Cure for Cancer

[HappyCCRVr]

snopes.com: Scientists Cure Cancer, But No One Takes Notice

Cancer cured in Canada! Big Pharma has no interest!.mp4 - YouTube

Jack Andraka - 15 Year Old invents Groundbreaking Cancer Test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Andraka

Thoughts and comments please..

[BigSkyBob]

The usual bottom line is still $$$$$$$

[slickest1]

You would think one of our goverments would fund the research of something that is that promising.

[Possum]

Originally Posted by HappyCCRVr

what interest would governments have in reducing profits for the pharma industry, and the tax base it brings for doctors profiting from 'helping' people deal with their cancer?

The same University in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada has a procedure they call the Edmonton Protocol that a young gentleman here in Port Alberni went through and he is no longer any type of Diabetic. He was born type one and went through the whole regimen of daily insulin injections for 99% of his life. Year before last (ISTR) he went for the treatment and since has not been on insulin. Rumour has it the whole procedure is being claimed ineffective by big pharma because they can't make money off it. Strange thing is I am Diabetic but our provincial operators of the Canadian Health Services will not pay for me to get the treatment. I can go get it myself but that's how ineffective our health care is. If there is interest I will look for the news coverage Youtube files interviewing him pre and post procedure.

[HappyCCRVr]

There is endless information also about how we can cure our ailments, illness, and disease with food and herbs. No profit in something that grows in nature though.

[HappyCCRVr]

there is also procedures in Europe that help people with MS. Medicare won't pay for that either, because it makes them well, and their profits is in keeping them in their dis ease.

[Muddypaws]

He was only cured for about 3-6 months and had to be on immuno-supressive therapy, which of itself is more expensive and risky that daily injections. So yeah, it boils down to money. But the clinic or the pharma industry are not the bad guys. It's the insurance industry and simple economics.

If there is a breakthrough treatment it has to be absolutely foolproof, proven, and less expensive that whatever's out there now. I personally worked on a vastly superior insulin pump but when we figured out that over the lifetime of a patient it would be a few thousand dollars more expensive than existing pumps/supplies the project was halted because the insurance companies would NEVER go for it.

By the way: My aunt was given this drug in Mexico and told she was 100% cured.

She died of breast cancer a few weeks later.

[Possum]

I can't find it right now but a couple of years ago one of the Canadian TV networks did a show on the cancer Cure that the Edmonton Hospital was promoting using an older drug that was no longer in production as the patent had run out. Nobody was interested in manufacturing the drug any longer because it was not all that profitable to Pharma.

Of course the inverse is that the various cancer research funding societies have become more about the fund raising and less about the cure. Too many societies with too many people collecting a wage to actually want a real cure; hundreds of thousands put out of work that way.

You pick which side of the coin you support.

[HappyCCRVr]

Originally Posted by Muddypaws

He was only cured for about 3-6 months and had to be on immuno-supressive therapy, which of itself is more expensive and risky that daily injections. So yeah, it boils down to money. But the clinic or the pharma industry are not the bad guys. It's the insurance industry and simple economics.

If there is a breakthrough treatment it has to be absolutely foolproof, proven, and less expensive that whatever's out there now. I personally worked on a vastly superior insulin pump but when we figured out that over the lifetime of a patient it would be a few thousand dollars more expensive than existing pumps/supplies the project was halted because the insurance companies would NEVER go for it.

By the way: My aunt was given this drug in Mexico and told she was 100% cured.

She died of breast cancer a few weeks later.

Your comment about the insurance companies makes no sense to me, they would have less risk would they not?

The FDA will never ever approve a substance from nature that cannot be patented. There is no profit in that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTGye7kA6rM

Eye opening documentary

[HappyCCRVr]

Jack Andraka, the Teen Prodigy of Pancreatic Cancer | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Jack Andraka: Detecting pancreatic cancer... at 15 - YouTube

[Muddypaws]

The FDA doesn't care about profit at all. But a pharmaceutical company that doesn't make a profit is soon an empty building and no use to anybody.

This is a very simplified version of how it works:

The insurance companies, including the VA and Medicare, control the formularies. A formulary is simply a list of what drugs, devices, and treatments they will pay for.

If you can't get your new 'thing' into about 80% of the formularies you're pretty much destined to be an empty building.

This is one of the main reasons there are ads for prescription drugs on TV. If enough patients ask for a specific drug it will probably be added to the formulary eventually.

Insurance companies pay less for off patent (generic) drugs. To say that off patent drugs are ignored because they are less profitable is backwards. If the insurance company can give you a generic they have avoided a higher cost drug and have a higher profit.

[HappyCCRVr]

Originally Posted by Muddypaws

The FDA doesn't care about profit at all. But a pharmaceutical company that doesn't make a profit is soon an empty building and no use to anybody.

This is a very simplified version of how it works:

The insurance companies, including the VA and Medicare, control the formularies. A formulary is simply a list of what drugs, devices, and treatments they will pay for.

If you can't get your new 'thing' into about 80% of the formularies you're pretty much destined to be an empty building.

This is one of the main reasons there are ads for prescription drugs on TV. If enough patients ask for a specific drug it will probably be added to the formulary eventually.

Insurance companies pay less for off patent (generic) drugs. To say that off patent drugs are ignored because they are less profitable is backwards. If the insurance company can give you a generic they have avoided a higher cost drug and have a higher profit.

If the pharma drugs work better, the buildings would remain full, would they not?
I don't know of an insurance company that will only pay for the generic brand of drugs. I am amazed at the cost of the RX itself, compared to the Pharmacist 'dispensing fee'.

About the prescription ads on television (US), we get a kick out of the ads that follow: 'if you have used bla bla Rx and have experienced bladder infections, blindness, or even death, call Bla Bla Legal Firm' (not actual quote) It won't cost you anything until your case is won'. We have even had these ads sent to our cell phone voice mail!

Oh, and if you watch the documentary posted above, you will learn more about the FDA.

[Muddypaws]

The warnings you get a kick out of are indeed the FDA in action.

Every adverse reaction logged in clinical trials is required to be stated, even if there is no way it could be attributed to what's being tested.

I've been involved in several FDA compliance audits and my opinion is that they are very serious about our safety. I've seen what they do to people & companies who try to mislead them.

Imagine what would happen if they weren't there. Holy cow! It would be like living in China or maybe even worse.

Almost every HMO, MCO, the VA etc will default to a generic if it's available. Some will let you select a branded drug but you pay the additional cost.

Of course newer better drugs get into the formularies, that's the whole point.

The one I get the biggest kick out of is the stuff for 'Restless Leg Syndrome'. When did that become a disease? About the same time somebody noticed they had a drug to treat it.

[HappyCCRVr]

The warnings we get a kick out of are actually the attorneys in action
The FDA approves GMO foods.GMO Animals. GM Crops. GM Salmon (Frankenfish),

FDA Approves Drug Made from Genetically Modified Plants
Why Should You Opppose Genetically Modified Foods? | Food & Water Watch

What is the Difference Between FDA Approved Drugs and Health Canada Approved Drugs? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Here's what the FDA approved, and then had to withdraw due to safety concerns in the last 60 days:
Recalls, Market Withdrawals, & Safety Alerts

More recalled drugs approved by FDA. The products were on the market from 11 months to 30 years, based on a review of Food and Drug Administration data obtained by Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...da-review.html

Meanwhile, way back in 2006,

The Food and Drug Administration is sometimes too slow in picking up safety problems once drugs are on the market and in responding to emerging danger signals, a federal study concluded in a report to be released today.

The review by the Government Accountability Office found that the FDA does not have clear policies for addressing drug safety issues and that it sometimes excludes its best safety experts from important meetings.

The report also calls on Congress to consider expanding the FDA's authority to require that drug companies conduct studies of already-approved products. The agency's ability to order post-market studies is now limited, and many drug companies have been slow to conduct studies that they had agreed to undertake as a condition of gaining FDA approval

FDA Is Criticized Over Drugs' Safety Problems

Ironically, people living in China have been benefiting from natural cures provided in nature for thousands of years, many of which are now used in North America by naturopathic doctors, as well as alopathic doctors who are knowledgeable of the benefits (Integrative Health Care)

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/A...ttom_Line.html