- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/10/26 at 8:02 am to stlslick
quote:
big pharmaa made that disappear
also the medical industry, Cancer is a trillion dollar money maker for them.
think of all the specialists, hospitals, doctors, treatments,etc. it's a gold mine for them.
How much would you pay to cure cancer in a loved one?
Posted on 3/10/26 at 8:04 am to omegaman66
quote:
It is worse than that. It goes beyond their place of employment.
1. Oncologist are the ONLY doctors that are allowed to make money off of the drugs they use.
What does this even mean
Posted on 3/10/26 at 8:28 am to DocYatesVA
Some years ago I saw a report on 60 Minutes where the CEO of a pharmaceutical manufacturing company was interviewed...and the focus of the interview was the cost of anti-cancer medications. He was challenged on the fact that a cancer medication they produced (sorry, I don't recall the name) was provided to the public for several hundred dollars per dose. The kicker was that it was also used in sheep...at pennies per dose. His response as to the significant cost discrepancy was that "no one would pay more than a few cents per dose to treat a sheep."
Posted on 3/10/26 at 8:28 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:Nah.
I suspect Ed and his ilk will quickly disappear from this thread
Unfortunately, a consequence of the breathless anti-ivermectin bullshite forwarded by "research medicine" and "science" early in Covid is a deep distrust of the medical/pharma industry and lengthy threads like this one. At a time when there were zero anti-CV19 options, none, there was some indication IVM might help. Slamming the door shut on off-label IVM use under those circumstances was inexcusable. Empowering CVS Pharmacists to refuse legal prescriptions by MDs was absurd.
The consequence is a well-earned laypeoples mistrust. It is what it is.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 8:41 am to AlterEd
quote:
Winner
Yep. Treating cancer is huge business.
Ivermectin’s was patented by Merck until 1996. They sure did leave a metric frickton of money on the table burying its efficacy.
I guess they knew Keytruda was going to be discovered 7 years later…
Posted on 3/10/26 at 9:01 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
What does this even mean
It means that when you go to the hospital for a broken arm and they do surgery and prescribe pain killers, that the doctor goes to jail if he sells you pain killers. Same for urologist, dentist etc etc. EXCEPT for oncologist. The only ones that make a profit for selling you the drugs that they use to treat the cancer.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 9:06 am to omegaman66
quote:
It means that when you go to the hospital for a broken arm and they do surgery and prescribe pain killers, that the doctor goes to jail if he sells you pain killers. Same for urologist, dentist etc etc. EXCEPT for oncologist. The only ones that make a profit for selling you the drugs that they use to treat the cancer.
You are making 0 sense. Do you know what "prescriptions" and "pharmacies" are?
Posted on 3/10/26 at 10:39 am to Penrod
quote:
Sure man, but your ilk is positing a conspiracy involving hundreds of people who all - ALL - somehow got convinced to risk their relatives’ lives and their own. That’s batshit crazy!
I mean it's a good point, but to say something like humans wouldn't do this because of some sort of moral code or ethic... history is riddled with the opposite. Look, America is awesome, but we did do a lot of shady stuff to get here. And a lot of people did not care who they hurt, whether family or not. That's just what it is. I'm not saying a cure for cancer does or doesn't exist, but I don't think someone worrying about family, for most people that would be in that situation, would really stop them from whatever perceived amount of power or money they get in return. Humans are incredibly vulnerable to both.
This post was edited on 3/10/26 at 10:40 am
Posted on 3/10/26 at 11:19 am to omegaman66
quote:Neither of those statements are true.
1. Oncologist are the ONLY doctors that are allowed to make money off of the drugs they use.
2. They are only allowed to discuss approved treatments (national level approved) treatments. If they so much as mention any treatments like ivermectin or fenben they will lose their medical license.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 11:28 am to NC_Tigah
Here is the document itself. Marked confidential. Yes, it was indeed classified by the CIA.
AI confirms it was kept classified until 2014. 64 years from the date of the creation of the document.
You haven't done anything to refute anything I said. In fact, you just basically repeated what I said about Stalin shutting them down and putting them on trial for cooperating with Americans.
Furthermore, nobody frickin claimed that this was a cure. Not in the OP, nor by me. They said they kept classified a potential cure. There is a difference.
And they were right, as it turns out anti-parasitics show great promise in fighting cancer. Citations littered throughout the thread.
Nice try, but you're wrong.
AI confirms it was kept classified until 2014. 64 years from the date of the creation of the document.
You haven't done anything to refute anything I said. In fact, you just basically repeated what I said about Stalin shutting them down and putting them on trial for cooperating with Americans.
Furthermore, nobody frickin claimed that this was a cure. Not in the OP, nor by me. They said they kept classified a potential cure. There is a difference.
And they were right, as it turns out anti-parasitics show great promise in fighting cancer. Citations littered throughout the thread.
Nice try, but you're wrong.
This post was edited on 3/10/26 at 11:30 am
Posted on 3/10/26 at 11:41 am to DocYatesVA
I get what you're saying here, but I wonder how that would work for a drug like ivermectin that has already been on the market for ages and is considered safe to use already, and only costs pennies to produce.
Do you think they would just mark it up if they started using it to fight cancer?
