banner_jpg
Username/Email: Password:
News Article
New Poll - Cure for Cancer
This week's look into the state of humanity was proposed by our member jacob66. How evil do you think drug companies are?

You can submit poll ideas here
http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3903

Previous Poll Results:
Question: If the person you most cared about committed a horrendous crime (e.g., murder, rape, etc), would you prefer they escape or be punished?
Choices:
Be punished - votes: 2643 (79.3%)
Escape - votes: 690 (20.7%)
There were 3333 total votes.
The poll ended: September 4th 2021

Lots of co-conspirators here
Posted by lambchopsil on 
September 4th 4:58pm
Comments ( 23 )  
[ View ]  [ Add ]
Comments

» Transdude1996 on September 4th, 2021, 11:24am

I can already tell that this will be a fun poll. Can I propose that they will release the cure, but make requirements that you need "boosters" or need another medication to either (A) keep the cash flow going or (B) treat any of the "side-effects" (Which could or couldn't be intentional) of the cure?

thread

» zarlan on September 4th, 2021, 11:39am

Dunno…

thread

» Jooles on September 4th, 2021, 12:43pm

Hell if I *know*, but I voted for Hide. There's no fucking way Big Pharma would ever do the right thing *if they could get away with an "evil" alternative that made money.*

thread

» Shippou_Incognito on September 4th, 2021, 2:35pm

Another loaded question.
I'll pass.

thread

» kuchra on September 4th, 2021, 3:17pm

There is no such thing as a "cure for cancer", but if there were, they'd definitely release it. Odds are it would be priced astronomically high, though.

thread

» hkanz on September 4th, 2021, 3:37pm

Of course they would release it. They couldn’t get away with hiding it even if they wanted to, since that would depend on everyone involved in development and testing being a terrible person, and that’s not a realistic scenario. As someone who is seizure-free because of a drug developed by GlaxoSmithKline, I do roll my eyes a bit at the ‘evil drug company’ narrative. I’m not going to say many of these companies haven’t done shitty things, but try getting sick, then complain about how awful these companies are for developing the meds you need.

thread

» Joese on September 5th, 2021, 1:39am

Quote from hkanz
Of course they would release it. They couldn’t get away with hiding it even if they wanted to, since that would depend on everyone involved in development and testing being a terrible person, and that’s not a realistic scenario. As someone who is seizure-free because of a drug developed by GlaxoSmit ...


LOL they can obviously hide it, manufacturing equipment have outrageous prices and pharmaceutical workers research is owned by the company. Since judges aren't pharmaceutical experts they'd be trailed for revelation of secrets and unless the company wants it it wouldn't be released.At most they'd patent it.

Drugs are only released at a reasonable price if there is already alternative and there is profit to make by doing so.Otherwise many third world diseases would've been researched and even eradicated a long time ago.

All of this is the reasonable part ,they're considered evil for doing unethical experiments on third world countries to cut the corners when researching and seeking only profit (+speculating with prices) for example if they have the option of releasing a drug at 1million dollars that can potentially be bought only by 100 people a year or release it at a lower price so it can reach more people they'd still release at the highest price if the profit is the same. 😔

thread

» blackluna on September 7th, 2021, 3:34pm

Not how the world works. For one thing, the human body is extremely complex, so what works for some or most never works for all (a circumstance I've had to deal with more than once; e.g. "hypoallergenic" is usually considered "non-allergenic" — and then there are those rare people who react to sunflowers and the like, but no culinary nuts or shellfish — the same thing happens in medications). That's one reason why there are numerous treatments and cures for nearly all diseases. Additionally, people get different side-effects and might have other conditions or be taking medications which would have a bad reaction to any one cure (which is why the medical world usually tries to make sure there are at least two).

Another reason why prescription medications are so damn expensive is that the US is basically the only country funding further research (you can thank government healthcare for that). As for the second and third worlds, usually there's a logistical problem preventing eradication, which is difficult enough in the first world, since many of these countries are unstable and even lack proper sanitation and hygiene (toilets and clean water are the two big ones here).

I honestly don't even know where to start with the last one: just, please do some fact checking. If any company were doing such a thing, it wouldn't be too hard for it to get out and (ignoring morals, since you're assuming they lack them) the loses would not be worth it. Seriously. So, yeah, please gets some reputable sources.

thread

» Transdude1996 on September 7th, 2021, 6:41pm

Quote from blackluna
If any company were doing such a thing, it wouldn't be too hard for it to get out and (ignoring morals, since you're assuming they lack them) the loses would not be worth it. Seriously. So, yeah, please gets some reputable sources.

You do realize that you just defeated your own point, right? So-called "reputable sources" don't publish anything that harms or offends their sponsors, or isn't for their own benefit. And, they few times they do, it's published on the back page that no one reads.

