If it wasn't hard to kill cancer, it would not be such a big issue.
And to goodguy, that drug is still in clinical trial. I'm not denying that it may be a cure, but it has yet to be confirmed.
Quote from name="Wikipedia "Dichloroacetate" »
The historical likelihood that a promising agent in pre-clinical (i.e., cell-line killing) experiments will become an effective human cancer drug is 5%, and the likelihood of an FDA approval for any given drug entering Phase I testing is reportedly 8-11%.[15][16'] As of April 2007, DCA has passed phase 1 trials and can enter directly phase 2 trials in patients with cancer.
Folding@Home doesn't feel like you're actually doing something to help, I somehow doubt the 438 WU's I've done all together now actually help anything.
It's become such a big thing though, what's funny is people think if a cure for these diseases were to be found like they'll actually be used to cure. There's big money in simply fending off these diseases, there's much less money to be made by just curing them.
The amount of money lost curing cancer would make your balls fall off, say what you will but it will have a huge impact on everyone. And give all the more reason to either make the drug so incredibly expensive barely anyone could afford or the cure would be denied.
lol, it isnt hard to kill cancer, the hard part is keeping the host alive while killing or "fending" off cancer.
(by the way, you cant cure cancer because cancer is just a bunch of fucked up cells)
That's a given though. And by fucked up, you mean mutated cells that are cancerous.
It's become such a big thing though, what's funny is people think if a cure for these diseases were to be found like they'll actually be used to cure. There's big money in simply fending off these diseases, there's much less money to be made by just curing them.
The amount of money lost curing cancer would make your balls fall off, say what you will but it will have a huge impact on everyone. And give all the more reason to either make the drug so incredibly expensive barely anyone could afford or the cure would be denied.
It's a college program, not a pharmaceutical company program. Of course pharmaceutical companies are money-grubbing assholes. However, once the cure is discovered, pharmaceutical companies buy it and make people pay out the ass for it.
Not to mention that it is not an issue of how much money you'll lose, but how much money you won't gain. Either way, the profits reaped from it is nothing to laugh at. Besides, pharmaceutical companies have managed to make a big profit out of cures by limiting the supply and jacking up the prices. It's not as dramatic as you might think.
they already found a cure for cancer..
theyre just not releasing it because theres a lot of money to be made by medicines
the insurance buys the drugs used to moderate the cancerous cells
so by not releasing the cure for it, theyre making billions of dollars.
How presumptuous of you. Yes, they found a cure. But it's not an issue of keeping it from the public. It's waiting for FDA approval and is in the second phase of that process, in which we will see the results of the clinical trials. Just so you don't make the mistake, the FDA is a government agency. And apparently, you have no idea of how insurance works. People buy insurance so that it will defray the cost of drugs. The doctors write the prescriptions. If you insurance doesn't cover that drug, you get another insurance policy, or you pay out of your own pocket. It's not the conspiracy that you say it is.
It's become such a big thing though, what's funny is people think if a cure for these diseases were to be found like they'll actually be used to cure. There's big money in simply fending off these diseases, there's much less money to be made by just curing them.
The amount of money lost curing cancer would make your balls fall off, say what you will but it will have a huge impact on everyone. And give all the more reason to either make the drug so incredibly expensive barely anyone could afford or the cure would be denied.
It's a college program, not a pharmaceutical company program. Of course pharmaceutical companies are money-grubbing assholes. However, once the cure is discovered, pharmaceutical companies buy it and make people pay out the ass for it.
Not to mention that it is not an issue of how much money you'll lose, but how much money you won't gain. Either way, the profits reaped from it is nothing to laugh at. Besides, pharmaceutical companies have managed to make a big profit out of cures by limiting the supply and jacking up the prices. It's not as dramatic as you might think.
they already found a cure for cancer..
theyre just not releasing it because theres a lot of money to be made by medicines
the insurance buys the drugs used to moderate the cancerous cells
so by not releasing the cure for it, theyre making billions of dollars.
How presumptuous of you. Yes, they found a cure. But it's not an issue of keeping it from the public. It's waiting for FDA approval. Just so you don't make the mistake, the FDA is a government agency. And apparently, you have no idea of how insurance works. People buy insurance so that it will defray the cost of drugs. The doctors write the prescriptions. If you insurance doesn't cover that drug, you get another insurance policy, or you pay out of your own pocket. It's not the conspiracy that you say it is.
“More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions.”
