Instead of TREATING cancer?
Answer:
Honestly, No, I don't think they want a cure. I am a young BC survivor that has to have a monthly shot and daily pill for at least 5 years after finishing chemo. If I did not have insurance that would cost me around $500 per month, my pills cost $221 for 30, thats over $7 per pill. if they 'cured' me then all that money that my insurance company is paying would not hit their pockets
I don't think so. If they cured cancer how would they make money after they cured everyone? I mean Pharmaceutical companies are still business at heart, they want to make money.
If someone offered every company 10 billion dollars to cure cancer- there would be one tomorrow.There is too much money to be made in pushing cancer meds- which by the way average about 1500-3500 a month for a patient and that's not including the chemo.so do the math, do you REALLY think they couldn't have cured it already?
Yes, I'm sure they are. Can you imagine if you were the first drug company to actually cure cancer? Of course they want to be the first. It would be the greatest breakthrough - ever - for any pharmaceutical company. Everyone has been touched or will be touched by this disease, so I can't imagine any company not wanting to be first in finding a cure.
if they had a cure, they would go out of business - like a cold.. aspirin, cough medicine, etc etc would crumble.. dont expect a cure to come out anytime soon
In this particular day and age of dishonesty being the predominant feature of business and government I think it is very possible that the pharmaceutical companies are solely out for gain and are only treating cancer instead of looking for a cure.
Maybe if someone like Bill Gates got cancer scientists would find a cure but it would probably only be for the type that he would get.
No the companies are making way too much money on just the treatment of cancer maybe indiviual Pharmacist cause that would be a great acheivement but the companies couldn't care less even if they do it would have a high price on it. that would still force people to go the kemo instead of the cure which probably be a last resort type thing
No way. I believe that all pharmaceutical companies are in it strictly for the money and if they invented something that cured a disease, then they would lose money because people would get well.
Yes they are, and it isn't going to put them out of business, but it isn't jsut pharmacutical companies that will have a cure, it will be a lot. However, so you cure it, more people will get it, so the demand will be their, unless you can make a vaccine, which is impossible based on the types of cancer.Howerver, did pharmaceuticals NOT make a vaccine for smallpox? the flu? Even ChickenPox? Even though a cure is made or if somehow a vaccine is developed, you STILL have demand, remember, got tons of new fresh people popping up every day...As far as the $10-billion to whoever makes a cure, no, that won't do it. However, yes, we could have a cure for cancer and aids tomorrow, but our society can't handle it. You need everyone to get together to do it, and most of our society won't nor will they do it without pay. Eliminate money and set goals for everyone, and we won't only have cures, we will be on mars next year. maybe even some even cooler stuff. It all comes down to money that is holding back the research and development. Time for a society change where people don't think only about themselves. Enemy #1 was the creation of money...We need a society where "everyone" works together for free on one goal, and it goes down the line per the project.The only thing they do is charge insane amounts of money, like $300 a month for a bottle of seizure pills, and that is with insurance..
Are people really that cynical? The amount of money that would be made from a CURE for the common cold, let alone cancer, would be worth a mint.I'm not trying to be a greedy capitalist, but think of what the company could/would charge. Treatments would be subsidized by the governments. Patients would flock to clinics to be CURED! And, to top it off, new patients would still be out there. A cure for even one type of cancer would be huge! The issue is that you can't cure something that mutates as fast as cancer. Different cells are targeted by cancers, and mutate in numerous different directions. That's why the chemo used for one cancer doesn't necessarily treat another.
This is one of the top ten myths about cancer. It's an urban legend. However you are missing a key ingredient . . it isn't just the pharmacy companies that don't want a cure . . its all companies that sell health products, vitamins, holistic 'cures', health clinics, . . all of them that are against cures . . because if they found a cure for cancer they would go out of business too. Discovey: Cancer Myth # 9"Cancer Myth 9: There is currently a cure for cancer, but the medical industry won't tell the public about it because they make too much money treating cancer patients.
Respondents Who Agreed: 28 percentOrigin of Myth: Urban LegendReality: One overarching fact that clearly disputes this conspiracy theory is that doctors and laboratory scientists along with their families die of cancer at the same rate as everyone else in the United States. There is one exception, though. Health-care professionals and biomedical researchers are less likely to develop and/or die of lung, larynx, esophageal and other tobacco-related cancers because they are more aware of the dangers of tobacco and are less likely to smoke than the rest of the population.And why would anyone hide a cure for cancer? Medical breakthroughs of all kinds are quickly announced and applied �?as the world has seen with antibiotics and vaccines, such as the polio vaccine.Also, finding one all-encompassing cure for cancer is unlikely. Cancer comes in many different forms, and for several of them, there are already cures available for the majority of patients.Only a few decades ago, less than one in 10 children with leukemia survived 10 years after diagnosis. With modern chemotherapy, the cure rate for these children is almost 80 percent. Examples of similar progress include Hodgkin's lymphoma, bone and kidney cancers in children, and testicular cancer.Fewer than half of all people with cancer in the United States actually die of the disease �?and many who are not "cured" of cancer still go on living for years with relatively few changes in their lives, thanks to years of research, which has produced many advances in the fight against many of the different types of the disease. But to suggest that there currently exists an all-encompassing cure for cancer that doctors are aware of is quite inaccurate."http://health.discovery.com/centers/canc...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment