Notices
Results 1 to 68 of 68
Like Tree11Likes
  • 1 Post By Stargate
  • 1 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Bad Robot
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By DogLady
  • 1 Post By Bad Robot
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By exchemist

Thread: Cancer research

  1. #1 Cancer research 
    Forum Freshman larali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7
    Currently, how advanced is the field of cancer research?

    Is breast cancer publicity adversely affecting the funding for other types of cancer research?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    There's research in all cancers. Just look at the marvelous improvements in survival rates for childhood cancers.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by larali View Post
    Currently, how advanced is the field of cancer research?

    Is breast cancer publicity adversely affecting the funding for other types of cancer research?
    I suspect it’s not moving very fast as every day there are new types of cancer. As technology advances it tries to keep up with new substances we humans are exposed to. On the other hand I suspect cancer research is quite far in terms of where we are coming from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    18
    While I am not entirely sure about the progress of research on individual cancer types, I do think that there have been great advances recently in general cancer research, particularly considering the great improvements in genome sequencing and the modern tendency toward "personalized medicine" (which is probably about to really start taking off as a therapeutic approach). Generally, I think cancer researchers do not have too much trouble finding funding for their projects. If you just mention the word cancer in a grant proposal, it seems like chances of getting funded are increased exponentially (nothing is a sure-in, though). I'm sure there are still certain cancer research projects that are experiencing difficulty finding funding.
    Check out my blog!! www.iRNAbooks.weebly.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    I stil don't get it why is cancer worser than... other disseases...??? or more important
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I stil don't get it why is cancer worser than... other disseases...??? or more important

    It was the second leading cause of death in the US. In 2010, it was responsible for the death of 574.000 people (23.3%).
    It was the leading cause of death in the UK. In 2012, it was responsible for 29% of all deaths.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    A lot of those numbers of cancer diagnoses and deaths can be attributed to people living long enough to get active cancer in the first place.

    As well as the success of the various public health campaigns decreasing the morbidity and mortality from things like vehicle accidents and heart disease and the reduction in smoking - leaving more room for cancer deaths. After all, we're all going to die from something. The only questions are when, and how hard or long the process is of getting there.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I stil don't get it why is cancer worser than... other disseases...??? or more important

    It was the second leading cause of death in the US. In 2010, it was responsible for the death of 574.000 people (23.3%).
    It was the leading cause of death in the UK. In 2012, it was responsible for 29% of all deaths.
    wait... are you saying second most responsible disease or all the deaths???and like adlady said people live to long without dying... so cancers takes over it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    wait... are you saying second most responsible disease or all the deaths???and like adlady said people live to long without dying... so cancers takes over it...

    No. I said that is it one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. and in the U.K.
    The leading cause (according to the same statistics) is (coronary) heart disease.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by iRNAblogger View Post
    While I am not entirely sure about the progress of research on individual cancer types, I do think that there have been great advances recently in general cancer research, particularly considering the great improvements in genome sequencing and the modern tendency toward "personalized medicine" (which is probably about to really start taking off as a therapeutic approach). Generally, I think cancer researchers do not have too much trouble finding funding for their projects. If you just mention the word cancer in a grant proposal, it seems like chances of getting funded are increased exponentially (nothing is a sure-in, though). I'm sure there are still certain cancer research projects that are experiencing difficulty finding funding.
    Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.

    Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
    babe likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    There is no cancer that is not important.

    Not one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    wait... are you saying second most responsible disease or all the deaths???and like adlady said people live to long without dying... so cancers takes over it...

    No. I said that is it one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. and in the U.K.
    The leading cause (according to the same statistics) is (coronary) heart disease.
    anyway we don't hear a half about heart disease as we hear about cancer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.

    Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
    that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iRNAblogger View Post
    While I am not entirely sure about the progress of research on individual cancer types, I do think that there have been great advances recently in general cancer research, particularly considering the great improvements in genome sequencing and the modern tendency toward "personalized medicine" (which is probably about to really start taking off as a therapeutic approach). Generally, I think cancer researchers do not have too much trouble finding funding for their projects. If you just mention the word cancer in a grant proposal, it seems like chances of getting funded are increased exponentially (nothing is a sure-in, though). I'm sure there are still certain cancer research projects that are experiencing difficulty finding funding.
    Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.
    yes but what if you scare them into after death...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.

    Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
    Morally yes, profitable no.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.

    Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
    that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back

    That does not explain the efforts of the WHO to eradicate infectious diseases.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.
    VERY WRONG!!!
    Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
    that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back
    Immoral in my standards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    This business of drug companies not wanting to cure people is bunk. The longer people live, the more likely they are to need one or more medications for the rest of their lives. Arthritis drugs, heart or blood pressure drugs, statins, dozens of things. Anyone who knows a few old people knows that most of them take one, or one dozen, medications a day.

    Curing people of illness when they're 20 or 40 or 60 means that you've got a guaranteed customer for something for 10 or maybe 30+ years worth of prescriptions when they're older.

    EDIT: Whoops - wiped out half of it.

    And for all the years they're alive there are anti-histamines, analgesics, contraceptives, skin treatments, and all those other pharmaceutical over the counter or routine prescription items. They might even have children who will also be potential customers. Keeping your customers for repeat or recommended business is good business practice. For pharmaceutical companies that means keeping them alive to buy more stuff.
    exchemist likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    how about dentist industry... of toothpastes... and other stuff...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    how about dentist industry... of toothpastes... and other stuff...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    how about dentist industry... of toothpastes... and other stuff...
    What?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    how about dentist industry... of toothpastes... and other stuff...
    What?
    I think there is a lot money going into it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.

    Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
    that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back
    I don't buy this.

    The fallout from public disclosure that a company is withholding advanced medicine for profit would absolutely devastate anyone involved. That's like suggesting your surgeon during your hip replacement put it in improperly so you'd have to come back. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I cannot accept that notion.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.

    Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
    that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back
    I don't buy this.

    The fallout from public disclosure that a company is withholding advanced medicine for profit would absolutely devastate anyone involved. That's like suggesting your surgeon during your hip replacement put it in improperly so you'd have to come back. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I cannot accept that notion.
    oke let me ask you different do you agree there are much to much uneeded spendings in total health care...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    oke let me ask you different do you agree there are much to much uneeded spendings in total health care...

    Are you talking about global health care of are you talking about the health care of a particular country?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    oke let me ask you different do you agree there are much to much uneeded spendings in total health care...
    I don't understand the question.

    I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.

    I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    oke let me ask you different do you agree there are much to much uneeded spendings in total health care...
    I don't understand the question.

    I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.

    I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
    im not talking about research but about health care do you agree there are to much spendings in health care uneeded...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    oke let me ask you different do you agree there are much to much uneeded spendings in total health care...
    I don't understand the question.

    I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.

    I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
    im not talking about research but about health care do you agree there are to much spendings in health care uneeded...
    Care to give any examples?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    There is no cancer that is not important.

    Not one.
    What you say is true, however each type of cancer is different disease and some of these different diseases kill more people than the other ones do. If you are going to invest your dollars in cancer research, most likely you'll want your money to be spent working on the cancer that may affect your life the most. If your a woman, breast cancer is most likely at the top of your list. If your a man, prostrate cancer will rank fairly high, and if you have ever been a smoker or have family members and friends that have been smokers, then lung cancer would top your list.

    Regardless of what cancer type is at the top of your list, early detection is the best means of beating it. So finding better ways of detecting it early is a good place to invest lots of money.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.

    Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
    that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back
    As has been stated, something is going to kill you. The point being is the longer the medical profession can keep you alive the more you will ultimately spend on your health issues. So curing your cancer 100% will not decrease the amount of money they will get from you. If anything they will get more money from you for other problems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    how about dentist industry... of toothpastes... and other stuff...
    What?
    I think there is a lot money going into it...
    toothpaste? Already a big business....but it isn't a career. Denistry...you can make good money.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    oke let me ask you different do you agree there are much to much uneeded spendings in total health care...
    I don't understand the question.

    I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.

    I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
    im not talking about research but about health care do you agree there are to much spendings in health care uneeded...
    I really don't know too many people who have UNNEEDED HEALTH CARE!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    oke let me ask you different do you agree there are much to much uneeded spendings in total health care...
    I don't understand the question.

    I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.

    I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
    im not talking about research but about health care do you agree there are to much spendings in health care uneeded...
    Care to give any examples?
    well I know its hard to be proved but e person I know got into the hospital for his kidneys and the doctor send him for some anal analysis (I can hardly belive it has anything to do with kidneys...) but there are so much examples of it don't get me wrong I know there are people who check if some analysis is needed or not
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    oke let me ask you different do you agree there are much to much uneeded spendings in total health care...
    I don't understand the question.

