Chaotic wrote:I think you misunderstood, I am not saying your everyday GP is involved in some massive conspiracy to make you sick lol. I'm saying the entire medicinal industry benefits from sick people, not healthy people. That's reason enough for pharmaseuticals and other such 'health' organisations to not make curing you their number 1 priority. That isn't a conspiracy, just basic logic.
Ah yes, sorry, misunderstood lol. I meet too many crazy conspiracy people
This is why we need separate R&D that isn't funded by big pharmaceutical companies. Why programs like the NIH are ideal, as these programs are not profit-centered but rather goal orientated. cutting down NIH and similar programs funding results in researchers needing to turn to Big Pharma for jobs to research, which means that their research for a cure takes a back burner compared to the companies profit-seeking.
Massa wrote: bob the mage wrote:
Chaotic wrote:Not even breast cancer specifically, chemotherapy is one of the biggest scams in the modern age, it basically exposes your body to highly radioactive and toxic elements/substances. Which can certainly kill/halt cancer and in doing so does the same thing to the rest of your body, they can't contain it just to the cancer and it often damages the rest of the body severely. I don't agree with or put my faith in 'alternative medicine' so for the current time chemotherapy is the best way to get in remission and the multi billion dollar business it is, really makes the doctors less likely to want a cure not more likely (a huge problem in western doctor system).
Medievil China developed a system where doctors in a village would get paid only when everyone in the village is healthy, in western society the doctor only gets paid when you are sick! So why would he want to cure you and lose a source of income?
The real problem imo is governments limiting the funding for cancer research. Trump for example, wants to cut the NIH funding down by 1/3. If we as a society really want to move away from mediocre treatments, which as you say are basically the only remedy, if you can even call it that, then we need to focus on bringing awareness to the medicial problems and getting governments to support finding a cure.
What have they achieved in the billions of dollars a year they use for "research"? They create high cost treatments that have not improved survival rates and only a certain group can use, as it leaves most people in a mountain of debt.
You make more money treating diseases than curing. They are still mad at all the money they lost curing Polio.
Are you saying we shouldn't have cured polio? what about small pox? the plague? what about wiping out malaria from most of the world? The difference between these campaigns and lets say the campaign for AIDS is that the WHO ran the campaigns for Small Pox and Polio, where as capitalism and pharmaceutical companies run the operations for AIDs.
Capitalism needs regulations to spur investment in a way where it favors humanity over corporate greed.
For example, look at the auto industry. U.S. automakers did not start to develop fuel-efficient vehicles until the price of gasoline rose and the government started to provide tax incentives for purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles. The demand shifted to fuel efficiency and thus automakers followed. Capitalism and corporations follow demand unless they are kodak or blackberry
In order to produce medicinal research that wasn't profit driven and doesn't provide medication that only a sector of society can afford, either the government needs to regulate the pharmacy industry, or it needs to provide grants for research outside the large pharmaceutical firms. Problem is, especially in the U.S., politicians are shortsighted and special interest plays too big a role in elections, so politicians favor big pharma and thus won't regulate. And at the same time they remove funding from programs like the NIH in the U.S.
Massa wrote:You make more money treating diseases than curing.
So yes, with the current set up of the economic systems this is the case, but it is possible to change this. The government could provide business tax incentives to R&D focused on cures, not treatments, speed up regulatory approval process for drugs focused on cures (not rushed, but let them get to front of the line for approval process), and lastly the government can up its spending on programs like the U.S.'s NIH, and provide a more specific handout specification so that development and research orientated at finding a cure gets priority.
But even if none of this happens it doesn't mean society doesn't have a vested interest in combating disease and illness. The bubonic plague shrunk the known world's population by 1/3, which pushed back the industrial revolution centuries. If a disease like this were to sweep today's world, with how connected the world is between airplanes providing much faster travel, and how much more crowded the world is, more people live in cities today than ever, and unlike the time of the bubonic plague agrarian societies are pretty much extinct, if a disease like the bubonic plague hit us today, it would be detrimental to society, prolonging technical revolutions and the coming automation of industries. The only way to prevent, or try to prevent such a catastrophe, is by always researching, always improving.
The world has cured polio, cured smallpox, almost cured malaria, we have a cure to the bubonic plague, why not cancer?
Gwydion - Voted Top Noob of Relentless
BobsYourUncle 226 Fire Mage
Stubborn 220 Warrior (Tank)Feel free to pm me about anything or talk to me in game
boymclir wrote:Bob The God
Shadae wrote:This Bob guy is a guide? Legitimately?