|
|
#41
10-11-2005, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Welcome to the real world retards.
[ QUOTE ]
I know two CFO's of hospitals and they [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] told me that if it were cured tomorrow they would be out of business [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I call BS. 
|
|
#42
10-11-2005, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Welcome to the real world retards.
This has got to be one of the best hijackings of a thread ever!
|
|
#44
10-11-2005, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Welcome to the real world retards.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Not if it was for a rare cancer. [/ QUOTE ] Let's see, PR value to the company for curing a rare childhood cancer, even at a loss, vs PR value to the company for refusing to produce the cure because it wouldn't be profitable. Do you really think a corporation could kill a product like that without it being front page news or covered by cable news 24/7 for months? [/ QUOTE ] whats the PR value to a company to give much needed AIDS medicines and the like to third world countries? [correct, im not a medical knowledgable kinda guy] much be huge given the queues to hand it out/sell at a discount.........
|
|
#45
10-11-2005, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Welcome to the real world retards.
[ QUOTE ]
I frequently compare online-poker rake-back policies to finding a cure for cancer. Aren't they one and the same? [/ QUOTE ] Bob this didn't mean to be a comparison to Poker per say, the following just reminded me of this documentary. I wouldn't want to trivialize something like cancer hence the off topic point. [ QUOTE ] You guys dont understand that Party is now a big corporate listed business and is starting to act like it. Many large companies make decisions that are unpopular with their client base but they move on regardless of complaints and most of their customers suck up and go with it. [/ QUOTE ] Basically these public companies do whats best for shareholders, not whats best for customers.
|
|
#46
10-11-2005, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Welcome to the real world retards.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Do you realize how much money they make off of treating that? [/ QUOTE ] So, there wouldn't be any money in curing it? [/ QUOTE ] If there is no money to be made, Pharma won't even bother to research a cure. This is so common, there is even a term for it -"orphan". A disease can be widespread with a known cure (such as malaria mentioned earlier in the thread) and no one will make the drug. On the other hand, a disease doesn't really have to exist if a drug will make money treating it (heartburn?- don't change your diet, just take our little purple pill to feel better) I don't know about the cancer drug for kids. There are lots of other examples of this type of thing however. Did anyone watch the 60 minutes piece on the Parkinson drug that was stopped (the implants to deliver it were too expensive) or the movie (real life enactment) of a purified oil that a kid needed to prevent his joints from permanently locking. The only way the kid got the oil was an old chemist who was near retirement (and able to pick his own projects) did the purification without management approval. If the cancer drug story is true, the marketing leader on the project was probably canned. There is no way a drug should have gone to trial without the proper financial analysis early in the project proposal.
|
|
#47
10-11-2005, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Welcome to the real world retards.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Not if it was for a rare cancer. [/ QUOTE ] Let's see, PR value to the company for curing a rare childhood cancer, even at a loss, vs PR value to the company for refusing to produce the cure because it wouldn't be profitable. Do you really think a corporation could kill a product like that without it being front page news or covered by cable news 24/7 for months? [/ QUOTE ] Cancer is a poor example, but lets put it another way, would big pharma research into drugs they didn't think could be economically viable? [end hijack] Mack [/ QUOTE ] Would people poor their life into researching cures for diseases in the first place if it wasn't profitable? The cancer analogy is so paradoxical it's saddening.
|
|
#48
10-11-2005, 07:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Welcome to the real world retards.
[ QUOTE ]
I frequently compare online-poker rake-back policies to finding a cure for cancer. [/ QUOTE ] If someone finds a cure for a certain types of cancer they charge whatever they want and are able to since it is a necessity. You are a dumb ass in making that comparison too!
|
|
#49
10-11-2005, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Welcome to the real world retards.
Heres what I can remember from the documentary.
It was about a cancer hospital in Texas(M. D. Anderson Cancer Center) that has the cutting edge research and medications much of this is experimental and is the cancer victims last hope. They had a drug a pharmacy developed that cured this little girls cancer that is rare and fatal. So maybe it was the cost to get it to market was too much in comparison to their potential future profit. Either way I thought it was sick that they would quit producing it. Anyway here is the program and you can check to see if they replay it. Taming the Beast: Inside The War on Cancer
|
|
#50
10-11-2005, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Welcome to the real world retards.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Not if it was for a rare cancer. [/ QUOTE ] Let's see, PR value to the company for curing a rare childhood cancer, even at a loss, vs PR value to the company for refusing to produce the cure because it wouldn't be profitable. Do you really think a corporation could kill a product like that without it being front page news or covered by cable news 24/7 for months? [/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately it can be true. It is unlikely this was killed in a late stage (after making clinical trials and getting approved by FDA) before going to market. But it is well known that big pharma don't even bother to do research on rare forms of cancer (i.e. no siginificant return) or widespread diseases amongst poor poeple (see malaria). However DON'T shoot the pharma. They are no angels but they have no other choice. And they cure ppl. They don't run gambling sites. [/ QUOTE ] No that is why they have small biotech firms. Pharma does in fact farm out RD nowadays. It is cheaper because it allows them to spread out their direct outlays towards RD. Pharma gives the small firms startup money and lets them develope the medication. Even for rare types of cancer. I find this story dubious to say the least. Many times a drug that will "cure" / knock into remission one form of Cancer will work on other forms of the disease. I can give 50 examples of Drugs that were for a particular type of cancer and low and behold after extensive testing they worked other forms of cancer. BTW I am not a DR. but know of quite a few that do Cancer research and or have/had oncology practices.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
