According to the BBC, scientists have used a version of the
anthrax toxin to kill tumours in mice. The toxin was so effective
that after just one treatment tumours were reduced in size by
up to 92% in the mice.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2643223.stm

:cool:

the key sentence once again was:

The researchers stress that further research is needed to determine if the engineered anthrax toxin will have similar effects in humans.

some things work in mice that don't work for humans...let's keep out fingers crossed

whats the point?:(

she dies in 2 months:(

doubt it will be ready by then:(

i apologise is the above reply comes out as bitter

could be CAUSE IT IS:mad:

there is no law against being bitter asG.

*hug*

wooooo, ok now we can see your in a lot of pain here but maybe this will make you feel better: this is not a cure for cancer!, it just a treatment. There will never be a cure for cancer though the day will come when cancer is about a lethal as the flue (5% lethality rate and lower) I can put a good bet that this treatment does not work in all situations and does have side effects.

Why do you think that there is never going to be a cure for cancer? That would be horrible if thats really the case. You really shouldn't have bursted my bubble.:(

Speculative, but if nanotechnology can come to fruition as envisioned, cancer could be fixed, cell by cell.

But for now, we use what we have, and this is good news, even if it's limited.

I'm saying that someday (20 years from now) cancer will be a lethal as the flue!

a company with the stock ticker symbol GMXX has just patented development of a gene therapy for cancer. The gene, TAP stimulates the immune system to attack cancerous cells. This is the first step to a cure for cancer.

http://www.genemax.com/section/research.htm

Do you know how much a single share of their company is going for, at the moment?

Edit: after looking through their site it appears as if the treatment is not a cure but merely a life extender, it looks as if TAP only doubles the life expectancies of a terminal cancer patient, which isn't bad, but it still isn't a cure. Correct me if I'm wrong.

heck, "they" already have a cure for cancer, they just won't release it, because of all the billions they would lose on their very lucrative "cancer business".

AMEN! we need socialized medicine!

i second that motion! i think i'm gonna go on a crusade..

Originally posted by pumpkinsaren'torange
heck, "they" already have a cure for cancer, they just won't release it, because of all the billions they would lose on their very lucrative "cancer business".
Maybe I should spend some more time lurking before I jump in... ah what the heck!

Not a scientist, are you pumpkin? Or an economist. How much money do you think the pharma companies (whom I am assuming you mean by "they") make from NOT having a drug?

And socialized medicine - how will that pay for the research and devolpment of new drugs? Are cancer rates lower in the UK or Canada than in the US? Actually, each of these countries already pays for drug research via government grants to scientists in Universities and academic institutions.

Pay for development with production grants!!! production grants have given the USofA the best most advanced military force there is. And yes today other countiers are chruning out reseach results as fast as we are. Also think about how much of your insurance money goes just keeping those CEOs rich.

Maybe I should spend some more time lurking before I jump in... ah what the heck!

*** aw, what the heck...jump right in...the water's fine.



Not a scientist, are you pumpkin?

*** not much of one, nooooo....although i did major in biology/microbiology with a degree from that crappy midwestern institute of higher learning called: University of Iowa. (Go Hawks!)


Or an economist.

*** fat chance. i love spending money, too much ...however not on high-priced, exorbinant, out-of-this-world-amounts on current prescription prices!




How much money do you think the pharma companies (whom I am assuming you mean by "they") make from NOT having a drug?

*** you were correct in your assumption. and, just for the record, i happen to work for one of those BIG GUN pharmacy companies....and, i loathe everything about it, and, i feel i'm selling out, but, i need a job. they make quite a profit, trust me. and, you know it. i am not sure i understand your logic about "not" having a drug..can you clarify your intentions concerning that statement?




And socialized medicine - how will that pay for the research and devolpment of new drugs?

*** grants, loans, philanthropologists...govt. yeah. how about that. how did canada do it? same way... they need to lay off a bit of the unecessary research and procure the cure. too much busy work and not enough results.



Are cancer rates lower in the UK or Canada than in the US? Actually, each of these countries already pays for drug research via government grants to scientists in Universities and academic institutions.


*** i am missing your point here, sorry.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Pay for development with production grants!!! production grants have given the USofA the best most advanced military force there is. And yes today other countiers are chruning out reseach results as fast as we are. Also think about how much of your insurance money goes just keeping those CEOs rich.
What does the might of the US military have to do with medicine? I admit that production grants could be used to subsidize some of the costs in principle, but what kind of spending are you projecting? How would this be accomplished? Would they cover phase I, II and III clinical trials? Formulation? Toxicology? Insurance? Who would administer it? How would candidate drugs get chosen? Will they do trials on children, or just adults? Who would market them?

