Scientists discover virus that kills all types of breast cancer ‘within seven days’ - Page 3

crazyflamingos · #21 (**permalink**) 09-26-2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Well I can only point out that even the most ingenious scientist can cause accidents or death without proper information and regulation.
Madam Curie comes to mind.

Thalidomide comes to mind. The FDA is the reason that very few "Thalidomide babies" were born in the United States.

Oftencold · #22 (**permalink**) 09-26-2011, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

I wonder if the drug companies and the government would allow something as profitable as cancer to be "cured", if there were a quick, effective, and simple cure for it.
Hundreds of thousands make their living off "treating" cancer.

Yes they would. They are people, not monsters.

Further, when one disease is cured, there is always a market for not only that cure but the thousands of other ailments out there.

saltwn · #23 (**permalink**) 09-27-2011, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Also, that vaccine you're talking about? It was being developed almost 30 years ago. It took that ****ing long to go through all the stuff that is required for getting a drug approved.

Work began in the eighties. When general research grants were released in the 90s DNA was mapped. That helped a lot of research that had gotten stalled. Then they had to develop the drug. A similar drug was also being developed in Europe and Australia. They didn't get their drugon the market any faster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Of course they can. And? Why can't *I* make that decision for myself? I don't require the govt to make that decision for me. I can read the risks and assess them all on my own. All the govt does is hold up development and cause thousands of deaths a year due to not approving drugs that could save lives, or by pulling drugs that are saving lives.

No you cannot make those decisions for yourself. Snake oil salesmen used to be run out of town on a rail. Nowadays they would make good politicians.
If a drug is already on the market and has been tested up one side and down the other, I can see deregulating it for the informed consumer.
But we don't want to be guinea pigs for drug companies and wake up next morning with quills growing out our backs now do we?

1069 · #24 (**permalink**) 09-27-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Yes they would. They are people, not monsters.

Yet the conservative Right wishes to withhold a safe and effective vaccine which prevents a cancer-causing virus from young girls, because it might turn them "promiscuous". Uh-huh. "People". People are monsters, sometimes.

And I'm supposed to believe the Right would allow the release of a vaccine for AIDS, if they had one? In their minds, AIDS doesn't effect them or anyone they care about. It's a disease for homos and IV drug users, people that conservative extremists believe don't deserve to live anyway. Wouldn't a vaccine for AIDS merely validate their sinful behavior?

rivrrat · #25 (**permalink**) 09-27-2011, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Work began in the eighties. When general research grants were released in the 90s DNA was mapped. That helped a lot of research that had gotten stalled. Then they had to develop the drug. A similar drug was also being developed in Europe and Australia. They didn't get their drugon the market any faster.

No you cannot make those decisions for yourself.

Yes. I can.

Quote:

Snake oil salesmen used to be run out of town on a rail. Nowadays they would make good politicians.

Only until enough people were harmed.

Quote:

If a drug is already on the market and has been tested up one side and down the other, I can see deregulating it for the informed consumer.
But we don't want to be guinea pigs for drug companies and wake up next morning with quills growing out our backs now do we?

And yet they pull drugs all the time. Go figure.

Like I said, it would be bad business for drug companies to do what you're suggesting.

As it is, there's a ****ing waiting list to be involved in new drug trials. These are drugs that aren't approved yet. These people ARE guinea pigs in every aspect of the phrase. Legally. And they're jumping at the chance. Are the drug companies trying to kill them? That would be pretty ****ing stupid wouldn't it? Why would you kill all of your customers? Not only would you lose your existing customers due to death, but you'd not get any additional ones. That doesn't make good business sense, so forgive me if I don't jump on the "they'll kill us all" bandwagon.

Oftencold · #26 (**permalink**) 09-27-2011, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Yet the conservative Right wishes to withhold a safe and effective vaccine which prevents a cancer-causing virus from young girls, because it might turn them "promiscuous". Uh-huh. "People". People are monsters, sometimes.

And I'm supposed to believe the Right would allow the release of a vaccine for AIDS, if they had one? In their minds, AIDS doesn't effect them or anyone they care about. It's a disease for homos and IV drug users, people that conservative extremists believe don't deserve to live anyway. Wouldn't a vaccine for AIDS merely validate their sinful behavior?

What in the world are you talking about?

The only issue I'm aware of that even remotely intersects with what you seem to be referring to and which involves a significant number of people is the controversy over the Texas immunization program. The major objections there, which I largely disagree with revolve around possible health side effects.

crazyflamingos · #27 (**permalink**) 09-27-2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

What in the world are you talking about?

The only issue I'm aware of that even remotely intersects with what you seem to be referring to and which involves a significant number of people is the controversy over the Texas immunization program. The major objections there, which I largely disagree with revolve around possible health side effects.

Then you are not aware of the far right's major objection that immunizing young women against HPV will encourage them to be promiscuous. These are the same people who do not want teens taught about birth control and who have managed to institute abstinence only sex education in many school systems. They are also the ones who are responsible for spreading the overblown fear of the side effects of the vaccine by making sure that every crackpot accusation or anecdote is reprinted in hundreds of "Christian" blogs and news sites on the Net.

rivrrat · #28 (**permalink**) 09-27-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyflamingos

Then you are not aware of the far right's major objection that immunizing young women against HPV will encourage them to be promiscuous. These are the same people who do not want teens taught about birth control and who have managed to institute abstinence only sex education in many school systems. They are also the ones who are responsible for spreading the overblown fear of the side effects of the vaccine by making sure that every crackpot accusation or anecdote is reprinted in hundreds of "Christian" blogs and news sites on the Net.

Some people's major objection to immunizing teenagers against HPV stems from the forced immunization, not the immunization itself. They simply think it should be up to the parents to decide.

saltwn · #29 (**permalink**) 09-27-2011, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Yes. I can.

Only until enough people were harmed.

And yet they pull drugs all the time. Go figure.

Like I said, it would be bad business for drug companies to do what you're suggesting.

As it is, there's a ****ing waiting list to be involved in new drug trials. These are drugs that aren't approved yet. These people ARE guinea pigs in every aspect of the phrase. Legally. And they're jumping at the chance. Are the drug companies trying to kill them? That would be pretty ****ing stupid wouldn't it? Why would you kill all of your customers? Not only would you lose your existing customers due to death, but you'd not get any additional ones. That doesn't make good business sense, so forgive me if I don't jump on the "they'll kill us all" bandwagon.

I think you are very naive and ignorant of the history. Read up on Teddy Roosevelt instituting regulations on meat production.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Some people's major objection to immunizing teenagers against HPV stems from the forced immunization, not the immunization itself. They simply think it should be up to the parents to decide.

Usually I am all for the parent having the say in a child's upbringing and what-not. But when it comes to community health, I'll go with the immunization.

rivrrat · #30 (**permalink**) 09-27-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

I think you are very naive and ignorant of the history. Read up on Teddy Roosevelt instituting regulations on meat production.

No, I am not. I'm very up to date on the speed with which information is spread today. Which is a tad different than the speed with which information was spread in the past. Additionally, there is nothing regarding the meat packing industry history that suggests they were out to kill all of their customers.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to crazyflamingos For This Useful Post:
Oftencold, saltwn

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
1069, crazyflamingos

The Following User Says Thank You to 1069 For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos

The Following User Says Thank You to crazyflamingos For This Useful Post:
1069