The study also found that at more than 90 percent of FDA advisory committee meetings, at least one committee member had a conflict of interest by having a financial stake in the topic or drug being discussed.61 As a result, the FDA often makes decisions that benefit corporations and hurt consumers
hm so your saying that the governent isnt influenced by money making 'grubbs'? ( my hand washes your hand? ever heard of that? , companies give fda money, in return the companies have rights to sell products that are harmful, but make a lot of money off of them )
[one of]the government's concerns is to make the country more wealthy.
so YOURE the presumptuous person here.
then again we are all presumtuous with things....
p.s. another part of that study showed this:
In addition to allowing Monsanto to sell drugs that have been shown to cause cancer in humans, the FDA has also refused to label milk from cows who have been treated with rBGH
hm so your saying that the governent isnt influenced by money making 'grubbs'?
[one of]the government's concerns is to make the country more wealthy.
so YOURE the presumptuous person here.
then again we are all presumtuous with things....
'Scuse me, but my information is based on fact. Yours is an insubstantial theory that you pulled out of your ass.
And also, the FDA regulates these things to keep the market stable. And how can you make a country more wealthy if the citizens are broke as hell from paying out the ass for unnecessary treatments? Then loans would be taken out, foreclosures would happen. It would be a cycle of debt. Not to mention that it's a massive federal offense.
Also, let's look at your quote. It says that these experts are hired by the government. Not only that, but the government has the final say in the decisions made by the experts. And they also have legislation to regulate this process. Another thing, the government hired those workers, meaning they're signing the paychecks. That means it's an agency run by the government.
And no, we're not all presumptuous. You just make extreme claims from simple statements. I bet you believe in that 9/11 conspiracy crap too.
Your argument is inconsistent and unfounded. You don't even know how insurance works. And speaking of presumptions, you once again pull an idea out of your ass. I never said the government wasn't influenced by money. To say that is ludicrous. It defies capitalism, as well as the basic human nature of lust for power.
EDIT: I would like to note that the vaccine list I posted is from 2003, so the list is potentially longer now than as is in that document.
'Scuse me, but my information is based on fact. Yours is an insubstantial theory that you pulled out of your ass.
first of all.. no i dont pull shit out of my ass
i let it come naturally out into the toilet. flush away...
I bet you believe in that 9/11 conspiracy crap too.
i smell excesssive self confidence.
i back my shit up by factual quotes.
Also, let's look at your quote. It says that these experts are hired by the government. Not only that, but the government has the final say in the decisions made by the experts. And they also have legislation to regulate this process. Another thing, the government hired those workers, meaning they're signing the paychecks. That means it's an agency run by the government.
i never once said that hired by the government. i said that
the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine
ADVISE the government.
not HIRED BY the government.
Not only that, but the government has the final say in the decisions made by the experts.
when did i say that???
Another thing, the government hired those workers...
which i didnt say
...meaning they're signing the paychecks.
no.. THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS are signing the paychecks.
it's an agency run by the government.
ill answer your quote with a quote.
the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine
Your argument is inconsistent and unfounded
so you are saying i didnt give factual information to back it up?
Smells delicious, doesn't it? I know you wish you were as good as me, but it's not gonna happen at this rate.
i back my shit up by factual quotes.
Notice how I highlighted shit. And you used two quotes in relation to one point you were making. You conceded to everything else.
i never once said that hired by the government. i said that
ADVISE the government.
not HIRED BY the government.
You are fucking stupid. Allow me to point it out for you, since your own quote contradicts you.
Quote:
the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine
They were hired for the purpose of advising you dumb shit. It doesn't happen often, but when someone cuts off their own foot like this, it makes me smile.
when did i say that???
You didn't. I did. You're so ignorant it's not even funny. Wait. I lied. It's hilarious. Not only are your theories in your ass, but so is your head.
which i didnt say
You are not my source you fucking retard. You're the one I'm proving wrong. Nobody can cite your argument as proof of their claims. That's one of the most ass-backwards things I've heard in a while.
no.. THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS are signing the paychecks.
Last I checked, my parents didn't own the FDA. Taxpayers don't distribute the checks, they don't sign the checks. The government gets the taxes, which they partially use to PAY PEOPLES SALARIES. You know, like the people in the FDA.
so you are saying i didnt give factual information to back it up?
Well, it certainly didn't back up your argument. After all, I did just point out how you contradicted yourself with your own source.
Quote:
the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine They were hired for the purpose of advising you dumb shit. It doesn't happen often, but when someone cuts off their own foot like this, it makes me smile.
hahahaha THEY GOT HIRED, SO THEIR JOB IS TO ADVISE THE GOVERNMENT.
i didnt quote on who hired them..
thanks for cutting your own foot.
Quote:
when did i say that???