Forget everything that's happened over the past few decades with Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.; and let's rewind the clocks to the decade of the 1920's. This was a "glorious time", the American middle class was seeing the sky as the limit to their life improvements, the American economy was "stronger" than ever, the League of Nations was keeping peace throughout the world, and it was particularly the time of "muckraking journalism". Where you had independent journalists breaking the big news about all the corruption going on and making changes in the world. Except, they weren't. In 1929, one particular journalist by the name of George Seldes finally had enough and published a book entitled You Can't Print That! that documented all of the news stories that he was prevented from publishing during that decade. And, he carried on that career all the way into 60's, much to the criticism of many. Even earlier than that, back in the 1859, a Nebraskan so-called "surveyor" by the name of William Byers start a little newspaper in Colorado that published nothing but lies, ended up effecting millions to the point that he was going to be lynched, and said lies being the sole reason why Denver is even on the map. And, those are the two most egregious examples that come to mind, and I know there's far more once you start looking. One such experience was reading through a collection of the supposed "best" front pages of the L.A. Times from their founding to the mid-1980's (You know, one of those collections people just buy and place on their coffee table, and never actually open), and finding out that the single largest lynching in the U.S. was against Italians (Strangely enough, in a sports article about John Sullivan's then-recent victory, with the writer praising the murders), and that the source of all the anti-Japanese sentiment prior to WWII was caused by Chinese immigrants (With articles painting the Chinese as virtuous, despite the opium dens, compared to the "evil Japanese who will run business owners out of house and home" ).

Now, with all that knowledge in mind, let's bring some of that forward to day. There are three companies who control almost the entirety of the internet: Google, Facebook, and Twitter. If you publish ANYTHING that those companies do not like, they're going to prevent your content from being viewed, they'll ban you from the platform, and ultimately remove your ability to contribute towards wider society. And, that's in addition to a news media that was just proven as having never been trustworthy since the dawn. Also, the a topper of government officials who constantly change their stories to where what was "misinformation" one week is now set-in-stone law this week, only to go back to being "misinformation" next week.

When boiled all down, how can one look at this circumstance, and come to the conclusion that there is certainly no "bias" or censorship taking place in the wider world? And, remember, this is just in reference to the U.S..

thread

» Vicis on September 5th, 2021, 9:28pm

Quote from hkanz
Of course they would release it. They couldn’t get away with hiding it even if they wanted to, since that would depend on everyone involved in development and testing being a terrible person, and that’s not a realistic scenario. As someone who is seizure-free because of a drug developed by GlaxoSmit ...


Anyone who doesn't understand this needs to go work a corporate gig for a few weeks to get some perspective. As if people working corporate jobs care about their companies more than those flipping burgers, and are all evil and devilishly competent at keeping secrets.

Literally every single person who would work on this magical cure would tell their significant others about the cure weeks in advance.

thread

» Transdude1996 on September 6th, 2021, 6:35am

Quote from Vicis
Anyone who doesn't understand this needs to go work a corporate gig for a few weeks to get some perspective. As if people working corporate jobs care about their companies more than those flipping burgers, and are all evil and devilishly competent at keeping secrets.

I have, and the issue has NOTHING to do with "keeping secrets". The issue is that NO ONE CARES. I worked for half a year for a company who handled my state's "Obamacare" program, and saw how much bullshit went on with the complete failure of a program it was designed to be, only for my co-workers and managers to be seeing the same thing I was and all still being in favor of the law. And, talking to some actual doctors outside of their offices, everything I had witnessed and experienced was only the tip of the iceberg.

thread

» blackluna on September 7th, 2021, 3:44pm

That's the difference between a private company which has to compete with others and a government establishment which will exist regardless of its performance. Thus, the Yugo (one of the better communist-produced cars, which is why it was the only one marketed outside of its country of origin). Which is one of the biggest reasons I've never been in favour of required nationalized health-care.

thread

» blackluna on September 7th, 2021, 3:40pm

So all white-collar workers are evil? That sure sounds like it could be correct, especially since humans have their own minds. What you just said operates under the assumption that human beings who are part of a company have a hive-mind. Also: the Dilbert principle.

thread

» hahhah42 on September 4th, 2021, 5:30pm

If you want to know the truth about Big Pharma just watch this video.

thread

» Joese on September 5th, 2021, 1:21am


I think they would probably release an adulterated formula at an outrageous price, without the patent so it doesn't expire. Since the cure would be high in demand whatever the price. They'd probably wait till they make the most money out of it instead of releasing it immediately.

I mean look at Zolgensma or the covid vaccine. One could eradicate a genetic desease but has an extremely high price, and in the other case they aren't even bothering in researching/releasing one that targets the dominant (delta¿?) variant and gives immunity against it .

thread

» residentgrigo on September 5th, 2021, 4:15am

Hide it, more money in treating disease than curing it as long as we are talking about an independent pharmaceutical company. Or monetize the whole thing out of the ass so that only affluent people can afford it with the 3rd world getting nothing.

thread

» AndyProk on September 7th, 2021, 7:50am

Well, first of all, Cancer isn't just one disease, it's many different ones with similar results (some cells going rogue in some way for some reason).

