The "cure for cancer" conspiracy theory has not legs.

Same for the car that can run on water and the cheap free energy that Tesla was going to provide for the whole world. Just look at how the railroads were the most powerful and wealthy business industry in the entire country. Yet with all their power and money they could not suppress the new technology (automobiles and planes) that made them obsolete.

(06-10-2022, 09:30 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: “ US patents on Harvoni and Epclusa do not expire until 2030 and 2032”

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/comment/gilead-hep-c-generercs/

That's a link about Hepatitis C............ what does that have to do with this?

(06-14-2022, 08:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's a link about Hepatitis C............ what does that have to do with this?

You claimed it would hard to patent a cure. That indicates otherwise.

(06-14-2022, 09:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You claimed it would hard to patent a cure. That indicates otherwise.

That's hepatitis C, which causes cancer but it's not cancer.

Keep trying.

(06-14-2022, 10:48 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's hepatitis C, which causes cancer but it's not cancer.

Keep trying.

I am confused.

Why would it be harder to patent a cure for cancer than any of the thousands of other drugs that have patent protection?

(06-14-2022, 10:48 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's hepatitis C, which causes cancer but it's not cancer.

Keep trying.

It’s information that indicates a cure can be patented. What you do with that information is up to you.

(06-15-2022, 12:09 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It’s information that indicates a cure can be patented. What you do with that information is up to you.

I know it can be but the point is that, even if you patent something, someone will just find ways to make it cheaper.

(06-15-2022, 11:02 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I know it can be but the point is that, even if you patent something, someone will just find ways to make it cheaper.

And that is why healthcare is so inexpensive.

(06-11-2022, 01:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The "cure for cancer" conspiracy theory has not legs.

Same for the car that can run on water and the cheap free energy that Tesla was going to provide for the whole world.  Just look at how the railroads were the most powerful and wealthy business industry in the entire country.  Yet with all their power and money they could not suppress the new technology (automobiles and planes) that made them obsolete.

It's pretty obvious what you are doing here...you're baiting Brad because you know he believes that there is a cure for cancer out there and he believes that big Pharma is "hiding it". The posts you have made in this thread are random and don't have much to do with the OP...they are clearly being used to just bait him.  

Just really weird, man. 

(06-15-2022, 02:46 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote:  The posts you have made in this thread are random and don't have much to do with the OP...they are clearly being used to just bait him.  

How can they be used to "bait him" when I am just responding to comments Brad made first in post #8.

He was the first one to bring up the conspiracy theory that big pharma is preventing a cure for cancer from coming to market.  Why should I not be allowed to respond to a comment that he made first?

And the ONLY post in this thread that is NOT about cancer is this one by YOU that is just trying to stir the pot.  Care to explain that?

(06-15-2022, 03:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How can they be used to "bait him" when I am just responding to comments Brad made first in post #8.

He was the first one to bring up the conspiracy theory that big pharma is preventing a cure for cancer from coming to market.  Why should I not be allowed to respond to a comment that he made first?

And the ONLY post in this thread that is NOT about cancer is this one by YOU that is just trying to stir the pot.  Care to explain that?

Na, not really. 

(06-15-2022, 03:21 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's definitely really weird that he spends so much energy trolling pretty much all of my threads.

I post in lots of threads.  Not just yours.

And I don't "troll" in any of them.  For example none of my posts in this thread have been "trolling".  If you disagree then please tell me where I am wrong.  Maybe we can work out this misunderstanding about how you define "trolling"?  I am sure that would make a lot of people here happy.  They get tired of threads getting derailed by accusations like you and Weezy are making.

(06-15-2022, 03:30 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Na, not really. 

I didn't think so.

But based on Brads most recent post I think you accomplished what you wanted.

(06-15-2022, 11:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And that is why healthcare is so inexpensive.

That's why there is no cure. The drug companies make sure that no cure ever gets patented so they can keep making fortunes off of drugs for chemo and radiation.

(06-16-2022, 09:15 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's why there is no cure. The drug companies make sure that no cure ever gets patented so they can keep making fortunes off of drugs for chemo and radiation.

How do drug companies control what gets a patent?

And how have so many people been cured of cancer if there is no cure?

(06-16-2022, 09:15 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's why there is no cure. The drug companies make sure that no cure ever gets patented so they can keep making fortunes off of drugs for chemo and radiation.

Except I just showed you an example of a cure which is patented which would suggest otherwise.

Can you define what you mean by “cure” and “cured” for me so I understand your definition?

(06-16-2022, 12:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Except I just showed you an example of a cure which is patented which would suggest otherwise.

Can you define what you mean by “cure” and “cured” for me so I understand your definition?

You didn't show me an example of a cure of cancer, so they're two different animals.

My definition of "cure," when speaking about cancer, is to kill the cancer without just killing healthy bodily tissue, as well, which is what chemotherapy and radiation treatments do.

My opinion is that if a drug company found a cure for cancer they would make a lot more than not releasing the cure.   Think about it..  Company A finds a cure for cancer.  Everyone in the world would be buying it.   My guess is a  company that developed a cancer cure would probably be worth close to a trillion dollars these days because it would save the life of millions of people a year.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics

Quote:Statistics at a Glance: The Burden of Cancer Worldwide

• Cancer is among the leading causes of death worldwide. In 2018, there were 18.1 million new cases and 9.5 million cancer-related deaths worldwide.
• By 2040, the number of new cancer cases per year is expected to rise to 29.5 million and the number of cancer-related deaths to 16.4 million.
• Generally, cancer rates are highest in countries whose populations have the highest life expectancy, education level, and standard of living. But for some cancer types, such as cervical cancer, the reverse is true, and the incidence rate is highest in countries in which the population ranks low on these measures.
  

Source: International Agency for Research on Cancer

From what I understand medication can be patented for up to 20 years but can be less.  See the below according to the FDA website.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/frequently-asked-questions-patents-and-exclusivity#howlongexclusivity

(06-16-2022, 03:00 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: My opinion is that if a drug company found a cure for cancer they would make a lot more than not releasing the cure.   Think about it..  Company A finds a cure for cancer.  Everyone in the world would be buying it.   My guess is a  company that developed a cancer cure would probably be worth close to a trillion dollars these days because it would save the life of millions of people a year.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics



From what I understand medication can be patented for up to 20 years but can be less.  See the below according to the FDA website.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/frequently-asked-questions-patents-and-exclusivity#howlongexclusivity

I think with how everything is now on the internet and how information is becoming so available, I wonder how long drug companies can keep a cure suppressed, which this study could be the start.

It also wouldn't surprise me to see drug companies buy it and kill it.

Also, drugs to just to treat cancer made over 100 billion in 2019, so there's another reason to keep people from making a cure public.

(06-16-2022, 02:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: My definition of "cure," when speaking about cancer, is to kill the cancer without just killing healthy bodily tissue, as well, which is what chemotherapy and radiation treatments do.

Now I am getting confused.

You claim that the reason there is no "cure" for cancer is because it is more profitable to "treat" the cancer, but I had an aunt who was treated with chemotherapy until the cancer was gone then she never paid another penny for cancer "treatment" for the next 30 years of her life.  It is not like dialysis that people have to keep receiving for the rest of their life.

So how is big pharma making money when people can have chemotherapy and then not have to spend any more money?