Soursop Fruit 100 Fold Stronger At Killing Cancer Than Chemotherapy
- Thread starter updog
- Start date
AdamG94
Member
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
i did some research yesterday and while it probably isn't surprising to anyone, it appears the article contains a lot of omission, not to mention some plain lies. the reason i posted this was i saw a finnish article on the matter that listed the webpage i posted as its source, and i didn't know if preventdisease.com is a trustworthy website or not. as it, in turn, lists wikipedia as a source, well... 
too bad. the impact on the medical industry would definitely have been a sight to see. let's hope that one day, there are things to drive medical research other than profit.
too bad. the impact on the medical industry would definitely have been a sight to see. let's hope that one day, there are things to drive medical research other than profit.
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
My girlfriend works for GlaxoSmithKline and through her I've gained a bit of a perspective on the industry.
Although GSK and other big pharmaceutical companies are run for a profit, you have to distinguish between the profit that comes from the difference between manufacturing cost and sale price and the actual net profit that the company makes. The vast majority of profit that is made on the sale of a drug goes back in to R&D to research the next drug, the money isn't just all being siphoned off in to shareholders pockets.
You could run a not-for-profit pharmaceutical business, but you'd struggle raising the necessary capital and in the end you wouldn't be able to sell the drugs much cheaper anyway.
If you want to sell an existing drug for loads cheaper, someone needs to be losing money somewhere. In a recent example, Bill Gates gave a very substantial amount of money to GSK to research a malaria vaccine, which is now rolled out to developing countries for very small markup on the manufacturing cost. It's a one off thing (there's no significant profit to reinvest in the next drug) and Bill Gates had to do it out of generocity.
On the other hand, we could all pay fuck loads more tax and have much more government funded drug research and development.
Basically, the pharmaceutical industry isn't inherently evil and having a profit motive doesn't necessarily make things worse for consumers. However, it is important to continue putting moral/political pressure on the industry in order to ensure that they don't get too greedy.
P.S. if you're reading "science" on the internet and can't find a peer reviewed paper (or at least a pre-print) to back it up, the default position is "this is bullshit".
Although GSK and other big pharmaceutical companies are run for a profit, you have to distinguish between the profit that comes from the difference between manufacturing cost and sale price and the actual net profit that the company makes. The vast majority of profit that is made on the sale of a drug goes back in to R&D to research the next drug, the money isn't just all being siphoned off in to shareholders pockets.
You could run a not-for-profit pharmaceutical business, but you'd struggle raising the necessary capital and in the end you wouldn't be able to sell the drugs much cheaper anyway.
If you want to sell an existing drug for loads cheaper, someone needs to be losing money somewhere. In a recent example, Bill Gates gave a very substantial amount of money to GSK to research a malaria vaccine, which is now rolled out to developing countries for very small markup on the manufacturing cost. It's a one off thing (there's no significant profit to reinvest in the next drug) and Bill Gates had to do it out of generocity.
On the other hand, we could all pay fuck loads more tax and have much more government funded drug research and development.
Basically, the pharmaceutical industry isn't inherently evil and having a profit motive doesn't necessarily make things worse for consumers. However, it is important to continue putting moral/political pressure on the industry in order to ensure that they don't get too greedy.
P.S. if you're reading "science" on the internet and can't find a peer reviewed paper (or at least a pre-print) to back it up, the default position is "this is bullshit".
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
good post, i agree with you.
i don't think it's always the case of them just doing what they have to, though; isn't cancer research a popular cause to donate to? there must be a lot of millionaires who donate sizeable amounts to cancer research. not to mention ordinary people. there's no expense in receiving donations, so where does all that money go?
i mean, if i was part of something that would've been receiving donations for probably some hundred years, how would i feel using the very same methods that were invented those some hundred years ago? pretty useless.
i'm not saying those people researching are incompetent, i'm just wondering what gives...
i don't think it's always the case of them just doing what they have to, though; isn't cancer research a popular cause to donate to? there must be a lot of millionaires who donate sizeable amounts to cancer research. not to mention ordinary people. there's no expense in receiving donations, so where does all that money go?
i mean, if i was part of something that would've been receiving donations for probably some hundred years, how would i feel using the very same methods that were invented those some hundred years ago? pretty useless.
i'm not saying those people researching are incompetent, i'm just wondering what gives...
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
A drug my gf's department was working on for leukaemia just got approved, and similar stories are happening everywhere all the time. The truth is that the standard and variety of medical treatment available for a cancer patient now is simply incredible compared to what it was even 30 years ago and survival rates have similarly improved.
More people are killed by cancer now than they were 100 years ago, but this has more to do with them surviving everything else long enough to get to that point and poor lifestyle and diet. This means that people are more likely to get it in the first place and more likely to survive to the point where it kills them. For example, a very large proportion of men over 80 have prostate cancer, however normally this is left untreated as something else will kill them first: cancer won't be cause of death. However, if medical advances to treat other ailments progress faster than cancer treatments, the death rate from prostrate cancer would actually *rise* despite having better treatments....
TesticleMilkshake
pewpewlazrz
kaomao
Member
They're greedy! because I know personally a friend of mine working in a factory where they put pills inside packages.
You gotta see all mess and dirt.... and all those pills are ingested by us.
Why acting like this? you can invest a bit more money and having a better environment where to work. No way! they want to gain some more money out of it, out of our health.
I won't say what's the name of the company, but this sucks beyond human knowledge.
TesticleMilkshake
pewpewlazrz
Soursoup was featured on Bizarre Foods, Eastern Australia. I'm pretty sure I've seen that in the Chinatown fruit stands.
Similar threads
