Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

loginandtonic

Why Don't Governments Find Bailout Size Money For Cancer Charities?

Recommended Posts

Cancer's the biggest killer. 1 in 3 of us wont be well or wont be here one day because of it.

If money is the answer to finding a cure, why has no government thrown as much at cancer as they did at bailing out the banks etc? What could be more important than preserving our loved ones and their wellbeing and lives? So why no wall of money to cure cancer once and for all?

All the money the cancer charities get - what have they achieved exactly? How many decades has this "cancer, tomorrow we'll beat it" promise been going on.

Are drug companies that make money out of patented drugs being used to "treat" cancer happy to suppress any cure product that would see their drugs obsolete, particularly if that cure was cheap and easy to make and not patentable in some way?

Should the cancer charities funding, connections and operations come under scrutiny now?

I think something somewhere is just not making sense, i'm very cynical about pharma outfits and charities, yeah no kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 1 in 3 figure is trotted out time and again - but a quick search doesn't show any workings behind this. That does make me a little suspicious of the figure to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This 1 in 3 figure is trotted out time and again - but a quick search doesn't show any workings behind this. That does make me a little suspicious of the figure to be honest.

the 1 in 3 has been true of my family and also inlaws, tragically for me,

also other treatments apart from pharma drugs includes

- radio frequency ablation - can zap lung tumours if done early enough but doctors generally wont mention it, you have to ask

- artemisinin - anti malarial and they think anti cancer (was on bbc)

always worth ringing up medical study places and asking what new treatments are around that are generally not publicised

anyone else remember anything else thats not been shown to be snake oil, perhaps add to the thread with your post, thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it would help speed things up that much...

Far better for you to follow common good advice and limit the risk of cancer where possible.

I refer you to the thread about entitled SUN-BURNT for one good area to reduce risk..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are drug companies that make money out of patented drugs being used to "treat" cancer happy to suppress any cure product that would see their drugs obsolete, particularly if that cure was cheap and easy to make and not patentable in some way?

I think something somewhere is just not making sense, i'm very cynical about pharma outfits and charities, yeah no kidding.

This is why there will never be a cure for cancer, too much money would be lost. Imagine if Vitamin C was found to prevent cancer. They couldnt patent that, or sell it for £12000 a course. So why even mention it.

herceptin_600.jpg

Think about herceptin, in one study, it only prevented recurring breast cancer in 0.6 women out of one hundred. Yet women are demanding it and it costs a fortune. Nobody makes any money from medicine that's free. So they have to hype up the drugs that are patented, no matter how lousy their performance or safety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to cure cancer - would nature not simply create something else to take it's place ?

I reckon yes.

Not saying fighting cancer is a bad thing or anything. Of course not. Just got to take it in context.

However hard this may be to accept - Cancer is MEANT to happen.

Not nice, not pleasant and I hope it never happens to me. However it is the truth.

C'est Las Vie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the 1 in 3 has been true of my family and also inlaws, tragically for me,

:(

unfortunately my father died from cancer last year, but this statistic just doesn't feel right to me.

It's "1 in 3 people develop some form of cancer", it really does feel too broad, from my basic research while my father was ill I found out that 'cancer' isn't one all-encompassing thing - brain cancer is very different from bowel cancer for example.

Maybe if I spent longer searching I'd come up with my answer but it has a nice ring to it "You have a 1/3rd chance of getting cancer - GIVE US YOUR MONEY NOW" almost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:(

unfortunately my father died from cancer last year, but this statistic just doesn't feel right to me.

It's "1 in 3 people develop some form of cancer", it really does feel too broad, from my basic research while my father was ill I found out that 'cancer' isn't one all-encompassing thing - brain cancer is very different from bowel cancer for example.

Maybe if I spent longer searching I'd come up with my answer but it has a nice ring to it "You have a 1/3rd chance of getting cancer - GIVE US YOUR MONEY NOW" almost.

but you see, we do keep giving them our money and decades and decades later there's still no progress to speak of, just as we keep giving money to fight child poverty or famine abroad and yet the problems never go away, it's almost an industry to milk us

the govt here or anywhere if they can find trillions (QE or not) to bail out finance, why not the same to save people, irreplaceable human beings dear to them and dear to us all, why ever not? although part of me thinks there are people on this planet working without salary for cures anyway, aware that money is just an illusion anyway, if i knew what to do i'd work in my shed day after day to find a cure for people, it's got to be the most important thing ever. i know another poster said another disease would replace it, but maybe not for hundreds or thousands of years

sorry to read about your dad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cancer's the biggest killer. 1 in 3 of us wont be well or wont be here one day because of it.

