Cancer and the drug companies

[mashman]

as opposed to developing a new drug each time for the patient (which is what was being argued as farcical, given the cost developing a new drug)

Sorry, who mentioned new drugs? I damned sure that it wasn't me... so, sold to the one eyed man with the new kid

[mashman]

hmmm, not so farcical actually. here in NZ there is research currently being conducted on cancer 'vaccines' essentially a therapy based around your immune system. Your immune system is just that, yours. Therefore any 'vaccine' created will be a customised treatment for the individual patient.

I have put the word vaccine in quote marks as that is a simplistic word to use and does not quite fit the true meaning of a vaccine but without meaning to sound condescending its a term most folks can relate to so its the one which has stuck when describing the research to the lay population.

Many cancers have the ability to down regulate or 'switch off' the usual immune responses to the mutations which are the hallmark of cancers. Again in simple terms the 'vaccines' aim to up regulate or 'turn back on' and actually amplify those responses.

Of course this is only in development stages and will in all probability be hugely expensive. Currently the focus is on cancers which are otherwise difficult to treat, like melanoma.

Also strictly speaking each time a patient is prescribed radiation therapy the way in which that treatment is delivered is customised to suit the individual. No two people receive a course of radiation therapy in exactly the same way.

To a lesser extent, chemo can be tailored to suit the individual. However that will change. As small molecule or targeted therapies become more prevalent we are already seeing much smaller sub groups of patients being given specific drugs or cocktails of drugs. As our understanding of the profile of different cancers becomes better those kinds of scenarios will increase.

Would a pre-illness baseline of the patients physiology be of any use to researchers?

[TheDemonLord]

Sorry, who mentioned new drugs? I damned sure that it wasn't me... so, sold to the one eyed man with the new kid

That was the impression I got from your posts (and by the look of the responses, so did everyone else)

[EmBe]

Could you provide a link to this - I would like to read as it sounds very interesting.

The Malaghan Institute of Medical Research (NZ) are currently focusing their cancer reasearch on immuno-therapy, their cancer research page has multiple links to clincal studies and trials, scientific publications and research updates/highlights
http://www.malaghan.org.nz/what-we-do/cancer/

exciting stuff being spearheaded right here in NZ

[bogan]

I agree, that each treatment in that sence is bespoke - but bespoke using a range of pre-existing Drugs, adjusting the combination as required, as opposed to developing a new drug each time for the patient (which is what was being argued as farcical, given the cost developing a new drug)

Sounds very similar to an anesthesiologist really, those guys tailor each dosage to the patient; but it still follows the same pattern of drugs/science/doctors/results so is not a new principal or ideal or anything like that.

[mashman]

That was the impression I got from your posts (and by the look of the responses, so did everyone else)

Perhaps you'll break the mould and ask instead of following all sheep like into the bin of too hard

[bogan]

Perhaps you'll break the mould and ask instead of following all sheep like into the bin of too hard

You could break your mold and write an unambiguous post too once in a while. Because essentially you've said one thing to say how 'big medical' is doing it wrong and they should spend billions developing personlised treatments instead, but now say they are doing personalised treatments (do you still think it costs billions?), so you still have no workable ideas to contribute (unless you mean carry on carrying on ofc). But no doubt you've left enough ambiguity wiggle room in your own interpretations to delude yourself into thinking you're not wrong on this point either.

[mashman]

You could break your mold and write an unambiguous post too once in a while. Because essentially you've said one thing to say how 'big medical' is doing it wrong and they should spend billions developing personlised treatments instead, but now say they are doing personalised treatments (do you still think it costs billions?), so you still have no workable ideas to contribute (unless you mean carry on carrying on ofc). But no doubt you've left enough ambiguity wiggle room in your own interpretations to delude yourself into thinking you're not wrong on this point either.

You could break your mould and open the other eye for a change. The post was fine. Your initial assumptions were incorrect, worse, they were inherited.... anyhoo, those initial assumptions, if you decide to go and read the posts again, have led you along the road to where you are.

I started one step at a time with Ocean, as he looks to be the most "intelligent" of you... and he survived 2 posts before he made a huge assumption and ran away. Odd given that I had agreed to work within the Ocean defined box. A lovely part of that box was the billions you seem to think that I brought up... coz it weren't me guv.

Your entire, erm, argument above is built entirely on false premise given the assumptions made and the subsequent disinformation propagandised in the form of a counter argument. You must be a really shit scientist.

Having said that, it was all too familiar, almost, lemming like. Chur for the lulz. Please try not to hold me responsible for your incorrect assumptions... and if you want to try, start with these posts:

No. Treatment would be tailored.

It costs billions to develop treatments that benefit almost everyone

Let's just pretend that what everyone else understands about money equalling resources is correct, OK?

Still going to spend billions on developing custom treatments for everyone?

Ok.

We get the billions required by not making weapons

Because just as there isn't that much money in the world there's not that many resources in the world.

Which brings us back to using the health resources we do have most effectively. Which means treatments that benefit almost everyone.

Now I mentioned that we didn't have to spend billions on weapons and I had also mentioned bullshit jobs which also gave us the personnel. And then the assumption

Your arithmetic is as poor as the rest of your argument. There's more man-hours required to develop even a partially successful cancer treatment than there is in a human lifetime. And that's not even including the original pure research that it was based on. Or the facilities.

And even if "bullshit jobs" could supply the time required I can't see the bullshit employees as being quite what's required.

