don't mean to sound so gullible...but ^ seems too jaded...

im not denying the ROI part, but i would think that out of all the research going on, out of all the health care professionals involved, out of all the health institutions in the world, out of all the people and relatives and friends affected by different illnesses and have taken up the cause to finance treatment options...if a safe cure was found, it would be made known to the public, one way or another...

True. An example of effective drug research is that done on Hepatitis C.
"Sofosbuvir comes in an easy once-a-day doses. It takes as few as 12 weeks to work, and it cures up to 90% of people who take it."

However, don't think for a moment that the "directive" of the big pharm companies isn't to make money.

I posted above in this thread the number of cancer "charities" who primary goal is to make money for themselves, not the cure for cancer. They use the word cancer as a heart-grab that many people, especially on the phone, can't turn down.

If you do research on how much drugs cost in different countries, you will find that the price of the drug to the consumer is largely based on the ability to pay, not the cost of the drug.

Here is an article from Forbes:

DO DRUG COMPANIES MAKE DRUGS OR MONEY?

Actually, Sorkin's title was taken from Harvard professor, Bill George, who asked: 'Is the role of leading large pharmaceutical companies to discover lifesaving drugs or to make money for shareholders through financial engineering?' Professor George's question was prompted by the spate of companies seeking to merge with foreign companies (in this case, Pfizer PFE +0.9% trying to acquire AstraZeneca ) with the ultimate intent of lowering their corporate tax rates. However, these comments play on the public's concern that the pharmaceutical industry is primarily focused on making money ' not drugs. This reinforces the notion that companies focus only on profits, and preferentially work on life-style enhancing drugs, or drugs that offer minimum improvements over existing therapies but for which companies charge exorbitant prices.

The problem is that running a biopharmaceutical company is an expensive and high risk endeavor. If you cannot generate a very significant profit, you can't survive.

I was recently interviewed by a reporter from the Canadian Broadcasting Company and asked why no companies were doing research on the potential of aspirin to reduce breast cancer deaths. The topic was initially raised in a New York Times op-ed by Professors at Harvard Medical School whose grant request to the National Institutes of Health to do such a study was rejected. To quote the op-ed authors:

'Clinical trials are typically conducted on drugs developed by labs seeking huge profits. No one stands to make money off aspirin, which has been a generic drug since the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and which costs less than $6 for a year's supply.'

While this was ostensibly a shot at Big Pharma, the authors are correct ' no one stands to make money off aspirin. As a result, no single company large or small would run the clinical trials to prove or disprove the potential benefits of aspirin for treating breast cancer. Even if these professors wanted to start their own company to do this study, they would never get backing from any venture capital company or other such source of funds. The reason is simple. People invest in areas where they can get a return on their investment. An area such as this which offers no possible return on investment would be summarily dismissed.

(... If aspirin indeed improves the health of these patients, I am sure that aspirin will be used routinely for treating cancer.)

As crass as it may sound, the companies responsible for discovering and developing the next medical breakthroughs have to do so in a way that generates significant profits. If they don't do that, investors will turn to other places to invest their money , and the companies will shrivel up and either be sold to another company or die. So the answer to the Sorkin/George question is 'both'. A pharma company's business is making drugs ' and, in doing so it had better make profits.

i think they make more money from heart and other maintenance meds (ie blood pressure, diabetes, kidney disease, asthma) with less liability, too.

cancer treatment also involves surgery and radiation...aside from the different behaviors of cancer depending on cell origin. not exactly one size fits all...and some are not able to handle the side-effects of the cancer treatment options...even if it is free/research-funded

it will be kind of hard to make a drug to selectively treat cancer cells without killing normally dividing ones.... based on what i know of cell physiology...

but i do not doubt that there is also a degree of misrepresentation happening on the business side of "charity"...not just in the aspect of cancer treatment.

The magic bullet of cancer treatment appears to be a boosted human immune system.

From "The Telegraph"

A protein which ‘turbo-charges’ the immune system so that it can fight off any cancer or virus has been discovered by scientists.

In a breakthrough described as a ‘game-changer’ for cancer treatment, researchers at Imperial College found a previously unknown molecule which boosts the body’s ability to fight off chronic illnesses.

Scientists at Imperial College London, who led the study, are now developing a gene therapy based on the protein and hope to begin human trials in three years.

“This is exciting because we have found a completely different way to use the immune system to fight cancer,” said Professor Philip Ashton-Rickardt, from the Section of Immunobiology in the Department of Medicine at Imperial, who led the study.