Some of those we can already prevent (or at least reduce the risk of getting them drastically), such as cervical cancer by getting the HPV vaccine.

Lastly, a cure for cancer would be way too good in terms of PR to keep secret. Even if it cost an arm and a leg, the prestige from its discovery would outweigh any bad PR there might come from an extortionate price. In addition, a lot of shareholders in corporate America are very focused on short-term gains. The announcement of a working cure for cancer would drive the share prices of the company through the roof, which those shareholders wouldn't be able to pass up on (even if it's just a short spike, by then a lot of them would have sold many of their shares for a lot more than they invested in them).

thread

» blackluna on September 7th, 2021, 2:13pm

Indeed. Not only is cancer a type or category of disease, rather than a specific one, people react to the treatments in different ways, including negative ones. Usually the best we can do is prevention and detection, all of which has nothing to do with curing a disease and have brought much profit to these companies.

As for the latter point: Exactly. Prestige brings profit. Not just in shares (although that's important too), but also in people's choice of products and investments.

There is no such thing as a panacea; diseases and the human body are far too complex. So, hypothetically, if one were to be discovered, the resulting prestige would outweigh the other considerations.

thread

» Onsen on September 7th, 2021, 10:03am

According to this source the cure for cancer was found during the 1950s and the pharma industry had fought it ever since, mostly because the proposed cure cannot be monetized.

Which sounds about right.

thread

» blackluna on September 7th, 2021, 2:30pm

Sounds like you read a conspiracy theorist (I did look at it).

Wikipedia and its sources (many of which are both reputable and did actual clinical studies) say, on the contrary, it usually doesn't work, and overall causes more harm than good. Not only is said diet high in ingredients that many people have trouble digesting or are allergic to, many of its adherents refuse other medical care until its too late or (when it does "work" ) later relapse. Clinical studies don't show any actual evidence of it working, and when it is effective it seems to be either in tandem with mainstream cancer treatments or a case study (as opposed to a general rule).

In all honesty, given the nature of cancers (a malignant growth of mutated cells), I can't see how a diet alone could be an all-purpose cure. That's not how diets work after all, although they definitely do effect the body in many ways; at best, a diet can be a complementary treatment. Suggesting that ultrasound waves as a panacea is more realistic than a diet (the proponents of the former don't go that far, which tells you something).

Also see: Cancer treatments: alternative medicine, Alternative cancer treatments, List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments (where your source's cure falls), and Experimental cancer treatments.

thread

» Alimeru on September 7th, 2021, 6:39pm

...Did you deadass just link a site that suggests not getting vaccinated and not visiting a doctor under any circumstances if you have cancer?? This is literally just an essential oils and "alternative treatment" blog. The "Our Suggestions" section might as well just be a guide on how to speed up your trip to death's door if you have cancer.

People like this try to leech as much money as possible from naive, sick people. "Get our book, Defy Your Doctor and Be Healed, and other superior products at the Health Wyze Store." Give me a fucking break. I can't believe you linked this in a thread where the debate circulates around hiding life-saving drugs for profit. Money means everything to both big companies and natural cure bs'ers.

Please look into some of the things blackluna linked if you actually believe this kind of thing. I admit I flew off the handle a little here but I'm sick and tired of watching people fall for these kinds of schemes.

As for the topic of the actual thread, I'm inclined to agree with everyone who already said that there's no way a "secret" this big could be kept hidden for long. If an effective cure for cancer or at least some form of it is found, then its existence would most definitely be leaked within short notice. And if it's not hidden, said cure will more than likely be astronomically expensive.

thread

» dasnik on September 7th, 2021, 9:51pm

It such a laughable idea it they find such a thing then they have invested money and time in it, so they would release it.

They make more money off living people then dead people, one cure doesn't heal every ache and sickness a living human will need medicine all his life.

The question is will it be easily accessible... let's just say that not ever remedy is easy to get.

thread

» Ceiye on September 7th, 2021, 10:36pm

Pretending that this is a panacea that would somehow actually cure every type of cancer, I'd say that Yeah They Would Release It. Can you IMAGINE all the time, money, and manpower that would need to go into finding this? They aren't going to just not release it after all that. And like it isn't just going to find it on accident. And if they did, they would need to go through so much testing and bureaucracy to make sure that it is actually a cure for cancer, and at that point, the information is out of their hands, so they might as well claim credit for it. Like seriously, I hate big pharma as much as the next person, but even if moral responsibility wasn't a concern for the individuals (at least one of which would absolutely leak this information), it would be such an economic advantage to come out with this information and charge wild amounts for it

thread