Discussion on cancer research drugs (Split from Rob Steward Court Case Thread)

[boulderjohn]

They want the people addicted to what they are selling, good for their business, who cares about their health.

I have a close acquaintance who is an executive for a company that creates drugs and sells their creations to big Pharma. They focus on cancer treatment. He recently confessed to an ethical problem he has with their work. They focus on treatment that will extend the life and comfort of someone who has cancer. They do not focus on either prevention or a cure, and he said that is true throughout the industry. Give it some thought and you will see why. Once the polio vaccine was created, all the companies making billions of dollars treating it were out of business.

 

[dmaziuk]

Doctors have been getting "bribed" for years for kickbacks on prescriptions.

Oh, come on. It's not bribing when it's 30 million more taxpayer-funded lifetime prescriptions of statins based on research-backed black and white cholesterol norms. It's lobbying for healthcare.

The fun part is, they tell me for most of them maybe 4% of the pill is metabolized. The rest is flushed into waste water, treatment facilities were never designed to remove these sorts of contamination, and then it seeps into the ground and filters back into tap water. Chlorine doesn't remove lyrica and brita filters don't do well with it either. Cheers!

 

[The Chairman]

"Full recovery?" Not sure if they can get that part of the body the same as it was before. We are not talking about a scar on the bottom of one's foot. Also, we are talking about hundreds of incidents, so I think the a-hole factor of the defendant might possibly influence the final award. Let other a-holes take notice.

You’re missing the point and maybe on purpose. I don’t care, if you get it at this point. Eff the coffee... this suit is not frivolous and I sympathiise with the parents and the dive op. They are the victims in my book.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

You’re missing the point and maybe on purpose. I don’t care, if you get it at this point. Eff the coffee... this suit is not frivolous and I sympathiise with the parents and the dive op. They are the victims in my book.

Pete,

No I get your point. I just have a radically different perspective than you.

 

[tridacna]

You’re missing the point and maybe on purpose. I don’t care, if you get it at this point. Eff the coffee... this suit is not frivolous and I sympathiise with the parents and the dive op. They are the victims in my book.

Pete, you seem to imply that the coffee suit was frivolous and this is not. (I think that neither is frivolous). Problem in the US is that everyone seems to think that all lawsuits are frivolous until they slip on a patch of ice outside a supermarket. Then a remarkable transformation in their attitude towards torts occurs. It's amazing.

 

[The Chairman]

Pete, you seem to imply that the coffee suit was frivolous and this is not. (I think that neither is frivolous). Problem in the US is that everyone seems to think that all lawsuits are frivolous until they slip on a patch of ice outside a supermarket. Then a remarkable transformation in their attitude towards torts occurs. It's amazing.

No. No, I don’t. Others want you to believe that to hijack my real point. It makes them feel important, I guess.

 

[Wookie]

Pete,

No I get your point. I just have a radically different perspective than you.

This

 

[dmaziuk]

I have a close acquaintance who is an executive for a company that creates drugs and sells their creations to big Pharma. They focus on cancer treatment. He recently confessed to an ethical problem he has with their work. They focus on treatment that will extend the life and comfort of someone who has cancer. They do not focus on either prevention or a cure, and he said that is true throughout the industry.

Not that I'm defending Evil Corporations(tm) or anything, but there's patients who respond to those treatments well. Is abandoning them more of an ethical problem, or less? To listen to some of the scientists around here, we'll have the cure for aging day after tomorrow, too. Everybody stop helping old lades cross streets now!

 

[boulderjohn]

Not that I'm defending Evil Corporations(tm) or anything, but there's patients who respond to those treatments well. Is abandoning them more of an ethical problem, or less? To listen to some of the scientists around here, we'll have the cure for aging day after tomorrow, too. Everybody stop helping old lades cross streets now!

It depends upon what you mean by "respond to those treatments well." I had a colleague who was cander free for many years after breast cancer. In that case, responding well means something like a cure. He was talking about the fact that most cancer treatments, sometimes costing many, many, many thousands of dollars, are designed to add months to the patient's life.

 

[dmaziuk]

It depends upon what you mean by "respond to those treatments well." I had a colleague who was cander free for many years after breast cancer. In that case, responding well means something like a cure. He was talking about the fact that most cancer treatments, sometimes costing many, many, many thousands of dollars, are designed to add months to the patient's life.

And often at the expense of "comfort" as is common with chemo. Still, look at HIV: there is no cure, people just live with it. It's not clear to me that cancer is not going to end up the same way.