Limited time offer
Limited time offer
85 comments
-
If this was as successful as the tweet pretends there would be no stopping it. The profit potential for a successful cancer cure is astronomical.
-
This is why you dont get informed from a cropped twitter pic on lemmy.
-
But what if I call it "research" tho?
-
But I have a source
-
-
You’re not wrong, but it is funny because it is accurate nonetheless.
-
I guess the problem is that a whole lot of people actually believe this is the case.
While we should hold pharmaceutical companies accountable (much more than we currently do), it leads to people not trusting the advice of doctors and healthcare professionals. Other groups then prey on people using those conspiracies to sell bogus treatments and products.
So it might be funny, but it's much better to call out the conspiracy theories.
-
So do you think Steve Jobs just took one for the team or...?
-
-
-
The "it's a conspiracy why we don't have a cancer cure" comments make me want to just lay down and drool on my carpet. It's so fucking removed it just knocks the brain cells out of me.
-
My science teacher thinks that
-
There is a conspiracy on this. Pharma companies aren't interested in curing cancer because it would rob them of many millions of life long "customers" who are reliant on their products. The majority of their R&D budget goes into specific treatments of symptoms, or treatments focused on specific types of cancer rather than a fundamental cure. Universities and charities do the research into the cure but they're nowhere near as well funded. This is a pretty well-documented fact, sadly.
It's not exactly unbelievable either, given the behaviour of other corporations like Nestlé, Shell, BP etc.
Edit: Huh this turns out to be quite controversial. I remain unconvinced by your arguments. Just for the record, I'm not a conspiracist, but I do believe there are conspiracies, and I believe this is one of them. It's a mundane one, a lot like the conspiracy to keep everyone burning planet-killing fossil fuels or lung-destroying cigarettes.
It's been...Reddit, talking with you.-
It is actually quite easy to see if something is a conspiracy.
Just ask yourself: do the rich and powerful suffer from it?
If the answer is yes, then it is bollocks.
For example, have rich and powerful people died of cancer? They are the ones who could get any treatment they want, even the conspired against ones.
Yet there are plenty of rich people suffering from cancer.
Another easy one would be chemtrails. The rich and powerful live under the same sky as everyone else. So if someone was doing that, you know they would throw money against it to stop it.
-
It's utter nonsense. R&D on treatment is generally a safer investment than a full cure that may not pan out at all.
But think of it like this: the first company that does cure cancer will easily out-compete other pharmaceutical companies. That's why we do in fact have cures for a variety of cancer types.
And it's not like people will stop getting cancer once a cure is found. You can keep selling the cure you can patent! That would push any other pharma company that only focuses on treatment out of the market immediately.
-
Yeah this is just utter bullshit. My prove are cures like Sovaldi/ Harmony, Zolgensma, Hemgenix and many more which will come in future. You can complain that these treatments are ridiculously overpriced. But obviously as a company you take the 1-2 million Dollar now instead of some unknown revenue in the decades ahead.
-
Entirely wrong, but fun read nonetheless.
-
-
I'd guess this is what happened:
This comic has more panels but for some reason i can't upload the full version so here's a Link to SMBC Comics
-
Yep, and even more it's
We've destroyed 10 percent of a specific variant of a specific type of cancer in a lab rat's tail
Saying there's a cure for cancer is like saying there's a cure for all "respiratory infection diseases".
-
Or even
We've destroyed 10 percent of a specific variant of a specific type of cancer in a lab rat's tail that was removed from the lab rat's tail and grown in an artificial environment allowing simplistic vectoring methods to apply our solution to the cells.
-
-
I love SMBC, but finding the damn comic I'm wanting to link can be enraging.
-
I feel for you, it's a pain every time I want to show someone a panel about why we need to do things
-
-
-
Some statistics:
The prognosis for a disease with a treatment that's regular enough to be more profitable than a cure over time, but doesn't cure the underlying disease (or send it into remission), is typically measured in months. For glioblastoma in particular, that average is 12-18 months.
You're not talking about bilking people out of treatment for decades, you're talking about getting maybe a year. Even the most misanthropic pharmaceutical executive (and let's be honest, they all are) would look at that calculation and say "nah, if we can cure it, we can charge way more and people will pay it. People will pay just about anything for a cure."
This is why cancer remission rates have gone up by 30% or more in the past fifty years. It's just way more lucrative to cure a disease than to try to keep people alive, but not cured. That tightrope is just too thin for them to walk reliably and make any profit.
-
Plus, if you're the first pharma company to release a straight up cure, your market valuation is going to go through the roof.
-
It's such a bizarre claim. A close friend of mine had testicular cancer in his 30s. He had chemo and surgery and there has been no reappearance of cancer over 10 years later. He isn't on pharmaceuticals for life. The cancer is essentially cured. Based on this conspiracy theory, chemotherapy would have been suppressed.
