Posted on 02/19/2019 9:39:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The FDA process is horribly cumbersome and DJT is trying to allow for easier compassionate use of trial meds. The Forbes article is very dismissive of the wrong problem in bringing new agents to market. Praying for a cure!
Oh please.
You think money won’t be made fixing cancer?
How much money is lost because the treated patients (often, but admittedly not always) die?
Think about all that, please.
I read a thread on this subject a couple weeks ago, and couldn’t believe it didn’t get any coverage in the media. I mean, it COULD be true. Look at DNA. One day nobody knew it existed, and the next day ... there it was. Breakthroughs happen.
Then I figured the story got no coverage because (1) the media got the heads-up from big pharma lobbyists to keep it on the down-low. (2) The libs/media are anti-Semitic, and don’t want to attribute anything positive to Israel, even if it’ll save millions of lives. This cure absolutely could be true, but there’s no way it’ll be available in the U.S.; big pharma won’t let it.
The upside for Israel is ... a boom in tourism that has never been seen before.
Author confuses over all number of mutations with simultaneous mutations. The Israeli crew says cancer can’t mutate to fix three mutations at the same time
Their approach would require a specialized drug for each patient. It would require specialized clinics, labs and technicians. It would be welcomed by the oncologists and plenty of money would be made by all.
There is no shortage of cancer and no reason why docs wouldn’t be interested in a new tool.
Are we really talking about a ‘cure’ - or just a more effective treatment protocol?
From what I can see cancer itself is not going sway (which to me is the definition of ‘cure’).
Curing cancer would be a disaster for the AMA and Pharma. It’s also against the law in many States.
So I have no idea if this can work. I am not in the medical field. But I did her one of the researchers on a radio program. He did not say they could cure all cancers in a year. He said they could cure a cancer in a year. That it had something to do with adjusting the treatment to the specific patient. And that as their library of successful treatments grew they could cure most cancers in a decade or two. Again, could be the Sham-Wow guy. But I am still hopeful.
“almost mocking, a universal cure for cancer will be severely hurt financially”
So while I agree in general. Everyone dies of something. So, if cancer is cured, can’t they focus on the new, more prevalent causes such as heart attack, dementia, stroke,....? I am sure they can dig up research money on those fronts. Or starts “Homes” for the soylent green folks.
The American Cancer Society and a large group of others would never let such a discovery/cure see the light of day. Ever.
Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Medicine and ObamaCare do not want their biggest money maker to be cured.
Turn cancer cells to fat cells?
But think of all the rejoicing in the millions of mice families in the world; grandma mouseling can get her cancer cured now!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.