    I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.

    I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
    im not talking about research but about health care do you agree there are to much spendings in health care uneeded...
    I really don't know too many people who have UNNEEDED HEALTH CARE!
    not uneeded health care but inside that health care uneeded things...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    blackscorp
    ]not uneeded health care but inside that health care uneeded things
    such as?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    not uneeded health care but inside that health care uneeded things...
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I have to admit that not so many years ago I regarded individual hospital rooms for everyone who asked for one/ could pay for one was an unnecessary luxury - I scorned what I saw as luxury motel accommodation for routine hospital care as an extravagance. And so it might have been for some of those people at that time.

    Nowadays with all the problems of managing infections transmitted within hospitals, individual rooms for most if not all patients is becoming a life-saving necessity.

    Is that the sort of thing you mean?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    not uneeded health care but inside that health care uneeded things...
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I have to admit that not so many years ago I regarded individual hospital rooms for everyone who asked for one/ could pay for one was an unnecessary luxury - I scorned what I saw as luxury motel accommodation for routine hospital care as an extravagance. And so it might have been for some of those people at that time.

    Nowadays with all the problems of managing infections transmitted within hospitals, individual rooms for most if not all patients is becoming a life-saving necessity.

    Is that the sort of thing you mean?
    Not to mention a faster recovery....each patient has different needs and they being woken up because of your and vice versa sucks.....we ony have single bed rooms in our little hospital. They took good care of me but I was drugged out for days
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    not uneeded health care but inside that health care uneeded things...
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I have to admit that not so many years ago I regarded individual hospital rooms for everyone who asked for one/ could pay for one was an unnecessary luxury - I scorned what I saw as luxury motel accommodation for routine hospital care as an extravagance. And so it might have been for some of those people at that time.

    Nowadays with all the problems of managing infections transmitted within hospitals, individual rooms for most if not all patients is becoming a life-saving necessity.

    Is that the sort of thing you mean?
    no im talkin about that hospitals and whole medicine industry don't want you to be cured afcourse the insurance don't wanna spend money and wil monitor if such things happen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    not uneeded health care but inside that health care uneeded things...
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I have to admit that not so many years ago I regarded individual hospital rooms for everyone who asked for one/ could pay for one was an unnecessary luxury - I scorned what I saw as luxury motel accommodation for routine hospital care as an extravagance. And so it might have been for some of those people at that time.

    Nowadays with all the problems of managing infections transmitted within hospitals, individual rooms for most if not all patients is becoming a life-saving necessity.

    Is that the sort of thing you mean?
    no im talkin about that hospitals and whole medicine industry don't want you to be cured afcourse the insurance don't wanna spend money and wil monitor if such things happen
    I am sorry, but you really don't make any sense to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Cancer is scary because it is by nature a revolt of our own tissues aginst us. All medical aproches work by the medicine being less dangerous to "us", our body, than it is to "them", the diease organism. Cancer is all "us" with no "them".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    not uneeded health care but inside that health care uneeded things...
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I have to admit that not so many years ago I regarded individual hospital rooms for everyone who asked for one/ could pay for one was an unnecessary luxury - I scorned what I saw as luxury motel accommodation for routine hospital care as an extravagance. And so it might have been for some of those people at that time.

    Nowadays with all the problems of managing infections transmitted within hospitals, individual rooms for most if not all patients is becoming a life-saving necessity.

    Is that the sort of thing you mean?
    Not to mention a faster recovery....each patient has different needs and they being woken up because of your and vice versa sucks.....we ony have single bed rooms in our little hospital. They took good care of me but I was drugged out for days
    you can see it also otherway with people in room they can call someone for you.. if you are old and alone maybe the care wont be to good...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    if you are old and alone maybe the care wont be to good...
    That's what the call button is for.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    there is also something like reality outside the theory... but than again you have to have some experience...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman DogLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    That does not explain the efforts of the WHO to eradicate infectious diseases.
    WHO is aggressive in trying to eradicate, or at least control, infectious diseases because, worldwide, they are the biggest killer of the young.

    "BURDEN OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
    The biggest killer of the young
    Six diseases cause 90% of infectious disease deaths
    Infectious diseases are also among the biggest disablers"
    - WHO Report on Infectious Diseases Chapter 16 text

    Cancer is one of the biggest killers in developed countries primarily because of our success in managing infectious disease, through public health measures, immunizations, and antibiotics.

    Clarissa
    Bad Robot and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    This business of drug companies not wanting to cure people is bunk. The longer people live, the more likely they are to need one or more medications for the rest of their lives. Arthritis drugs, heart or blood pressure drugs, statins, dozens of things. Anyone who knows a few old people knows that most of them take one, or one dozen, medications a day.

    Curing people of illness when they're 20 or 40 or 60 means that you've got a guaranteed customer for something for 10 or maybe 30+ years worth of prescriptions when they're older.

    EDIT: Whoops - wiped out half of it.

    And for all the years they're alive there are anti-histamines, analgesics, contraceptives, skin treatments, and all those other pharmaceutical over the counter or routine prescription items. They might even have children who will also be potential customers. Keeping your customers for repeat or recommended business is good business practice. For pharmaceutical companies that means keeping them alive to buy more stuff.
    Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by DogLady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    That does not explain the efforts of the WHO to eradicate infectious diseases.
    WHO is aggressive in trying to eradicate, or at least control, infectious diseases because, worldwide, they are the biggest killer of the young.

    "BURDEN OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
    The biggest killer of the young
    Six diseases cause 90% of infectious disease deaths
    Infectious diseases are also among the biggest disablers"
    - WHO Report on Infectious Diseases Chapter 16 text

    Cancer is one of the biggest killers in developed countries primarily because of our success in managing infectious disease, through public health measures, immunizations, and antibiotics.

    Clarissa
    So basically cancer in general is not a big killer in a young population. Makes me wonder what might be the big killer of an older population once we have cancer under control? As always it's a given that something is going to kill you sooner or hopefully later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient.
    Side effects are always going to be a possibility when introducing new things into your body. That doesn't mean the medication doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health.
    What? It's almost like you have literally no idea what process a medication has to go through before it reaches the consumers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure itís a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
    That's why you need an experienced doctor monitoring your medication usage. When I get treated for anything now I have to provide a list of all medications and supplements I'm currently taking, and that includes OTC medications and vitamins.

    The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health.


    I would think you can't have profits without the health benefits. These days it anything goes wrong with a drug they get sued and see their drug appearing in bad drug commercials which is not good for bottom line.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient.
    Side effects are always going to be a possibility when introducing new things into your body. That doesn't mean the medication doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health.
    What? It's almost like you have literally no idea what process a medication has to go through before it reaches the consumers.
    Side effects are always going to be a possibility when introducing new things into your body. That doesn't mean the medication doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
    Side effects cannot be the main feature of a medication, that will only lead to more complications and more medicine.

    I am not saying that test are not done, I am saying most test are not based on people but on profit, that is why some of the medications testing procedure are not going through the test cycle that would benefit people. Things have changed maybe it was so at one time but certainly not now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I am not saying that test are not done, I am saying most test are not based on people but on profit, that is why some of the medications testing procedure are not going through the test cycle that would benefit people. Things have changed maybe it was so at one time but certainly not now.

    Could you provide examples?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I am not saying that test are not done, I am saying most test are not based on people but on profit, that is why some of the medications testing procedure are not going through the test cycle that would benefit people. Things have changed maybe it was so at one time but certainly not now.

    Could you provide examples?
    Just check out Monsanto and the pharmaceuticals, there are loads of information out there
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Side effects cannot be the main feature of a medication, that will only lead to more complications and more medicine.
    They aren't. Just because they are possible, doesn't mean they always happen. People have an option to, you know, not take the medicine if they don't want to...but then they might die.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I am not saying that test are not done, I am saying most test are not based on people but on profit, that is why some of the medications testing procedure are not going through the test cycle that would benefit people. Things have changed maybe it was so at one time but certainly not now.
    Again, you have zero understanding of the process that medications must go through before being approved and distributed to the consumer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Side effects cannot be the main feature of a medication, that will only lead to more complications and more medicine.
    They aren't. Just because they are possible, doesn't mean they always happen. People have an option to, you know, not take the medicine if they don't want to...but then they might die.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I am not saying that test are not done, I am saying most test are not based on people but on profit, that is why some of the medications testing procedure are not going through the test cycle that would benefit people. Things have changed maybe it was so at one time but certainly not now.
    Again, you have zero understanding of the process that medications must go through before being approved and distributed to the consumer.
    I have to agree with you that I do not have the knowledge of the processes the testing of medication go through to be ready for distribution. However, I am the end consumer I have to know if it works or not. If I am paying more for less I have to question the purpose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    This business of drug companies not wanting to cure people is bunk. The longer people live, the more likely they are to need one or more medications for the rest of their lives. Arthritis drugs, heart or blood pressure drugs, statins, dozens of things. Anyone who knows a few old people knows that most of them take one, or one dozen, medications a day.