Some things to consider in the midst of all the resentment and paranoia:

The various capitalist interests who profit from the medical problems which plague us, have no need to suppress any cures. They have plenty to deal with and to profit from. When any segment of those industries gets extra hungry, or "discovers" a drug that doesn't fix whatever they hoped it would fix, they either proclaim it to be a solution to something else (i.e. Viagra), or they outright invent a new "malady" for our times (restless leg syndrome?).

Yes, breakthroughs in immunology and stem cell function seem to be promising. It has a long way to go still, but if done will have many applications, not just cancer treatment. But like all breakthroughs, i am sure it will encounter many ethical issues, as well as exploitation.

Very wonderful if we can cure cancer completely

Something worth checking out.

You know anyone who has cancer? Then you get this, a Momordica Charantia or a bitter melon. Believe me it's bitter but nevertheless gets the cancer cells to commit suicide. Make juice out if it. #��momordica #��charantia #��bitterlemon #�cancerkiller

strange though,the People of the Westindies,where that stuff grows like Weed are still dying from Cancer all over the place,even the ones using that stuff!
Yep,and that Crap IS bitter!

You know anyone personally who has tried it?

more or less common Knowledge in the Westindies!
How many actually have tried it I don't know,but I have heard it bandied around all the time while living down there!

so what kind of cancer you do need to cure? even there is H.I.V concluded not under the word names cancer still will making the world more clearly. how dare some one say that we need to cure the cancer first above all the decease? Hmmm......kinda confusing about it.......or maybe the N.H.C.A must prepare for K.I.A some day. Such cruel world......I hate medicines.......Wragggggg.......

You don't have firsthand knowledge. You've just heard about it. That is why firsthand knowledge would be helpful. It would be interesting if anyone had successful results.

I just did a search on the web. I was surprised at how many research projects have shown bitter melon to kill cancer cells or reduce the size of tumors. It's not a magic bullet but it does appear to help.

no....you don't search for that use your mind to think about that. then you will realize how hard is that. to me i'd still jujesting not only taking the pill or madcine something els both the activity of some ray radiation activity medical facility. but it have the oposide effecting like hair won't growth no more and somthing els.....to aim the cell denfence system is not juch qute clear idea for that because you still need to consern about digestion prosess may cause the toxi reaction both may kill the patient.

actually that Bitter Stuff is used for all Sorts of Ailments,from Stomach-Ailments to curing a Bout of the Flu!
Drank it many times myself as a "Tea"!
Heard about it's Cancerfighting properties,but usually was told of the Brother of a Nephew of an Uncle who was cured by drinking that Stuff!
Stuff grew wild outside my House!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momordica_charantia

Traditional medicinal uses

Bitter melon has been used in various Asian and African herbal medicine systems for a long time.[6][7][8] In Turkey, it has been used as a folk remedy for a variety of ailments, particularly stomach complaints.[9][10] In traditional medicine of India different parts of the plant are used to relieve diabetes, as a stomachic, laxative, antibilious, emetic, anthelmintic agent, for the treatment of cough, respiratory diseases, skin diseases, wounds, ulcer, gout, and rheumatism.[11]

According to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Momordica charantia has a number of uses that are thought to be beneficial; including cancer prevention, treatment of diabetes, fever, HIV and AIDS, and infections.[12] While it has shown some potential clinical activity in laboratory experiments, "further studies are required to recommend its use".[12]

With regard to the use of Momordica charantia for diabetes, several animal studies and small scale human studies have demonstrated a hypoglycemic effect of concentrated bitter melon extracts.[13][14][15] In addition, a 2014 review shows evidence that Momordica charantia, when consumed in raw or juice form, can be efficacious in lowering blood glucose levels.[16] Contrary to this evidence, multiple reviews have found that Momordica charantia does not significantly decrease fasting blood glucose levels or A1c, indicators of blood glucose control, when taken in capsule or tablet form.[16][17] Momordica charantia may be beneficial in diabetes, however the effects seem to depend on how it is consumed.[16] More studies need to be performed in order to verify this effect.[16]



My Buddy died of Coloncancer in 1990,and as a native Bahamian drank that stuff regularly all his Life,didn't seem to prevent that Cancer!

This is key.

When taken in tablet or capsule form, the effects are diminished. It needs to be consumed raw and in its natural state.

You can make juice out of it and need the proper amount to drink. I am sure someone knows the right amount for a cancer cure, needs to be taken regularly over a period of time.