs is fixed by the regulators to eliminate competition for a certain period of time to allow the producer to get into the black so they can cover the costs incurred by the regulators.
In other words, the market is fixed so as to guarantee profit for the regulators - not the producers.
So who's ripping off whom? And why do people not see who the real bad guys are here?
That said, it'd be pretty hard for them to regulate homeopathic "medicine" as they're just placebos. There is literally nothing in them that warrants the FDA to care a fig about them.
I'm confused, you're at once complaining that the FDA doesn't regulate enough (that they aren't stopping homeopathic "medicine") and that they regulate too much (everything else).
That said, it'd be pretty hard for them to regulate homeopathic "medicine" as they're just placebos. There is literally nothing in them that warrants the FDA to care a fig about them.
True, the FDA shouldn't have anything to do with them since they're just water - that's for the EPA.
But one of the functions of our government is supposed to be to protect people against fraud. And this fraud goes mostly unchallenged by government.
When people say "profit" what they really mean is "enough gross income to cover billions in FDA-mandated development and testing expenses while a patent is still allowed to exist."
If you think that profit is actually price-gouging, take a look at the P&L statements of the company in question and I think you'll be surprised at what you find. It's because of the hurdles put in place by the regulators that the producers have to overcome before they turn any profit at all. If those hurdles didn't exist, you wouldn't see much "price-gouging."
And yet they record monster profits and charge tons less for the same medicine when sold in other countries that regulate the prices that they can be sold for. They waaaaaay more than cover their costs with their gouging.
Once again, people are attacking the producers instead of the regulators. The reason why most drugs are so expensive is because of the millions or billions required to pass FDA regulatory hurdles and the short time window the pharma company has before their patent is eliminated (another word for STOLEN) by the same government agencies, allowing other companies to sell the same drug for a fraction of the price. They have to charge high prices in the decade or so that their patent is in effect in order to make up their development cost and pay off their investors. If they don't, they go out of business. Once their patent expires other companies can produce the same drug for a fraction of the price, and often do.
Er, no. They cover their costs fairly quickly and the rest of the decade is gouge, gouge, gouge.
The regulators (FDA and tort lawyers) are the reason new drugs are so expensive. Without a profit, the drug producer goes out of business and you have no new drugs. Zero profit = zero new drugs. Minimal profit = minimal new drugs. People don't work for free and they don't invest in an idea unless there is a reasonable expectation of payoff.
Nobody here is against them making a profit.
When they're making enough in profit to shrug off penalties like that....
And yet they record monster profits and charge tons less for the same medicine when sold in other countries that regulate the prices that they can be sold for. They waaaaaay more than cover their costs with their gouging.
Define monster profits, specifically, and use a specific example. But regardless, you just lent support to my point. Of course they charge less in other countries that have price controls - they HAVE to - that's what price controls are about. That's another reason why they need to charge more here - to make up for that. Once again, the regulators are ripping off the producers and YOU.
As for whether they make up way more than their costs with "gouging," well, I don't have lots of numbers on that because we'd have to get very specific and neither do you. But obviously they at least break even or they wouldn't be in business (not taking into account government subsidies).
How much profit is too much? Who gets to decide how much is too much?
Er, no. They cover their costs fairly quickly and the rest of the decade is gouge, gouge, gouge.
Evidence, please. P&L statements from a phama company with emphasis on a particular drug's sales cycle would be good. No, I don't expect you to find specifics, just to do your reading on how development and sales cycles really work for pharma companies. The reading is out there if you care to undertake it.
Nobody here is against them making a profit.
But you are apparently against them making too much profit because you keep talking about gouging. How much is too much and who gets to decide? Would it be better to allow government regulators to decide or to allow the customer to decide? Is it possible that what you see as gouging is really just mostly recouping costs incurred by those who have appointed themselves your (highly paid) guardians?