Socialized medicine does not equal the government developing drugs. Socialized medicine is the government handing out the drugs. Big pharma (or someone) must still make the drugs. Those drugs will only get made if there is a profit to be made in that drug. Now, I do not necessarily agree that that is the best system, but it is what we have. If you want to change it, first answer my questions above. Socialized medicine may (as may health cooperatives including insurance companies) be in a position to influence in a small way what prices the companies can charge for drugs, but if you look at the furrough over AIDS drugs, you will see that it is not that great. The companies will grant some small concessions, but in the end are there to make money. If they cannot make money, they will not develop drugs.

Universities are not in a position to make, test and market new drugs. Some may be working towards that, and it is an admirable goal, but will take decades to get anywhere near where the big pharma are. So until that time, my insurance/medicare/NHS fees will go to that fat cat. What happens at the moment is that discoveries in the lab get licenced to pharma, in the hope that some of the monies made can trickle back to the basic science labs.

Further (to get back on thread) - cancer is not one disease. What works for one form of cancer will probably not work for another form of cancer. Thus, one drug will not combat all forms of cancer. Even further, the apparently same cancer (from a clinical perspective) can have several different molecular basis. Again - no one drug will work.

But again - how much money are big pharma making by NOT selling a drug? It was alledged that they have a universal panacea waiting in their back pocket. If that was truly the case, they would be marketting it vigorously NOW. The Hospitals and Doctors are the ones making money from the sick now (i.e. their CEOs are getting rich - now that is a argument for socialized medicine), not the pharma companies.

i happen to work for one of those BIG GUN pharmacy companies heck, "they" already have a cure for cancer, they just won't release it, because of all the billions they would lose on their very lucrative "cancer business".
So then you would know whether "they" actually do have a magic bullet that they are not selling. How does big pharma currently profit from the "cancer business"?

For the record - I work at an academic institution that is trying to lead the way from the lab to the clinic by having our own production and clinical trials units. We are in quite a unique position.

*** grants, loans, philanthropologists...govt. yeah. how about that. how did canada do it? same way... they need to lay off a bit of the unecessary research and procure the cure. too much busy work and not enough results.
Those grants etc go to pay for the research. Not to translate that research into drugs in the clinic.

And please define "unecessary research". I challenge you to pick any major University, anywhere in the world (your alma matar would be fine with me), and run through their research record and tell me exactly which "basic science" programs will never be productive. [The key word there is NEVER, just so we are clear on that].

So then you would know whether "they" actually do have a magic bullet that they are not selling. How does big pharma currently profit from the "cancer business"?

** of course they do. and, if they don't have it within their immediate physical means (for protective reasons known only to them) , they know right where to go to obtain it; it[the cure] sits in a lab somewhere right now waiting...and, waiting and waiting in vain...to bring healing and health to needy people.
the pharmaceutical corporation profits by charging exorbinant amounts for medications that costs them mere pennies in some instances (yes, that's right) to produce...then, they turn around and sell it to the public for a 100%, 200% etc. mark-up. i'm not explaining anything new here.

"unecessary research"


a good anology for this would be...the D.O.T. ..you know how they are always working on the road... seems to usually be that same stretch of road all spring, summer, winter and fall. cripes almighty...just fix the darned road once and for all already! . .. you do realize they could do that, don't you??..fix it once and for all? right? right. but..no, they keep on messing, and re-asphalting, resurfacing, etc... that is what i am trying to explain about unecessary research. i did not, however say ALL research is unecessary.

Hi,Pumps,

I'm responding to your response to my general "orange pumpkins and non-orange pumpkins" call.Are you willing to talk?

I was referring to how the gov. gives out production grants to companies that produce a product... in that case the military. My main problem with US medicine it the obscene amount of money you have to pay! If the gov. payed of all medicine and health coverage money would be given out to companies that can produce the most, cheapest, purest, best product. It would still be up to the companies to go through all the stages of testing, toxicology so forth.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
I was referring to how the gov. gives out production grants to companies that produce a product... in that case the military. My main problem with US medicine it the obscene amount of money you have to pay! If the gov. payed of all medicine and health coverage money would be given out to companies that can produce the most, cheapest, purest, best product. It would still be up to the companies to go through all the stages of testing, toxicology so forth. So this is basically the UK National Health Service. Have a look into it and see if it is really any cheaper. Don't forget to factor in tax raises. (BTW - from your posts, I'm assuming you are in the USA). (And add the long waits for service in run down Hospitals too.) Unless the Government gets involved in actually making the drugs, having a NHS will not reduce your overall health care costs.

Amen! politics are not my thing though I just know something very rotten is going on!