If money is the answer to finding a cure, why has no government thrown as much at cancer as they did at bailing out the banks etc?

What do you think the effect of a cure for cancer would be on the pensions problem, the NHS and the need for local authorities to look after the elderly?

Cure for cancer = (another) economic disaster.

Unless you fancy raising the retirement age to 75.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think the effect of a cure for cancer would be on the pensions problem, the NHS and the need for local authorities to look after the elderly?

Cure for cancer = (another) economic disaster.

Unless you fancy raising the retirement age to 75.

I don't get what you're saying.

Are you saying "fvck you and die as I won't be able to financially benefit if you have your way" or something?

Cure for cancer = economic disaster? ! FFS.

Fvck your economic template I say. Have a think about what you are suggesting. Your name is logan? and I claim my five extra years. Tawt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you mean.

The provision of hospices, carers, nurses and respite care would strike me as an excellent outcome.

As to "a cure for cancer", its so complex its like saying "a cure for viruses" more or less.

Its a mountain to climb alright, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but you see, we do keep giving them our money and decades and decades later there's still no progress to speak of, just as we keep giving money to fight child poverty or famine abroad and yet the problems never go away, it's almost an industry to milk us

I too, am very cynical of charities, surely they have no interesting in "curing" whatever problem they allege to address!

If you want to "help the homeless", buy the bloke a pastie...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bill hicks was right though , you got to die of something

if not cancer then what? stroke? heart attack?

cancer is caused by too many toxins in the body , usually caused by smoking , poor diet , lack of exercise or bad genes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a bailout size money funding to cure aging. Aubrey de Gray's SENS research is by far the most promising avenue and right here in the UK. Go after cancer too... and do it all with an eye to building a world beating industry for great britain, where we patent and produce the cures we develop. We'll never out manufacture Germany and co anyway, but in life sciences research we are stronger than them. So build on our strengths.

Btw there is seven ways in which we age, its just a matter of curing each one.

Talks Aubrey de Grey says we can avoid aging

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_...void_aging.html

We need visionary leaders and visionary ideas. The QE and stimulus/bailouts might as well go to groundbreaking work to enhance human quality of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest มร หล&#3
the 1 in 3 has been true of my family and also inlaws, tragically for me,

also other treatments apart from pharma drugs includes

- radio frequency ablation - can zap lung tumours if done early enough but doctors generally wont mention it, you have to ask

- artemisinin - anti malarial and they think anti cancer (was on bbc)

always worth ringing up medical study places and asking what new treatments are around that are generally not publicised

anyone else remember anything else thats not been shown to be snake oil, perhaps add to the thread with your post, thx

Yep, everyone in my lot who's brown bread so far . . . cancer.

It is age related though. People living longer, probabilities etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest มร หล&#3
This is why there will never be a cure for cancer, too much money would be lost. Imagine if Vitamin C was found to prevent cancer. They couldnt patent that, or sell it for £12000 a course. So why even mention it.

herceptin_600.jpg

Think about herceptin, in one study, it only prevented recurring breast cancer in 0.6 women out of one hundred. Yet women are demanding it and it costs a fortune. Nobody makes any money from medicine that's free. So they have to hype up the drugs that are patented, no matter how lousy their performance or safety

+1

Johnny,

You might be a bit to the right of Attila The Hun, but I can't help but like some of your posts.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get what you're saying.

Are you saying "fvck you and die as I won't be able to financially benefit if you have your way" or something?

Cure for cancer = economic disaster? ! FFS.

Fvck your economic template I say. Have a think about what you are suggesting. Your name is logan? and I claim my five extra years. Tawt.

I'm not a twit. I'm a realist. You're a dreamer. We already have a chronic demographic problem on the horizon with respect to people living longer, NHS treatment for the elderly becoming more expensive, lots of people having inadequate pensions, etc... If the government threw billions at a cure for cancer, and found one, it would then discover it had spent £billions making that demographic problem much, much worse.

Who is going to pay for this army of the elderly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see a bailout size money funding to cure aging.

Yay! Cure aging and watch the world's population skyrocket to 12 billion!!!

It seems to me that a lot of people just don't get it.

If you are going to find a cure for aging then you'd better also find a cure for having babies and a cure for wanting to retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bill hicks was right though , you got to die of something

if not cancer then what? stroke? heart attack?

cancer is caused by too many toxins in the body , usually caused by smoking , poor diet , lack of exercise or bad genes

I do get what you're saying and have thought about this quite a bit.

100 years ago, I would have died during childbirth as my placenta retains, which would lead to either bleeding to death or septeimia.

I would have died, therefore unable to pass on faulty gene.

However, due to our medical advancements, I just nip into theatre and hey presto, placenta removed, bleeding stopped and I am able to carry on procreating thus potentially passing on my faulty gene.

And I think herein lies the problem. Of course I'm glad I can live, but I am fully aware that I would not be here unless it were for medical intervention. I guess it's how we deal with a weaker and more ill popultion in the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do get what you're saying and have thought about this quite a bit.

100 years ago, I would have died during childbirth as my placenta retains, which would lead to either bleeding to death or septeimia.

I would have died, therefore unable to pass on faulty gene.

However, due to our medical advancements, I just nip into theatre and hey presto, placenta removed, bleeding stopped and I am able to carry on procreating thus potentially passing on my faulty gene.

And I think herein lies the problem. Of course I'm glad I can live, but I am fully aware that I would not be here unless it were for medical intervention. I guess it's how we deal with a weaker and more ill popultion in the future

I suspect that for much of the world's population, nature will be firmly back in control long before the end of my life (I'm 40).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see a bailout size money funding to cure aging. Aubrey de Gray's SENS research is by far the most promising avenue and right here in the UK. Go after cancer too... and do it all with an eye to building a world beating industry for great britain, where we patent and produce the cures we develop. We'll never out manufacture Germany and co anyway, but in life sciences research we are stronger than them. So build on our strengths.

Btw there is seven ways in which we age, its just a matter of curing each one.

Talks Aubrey de Grey says we can avoid aging

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_...void_aging.html

We need visionary leaders and visionary ideas. The QE and stimulus/bailouts might as well go to groundbreaking work to enhance human quality of life.

Are you having a laugh ? I am not sure if you are being sarcatisc or not ?

A cure for ageing ?!! Ageing is just about the most natural things that can ever happen.

Cure ageing. ****** me - I have heard it all now.

If ageing was ever cured I reckon it would be the most horrific thing this World has ever seen. So wrong on every single level.

Anyway - hope you were having a laugh !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As traditional societies with a steady supply of natural foods are largely cancer free and only succumb to the disease when they westernize I don't much see the oint of spending zillions on raising money for 'cancer research'.

If we want to save lies we'd realise a less polluted environment and the foods we were evolved to thrive on would cut rates of all manner of serious degenerative diseases.

The trouble is, following natural laws doesn't really require a bevvy of experts and certainly doesn't require radiation machines or expensive toxic superdrugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you having a laugh ? I am not sure if you are being sarcatisc or not ?

A cure for ageing ?!! Ageing is just about the most natural things that can ever happen.

Cure ageing. ****** me - I have heard it all now.

If ageing was ever cured I reckon it would be the most horrific thing this World has ever seen. So wrong on every single level.

Anyway - hope you were having a laugh !!

I am being serious, I really believe curing aging would be a good thing. To me its a terrible degenerative condition, that we should work to cure, just as we cured other ailments. Dying of an infected wound is also natural, but like magic we cure that with 5 pounds worth of pills.

Somewhere along the line western civilization has lost our yearning to make dreams come true through science. Sure there were issues for every step forward, but we had confidence that we'd deal with those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do get what you're saying and have thought about this quite a bit.

100 years ago, I would have died during childbirth as my placenta retains, which would lead to either bleeding to death or septeimia.

I would have died, therefore unable to pass on faulty gene.

However, due to our medical advancements, I just nip into theatre and hey presto, placenta removed, bleeding stopped and I am able to carry on procreating thus potentially passing on my faulty gene.

And I think herein lies the problem. Of course I'm glad I can live, but I am fully aware that I would not be here unless it were for medical intervention. I guess it's how we deal with a weaker and more ill popultion in the future

Yes we'll eventually need genetic engineering as well. Heck people are going to use genetic engineering to enhance anyway, while they are doing that they might as correct all issues. Its another line the government could pump research money into as a way to stimulate the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yay! Cure aging and watch the world's population skyrocket to 12 billion!!!

It seems to me that a lot of people just don't get it.

If you are going to find a cure for aging then you'd better also find a cure for having babies and a cure for wanting to retire.

For retirement we already have the problem of too many workers chasing too few jobs. Its the opposite problem most human societies have faced through history. Because technical automation is replacing human workers. During the next 50 years virtually all jobs will be replaced by machines.

But even assuming we stopped the automation, its simple to just change the laws. If someone gets rejuvinated to a 30 year old body, they can't get retirement payments. Its their choice, they can stay old and get the retirement money, or take the rejuvination.

For babies the developed nations already have such low birthrates that we are importing half a million mainly young foreigners a year just in the UK. But I do agree if people started having too many babies some sort of solution to that may eventually be needed. I'd add we live in a nihilistic time when people are viewed as bad, so more people is really bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.