Cure For HIV/AIDS?

[SteelCitySouth]

(11-08-2015, 08:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I was wrong about 125 billion, but cancer is a very profitable business because the treatment is a lot more valuable than the cure.

Hilarious.  This entire back and forth has been solely on the part of Fred and others about the claims you made about cancer.  In particular your claim about drugs that are made to ease the side effects of Chemo.  Instead of actually reading and intellectually reviewing the material and the arguments against your claims you deflected and attempted to make this a Fred issue.  

Your narcissism is fully exposed by the one sentence blurb about you being wrong about the entire issue at hand.  No one cares about your issues with Fred.  No one but you.  Keep your self pity and woe is me attitude out of these threads form now on and address the arguments made against your "claims".  

[Tiger Teeth]

Let's all be honest. We all love a good breakdown by Brad. His trainwreck antics are good reading. I was genuinely happy for you in your thread about walking. But now we're back to the same Brad we all know. Keep it up, you're entertaining, especially when you're wrong.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-08-2015, 08:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Then why'd you post it?  


Because you figured everyone would just blindly follow you like they do on all the other stupid shots you take at me.  

I was wrong about 125 billion, but cancer is a very profitable business because the treatment is a lot more valuable than the cure.

HOLY SHEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeetttttttttt!!!!!!!  When did you figure that out, Brad?

Brad, how much would you pay to "cure" your injuries?  Is there any amount of money you wouldn't pay?  How much would be too much?  What is the break point at which you would say, "Screw it, that's too much.  I'll live with the disabilities."?

How much do you think your parents would pay if a "cure" was available for their son?

Do you think any of your doctors would withhold a "cure" because they would make more money by just treating your injuries instead of "curing" your injuries?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-09-2015, 06:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: HOLY SHEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeetttttttttt!!!!!!!  When did you figure that out, Brad?

Brad, how much would you pay to "cure" your injuries?  Is there any amount of money you wouldn't pay?  How much would be too much?  What is the break point at which you would say, "Screw it, that's too much.  I'll live with the disabilities."?

How much do you think your parents would pay if a "cure" was available for their son?

Do you think any of your doctors would withhold a "cure" because they would make more money by just treating your injuries instead of "curing" your injuries?

Brad, do you have an answer to any of these questions?

[TSwigZ]

Wrap your tool and don't slay dirty floozies

[XenoMorph]

(11-09-2015, 06:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Do you think any of your doctors would withhold a "cure" because they would make more money by just treating your injuries instead of "curing" your injuries?

For that i would say YES maybe not the doctors themselves but the phrama company the created said cure.

Because Treating injuries or illnesses to keep you alive but not cure it is way more profitable. And Big Pharm companies are out to make money not save lives. (and they buy off a lot of doctors)

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-12-2015, 02:56 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: For that i would say YES maybe not the doctors themselves but the phrama company the created said cure.

Because Treating injuries or illnesses to keep you alive but not cure it is way more profitable.  And Big Pharm companies are out to make money not save lives.  (and they buy off a lot of doctors)

So I guess they withhold the cure for cancer from family members, too?  How much would you pay for a cure if a family member had cancer?  Tell me how much would be too much.  Do you think pharmaceutical companies withhold the cure for cancer from people like Steve Jobs?

Look, the "cure" for cancer is a licence to print money because people would pay whatever the drug company asked.

[XenoMorph]

(11-16-2015, 11:50 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So I guess they withhold the cure for cancer from family members, too?  How much would you pay for a cure if a family member had cancer?  Tell me how much would be too much.  Do you think pharmaceutical companies withhold the cure for cancer from people like Steve Jobs?

Look, the "cure" for cancer is a licence to print money because people would pay whatever the drug company asked.

why print out the CURE for a 1 time charge of whatever you want when you can present a TREATMENT for a once a day charge of whatever you want.

And yes i believe they would. they are in it for the money

[crispy]

(11-16-2015, 01:03 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: why print out the CURE for a 1 time charge of whatever you want when you can present a TREATMENT for a once a day charge of whatever you want.

And yes i believe they would.  they are in it for the money

So you think every doctor/researcher would withhold the cure from their relatives because they are in it for the money?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-16-2015, 01:03 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: why print out the CURE for a 1 time charge of whatever you want when you can present a TREATMENT for a once a day charge of whatever you want.

And yes i believe they would.  they are in it for the money

If the price to the patient is "whatever you want" why have the patients come back multiple times which only increases your overhead and reduces your profit?

[Au165]

(11-16-2015, 01:03 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: why print out the CURE for a 1 time charge of whatever you want when you can present a TREATMENT for a once a day charge of whatever you want.

And yes i believe they would.  they are in it for the money

The same flaw in massive conspiracy theories applies here as well, someone would leak it, either to the public or a competitor. While the "company" attitude may work for the execs it doesn't work for random guy in a lab who, while making good money, isn't a millionaire. Other issue is the idea of being first to market. You can't assume that all pharmaceutical companies are in some sort of cahoots. It would benefit any company to be the first with the cure, at least patent it, rather than be playing catch up once someone else has it. Whoever developed and patented it first would see such an astronomical climb in the stock price that it would benefit an exec to put it out just from the massive PR bump alone.

[TSwigZ]

Apparently you can get it from tiger blood


Ask charlie

[GodFather]

Thats Charlie Sheen messing with people again!

[fredtoast]

(11-16-2015, 01:03 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: why print out the CURE for a 1 time charge of whatever you want when you can present a TREATMENT for a once a day charge of whatever you want.

