Celtic Heroes

Not even breast cancer specifically, chemotherapy is one of the biggest scams in the modern age, it basically exposes your body to highly radioactive and toxic elements/substances. Which can certainly kill/halt cancer and in doing so does the same thing to the rest of your body, they can't contain it just to the cancer and it often damages the rest of the body severely. I don't agree with or put my faith in 'alternative medicine' so for the current time chemotherapy is the best way to get in remission and the multi billion dollar business it is, really makes the doctors less likely to want a cure not more likely (a huge problem in western doctor system).
Medievil China developed a system where doctors in a village would get paid only when everyone in the village is healthy, in western society the doctor only gets paid when you are sick! So why would he want to cure you and lose a source of income?

The real problem imo is governments limiting the funding for cancer research. Trump for example, wants to cut the NIH funding down by 1/3. If we as a society really want to move away from mediocre treatments, which as you say are basically the only remedy, if you can even call it that, then we need to focus on bringing awareness to the medicial problems and getting governments to support finding a cure.

What have they achieved in the billions of dollars a year they use for "research"? They create high cost treatments that have not improved survival rates and only a certain group can use, as it leaves most people in a mountain of debt.
You make more money treating diseases than curing. They are still mad at all the money they lost curing Polio.

I think you misunderstood, I am not saying your everyday GP is involved in some massive conspiracy to make you sick lol. I'm saying the entire medicinal industry benefits from sick people, not healthy people. That's reason enough for pharmaseuticals and other such 'health' organisations to not make curing you their number 1 priority. That isn't a conspiracy, just basic logic.

I think you misunderstood, I am not saying your everyday GP is involved in some massive conspiracy to make you sick lol. I'm saying the entire medicinal industry benefits from sick people, not healthy people. That's reason enough for pharmaseuticals and other such 'health' organisations to not make curing you their number 1 priority. That isn't a conspiracy, just basic logic.

Ah yes, sorry, misunderstood lol. I meet too many crazy conspiracy people
This is why we need separate R&D that isn't funded by big pharmaceutical companies. Why programs like the NIH are ideal, as these programs are not profit-centered but rather goal orientated. cutting down NIH and similar programs funding results in researchers needing to turn to Big Pharma for jobs to research, which means that their research for a cure takes a back burner compared to the companies profit-seeking.

Not even breast cancer specifically, chemotherapy is one of the biggest scams in the modern age, it basically exposes your body to highly radioactive and toxic elements/substances. Which can certainly kill/halt cancer and in doing so does the same thing to the rest of your body, they can't contain it just to the cancer and it often damages the rest of the body severely. I don't agree with or put my faith in 'alternative medicine' so for the current time chemotherapy is the best way to get in remission and the multi billion dollar business it is, really makes the doctors less likely to want a cure not more likely (a huge problem in western doctor system).
Medievil China developed a system where doctors in a village would get paid only when everyone in the village is healthy, in western society the doctor only gets paid when you are sick! So why would he want to cure you and lose a source of income?

The real problem imo is governments limiting the funding for cancer research. Trump for example, wants to cut the NIH funding down by 1/3. If we as a society really want to move away from mediocre treatments, which as you say are basically the only remedy, if you can even call it that, then we need to focus on bringing awareness to the medicial problems and getting governments to support finding a cure.

What have they achieved in the billions of dollars a year they use for "research"? They create high cost treatments that have not improved survival rates and only a certain group can use, as it leaves most people in a mountain of debt.
You make more money treating diseases than curing. They are still mad at all the money they lost curing Polio.

Are you saying we shouldn't have cured polio? what about small pox? the plague? what about wiping out malaria from most of the world? The difference between these campaigns and lets say the campaign for AIDS is that the WHO ran the campaigns for Small Pox and Polio, where as capitalism and pharmaceutical companies run the operations for AIDs.
Capitalism needs regulations to spur investment in a way where it favors humanity over corporate greed.
For example, look at the auto industry. U.S. automakers did not start to develop fuel-efficient vehicles until the price of gasoline rose and the government started to provide tax incentives for purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles. The demand shifted to fuel efficiency and thus automakers followed. Capitalism and corporations follow demand unless they are kodak or blackberry .
In order to produce medicinal research that wasn't profit driven and doesn't provide medication that only a sector of society can afford, either the government needs to regulate the pharmacy industry, or it needs to provide grants for research outside the large pharmaceutical firms. Problem is, especially in the U.S., politicians are shortsighted and special interest plays too big a role in elections, so politicians favor big pharma and thus won't regulate. And at the same time they remove funding from programs like the NIH in the U.S.

You make more money treating diseases than curing.

So yes, with the current set up of the economic systems this is the case, but it is possible to change this. The government could provide business tax incentives to R&D focused on cures, not treatments, speed up regulatory approval process for drugs focused on cures (not rushed, but let them get to front of the line for approval process), and lastly the government can up its spending on programs like the U.S.'s NIH, and provide a more specific handout specification so that development and research orientated at finding a cure gets priority.

But even if none of this happens it doesn't mean society doesn't have a vested interest in combating disease and illness. The bubonic plague shrunk the known world's population by 1/3, which pushed back the industrial revolution centuries. If a disease like this were to sweep today's world, with how connected the world is between airplanes providing much faster travel, and how much more crowded the world is, more people live in cities today than ever, and unlike the time of the bubonic plague agrarian societies are pretty much extinct, if a disease like the bubonic plague hit us today, it would be detrimental to society, prolonging technical revolutions and the coming automation of industries. The only way to prevent, or try to prevent such a catastrophe, is by always researching, always improving.

