Proof that any complete cure for any cancer would be "suppressed"?

German cancer experts are warning of a looming shortage of one of the most widely used drugs to treat the disease – because pharmaceutical companies say it is not financially worth their while to make it any more.

Fluorouracil, also known as 5-FU, is a chemotherapy agent used to treat bowel and breast cancer. It is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for cancer patients worldwide.

But many of Germany's top providers have stopped making the drug because it is not as profitable as other, more expensive ones. Of the six main companies which supplied 5-FU to pharmacies across the country, only one - Medac - is still is doing so, Der Spiegel magazine said on Sunday.

A recent story a couple of days ago:

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20121118-46239.html



What do you think about this? Can we infer from this that the road to creating a complete cure for specific types of cancers etc will be deliberately made very difficult in order to safeguard "profit"? Or is this overreacting?

Any thoughts?

As a Pharmacy student, I think the use of 5-Fluorouracil in developed nations will cease to be used, all be it rarely, over the next few years. Newer drugs have now replaced a lot of its use. Also, surely if there is only 1 company left making it in Germany, they will have more business as the others have dropped off?

If a pharmaceutical company was able to produce a pill that cured a specific form of cancer in six doses, they would be shooting themselves in the foot by not producing and selling it. Think of all the man-hours of care the patient would otherwise have to receive. They could charge what they wanted for that pill.

But a cure would be precisely what large pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want - it would eventually put them out of business as it now makes the industry a short-term one. Consider this situation to put it into perspective: imagine if independent research scientists came up with a cure for a specific form of cancer, but instead of selling it for colossal amounts, they simply gave it free (to the NHS or individuals). This would put many out business and greatly threaten companies in that sector.

But a cure would be precisely what large pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want - it would eventually put them out of business as it now makes the industry a short-term one. Consider this situation to put it into perspective: imagine if independent research scientists came up with a cure for a specific form of cancer, but instead of selling it for colossal amounts, they simply gave it free (to the NHS or individuals). This would put many out business and greatly threaten companies in that sector.

But a cure would be precisely what large pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want - it would eventually put them out of business as it now makes the industry a short-term one. Consider this situation to put it into perspective: imagine if independent research scientists came up with a cure for a specific form of cancer, but instead of selling it for colossal amounts, they simply gave it free (to the NHS or individuals). This would put many out business and greatly threaten companies in that sector.

Very few people are aware of the scientific research that has taken place at the chemical and molecular level over the past few years. This clearly indicates that the marijuana plant has some seriously amazing properties, when it comes to how it reacts with the human body.

"the human body actually contains receptors, onto which various chemicals produced naturally by the body attach themselves in a virtual lock and key fashion. These naturally produced human chemicals are so incredibly close in composition to many of the beneficial chemicals found in Cannabinoids, that they are, to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from each other."


The link includes a video (which is well worth anyones time watching IMHO) ;

http://unconventionalrealms.com/food/natural-cancer-fighters

But a cure would be precisely what large pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want - it would eventually put them out of business as it now makes the industry a short-term one. Consider this situation to put it into perspective: imagine if independent research scientists came up with a cure for a specific form of cancer, but instead of selling it for colossal amounts, they simply gave it free (to the NHS or individuals). This would put many out business and greatly threaten companies in that sector.

This is a very regrettably, pretty close to some real truth.

Success against cancer with modern methods has a truly appalling record if you do some serious research into the cost/benefit ratio.

As for surpressed cures or potential cures, there are any number of them, all usually found in nature.

1. Universities are full of researchers whose main motivations are to discover exiting new things, to publish high impact papers (since this will secure their careers and help them get future funding), and to be the coolest kid at the next conference. They have no motivation to help protect the profits of pharmaceutical companies.

2. The world is full of start-up companies and investors who are constantly searching for the next disruptive technology. Again, they have absolutely no interest in ensuring demand for existing products.

3. Grand conspiracies between larger numbers of people and organisations (with often conflicting goals) are not terribly practical outside of wartime.

Hi there MBob.

Firstly a brief reference to your graph.

Immediately, I dont see too many of those numbers that are anywhere close to 100%

Secondly, could you define what constitutes survival? From all the evidence I have seen this is classified as anyone lasting over 5 years from the time of first diagnosis, which is somewhat misleading don't you think?

Finally, are these figures based upon people who are first diagnosed with the disease, or do they include those many many many cases where the cancer returns?

There can be little doubt that universities and research organisations are full of wonderful, dedicated people who are in turn full of good intentions when it comes to the horrible disease that is cancer. Such membership put their heart and soul into the task. They are heroes to a man/woman.

But who funds these organisations, and more importantly who educates them in the first place?

When it comes to treatment, its all well and good to speak of research and papers, which validate the effectiveness of such treatments, but who carries out the research and trials? Are they independent trials, or are they conducted by the very people who then sell the products?

As for "conspiracy theories", I fail to see how this enters into this particular discussion. If youve seen the video, you will know that all the facts are laid bare within it. Marijuana as a medical aid was completely outlawed in the US back in the 1930's as a result of direct pressure from Corporate Pharmeceutical concerns, who were clearly trying to steer people away from making their own choices, along with those of the medical community about how disease should be treated. This kind of prohibition is if anything actually getting worse.

As for surpressed cures or potential cures, there are any number of them, all usually found in nature.

Where is our protection from "licensed" products such as the whole range of pychotropic concoctions and statin drugs, which all independent studies indicate have zero positive effect in the vast majority of cases over a placebo? ( in the case of psychotropic drugs, often they make matters far worse)?

Which surely begs the question as to how they got their license in the first place? Part of the answer has of course can be explained by the fact that in the first place the trials of such products are also conducted by those same companies who then sell the products.

The practical implications of this, are that if anyone develops cancer, then the only option at their disposal are treatments that are incredibly expensive to us the taxpayer, or sign this paper and then go and finance alternatives for yourself.

Finally, In a world increasingly dominated by bigger and bigger corporations, whose primary concern is the bottom line, cure is a very bad word. Treatment is a far more beneficial alternatve for such concerns.

Beside, you're making an assumption that everyone who is publicly funded is somehow a 'hero' and then everyone who is employed by a company is evil and in-it only for the money. Whereas, actually, people are pretty much the same wherever you go.