And if I'm wrong and there really is a lot of price gouging going on then why is that allowed to happen? Who set up the system to allow them to get away with it? How do they get away with it, specifically? Also, if that happens, why aren't pharma companies making 1000% profits each year and why don't we see their stock prices increase by orders of magnitude? Why can't I make millions just by investing lots of money in a few select pharma company stocks? If they are price gouging and getting away with it then why do their stock prices ever fall?
Think about that. Use precision in your thinking. Game it out and see what happens.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
When they're making enough in profit to shrug off penalties like that....
Do you think that $430 million is too much profit for them to have? Also, do you know that because they were fined $430 million that they actually had that money on hand to pay and that they actually have paid the fine as of this time?
Do you think that this penalty should have put them out of business? Do you think that fining a drug company over a billion dollars because they advised some doctors to prescribe a medicine when they should not have is a fair punishment?
How do fines like this raise the cost of drugs for you? Who's profitting from these fines? Who, in the end, really pays these fines? Also, if the pharma company can afford to pay the fine, why does the regulatory agency think that fining them again will stop them from breaking the law again? Why don't they find another way to punish the company instead of fining them? Is it possible it's not about enforcing a regulation but instead that it's about collecting revenue for the regulators?
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
When they're making enough in profit to shrug off penalties like that....
Do you think that $430 million is too much profit for them to have? Also, do you know that because they were fined $430 million that they actually had that money on hand to pay and that they actually have paid the fine as of this time?
Actions speak louder than words and when a companies are shelling out hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars for illegal activities which they then shrug off and do again, it means that they are making so much money for doing it that hundreds of millions to billions of dollars are a pittance to pay. They could only afford to spend like that if they were making waaaaaay more in profits.
Do you think that this penalty should have put them out of business?
No, but it should actually hurt them to the point where they don't engage in it again.
Do you think that fining a drug company over a billion dollars because they advised some doctors to prescribe a medicine when they should not have is a fair punishment?
Apparently it's more than fair, since they shrug it off and keep doing it.
How do fines like this raise the cost of drugs for you?
Probably quite a bit. We need more price regulation in this country.
Who's profitting from these fines? Who, in the end, really pays these fines? Also, if the pharma company can afford to pay the fine, why does the regulatory agency think that fining them again will stop them from breaking the law again? Why don't they find another way to punish the company instead of fining them? Is it possible it's not about enforcing a regulation but instead that it's about collecting revenue for the regulators?
It's absolutely about collecting revenue for the regulators. Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of problems with the way the FDA does business and it needs a major overhaul. However, the FDA issues don't excuse the pharmacutical (sp) companies from their wrong doings. There are major wrongs happening on both sides.
Define monster profits, specifically, and use a specific example.
I'm sure most of us remember this. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41994697/ns/health-...
If you're looking for a magic bullet you're better off reviewing the Zapruder footage on a loop. Those who promote conspiracy theories about big pharma are part of the problem of why medicine costs so much. They spend their time attacking the producers of treatments instead of the real cause of the problem - the regulators.
You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but the truth is Cancer has been curable in 60%+ of all cases just using the Gerson Therapies (which are basically diet and stress control based on the patients up to date tested physiology). Other drugs that actually cure cancer have been found but are not patentable so they cannot be exclusively sold. This is just one of hundreds of stories like this.
Oh and the regulators come from the pharm companies or they pass questionable drugs through the system and then get paid millions by the pharm companies as 'advisors' after they retire from office. What we need is to get business out of politics and then we can vote in responsible congressional members...
Someone needs to start a petition to get make lobbying illegal...
I don't know what you pay for this stuff, but I'm guessing it's "slightly" more. The cost is not in the manufactoring I think.
Wow, I never thought about some of these ideas before. Keep posting guys. This is good stuff. I'm learning a lot here.
It just occurs to me for some reason, and it never has before, how cool it is to be able to discuss things other than gaming with some of the most intelligent people in the population (statistically speaking ). I'm exposed to a lot of ideas I've never considered and the result is that I end up a lot more open-minded than before.
You guys rock. Hopefully in the future more people will hear about these ideas and work for the change needed to make them happen. It would make the world a better place.