The world has cured polio, cured smallpox, almost cured malaria, we have a cure to the bubonic plague, why not cancer?

What I'm trying to say is, after Nixon's war on cancer in 1971, CANCER DEATH RATES are still about the SAME in 1971-2017 and that was 46 YEARS AGO. I believe after all this time, and the billions invested we should have at least lowered the rate. Tbh, some researchers in the 1970s prob have kids that are still working on the same thing.

I think this thread has gone rather off topic... This was an awesome thread about caring clans and servers wearing pink to show support for a noble cause. Can we get back to that? This has deteriorated into a (rather interesting, I must admit) political debate. I'd love to see the end of this, but could y'all take it into the Off Topic area? This is a wonderful, happy thread, and though big pharm is very loosely related, it's kind of depressing the upbeat feel of this thread. Can you guys take it elsewhere? I'll come with ya, and bring popcorn...

What I'm trying to say is, after Nixon's war on cancer in 1971, CANCER DEATH RATES are still about the SAME in 1971-2017 and that was 46 YEARS AGO. I believe after all this time, and the billions invested we should have at least lowered the rate. Tbh, some researchers in the 1970s prob have kids that are still working on the same thing.

You make a few assumptions that would need to be true for your claim that cancer death rates should have decreased but didn't, thus campaigns against cancer don't work.

1) Nixon ran effective campaigns against problems. This is pretty false. Nixon is also notorious for starting the controversial war on drugs that was ultimately based on racial assumptions about marijuana use, a drug that researchers at the time concluded was harmless. Not only did drug use stay the same, but today we are still trying to reverse the policies. Another failed campaign was Vietnam. And then, we can't forget Watergate... Nixon is not known for effective campaigns. So sure, the name may have been a "war on cancer," but in effect it was ineffective because of the administration. It was a catchy slogan that Nixon could use for PR.

2) All campaigns are the same. Your assuming that because one type of campaign against cancer "failed," that all other attempts will. Although there is a point where trying the same thing over and over again doesn't work you need to move on, cancer does not fall into this category, nor frankly do the past attempts meet this criteria. Cancer is a collection of multiple different diseases that act the same, yet cannot be cured or treated the same. As such, there is no time x that it will take to find a cure, rather it is an accumulation of trial and error. This is how most medicine is created. Often times the medicine that is produced fails to solve the problem it was created for, although sometimes it solves an ailment it was unintended to solve. If we still have this rate of failure in 2017, what makes you think that the rate would have been the same or lower in 1971? It would logically have been lower. Technology, especially in biochemistry and science as a whole, has drastically improved since then. Just this year, the noble prize was awarded to a group of chemists who discovered a new way to map out diseases and view them on an atomic level. A long and continuous commitment to a campaign of cancer is needed, not a half-hearted short-term one for PR.

3) You assume that only a fail in the campaign accounts for the similar deaths of cancer. Firstly, cancer is genetic, which means that until it is cured it should spread throughout the population, and the cancer risk for the population should increase over time. Given that this is the case, cancer deaths should have increased over time if the campaign had been a complete or even partial failure, yet you claim they stayed the same, which is false. Mortality rates have decreased, largely due to an advancement in treatment and detection, where as the rate of cases has increased, largely due to the genetic component and an increase in radiation in our environment. Thus from all of this, it is clear that Nixon, who is notorious for failed campaigns, through his half-hearted efforts, started a campaign that would start the ball rolling. Nixon, however, is not worthy of full credit what so ever however, rather it is charity groups who have spent millions raising awareness over the decades, encouraging testing and treatment. Imagine if we were to couple the charity group's donations and activism with an effective federal if not global campaign?

No offense but seriously STFU with derailing the thread already.

Please take your useless banter and unwanted opinions to the off topic section. This was started as way to honor an event that some of us in clan Relentless are taking part in, nothing more, nothing less.

+1 to frum I could careless about the politics behind was has or hasn’t been done it’s a thread to increase spirits not for a history check.

Wearing pink doesn't show anything other than you have pink fashion... saying you're supporting Breast Cancer just by wearing pink is rather lazy imo. Real support is donating to families that struggle through bills on top of bills for treatment. Go out and make a difference.

I've been to many cancer benefits and lost many people in my life to cancer, and after a while, you start to realize how bs some people are when it comes to supporting cancer.

I'm sorry for the rant and especially sorry if you were offended by this, I couldn't help it. Have a good day!

Wearing pink doesn't show anything other than you have pink fashion... saying you're supporting Breast Cancer just by wearing pink is rather lazy imo. Real support is donating to families that struggle through bills on top of bills for treatment. Go out and make a difference.

I've been to many cancer benefits and lost many people in my life to cancer, and after a while, you start to realize how bs some people are when it comes to supporting cancer.

I'm sorry for the rant and especially sorry if you were offended by this, I couldn't help it. Have a good day!

Just showing your ignorance. It's Breast Cancer Awareness Month, something you fail to understand about the word awareness? Or what the act of spreading awareness is about? Should take your incorrect and opinionated views elsewhere.