You didn't. I did. You're so ignorant it's not even funny. Not only are your theories in your ass, but so is your head.
you put that part into "lets take a look at your quote" i was assuming you were TALKING ABOUT MY QUOTE...
Quote:
the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine
They were hired for the purpose of advising you dumb shit. It doesn't happen often, but when someone cuts off their own foot like this, it makes me smile.
hahahaha THEY GOT HIRED, SO THEIR JOB IS TO ADVISE THE GOVERNMENT. even if it is the government who hired them
i didnt quote on who hired them..
thanks for cutting your own foot.
EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT: I definately read your quote wrong, [appology] i thought you said they were hired to advise us]
sorry.
Quote:
when did i say that???
You didn't. I did. You're so ignorant it's not even funny. Not only are your theories in your ass, but so is your head.
put that part into "lets take a look at your quote" i was assuming you were TALKING ABOUT MY QUOTE...
Quote:
i smell excesssive self confidence.
Smells delicious, doesn't it? I know you wish you were as good as me, but it's not gonna happen at this rate.
no. it smells like burnt shit and someone being,oh uh, whats that thing your accusing me of, OH YEAH PRESUMPTUOUS..
mijwraak you arent making logical arguments. your whole argument about government is wrong as muttonchops pointed out, and you made yourself completely stupid by responding to his argument with an insult. you obviously dont have too much in your arsenal, therefore you should just stop arguing and act as if it never happened. trust me, no one will remember, certainly not mutton because he roasts too many people to remember every single one.
Anyways, so how long before Gears of War 2? That'll up the ante against PS3 for sure.
Gears of War 2 and Halo 3 are going to blow the PS3 away. the PS3 is not catching up fast enough, and its not long till Microsoft starts lowering costs and such to turn over Sony and put them in a really bad position.
the PS3 is not bringing in enough money, and is supporting blue-ray, since they are making their movies in blue-ray. however, hi-def i think will win this one because too many already use hi-def, not to mention that porn companies use hi-def and not blue-ray. that means that hi-def has a couple more million on their side.
nonetheless, i think that Sony is shaping themselves like Apple, where they offer the best for higher prices but wont ever get ahead because 9 out of 10 people just want computers for the basics. we dont want to pay more than we need to, and the fact that apple computers are hard to upgrade makes it even more like Sony.
Vaccine is serves basically the same purpose. To stop or prevent a disease. I chose vaccine because it's hard to find an already-made list of cures licensed by the FDA. Vaccinations are more than close enough to make my point.
however, hi-def i think will win this one because too many already use hi-def, not to mention that porn companies use hi-def and not blue-ray.
I remember hearing about a lawsuit of a series of complaints from the porn industry about HD. They stated that they didn't like HD because it allowed viewers to see the imperfections of pornstars, which would "ruin the fantasy", I believe...
Although HD may have some advantages, cost-wise, the Blu-ray has more capabilities, and even if HD wins in the beginning, Blu-ray is the better choice as a future format. And since it would be in the market for so long, that would give it time to prepare for mass-production and be cheaper with more features (not to mention possibly improvements), before Microsoft can pump out another format.
nonetheless, i think that Sony is shaping themselves like Apple, where they offer the best for higher prices but wont ever get ahead because 9 out of 10 people just want computers for the basics. we dont want to pay more than we need to, and the fact that apple computers are hard to upgrade makes it even more like Sony.
I disagree with the analogy because Apple's products are based on their simplicity or "basic" nature. You know, that whole "easier to use" thing. It doesn't add up with the goals of PS3. Apple isn't doing as well because its OS isn't suited for the majority of people because of it's limited influence. It has to endorse its own product, unlike Microsoft. There are limited stores, unlike for Microsoft, and the fact that it is virtually impossible to fiddle with its hardware makes it an unideal choice for many.
And if you think about it, Windows is far from basic. The main reason people choose it is because that's the OS that everyone is accustomed to.
And where are you going with the PS3's inability to upgrade? Consoles aren't really meant to be upgraded. They're simply meant to be used until a newer model comes out. Which is basically the same idea that Apple adopted. But that makes Apples similar to consoles in general. Well, you know, except for its limited compatibility with games as well as its inability to process them as well as on a PC of equal power. But I believe that's a coding issue.
Woops, you messed up again Mutton boy, oh well you'll never learn i guess.
Oh man. If you seriously want to talk about the 9/11 conspiracy, start a thread about it. If you'll search for "September 11 was FAKE" or something like that, you'll find the thread. It's closed. But that's partially because I, along with a couple people, basically shut down that theory.
PS3 isnt a game though (but yea Gears of War 2 and Halo 3 gonna be awesome
The idea is that it will put Xbox 360 even further ahead of the PS3.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They found a drug used in the treatment of metabolic issues also kills most forms of cancer.
*EDIT* Found the link. The drug is dichloroacetate.
Here is the link:
http://www.studentprintz.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=c7794f20-dfb1-4494-892d-b529895da103
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
No the drug is 100% safe and has been used for years for other things.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
If it wasn't hard to kill cancer, it would not be such a big issue.
And to goodguy, that drug is still in clinical trial. I'm not denying that it may be a cure, but it has yet to be confirmed.
Anyways, can we talk about PS3 and the 360 now?
There isn't a whole lot left.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
It's become such a big thing though, what's funny is people think if a cure for these diseases were to be found like they'll actually be used to cure. There's big money in simply fending off these diseases, there's much less money to be made by just curing them.
The amount of money lost curing cancer would make your balls fall off, say what you will but it will have a huge impact on everyone. And give all the more reason to either make the drug so incredibly expensive barely anyone could afford or the cure would be denied.
That's a given though. And by fucked up, you mean mutated cells that are cancerous.
theyre just not releasing it because theres a lot of money to be made by medicines
the insurance buys the drugs used to moderate the cancerous cells
so by not releasing the cure for it, theyre making billions of dollars.
It's a college program, not a pharmaceutical company program. Of course pharmaceutical companies are money-grubbing assholes. However, once the cure is discovered, pharmaceutical companies buy it and make people pay out the ass for it.
Not to mention that it is not an issue of how much money you'll lose, but how much money you won't gain. Either way, the profits reaped from it is nothing to laugh at. Besides, pharmaceutical companies have managed to make a big profit out of cures by limiting the supply and jacking up the prices. It's not as dramatic as you might think.
How presumptuous of you. Yes, they found a cure. But it's not an issue of keeping it from the public. It's waiting for FDA approval and is in the second phase of that process, in which we will see the results of the clinical trials. Just so you don't make the mistake, the FDA is a government agency. And apparently, you have no idea of how insurance works. People buy insurance so that it will defray the cost of drugs. The doctors write the prescriptions. If you insurance doesn't cover that drug, you get another insurance policy, or you pay out of your own pocket. It's not the conspiracy that you say it is.
It's a college program, not a pharmaceutical company program. Of course pharmaceutical companies are money-grubbing assholes. However, once the cure is discovered, pharmaceutical companies buy it and make people pay out the ass for it.
Not to mention that it is not an issue of how much money you'll lose, but how much money you won't gain. Either way, the profits reaped from it is nothing to laugh at. Besides, pharmaceutical companies have managed to make a big profit out of cures by limiting the supply and jacking up the prices. It's not as dramatic as you might think.
How presumptuous of you. Yes, they found a cure. But it's not an issue of keeping it from the public. It's waiting for FDA approval. Just so you don't make the mistake, the FDA is a government agency. And apparently, you have no idea of how insurance works. People buy insurance so that it will defray the cost of drugs. The doctors write the prescriptions. If you insurance doesn't cover that drug, you get another insurance policy, or you pay out of your own pocket. It's not the conspiracy that you say it is.
hm so your saying that the governent isnt influenced by money making 'grubbs'? ( my hand washes your hand? ever heard of that? , companies give fda money, in return the companies have rights to sell products that are harmful, but make a lot of money off of them )
[one of]the government's concerns is to make the country more wealthy.
so YOURE the presumptuous person here.
then again we are all presumtuous with things....
p.s. another part of that study showed this:
'Scuse me, but my information is based on fact. Yours is an insubstantial theory that you pulled out of your ass.
And also, the FDA regulates these things to keep the market stable. And how can you make a country more wealthy if the citizens are broke as hell from paying out the ass for unnecessary treatments? Then loans would be taken out, foreclosures would happen. It would be a cycle of debt. Not to mention that it's a massive federal offense.
Also, let's look at your quote. It says that these experts are hired by the government. Not only that, but the government has the final say in the decisions made by the experts. And they also have legislation to regulate this process. Another thing, the government hired those workers, meaning they're signing the paychecks. That means it's an agency run by the government.
And no, we're not all presumptuous. You just make extreme claims from simple statements. I bet you believe in that 9/11 conspiracy crap too.
And if you're saying that the FDA wants to prevent cures, then how about all the vaccines listed here, licensed by the FDA?:
http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/480immunization_list.pdf
Your argument is inconsistent and unfounded. You don't even know how insurance works. And speaking of presumptions, you once again pull an idea out of your ass. I never said the government wasn't influenced by money. To say that is ludicrous. It defies capitalism, as well as the basic human nature of lust for power.
