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
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 retarded it just knocks the brain cells out of me.
Yeah, but the kids love it, so…..
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.
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
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.
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.
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