It isn't just the cost of the drug either. So long as they are still "looking for a cure" billions of dollars per year is poured into research and development of new drugs.
Do you think they would just mark it up if they started using it to fight cancer?
It isn't just the cost of the drug either. So long as they are still "looking for a cure" billions of dollars per year is poured into research and development of new drugs.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 11:53 am to NC_Tigah
What I want to know is, so long as medical research is done ethically, what justification could there possibly be for classifying it? Much less for 64 years.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 12:22 pm to AlterEd
A few ideas here. Intelligence agencies often classify documents because of how they obtained them rather than the content itself. If the CIA got a copy through an informant or intercept rather than the journal itself, that alone could make the document classified so the adversary doesn't burn their source.
The context could have done it too. Often the analysis surrounding a document is classified (e.g. CIA analyst attaches notes, compares Soviet labs, speculate about biological programs. The scientific paper itself may be harmless, but the analytic context is sensitive so the whole file gets stamped classified.
Also, this was height of the cold war, so we should expect even more overclassification than in later years (where it's still a problem) and then they're notoriously slow to de-classify all sorts of mundane info.
The context could have done it too. Often the analysis surrounding a document is classified (e.g. CIA analyst attaches notes, compares Soviet labs, speculate about biological programs. The scientific paper itself may be harmless, but the analytic context is sensitive so the whole file gets stamped classified.
Also, this was height of the cold war, so we should expect even more overclassification than in later years (where it's still a problem) and then they're notoriously slow to de-classify all sorts of mundane info.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 12:24 pm to AlterEd
quote:It not only was not classified, it reached beyond research and medical journals and into the mainstream press!
You haven't done anything to refute anything I said.
quote:
TIME
Medicine: KR for Cancer
July 8, 1946
The news was premature, perhaps, but too good to keep. Though they pointedly avoided any claim that they had found a cure for cancer, two Russian doctors last week made a cautious progress report on a promising line of attack.
In 1937 Dr. Grigori Roskin of Moscow University casually picked up an article on South America’s fatal Chagas’ disease, a protozoan infection spread chiefly by an acorn-sized insect, the triatoma. In female Chagas victims there is a wasting away of breast tissues, which are composed of large, spongy cells. Could it be, Dr. Roskin wondered, that the devouring parasitic trypanosomes are especially attracted to large cells? And that cancerous tissues, which are also made up of oversized cells, might also succumb to the same parasite?
Dr. Roskin imported some triatomas and turned them loose on mice implanted with cancerous tissues. Result: the cancers dwindled, and in the giant, half-destroyed cancer cells Roskin found active organisms of the Chagas disease. So far, so good —but when the trypanosomes had consumed the cancers, they attacked healthy tissues.
Suspecting that it was not the parasites themselves which attacked the giant cells, but an unidentified chemical which they secreted. Dr. Roskin called in his wife. A Moscow University microbiologist named Nina Klyueva, she developed a solution from inactivated trypanosomes —KR for the two doctors’ initials. Tests proved that the KR solution cured cancer implanted in mice, but did not harm healthy mice. To make sure that it had no ill effects on human beings, Dr. Roskin injected himself with the solution.
As far as the very limited supply of KR has permitted, clinical tests have also been made on human cancers (i.e., where the growths were not so large that their dissolution would cause malfunctions). One inoperable throat cancer, Drs. Roskin & Kluyeva report, disappeared in two weeks. In an unspecified number of other cases KR “reduced” or partially destroyed cancer. But a lot more evidence is needed, the doctors admit, before the usefulness of KR can be safely evaluated.
LINK
Posted on 3/10/26 at 12:28 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It not only was not classified,
This has now crossed over into a straight up lie. I shared the document with you. Yes, it was classified.
TIME magazine reporting on it doesn't mean the research wasn't classified by the CIA. It 100% was.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 12:30 pm to AlterEd
quote:You are addressing a document, not the facts of the research. The implication that the research itself was classified is false. I cannot speak to the CIA's rationale for leaving their document as classified. Perhaps the implication is they were continuing to use sources and methods to track further research in the USSR, as research was then ongoing on the same subject in the west. The continued classification would be to protect those sources and methods.
What I want to know is, so long as medical research is done ethically, what justification could there possibly be for classifying it? Much less for 64 years.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 12:32 pm to NC_Tigah
Thank you for admitting that my OP is accurate. Finally.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 12:33 pm to AlterEd
quote:
Thank you for admitting that my OP is accurate. Finally.
No. He said
quote:
The assertion that Cancer research was classified by the CIA made no sense.
The research =/= that specific document.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 12:34 pm to AlterEd
Interesting. That Time article shows the work was already circulating publicly in the 1940s.
There were actually a lot of cancer “breakthroughs” reported in that era that looked promising in mice or early case reports but didn’t pan out once larger trials were done.
KR seems to fit that pattern pretty closely - early mouse success, a handful of human anecdotes, then it quietly disappears from the literature.
There were actually a lot of cancer “breakthroughs” reported in that era that looked promising in mice or early case reports but didn’t pan out once larger trials were done.
KR seems to fit that pattern pretty closely - early mouse success, a handful of human anecdotes, then it quietly disappears from the literature.
This post was edited on 3/10/26 at 12:38 pm
Page 10 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News