Now - is this a science forum, or a conspiracy forum? I understood it to be scientific, so may we please have a little bit of scientific process.


Please provide evidence (i.e. links to PubMed) that someone somewhere has a cure for all cancers. Or, at least, proof that such is possible.
How much do drug companies currently make from anticancer drugs? How much would they make if they had a cure-all anti-cancer drug? Probably orders of magnitude more than they do now, right? So why would they not sell it if they did have it.
Drug companies charge huge amounts for their drugs. Agreed. Probably it is even too much.
Socialized medicine will not change that. [That is the context in which it was introduced into this thread.] If big pharma cannot overcharge, they won't even go there. Evidence - how many drugs are they actively pursuing that combat diseases of mainly a third-world nature. Even TB is not that high on their agenda.
I started out by questioning pumpkin's scientific credentials. That was wrong of me, and I humbly appologize.

ok this issue is for a post in the politics section.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
ok this issue is for a post in the politics section. I agree wholeheartedly. Posts like heck, "they" already have a cure for cancer, they just won't release it, because of all the billions they would lose on their very lucrative "cancer business". have no place whatsoever in a scientific forum, if they are not backed up by hard facts.

I started out by questioning pumpkin's scientific credentials. That was wrong of me, and I humbly appologize.

*drags out her huge, galvinized, facetiousness-detecting-o-meter* *plugs it in*

*reads results* *laughs*

mmuhaaaaa....i don't think you are being the least bit sincere, sir...but, i'll let it slide. you know...i have never ever once claimed to be a "scientist" ...i do, however claim to love science; i realize i will never know as much as some do about the subject, but, that will not deter my love and further development of that love for the subject. i realize i have my limitations. do you?

pumkin, there are COUNTLESS conspiracy forums on the web and far too few on science. I think there is no limit to a scientists knowledge, *IF* he or she uses proper thinking like logic, the scientific method, etc. Believing in illogical conspiracy theories probably goes to show how much of a scientist you are. Even management of these "evil" pharmoceutical companies loose loved ones to cancer, that in itself PROVES that they don't have a cure for cancer. And the whole idea of making something for cents, and then selling it for much more is the idea of recuperating costs. The total cost of anything, is the raw resources, labor, and capitol necessary to make it. You totally ignored the very cost of research, which is ironic being that you yourself are those who get paid for doing the research.

All I can say about pumkin is

99% of all people on the net are men, the other 1% are men that are perves and like others to think their girls

not that thats true just something to think when considering pumkin's posts ;) :eek: :bugeye:

>> Pay for development with production grants!!!

No one is willing to shell out the required $26.4 billion per year ($880 million per drug, 30 drugs per year) to develop new drugs. There are currently government grants available for development, but they are in the $1 million range -- just shy of 1 week of research for a single drug [average development cycle is 15 years; $1 million / ($880 million / 15 years / 365 days) = 6.2 days].

Lets petition Bill Gate$ to fund our drug development with his non-liquid assets! /g/

We shell out billions every year on health insurance way not a more direct approach?

>> We shell out billions every year on health insurance way not
>> a more direct approach?

Tell that to the taxpayers! /g/

Ya people are idiots.

you're a person, Well Cooked....what does that make you?

am I? really? :rolleyes:

really, moron.:rolleyes:

Meeeee tooooo???????

Horrors!

:cool:

Only pumkin is a person he is a perverted person but a person none the less.

calm down people. The religion forum is where you insult people.

the key sentence once again was:

The researchers stress that further research is needed to determine if the engineered anthrax toxin will have similar effects in humans.

some things work in mice that don't work for humans...let's keep out fingers crossed


I just wanted to point out (in reference to the above qualification about the mouse research), that although there's always "further research" needed and they always say "an actual treatment is still a long way away" and all that-- the exciting thing about this particular set of experiments is twofold: first, it is a treatment that was found to be almost rediculously effective; 92% is basically a near-perfect correlation in a field like this; usually they jump up and down if tumors are reduced 15%, or whatever... Second, and more importantly, the scientists conducted a range of tests, on both "native" mouse tumors, and implanted human tumors-- I don't recall which results went with what, but they saw reductions in size from 87% of the original tumor gone, up to 100% reduction in tumor size! That's right-- the entire thing. Not one cancer cell could be found remaining in some of their experiments. That is thrilling news, I think.

So we might be a long way from it helping, yes-- but when was the last time you heard of anything that was even this promising? And, of course, it's a classic problem that we fix whatever-it-is in pigs, monkeys, rats, what have you; and then can't get it to work in humans-- but in this case, they've already seen very similar results in actual human tumors implanted in mice. That also sounds very promising as far as the "how well will it work on us" problem.

-- Isarmann