Particularly if they're anywhere near the calibre of your efforts.

Following that he got all abusive and I had to run to my wife and she held me sobbing all night.

Let me go for the overview, ya know, so that you can think it over in your own time.

We have the bullshit job people and we have training and we have budget from cutting boom boom spending.

Can we build the facilities whilst training the people we'll need? Yes. In fact we can train builders at the same time, among various other things.

How do you get a tailored, let's go for pill:

the healthcare provision I'm thinking about will be directed more towards identification and prevention.

Start baselining physiology and get computers to analyse the fuck out of it every whatever period the medical council decides should be appropriate.

Get the computer to send a text to the person should anything odd come up with appointment time and date etc...

Is any of that even possible? Yes. All of it!

So. What's the problem? Quite simply, there is no will to attempt such a thing.

... happy days.

[Akzle]

...given the cost developing a new drug)

ahhh. cost!
thank fuck for jews ehh, otherwise, people might just do shit because it needs doing, rather than for some twisted maniacal self-masturbatory gain.

Sounds very similar to an anesthesiologist really, those guys tailor each dosage to the patient; but it still follows the same pattern of drugs/science/doctors/results so is not a new principal or ideal or anything like that.

the measure makes the medicine ehh... good shit whitey. you get one point on the "points to have in life" chart.

essentially you've said

now now, don't let your solitary point go to shit now.
if you view everyone else through your own lens of incompetence, of course it isn't goin to work!

'big medical' is doing it wrong and they should spend billions developing

ahh. billions. fuck i'd love some billions.
...almost as much as i love jacking off and fishing. sometimes at the same time.

pray, whos billions are they spending?

not persons, who may have some personal interest in the outcome??


...no doubt you've left enough ambiguity wiggle room in your own interpretations to delude yourself into thinking you're not wrong on this point either

[bogan]

But no doubt you've left enough ambiguity wiggle room in your own interpretations to delude yourself into thinking you're not wrong on this point either.

You could break your mould and open the other eye for a change. The post was fine. Your initial assumptions were incorrect, worse, they were inherited.... anyhoo, those initial assumptions, if you decide to go and read the posts again, have led you along the road to where you are.

Called it

If you still think you are right, summarise all your previous points in one concise post. I know you can't because half your previous points are either at odds with each other, or consist of nothing but bitching about 'the way things are'. You're just another fucking clueless politician, living proof that the system works

[mashman]

Called it

If you still think you are right, summarise all your previous points in one concise post. I know you can't because half your previous points are either at odds with each other, or consist of nothing but bitching about 'the way things are'. You're just another fucking clueless politician, living proof that the system works

You're never going to understand that I'm not trying to be right are you? Shit's available. Case closed. You lose . Yet we lose coz it ain't being done. I know, overkill, you're sensitive.

Oh and well done for resorting to, what is it you call it, oh yeah, running out of argument and hurling abuse... it tickled me a might tad though. Your lack of ability to sift through the fine detail without me holding your hand every single step of the way really isn't my problem either. So, I'd say that after considering the logistics of achieving such a goal, that I've summarised it pretty well ta... and you're just a dunce.

[bogan]

You're never going to understand that I'm not trying to be right are you? Shit's available. Case closed. You lose . Yet we lose coz it ain't being done. I know, overkill, you're sensitive.

Oh and well done for resorting to, what is it you call it, oh yeah, running out of argument and hurling abuse... it tickled me a might tad though. Your lack of ability to sift through the fine detail without me holding your hand every single step of the way really isn't my problem either. So, I'd say that after considering the logistics of achieving such a goal, that I've summarised it pretty well ta... and you're just a dunce.

More excuses. You've done nothing else but hurl abuse so I thought you might like something back. I did invite you to attempt a robust discussion by summarising your points, but again you favored abuse.

So I'll make it clear, you have said nothing of value in this thread, pointing that out or desiring clarification is just being honest; not abusive. However once it is pointed out you invariably get evasive and abusive, like I said, your politician's traits are proof positive the system works.

[Katman]

More excuses. You've done nothing else but hurl abuse so I thought you might like something back. I did invite you to attempt a robust discussion by summarising your points, but again you favored abuse.

So I'll make it clear, you have said nothing of value in this thread, pointing that out or desiring clarification is just being honest; not abusive. However once it is pointed out you invariably get evasive and abusive, like I said, your politician's traits are proof positive the system works.

You sound more like Ed every day.

[mashman]

More excuses. You've done nothing else but hurl abuse so I thought you might like something back. I did invite you to attempt a robust discussion by summarising your points, but again you favored abuse.

So I'll make it clear, you have said nothing of value in this thread, pointing that out or desiring clarification is just being honest; not abusive. However once it is pointed out you invariably get evasive and abusive, like I said, your politician's traits are proof positive the system works.

Can you point my abuse out please oh sensitive one.

Can you point my abuse out please oh sensitive one.

You sound more like Ed every day.

... twinziez... although at least Ed got the brains.

[bogan]

You sound more like Ed every day.

You too could outline some relevant points for discussion...

Or do I need to kick it off? I think alternative treatments should be explored (I'm an advocate of naturopathy when it is appropriate), under one condition, any treatment is subject to the same rigorous testing and evaluation, and no treatment's results are massaged. Each person should be free to choose their own treatment, but most importantly, this freedom must include being able to make an educated decision. That is the way forward, and that is the way under which we have come so far.