Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: Isn't the government stopping the cure?

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by dr.zapp View Post
    We are very much on topic- any government interested in blocking a cure to something with such a low incidence like SCI is of course going to be all over the Big Money involved in a cure for cancer... Lol!!!
    How the government allows continued use of chemo year after year on the cancers that don't respond well shows all they care about is letting the drug companies sell expensive useless treatments. And we let them do it to us. The same will hold true for sci treatments. Look how many people still go for sci treatments even after they have been found not to work. They think maybe it will work for them. And the answer isn't fda approved treatments either, as they allow chemo even with such a poor track record.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by chris arnold View Post
    Mac85,
    OK, throwing the proverbial toys out of the pram will not of it's own, bring a cure for SCI, but as StemcellsandAtombombs rightly says, if the Manhattan Project (an exercise in mass destruction) could be hurried through in a mere 5 years, then the same level of (Western) government commitment across the board could have found a cure; not just a cure for SCI, but address a huge remit including the alleviation of world poverty, and the eradication of what is the world's No 1 killer, malaria.
    There really is no way to compare the Manhattan project w/ finding an SCI cure... apples and oranges. There was almost 50 years of intense research prior to the Manhattan project even starting, so it was more like a 55 year program. It was based on theories using well understood physics and chemical laws. With SCI, we don't even know all the basics of how the CNS functions on a cellular level, much less a molecular one. Biological systems are infinitely more complex and less understood.

    Quote Originally Posted by mastermind View Post
    How the government allows continued use of chemo year after year on the cancers that don't respond well shows all they care about is letting the drug companies sell expensive useless treatments.
    Did you look at the graphs I posted? There are quite a few new treatments that are very effective for certain cancers. By continuing to use the so-called "useless" chemo, we are able to answer some very detailed questions about WHY they don't work for some, but do for others, leading to further development, that has begun to pay off (see the mortality graph for all types of cancer I posted previous, note significant drop from ~1990 to present). Also, once something has been proven safe to use, the government lets the free market decide what stays and what goes- they only step in when safety is an issue.
    Using that logic, the government must be secretly conspiring with homeopathics to make them rich- they sell far more treatments (percentage-wise) that have been proven over and over to be no more effective than placebo.

    This is a topic I know well- I've been in cancer research for 20 years. The past 10 specific for glioblastoma, which is one of those that despite everything we have thrown at it, shows no improvement in survival. Yet about 5% of glioblastoma patients will actually respond and be cured with these "useless" chemo agents. To those 5%, they are anything but useless. We have one such patient that donates $25,000.00 every year to help us find out why they were cured, and 95% of others are not... guess we just need to give all the rich people an SCI and then they would be more motivated to fund it ;-)
    Last edited by dr.zapp; 02-28-2011 at 02:22 PM. Reason: readability

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by dr.zapp View Post
    There really is no way to compare the Manhattan project w/ finding an SCI cure... apples and oranges. There was almost 50 years of intense research prior to the Manhattan project even starting, so it was more like a 55 year program. It was based on theories using well understood physics and chemical laws. With SCI, we don't even know all the basics of how the CNS functions on a cellular level, much less a molecular one. Biological systems are infinitely more complex and less understood.



    Did you look at the graphs I posted? There are quite a few new treatments that are very effective for certain cancers. By continuing to use the so-called "useless" chemo, we are able to answer some very detailed questions about WHY they don't work for some, but do for others, leading to further development, that has begun to pay off (see the mortality graph for all types of cancer I posted previous, note significant drop from ~1990 to present). Also, once something has been proven safe to use, the government lets the free market decide what stays and what goes- they only step in when safety is an issue.
    Using that logic, the government must be secretly conspiring with homeopathics to make them rich- they sell far more treatments (percentage-wise) that have been proven over and over to be no more effective than placebo.

    This is a topic I know well- I've been in cancer research for 20 years. The past 10 specific for glioblastoma, which is one of those that despite everything we have thrown at it, shows no improvement in survival. Yet about 5% of glioblastoma patients will actually respond and be cured with these "useless" chemo agents. To those 5%, they are anything but useless. We have one such patient that donates $25,000.00 every year to help us find out why they were cured, and 95% of others are not... guess we just need to give all the rich people an SCI and then they would be more motivated to fund it ;-)
    I looked at your graphs and I am not impressed at all. The survival rate has increased not because treatments work but because years ago people didn't even know they had cancer growing so now with earlier detection the survival rate appears to be longer.

    I also don't think you as a person who works with cancer and relies on funding really has an unbiased opinion.

    I do think the main issue is as with cancer and with sci there are so many who will take whatever is offered and pray it works for them. And that in itself doesn't make the treatment better cause people try it. I also think Youngs Acorda treatment ampyra is a sign of what sci should expect. Its a scandal

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by mastermind View Post
    I looked at your graphs and I am not impressed at all. The survival rate has increased not because treatments work but because years ago people didn't even know they had cancer growing so now with earlier detection the survival rate appears to be longer.
    These are adjusted mortality rates, not 5 year survival, they correct for age of diagnosis too, so when comparing rates across a large date range like this you can make valid comparisons.
    I may be biased because of my employment, but I'm also well informed by it. Things have never looked better in the fight against cancer.

Similar Threads

  1. Stopping Medicare fraud would cure us
    By Random in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2009, 10:26 AM
  2. Stopping diazepam
    By RaeRae in forum Care
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 04:56 PM
  3. Stopping lyrica
    By sittinsux in forum Care
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-25-2006, 10:36 PM
  4. Stopping 4-ap?
    By matt414 in forum Cure
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-17-2005, 06:22 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-08-2004, 06:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •