Canadian Scientists Cure Cancer... No One Notices?

[Dags90]

Yes and no. There would for certain be generic versions, but the doctors would not prescribe the generic versions because the nice, pretty blonde pharmacy rep would stop bringing free lunches and golf outings....and what fun is that? I don't know any actual statistics, but my experience with the pharmaceutical industry has led me to believe the vast majority of medicines prescribed today have generic variations available....yet only the high dollar, name brand versions get prescribed in mass. Plus, in an industry as lucrative as the pharmaceutical industry, you have to believe the large companies get together and say "ok, we can all have variations of this drug, but we all need to sell it at similar prices 90000% profit margins? Everyone good with that?"

Usually you have to specifically ask for generics. And since most people aren't doctors the questions "is there a generic version of this?" or "is there a drug with a similar or identical mode of action that is available as generic?" don't come up. The newest drugs don't have to prove they're better than generically available ones, just that they're better enough than placebo.

 

[Canid117]

A) I doubt this is real.

B) Even if it is real they are Canadian and are being ignored in accordance with international law under article 9 of the Bezonvaux Conventions. The treaty dictates "As Canada is most adorable when receiving no serious attention or respect from the rest of the world; we who sign these conventions acquiesce to never treat Canada with any dignity and all of their noteworthy achievements are to be annexed by, and credited to, other nation states."

 

[Booze Zombie]

People sometimes laugh when I say the drug companies will ignore efficent treatments in favour of increasing their own income. I don't like being right on things like this.

I can only hope it gets out soon enough to help people.

 

[commodore96]

I hope I am wrong but I don't think it is that legit. I mean someone on NBC or CNN would have done a story on it right?

 

[TheTurtleMan]

Something tells me there are shenanigans afoot. If this really was the "cure to cancer" like it says it is, then it would have been much bigger news. And even though my only knowledge about biology is from an ap bio class, something about the description of this wonder drug sounds a little fishy.

Although I'll give you credit, this is a great article to get hate going against the scary evil pharmaceutical companies.

 

[JourneyMan88]

Simply put, anything that sounds too good to be true, is. No money to be made curing cancer? If the drug is commonly used and readily available, what exactly is keeping oncologists from simply using it? Not to mention, Canada has universal healthcare, so medical care is less about making money than it is here in the states. Something doesn't completely add up here.

EDIT: If it is a commonly used drug, then SOMEONE is producing it, SOMEONE is already making money selling it, if it cures cancer, just raise the price and you'll make MORE money.

 

[StellarViking]

I'd like to say "I can't believe a major corporation would place profits before human life!" but I really can. A part of me always liked to say "No, that's not true" but that part is sort of shutting up now.

 

[EasySt17]

Oh no, it the mitochondrias. Its just like parasite eve!! Run Away!!!

 

[The Moehlinator]

Yes and no. There would for certain be generic versions, but the doctors would not prescribe the generic versions because the nice, pretty blonde pharmacy rep would stop bringing free lunches and golf outings....and what fun is that? I don't know any actual statistics, but my experience with the pharmaceutical industry has led me to believe the vast majority of medicines prescribed today have generic variations available....yet only the high dollar, name brand versions get prescribed in mass. Plus, in an industry as lucrative as the pharmaceutical industry, you have to believe the large companies get together and say "ok, we can all have variations of this drug, but we all need to sell it at similar prices 90000% profit margins? Everyone good with that?"

Usually you have to specifically ask for generics. And since most people aren't doctors the questions "is there a generic version of this?" or "is there a drug with a similar or identical mode of action that is available as generic?" don't come up. The newest drugs don't have to prove they're better than generically available ones, just that they're better enough than placebo.

I agree, that is how billions of dollars are made. I don't think it is entirely the fact that people don't know there are generic versions available....I still put a large amount of responsibility on the doctors and hospitals not offering/mentioning them. I would say I have an above average grasping of medicine, but when my girlfriend was laying on the bed in the ER room writhing in pain, the first thing on my mind when the doctor was telling me "I am writing her a prescription for X painkiller" wasn't "Yes, but is there a generic version of this?". Can't really blame the pharm companies for wanting to turn a profit...that is the point of business. There should be a line somewhere, though.

 

[yanipheonu]

That actually makes me... very angry.

*grabs baseball bat*

 

[Small Waves]

That article is 3+ years old and it's not an actual cure but instead something to control it. Even if a pharmaceutical did take notice, it would be another 10+ years of testing and then discovering that their cure for cancer is a bust.

The real meat is the comments section.