-
Awesome! That's so great for him. And yes, chemo (and surgery and radiation) are more and more becoming silver bullets that either solve the problem "immediately," or don't work and transition directly into palliative care.
There's a lot of sketchy stuff in pharmaceuticals, so it's kind of odd to me that this one thing that's patently untrue if you just think about it for a minute is what's caught on.
-
-
yeah, this theory that they "wanna keep us sick so we keep buying symptomatic treatments" ignores the fact that while the industry as a whole might lose a little bit, the company that gets to patent THE CURE FOR FUCKING BRAIN CANCER and then charge whatever they want for it is going to make an assload of money. It starts with the assumption that pharma CEOs are evil, but it doesn't follow through with that assumption. Instead it ends up in a place where pharma CEOs are happy to split a couple billion dollars a year amongst themselves when a cure, should they find it, will end in them getting trillions are for themselves. Everyone knows they want to make as much money as possible, and they're proudly open about that fact. So it rationally follows that they'd pursue a cure and make much, much, much, much more money all for themselves than suppressing a cure and making less money total split over many heads.
-
Exactly right. By all means, go after Big Pharma for the price-fixing, the collusion with insurance companies, the lobbying, the anti-competitive practices, the insufficient research dollars, the monopolistic practices (I could go on)--don't waste your time on this nothingburger.
-
-
-
-
"They said it typically takes 10 to 15 years for a new drug to get from the lab to the patient. The team at the University of Findlay is on year two." In 2019
So, still some time to see if it truly was dissappeared or just didn't make the cut.
-
-
Yeah, but don’t let that get in the way of a good ol’ fashioned fist shaking for the kids.
-
-
"They have also refined it to ignore healthy brain tissue and focus on the cancer cells."
Uh, I feel like that should've already been covered by the first sentence. Kind of a weird "clarification" to make, and now I'm more worried about its effect on healthy brain tissue than without saying that part.
-
it's not that strange, chemotherapy for example kills a lot of things that are not cancer
-
when my gram decided not to do chemo the hospice nurse basically explained to me that chemo is like your body playing a game of chicken against the cancer. basically making itself a really hostile place for anything that's trying to grow rapidly and hoping that the cancer is destroyed before the rest of you.
-
-
They're being a little oddly vague. It's all about the amounts of each that they kill. Bleach cures cancer, it just kills the patient too. And there's no such thing as "refining" something that used to kill healthy cells so that it doesn't ever anymore. Maybe they found a variation of the chemical that is strongly biased towards killing cancerous cells but unless that was their targeting mechanism the whole time, they're going to be killing some healthy cells too.
-
Ya I'm refining my bullet in the brain technique which is known to stop cancer cell growth within just MINUTES. I just need to refine it to ignore healthy brain tissue.
-
Bleach, guns, and flamethrowers also kill cancer cells. Killing cancer cells is easy. The challenge is killing cancer cells but not the very similar-looking healthy cells.
-
-
My cousin, 15 at the time, died from a rare form of glioblastoma. It wrecked my aunt's family.
-
They have also refined it to ignore healthy brain tissue
Before they added this feature, it had both a 100% cure rate and a 100% mortality rate.
-
task failed successfully
-
-
i mean yeah it will suddenly stop existing in a few months, but that won't be because of a conspiracy, it'll be because another lab tried it and found out it didn't actually work as well as the scientists had optimistically claimed. remember that Taiwanese lab that claimed to have room temperature semiconductors, and then everybody was like "holy shit this is incredible", and then everybody else tried to make it and was like "this, um, isn't a superconductor" and the original Taiwanese lab was like "shit our bad nvm"
-
Image Transcription: Twitter Posts
Jon Monk, @JonWTOL
Students at @ufindlay college of pharmacy have developed a chemical compound that kills gliobastoma (brain cancer) cells.
They have also refined it to ignore healthy brain tissue and focus on the cancer cells.
[Two photos are shown. The first is an upper body view of two people in a lab with lab coats. The second is a closeup image showing a vial of a substance in one of their hands.]
frank, @frankieeg86
make this go viral before it suddenly doesn't exist
-
Don’t worry. Big pharma will buy the patents and kill any further development
-
No, they’d buy the patents, make a product out of the IP, and then charge an astronomical amount for the treatment. It’s their playbook
-
But if the conspiracy is that obvious, it doesn’t make me feel like a special sleuth who’s smarter than all the sheep! I like getting feelings of superiority from watching 5-minute YouTube videos. Why are you so closed minded?
-
-
The rich and powerful could easily get their hands on that if that were true.
Yet there are plenty of them that die of cancer every year.
-
That is the joke
85 comments