re: Imagine If We Gave $350B To Cancer Research Instead Of War In Ukraine

Quote- “They have no intention of curing cancer”

This is such a bull-shite tinfoil hat line.

Look at the common cancers and I’ll show some examples.

Prostate cancer - vast majority of patients, even with advanced disease, are cured with standard treatment.

Thyroid cancer - 95+% cure rate with standard treatment.

Lymphomas - very high cure rate.

Colon cancer - very good means of early detection and vast majority of patients are cured if detected early.

HPV related cancers (cervical,some throat cancers) will likely be prevented , or at least drastically reduced by the HPV vaccine. And in the meantime , cure rates for both of these cancers are very high.

The reality is that “cancer” is not one thing to cure, but 100 or 1000, or 10,000 things. The advances in molecular and genomic testing are changing the game and we are WAY better than we ever have been at curing it.

So don’t just parrot “big pharma out to get me” bullshite and expect people who actually know something to nod their head. You’re not just a little wrong. You are way wrong.

And if there was a single “cure” for cancer, that would end cancer once and for all, there would be so much money in it that it would be impossible that company to not release it.

So yes, in fact, “ they” are trying to cure cancer.

I addressed this type of thing in my healthcare plan. I also had something I called Four Corners. You take four institutions in each corner of the nation, and they are given massive sums of money. You pick the top 8 or 10 health issues in the nation and divide them among these four and work commences to address these issues. Part of this has to be seeking cures for devastating cancers for females, for males, and for children. You skip the normal grant cycle and you just get to work. This would accelerate our progress.

The NCI estimated, about 10 years ago, that we wasted at least $50M per year in cancer research because we have to duplicate and replicate various things. This wastes money but also wastes time. This is part of what my plan would address. To explain, often they test tissue specimens. When the grant is over they unplug the freezer and all of those specimens spoil. Next project comes along with an improved test. Having the original specimens would be helpful and dramatically increase efficiency. We need a national registry and preservation center to keep these specimens once the work is complete. In most studies, 50% or less of a specimen is used.

Another part of my healthcare plan was the accumulation of a large pool of money for game changing medical interventions that would require a national referendum to qualify - helping to bypass companies that seek to game stuff to keep people alive to make money, but not cure them. If there was a cure for breast cancer, for example, and it cost $10B to develop, if the national referendum passed, that company would get 3x their R&D costs, tax free, immediately so they can begin work on the next big item. The only catch is that they would have to sell their product at 105% of cost. It would be a great deal for them. I also wanted to explore a registry for scientists and their teams. If breast cancer was cured, then everyone in the nation that was part of that effort, whether or not their team found the cure, would get a stipend for life. The incentives have to be stacked for the things we want. Right now, the incentives are not aligned like that.

My healthcare plan would have produced an enormous surplus for our nation, getting us out of debt, even at the current trajectory, in about 20 years and in the longer term would produce unfathomable levels of wealth. It would be deflationary and no one is kicked to the curb.

If we don't fix healthcare, it will collapse and we'll get single payer and the govt will be in control. Then we're all slaves. For people losing loved ones or battling with cancer, it has to be infuriating to see our govt throw $5-10B per year at this, and then hundreds of billions to Ukraine. It's evil and I don't know how else you could classify it.

ETA - also wanted to add that it takes enormous time, effort, and money to find new medications, for example, but once that is done, the cost to produce these medications is often quite low. Many medications actually cost about $30 for a month's supply, but because of R&D a company must charge hundreds if not thousands. Same for lab tests. IIRC a new hepatitis med came out some time ago and it was going to cost the VA $75K to give it to someone. Imagine if that came down to $200 or something like that. Lower costs with better outcomes.

Cancer is just parasites. There’s always been a cure.

They still would claim that they cannot find a cure. But some people would just get ever more rich!

Cancer research has blown through hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, without a cure. I can remember doing charity drives as a teenager in the mid 80's after my father was diagnosed, none it saved him after a 3 year battle. As someone in their 50's now, I can see how much more money there is in it for not finding a cure.

Why do people equate spending more and more money on cancer research with curing cancer?

There is a finite number of researchers, labs, smart people, etc. Providing more and more money doesn’t mean success.

quote:

---

More money is made treating and not curing.

---

What does this mean?

It’s by design that we still have not discovered a cure for cancer. No matter how much money we pour into cancer research, there will not be a cure. There’s just simply too much money to be made by researchers and big pharma. The only thing that research has been able to produce are expensive meds to alleviate the pain and suffering. This is the only thing big pharma will allow.

quote:

---

It’s by design that we still have not discovered a cure for cancer.

---

Which cancer specifically are you talking about?

Cancer would plummet if that went towards healthier food laws.