EDIT: I would like to note that the vaccine list I posted is from 2003, so the list is potentially longer now than as is in that document.
first of all.. no i dont pull shit out of my ass
i let it come naturally out into the toilet. flush away...
i smell excesssive self confidence.
i back my shit up by factual quotes.
i never once said that hired by the government. i said that
ADVISE the government.
not HIRED BY the government.
when did i say that???
which i didnt say
no.. THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS are signing the paychecks.
ill answer your quote with a quote.
so you are saying i didnt give factual information to back it up?
Smells delicious, doesn't it? I know you wish you were as good as me, but it's not gonna happen at this rate.
Notice how I highlighted shit. And you used two quotes in relation to one point you were making. You conceded to everything else.
You are fucking stupid. Allow me to point it out for you, since your own quote contradicts you.
They were hired for the purpose of advising you dumb shit. It doesn't happen often, but when someone cuts off their own foot like this, it makes me smile.
You didn't. I did. You're so ignorant it's not even funny. Wait. I lied. It's hilarious. Not only are your theories in your ass, but so is your head.
You are not my source you fucking retard. You're the one I'm proving wrong. Nobody can cite your argument as proof of their claims. That's one of the most ass-backwards things I've heard in a while.
Last I checked, my parents didn't own the FDA. Taxpayers don't distribute the checks, they don't sign the checks. The government gets the taxes, which they partially use to PAY PEOPLES SALARIES. You know, like the people in the FDA.
Well, it certainly didn't back up your argument. After all, I did just point out how you contradicted yourself with your own source.
you put that part into "lets take a look at your quote" i was assuming you were TALKING ABOUT MY QUOTE...
no. it smells like burnt shit and someone being,oh uh, whats that thing your accusing me of, OH YEAH PRESUMPTUOUS..
Since you're not countering anything I say, I'll take that as an admission of defeat.
Anyways, so how long before Gears of War 2? That'll up the ante against PS3 for sure.
One thing I did notice was the use of vaccines as an example for cures.
vaccines != cures
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
Gears of War 2 and Halo 3 are going to blow the PS3 away. the PS3 is not catching up fast enough, and its not long till Microsoft starts lowering costs and such to turn over Sony and put them in a really bad position.
the PS3 is not bringing in enough money, and is supporting blue-ray, since they are making their movies in blue-ray. however, hi-def i think will win this one because too many already use hi-def, not to mention that porn companies use hi-def and not blue-ray. that means that hi-def has a couple more million on their side.
nonetheless, i think that Sony is shaping themselves like Apple, where they offer the best for higher prices but wont ever get ahead because 9 out of 10 people just want computers for the basics. we dont want to pay more than we need to, and the fact that apple computers are hard to upgrade makes it even more like Sony.
I remember hearing about a lawsuit of a series of complaints from the porn industry about HD. They stated that they didn't like HD because it allowed viewers to see the imperfections of pornstars, which would "ruin the fantasy", I believe...
Although HD may have some advantages, cost-wise, the Blu-ray has more capabilities, and even if HD wins in the beginning, Blu-ray is the better choice as a future format. And since it would be in the market for so long, that would give it time to prepare for mass-production and be cheaper with more features (not to mention possibly improvements), before Microsoft can pump out another format.
I disagree with the analogy because Apple's products are based on their simplicity or "basic" nature. You know, that whole "easier to use" thing. It doesn't add up with the goals of PS3. Apple isn't doing as well because its OS isn't suited for the majority of people because of it's limited influence. It has to endorse its own product, unlike Microsoft. There are limited stores, unlike for Microsoft, and the fact that it is virtually impossible to fiddle with its hardware makes it an unideal choice for many.
And if you think about it, Windows is far from basic. The main reason people choose it is because that's the OS that everyone is accustomed to.
And where are you going with the PS3's inability to upgrade? Consoles aren't really meant to be upgraded. They're simply meant to be used until a newer model comes out. Which is basically the same idea that Apple adopted. But that makes Apples similar to consoles in general. Well, you know, except for its limited compatibility with games as well as its inability to process them as well as on a PC of equal power. But I believe that's a coding issue.
Oh man. If you seriously want to talk about the 9/11 conspiracy, start a thread about it. If you'll search for "September 11 was FAKE" or something like that, you'll find the thread. It's closed. But that's partially because I, along with a couple people, basically shut down that theory.
The idea is that it will put Xbox 360 even further ahead of the PS3.