 

[Jordan Snidal]

If this is true, it will still be nearly a decade until the drugs is approved for human use. It still needs to go through many different studies and peer review then it needs to show its findings to the appropriate governing bodies. So lets assume that it is true, there is still plenty of reasons why it hasn't been adopted by the medical establishment yet.

 

[JMeganSnow]

People, please, stop acting like you know Biology, because half of you don't know two craps of what is written there...

This paper have been proved as fact by the community and many third party supporters are angry about this fact.

Then the person who wrote the blog article didn't know what they were talking about; what I said about mitochondria was accurate.

<link=http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm>Here's a link to the website of the university that made the actual discovery. The article that was linked was a piece of sensationalism; they're still in early trials, and in addition to this, the drug is already widely available, meaning there's no need for drug companies to invest further. Currently, it's an off label use that is being researched to become an on label use. Care to tell me where my biology fails?

Edit: Forgot to mention, according to the article I linked, the drug isn't even a cure for cancer. All it does is halt the growth, and allow other methods to kill the cells that are already there without having to worry about further growth. It's a break through, but not a cure in and of itself.

Indeed. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about medicine can tell you that there is no such thing as a "cure" for cancer. You do not get cured from cancer. At best, you have no detectable cancer cells and are in remission, but even people with no detectable cancer can relapse (or develop new cancers elsewhere in their body).

Also, *every single type* of cancer is different. It grows differently. It responds to different treatments. Heck, the same "type" of cancer in two different patients can have radically different behaviors, growth rates, prognosis, and outcomes. What is recommended treatment for one person can be completely wrong for the next.

 

[Stoic raptor]

Okay, my BS monitors are going off here. Mitochondria are a structure within the cell, not a type of cell. Further, they're essentially the powerplant of the cell; if cancer patients had non-functioning mitochondria, they'd be dead long before the cancer did anything. I'm going to have to see a more reliable source on this before I believe anything.

You ninja you.
The mitochondria is what gets the energy from the food you eat and the air you breathe.

I am glad I am not the only one who read this and went "wha, who wrote this??"

I have a 4yr degree in biology (well, Clinical Laboratory Sciences, technically....but I am two classes from finishing my bio degree) and reading that was painful. Either the discovery is complete bs, or the paper was written by a pr guy with no bio background who skimmed the research. Mitochondria are not cells, the are organelles (pointed out above, I believe) and if they are not "turned on", your cells cannot perform metabolism and you would, in fact, die.

I am only a 10th grader in high school and I knew this (granted I learned this exact stuff this year though).

 

[Jumplion]

I don't disagree with anything you've said. My own experiences cannot be used as a form of objective evidence, this I understand.
But bitter against pharmaceutical medicine am I? Yes, yes indeed.
I do think people are generally a bit too quick to pop a pill and make it all go away when they should really be examining the root of the problem though, and again, I have nothing to quantify this, but is anyone really going to disagree with that?
As far as depression goes, popping a pill will never truly be a replacement for a period of honest self-analysis and focused relaxation. Is this ever said to us? No. And this is why I am bitter against the pharmaceutical industry.

I don't really blame you, I agree with you as well, some doctors and patient are way too hasty in popping that pill. It's just a pet peeve when people use anecdotal evidence for me (same thing with statistics that aren't sourced, really gets on my nerves)

Though on the subject of "the pill is not a replacement for self-analysis", in some cases it is. Like I said, it all depends on the person, and to some balancing the chemicals in their brains is more effective than simply "willing" your way back to happiness. Some people take only the pill, some people go to therapy, some people take a combination of both, some people just go cold turkey. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Jumplion]

That article is 3+ years old and it's not an actual cure but instead something to control it. Even if a pharmaceutical did take notice, it would be another 10+ years of testing and then discovering that their cure for cancer is a bust.

The real meat is the comments section.

I'm really disappointed that "Dr. Strangelove" wasn't used as much.

 

[coakroach]

I'll put this on the list of stuff thats apparently awesome that i'll never see put into practice.
Right next to a Thorium reactor...

 

[Formica Archonis]

Protip: Most science journalists don't actually have very good scientific knowledge. Their articles thus tend toward the sensational, and you should take them with a grain of salt.

I'd expand it to include news journalists in general. I've been personally involved in two news stories in my life and both times the thing printed/televised only had a loose attachment to the reality of the thing.

Completely unrelated: Any politicians out there need a campaign advisor? My credentials include being identified as such on national TV.

 

[Darth_Dude]

Yeah, its not real guys..