And yes i believe they would.  they are in it for the money

Because they could charge more for the cure than treatment of the symptoms.

If there was anything to your theory then we would not have chemotherapy.

We also would not have cures to ANY disease because the same logic should apply to every other disease in addition to cancer, right?  People who suffer from polio live long lives that require constant treatment.  Why would we have done away with polio?  why would we have cures to any disease?

I still say that the cure would be more valuable than the cost of treatment, especially since many people with cancer die instead of living and paying for treatment for years.

[fredtoast]

Also big pharmaceutical companies are not the only ones working on cures for cancer.

There are millions of dollars of research being done in private labs and in colleges. None of these researchers would have any reason to hide a cure.

[Se ky bengal]

(11-17-2015, 02:36 PM)TSwigZ Wrote: Apparently you can get it from tiger blood


Ask charlie

And goddesses  

[BFritz21]

(11-20-2015, 12:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because they could charge more for the cure than treatment of the symptoms.

If there was anything to your theory then we would not have chemotherapy.

We also would not have cures to ANY disease because the same logic should apply to every other disease in addition to cancer, right?  People who suffer from polio live long lives that require constant treatment.  Why would we have done away with polio?  why would we have cures to any disease?

I still say that the cure would be more valuable than the cost of treatment, especially since many people with cancer die instead of living and paying for treatment for years.

lol!

Chemotherapy actually is what makes his theory valid!

I don't know how many times I have to explain chemotherapy to you, but chemotherapy isn't exactly a "cure," but rather is just a poison that kills most things it comes into contact with in the body, but the hope is that it kills the cancer before it kills too much of the body.

Do you really think a "cure" would cause hair loss, vomiting, diarrhea, pain, fatigue, mouth and throat sores, sexual and reproductive issues, and I'm sure there are many more side effects I'm forgetting?

The money is made off of the drugs to counter all of those side effects.

A cure wouldn't be more valuable because 1 a cure is a one time thing and 2 they would just keep coming up with cheaper ways to make the cure since it can't be copyrighted.  

What's hilarious is you just said (and have many times before) that chemotherapy is a cure, yet your last sentence states that a cure would be more valuable!  If chemotherapy is a cure, why isn't it more valuable than itself!?

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-21-2015, 11:26 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: lol!

Chemotherapy actually is what makes his theory valid!

I don't know how many times I have to explain chemotherapy to you, but chemotherapy isn't exactly a "cure," but rather is just a poison that kills most things it comes into contact with in the body, but the hope is that it kills the cancer before it kills too much of the body.

Do you really think a "cure" would cause hair loss, vomiting, diarrhea, pain, fatigue, mouth and throat sores, sexual and reproductive issues, and I'm sure there are many more side effects I'm forgetting?

The money is made off of the drugs to counter all of those side effects.

A cure wouldn't be more valuable because 1 a cure is a one time thing and 2 they would just keep coming up with cheaper ways to make the cure since it can't be copyrighted.  

What's hilarious is you just said (and have many times before) that chemotherapy is a cure, yet your last sentence states that a cure would be more valuable!  If chemotherapy is a cure, why isn't it more valuable than itself!?

Any time you want to believe that anyone would want to cover up a cure for cancer because treatment would make them so much more money...you need to realize the scores of thousands of people that are looking for a cure. It's not like there is one or two research labs that could easily be controlled. 

It would be impossible for anyone to suppress a cure for cancer. Money has absolutely no say in the matter. 

[BFritz21]

(11-21-2015, 11:35 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Any time you want to believe that anyone would want to cover up a cure for cancer because treatment would make them so much more money...you need to realize the scores of thousands of people that are looking for a cure. It's not like there is one or two research labs that could easily be controlled. 

It would be impossible for anyone to suppress a cure for cancer. Money has absolutely no say in the matter. 

It's not exactly easy to find a cure, which is why it's easy to suppress a cure.

Most recent example is when you'd wrap chemo in protein, and, since cancer loves protein, the cancer attacks the protein, and then the chemo is unleashed in the cancer when it tries to consume the protein.  

People say that it might just be in testing phases, but you'd hear more about it if it wasn't being suppressed, plus it had already been tested on a lot of patients.

However, not as many drugs (if any) are needed to counter the side effects, making it non-profitable to drug companies.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2015, 11:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's not exactly easy to find a cure, which is why it's easy to suppress a cure.

Most recent example is when you'd wrap chemo in protein, and, since cancer loves protein, the cancer attacks the protein, and then the chemo is unleashed in the cancer when it tries to consume the protein.  

People say that it might just be in testing phases, but you'd hear more about it if it wasn't being suppressed, plus it had already been tested on a lot of patients.

However, not as many drugs (if any) are needed to counter the side effects, making it non-profitable to drug companies.

1.  If this were true then it would apply to every disease, not just cancer.  We would never get any cures for anything.

2.  So many types of cancer kill the patient that there is not really that long a period of "treatment".

3.  Pharmaceutical companies are not the only ones working on cures for cancer.  Private foundations and colleges are also working on cures, and they have no reason to suppress cures.

4.  A cure would make a pharmaceutical company more money that treating the symptoms.

5.  We do have cures for some types of cancer.

6.  If you read about a promising cure on the internet then that is proof that it was NOT being suppressed.  If you were able to find it then so were many other private researchers. 

7.  IF COMPANIES WERE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY MONEY OFF A CURE THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE RESEARCH.