    Curing people of illness when they're 20 or 40 or 60 means that you've got a guaranteed customer for something for 10 or maybe 30+ years worth of prescriptions when they're older.

    EDIT: Whoops - wiped out half of it.

    And for all the years they're alive there are anti-histamines, analgesics, contraceptives, skin treatments, and all those other pharmaceutical over the counter or routine prescription items. They might even have children who will also be potential customers. Keeping your customers for repeat or recommended business is good business practice. For pharmaceutical companies that means keeping them alive to buy more stuff.
    Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
    YOu can always say, "No thank you." I did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    This business of drug companies not wanting to cure people is bunk. The longer people live, the more likely they are to need one or more medications for the rest of their lives. Arthritis drugs, heart or blood pressure drugs, statins, dozens of things. Anyone who knows a few old people knows that most of them take one, or one dozen, medications a day.

    Curing people of illness when they're 20 or 40 or 60 means that you've got a guaranteed customer for something for 10 or maybe 30+ years worth of prescriptions when they're older.

    EDIT: Whoops - wiped out half of it.

    And for all the years they're alive there are anti-histamines, analgesics, contraceptives, skin treatments, and all those other pharmaceutical over the counter or routine prescription items. They might even have children who will also be potential customers. Keeping your customers for repeat or recommended business is good business practice. For pharmaceutical companies that means keeping them alive to buy more stuff.
    Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
    YOu can always say, "No thank you." I did.
    It might be easier said than done when you are embedded in the system. In one sense we are not using the natural processes to verify safe use, but speeding them up with artificial means to make a quick profit. I agree we can always say no and accept the consequences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    It might be easier said than done when you are embedded in the system. In one sense we are not using the natural processes to verify safe use, but speeding them up with artificial means to make a quick profit. I agree we can always say no and accept the consequences.
    What is very easy to do, is to educate yourself about the cancer you have and all the available treatments both the accepted ones and the new ones still going through trials. The information on the Internet is very complete and easy to understand. Now when you go talk to your doctor, it's a different experience altogether.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    It might be easier said than done when you are embedded in the system. In one sense we are not using the natural processes to verify safe use, but speeding them up with artificial means to make a quick profit. I agree we can always say no and accept the consequences.
    What is very easy to do, is to educate yourself about the cancer you have and all the available treatments both the accepted ones and the new ones still going through trials. The information on the Internet is very complete and easy to understand. Now when you go talk to your doctor, it's a different experience altogether.
    I was actually talking about the testing methods and the end use. Even if you study the canser all you can do is to read the indications given and decidde if you want to take the medication or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I am not saying that test are not done, I am saying most test are not based on people but on profit, that is why some of the medications testing procedure are not going through the test cycle that would benefit people. Things have changed maybe it was so at one time but certainly not now.
    Then you're not reading the right blogs let alone the relevant literature.

    One of the biggest problems in researching possible drugs and therapeutic approaches is that failed research is not published. There's now a new process for reporting this stuff but it's not set up to find earlier stuff that didn't work out, not even to get all possible reports now. If anyone sincerely wanted to cut down unnecessary costs in pharmaceutical research, ensuring that everyone knows what others have done that didn't work out would save a lot of effort and expense currently wasted in trying to reinvent non-useful wheels.

    As for drugs not being for patients' benefit. It's rubbish. The testing and reporting procedures are lengthy, onerous and expensive. It might well be that a particular drug might turn out to be not the best way to handle certain conditions or no better than existing drugs, but that doesn't mean that the drugs themselves are ineffective or deleterious. One of the best ways to come to this conclusion is to look at the spectacular publicity that comes with drugs that do fail - usually because of their side-effects. Considering how many medications come onto the market, the infrequency of such events should be reassuring rather than reason for doubt.

    As for cancer drugs. Yes, they're poisons. The whole object of the process is to kill living cells - without killing the person unfortunately harbouring those cells. When they said "The dose makes the poison" they could have been talking about chemotherapy and no other poisonous chemicals at all. The people who administer these drugs do know what they're doing and they're willing to explain everything to patients.

    My own feeling is that it depends on how old you are and what your condition is when you make the decision to go ahead or to decline adjunct chemotherapy - there aren't really any options if your cancer is not treatable by surgery. There are good statistics available about what the improvement in survival rate is for people who do and people who don't take it on. If the 5 year survival rate for surgery alone for a particular cancer is 85% and with additional chemo is 87%, I wouldn't bother at any age unless the 10 year survival rates showed a much larger benefit. If it's 60% for surgery, and 70+% for surgery plus chemo, I'd make the decision in a flash regardless of the 10 year statistics. ( For the first round with the cancer. People make different decisions when they're dealing with recurrences, even if the odds are "good" in strictly medical terms.)
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I was actually talking about the testing methods and the end use. Even if you study the cancer all you can do is to read the indications given and decide if you want to take the medication or not.
    When you are diagnosed with cancer through a biopsy they usually have a pretty good idea how advanced the cancer is and how fast you must make a decision on your recommended treatment. Usually you have several days to think about it.

    There are many people that have very bad experience with chemo, but more and more these days, people over all are doing better with chemo. The doctors have more experience now with various types of chemo and effective dosages, and how to combine it with other therapies such as focused radiation. People are starting to live longer with treatment and not suffering from serious side effects of the treatment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I am not saying that test are not done, I am saying most test are not based on people but on profit, that is why some of the medications testing procedure are not going through the test cycle that would benefit people. Things have changed maybe it was so at one time but certainly not now.
    Then you're not reading the right blogs let alone the relevant literature.

    One of the biggest problems in researching possible drugs and therapeutic approaches is that failed research is not published. There's now a new process for reporting this stuff but it's not set up to find earlier stuff that didn't work out, not even to get all possible reports now. If anyone sincerely wanted to cut down unnecessary costs in pharmaceutical research, ensuring that everyone knows what others have done that didn't work out would save a lot of effort and expense currently wasted in trying to reinvent non-useful wheels.

    As for drugs not being for patients' benefit. It's rubbish. The testing and reporting procedures are lengthy, onerous and expensive. It might well be that a particular drug might turn out to be not the best way to handle certain conditions or no better than existing drugs, but that doesn't mean that the drugs themselves are ineffective or deleterious. One of the best ways to come to this conclusion is to look at the spectacular publicity that comes with drugs that do fail - usually because of their side-effects. Considering how many medications come onto the market, the infrequency of such events should be reassuring rather than reason for doubt.

    As for cancer drugs. Yes, they're poisons. The whole object of the process is to kill living cells - without killing the person unfortunately harbouring those cells. When they said "The dose makes the poison" they could have been talking about chemotherapy and no other poisonous chemicals at all. The people who administer these drugs do know what they're doing and they're willing to explain everything to patients.

    My own feeling is that it depends on how old you are and what your condition is when you make the decision to go ahead or to decline adjunct chemotherapy - there aren't really any options if your cancer is not treatable by surgery. There are good statistics available about what the improvement in survival rate is for people who do and people who don't take it on. If the 5 year survival rate for surgery alone for a particular cancer is 85% and with additional chemo is 87%, I wouldn't bother at any age unless the 10 year survival rates showed a much larger benefit. If it's 60% for surgery, and 70+% for surgery plus chemo, I'd make the decision in a flash regardless of the 10 year statistics. ( For the first round with the cancer. People make different decisions when they're dealing with recurrences, even if the odds are "good" in strictly medical terms.)
    Adelady, although I know you know your stuff and you are always seem to be making sure of what you say, and what you say in your post is true. The other side of the story is not so good. I am now completely not sure what to believe. The scientists fight each other and often times the public is not presented with the total information. It was not like that at one time but it has become like that. Medication is coming from all over the world going to all over the world. Some not really tested.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The scientists fight each other and often times the public is not presented with the total information. It was not like that at one time but it has become like that.
    There was never a golden age when lofty-minded scientists calmly debated opposing views of scientific topics and graciously conceded defeat to others' stronger or more elegant points. Think plate tectonics or the germ theory of disease or half a dozen other scientific conclusions that are now taken for granted. They didn't get to be taken for granted because polite people said "Oh, you're right. Whyever didn't I think of that."

    The process of science is basically one of constant contest. For many is is to be the first or the best or the strongest in advancing whatever theory or point or process you've hitched your wagon to. It might look dispassionate and dry, even tedious, when you just read the literature, but the history of science tells another story. That contest is not like a debate - it's more like a race or a jousting match - get ahead of the competition or knock them off their horses, both if you can manage it. And it's been like that for as long as we know about it.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    This business of drug companies not wanting to cure people is bunk. The longer people live, the more likely they are to need one or more medications for the rest of their lives. Arthritis drugs, heart or blood pressure drugs, statins, dozens of things. Anyone who knows a few old people knows that most of them take one, or one dozen, medications a day.

    Curing people of illness when they're 20 or 40 or 60 means that you've got a guaranteed customer for something for 10 or maybe 30+ years worth of prescriptions when they're older.

    EDIT: Whoops - wiped out half of it.

    And for all the years they're alive there are anti-histamines, analgesics, contraceptives, skin treatments, and all those other pharmaceutical over the counter or routine prescription items. They might even have children who will also be potential customers. Keeping your customers for repeat or recommended business is good business practice. For pharmaceutical companies that means keeping them alive to buy more stuff.
    Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
    YOu can always say, "No thank you." I did.
    It might be easier said than done when you are embedded in the system. In one sense we are not using the natural processes to verify safe use, but speeding them up with artificial means to make a quick profit. I agree we can always say no and accept the consequences.
    Mom is 89, almost 90...when they try to give her any medication she is always "allergic" to it. *chuckle*.....probably kept her alive, mind in a good place...then again so is having a tough life and being hard working. I'm taking my Mom's cue!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I was actually talking about the testing methods and the end use. Even if you study the cancer all you can do is to read the indications given and decide if you want to take the medication or not.
    When you are diagnosed with cancer through a biopsy they usually have a pretty good idea how advanced the cancer is and how fast you must make a decision on your recommended treatment. Usually you have several days to think about it.

    There are many people that have very bad experience with chemo, but more and more these days, people over all are doing better with chemo. The doctors have more experience now with various types of chemo and effective dosages, and how to combine it with other therapies such as focused radiation. People are starting to live longer with treatment and not suffering from serious side effects of the treatment.
    Yes, but you need to educate yourself also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The scientists fight each other and often times the public is not presented with the total information. It was not like that at one time but it has become like that.
    There was never a golden age when lofty-minded scientists calmly debated opposing views of scientific topics and graciously conceded defeat to others' stronger or more elegant points. Think plate tectonics or the germ theory of disease or half a dozen other scientific conclusions that are now taken for granted. They didn't get to be taken for granted because polite people said "Oh, you're right. Whyever didn't I think of that."

    The process of science is basically one of constant contest. For many is is to be the first or the best or the strongest in advancing whatever theory or point or process you've hitched your wagon to. It might look dispassionate and dry, even tedious, when you just read the literature, but the history of science tells another story. That contest is not like a debate - it's more like a race or a jousting match - get ahead of the competition or knock them off their horses, both if you can manage it. And it's been like that for as long as we know about it.
    Yes, very true, I know we will never stop the competition, and to some extent I think it is good. What we do need though is a less self-serving attitude and a leaning towards people and general health. people today rely on science more than ever before, the technological progress has brought us many new diseases, with the diseases more competition, and consequently more corruption.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    This business of drug companies not wanting to cure people is bunk. The longer people live, the more likely they are to need one or more medications for the rest of their lives. Arthritis drugs, heart or blood pressure drugs, statins, dozens of things. Anyone who knows a few old people knows that most of them take one, or one dozen, medications a day.

    Curing people of illness when they're 20 or 40 or 60 means that you've got a guaranteed customer for something for 10 or maybe 30+ years worth of prescriptions when they're older.

    EDIT: Whoops - wiped out half of it.

    And for all the years they're alive there are anti-histamines, analgesics, contraceptives, skin treatments, and all those other pharmaceutical over the counter or routine prescription items. They might even have children who will also be potential customers. Keeping your customers for repeat or recommended business is good business practice. For pharmaceutical companies that means keeping them alive to buy more stuff.
    Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
    YOu can always say, "No thank you." I did.
    It might be easier said than done when you are embedded in the system. In one sense we are not using the natural processes to verify safe use, but speeding them up with artificial means to make a quick profit. I agree we can always say no and accept the consequences.
    Mom is 89, almost 90...when they try to give her any medication she is always "allergic" to it. *chuckle*.....probably kept her alive, mind in a good place...then again so is having a tough life and being hard working. I'm taking my Mom's cue!
    Most times our parents leave us very pertinent information, we sometimes do not realise how powerful the info is untill they are no longer in the flesh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    This business of drug companies not wanting to cure people is bunk. The longer people live, the more likely they are to need one or more medications for the rest of their lives. Arthritis drugs, heart or blood pressure drugs, statins, dozens of things. Anyone who knows a few old people knows that most of them take one, or one dozen, medications a day.

    Curing people of illness when they're 20 or 40 or 60 means that you've got a guaranteed customer for something for 10 or maybe 30+ years worth of prescriptions when they're older.

    EDIT: Whoops - wiped out half of it.

    And for all the years they're alive there are anti-histamines, analgesics, contraceptives, skin treatments, and all those other pharmaceutical over the counter or routine prescription items. They might even have children who will also be potential customers. Keeping your customers for repeat or recommended business is good business practice. For pharmaceutical companies that means keeping them alive to buy more stuff.
    Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
    YOu can always say, "No thank you." I did.
    It might be easier said than done when you are embedded in the system. In one sense we are not using the natural processes to verify safe use, but speeding them up with artificial means to make a quick profit. I agree we can always say no and accept the consequences.
    Mom is 89, almost 90...when they try to give her any medication she is always "allergic" to it. *chuckle*.....probably kept her alive, mind in a good place...then again so is having a tough life and being hard working. I'm taking my Mom's cue!
    Most times our parents leave us very pertinent information, we sometimes do not realise how powerful the info is untill they are no longer in the flesh.
    I retain knowledge, generally. I have no problem learning lessons and retaining them. Hard work is a good thing. I strive to work hard and do whatever I do well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The scientists fight each other and often times the public is not presented with the total information. It was not like that at one time but it has become like that.
    There was never a golden age when lofty-minded scientists calmly debated opposing views of scientific topics and graciously conceded defeat to others' stronger or more elegant points. Think plate tectonics or the germ theory of disease or half a dozen other scientific conclusions that are now taken for granted. They didn't get to be taken for granted because polite people said "Oh, you're right. Whyever didn't I think of that."

    The process of science is basically one of constant contest. For many is is to be the first or the best or the strongest in advancing whatever theory or point or process you've hitched your wagon to. It might look dispassionate and dry, even tedious, when you just read the literature, but the history of science tells another story. That contest is not like a debate - it's more like a race or a jousting match - get ahead of the competition or knock them off their horses, both if you can manage it. And it's been like that for as long as we know about it.
    Yes, very true, I know we will never stop the competition, and to some extent I think it is good. What we do need though is a less self-serving attitude and a leaning towards people and general health. people today rely on science more than ever before, the technological progress has brought us many new diseases, with the diseases more competition, and consequently more corruption.
    I half agree. I think the notion of public service has been sadly neglected over the last 30 years or so, though I'm convinced that most medical practitioners, as individuals, are motivated by a wish to succeed at the difficult business of curing ill people. Corporate behaviour, on the other hand, has a way of finding the route of collective self-interest. Which is why capitalism only works with tough controls (anti-trust etc) to channel the self-interest in the right directions for society. But given that fact, I think competition, supervised by ruthless scrutiny and accountability, which is what you more or less have with the treatment of high profile lethal diseases, is the best system for rapid progress.
    Bad Robot and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Dead Cell Barrier Conjecture(Cancer Research)
    By GreggSchaffter in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: June 17th, 2013, 05:51 PM
  2. cancer research (proteins)
    By stetch14 in forum Biology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 19th, 2013, 12:37 AM
  3. Focusing on only one oncoprotein a waste of cancer research money???
    By ScienceRocks in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 18th, 2013, 08:27 PM
  4. UCL Research Study: Beliefs abut well-being and cancer
    By JohnMorrisUCL in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 16th, 2012, 01:12 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 29th, 2011, 05:16 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •