Biden says world on cusp of some 'real breakthroughs' on cancer

[spidermike007]

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

Is it your assertion there should not be any research. That no matter how much they try its not helping. Or that its just a money spinner and they dont want one?

Not saying that they should not do any research. R & D leads to breakthroughs. I am saying I am not certain how much the incredibly powerful and greedy interests at stake here, really, sincerely want a cure. It is a bit like putting themselves out of an extremely lucrative franchise. 

 

Only the truly independent interests will find a cure, or even a way to slow down cancer. The universities, and big pharma are the last ones in the world, who will find it. They don't want it. 

[impulse]

10 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Not saying that they should not do any research. R & D leads to breakthroughs. I am saying I am not certain how much the incredibly powerful and greedy interests at stake here, really, sincerely want a cure. It is a bit like putting themselves out of an extremely lucrative franchise. 

 

Only the truly independent interests will find a cure, or even a way to slow down cancer. The universities, and big pharma are the last ones in the world, who will find it. They don't want it. 

 

As long as "managing the chronic disease" is more profitable than curing it...

 

I used to have more faith in the Universities, until the Big Pharma lobby convinced the gub'ment to quit funding university research in favor of letting private money fund it.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by impulse

[simple1]

7 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Only the truly independent interests will find a cure, or even a way to slow down cancer. The universities, and big pharma are the last ones in the world, who will find it. They don't want it. 

 

I find your claim to be extraordinary, got any facts to back up your claim? Collaboration between Uni researchers and pharma has led to the development of treatment / mitigation of cancers from which I benefit, without which I wouldn't be posting this response. Pharma developing cures for cancers would generate massive profits for the shareholders and cost saving for government. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by simple1

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, impulse said:

 

As long as "managing the chronic disease" is more profitable than curing it...

 

I used to have more faith in the Universities, until the Big Pharma lobby convinced the gub'ment to quit funding university research in favor of letting private money fund it.

 

Recent Trends in NCI Budgets
In FY 2017, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act, authorizing $1.8 billion in funding for the Cancer Moonshot initiative over 7 years. Before FY 2017, with the exception of the funding received through ARRA, the nation’s investment in cancer research experienced a prolonged hiatus in significant financial growth. Despite the opportunity for new funding through Cancer Moonshot, the increased cost of research and the constant dollar loss of funding due to inflation continue to impact the NCI budget and subsequently, the pace of investment in cancer research.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget#:~:text=In FY 2017%2C Congress passed,hiatus in significant financial growth.

[impulse]

16 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

I find your claim to be extraordinary, got any facts to back up your claim? Collaboration between Uni researchers and pharma has led to the development of treatment / mitigation of cancers from which I benefit, without which I wouldn't be posting this response. Pharma developing cures for cancers would generate massive profits for the shareholders and cost saving for government. 

 

Which is more profitable?  Curing it, or developing long term treatment/ mitigation that keeps patients coming back for years and years of expensive treatment?    One shot, or $$$ millions in chemo/ radiation?

 

What's the objective to keep shareholders happy?  Preventing and curing disease, or maximizing the return on their investment $$$?  (I can tell you which one gets the managers better bonuses)

 

Between saving taxpayer money and getting billions in lobby money, which do you figure most politicians would vote for?

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by impulse

[placeholder]

On 3/6/2021 at 10:24 PM, spidermike007 said:

Not saying that they should not do any research. R & D leads to breakthroughs. I am saying I am not certain how much the incredibly powerful and greedy interests at stake here, really, sincerely want a cure. It is a bit like putting themselves out of an extremely lucrative franchise. 

 

Only the truly independent interests will find a cure, or even a way to slow down cancer. The universities, and big pharma are the last ones in the world, who will find it. They don't want it. 

 

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Which is more profitable?  Curing it, or developing long term treatment/ mitigation that keeps patients coming back for years and years of expensive treatment?    One shot, or $$$ millions in chemo/ radiation?

 

What's the objective to keep shareholders happy?  Preventing and curing disease, or maximizing the return on their investment $$$?  (I can tell you which one gets the managers better bonuses)

 

Between saving taxpayer money and getting billions in lobby money, which do you figure most politicians would vote for?

 

If the only people doing research into cancer treatments were pharmaceutical companies, you might have at least half a case to make. But in fact there are thousands of scientists doing research independent of big pharma. So unless you posit some sort of deranged massive conspiracy theory of the same kind as do ACG denialists, your case falls apart.

[partington]

17 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

I find your claim to be extraordinary, got any facts to back up your claim? Collaboration between Uni researchers and pharma has led to the development of treatment / mitigation of cancers from which I benefit, without which I wouldn't be posting this response. Pharma developing cures for cancers would generate massive profits for the shareholders and cost saving for government. 

Yes exactly. These claims are utterly incredible, and make no economic, or even common, sense.

 

A pharma company that developed a genuine effective cancer treatment, free of the side effects and disadvantages of toxic chemotherapies, would have a gigantic and guaranteed income stream.

 

All subsequent generations will continue to develop cancers so the need for these drugs will continually recur.

 

Additionally, because upwards of 200 genes are involved in causing cancer, there are literally hundreds of different kinds of cancer, because each kind  is caused by mutations or dysregulation of only a handful of these 200 genes in various combinations.

 

So a large number of very different drugs or therapies will need to be developed in order to treat the different types of cancers - again a huge motivation and opportunity for continued drug development.

 

It just doesn't make any sense to "not want to" do this, both on moral and economic grounds.

[Neeranam]

On 3/5/2021 at 9:13 AM, Isaan sailor said:

Sure we all hope for medical breakthroughs.  As forJoe Biden, I just hope he can stand up to an open press conference.  40+ days and he can’t speak without a teleprompter.  That’s a record, BTW.

OMG, you are right. Anyone feel cheated?

[rott]

On 3/5/2021 at 11:30 AM, Jingthing said:

Some Americans will be put out of work and some will be put in work as under all presidents.

No president is an all powerful God.

There are strong limitations to presidential powers.

For example the sensible transition to a 15 dollar minimum wage can't happen unless the democrats decide to change the rules of the senate.

There are no open borders. To suggest that there are is just hate mongering hyperbole. 

To be fair I think he meant the intent to have open borders. 

[Jingthing]

Just now, rott said:

To be fair I think he meant the intent to have open borders. 

There is no intent to have open borders. 

[placeholder]

On 3/5/2021 at 9:13 AM, Isaan sailor said:

Sure we all hope for medical breakthroughs.  As forJoe Biden, I just hope he can stand up to an open press conference.  40+ days and he can’t speak without a teleprompter.  That’s a record, BTW.

Nonsense. Biden has taken plenty of questions from the press. Just not in a formal press conference setting. Not only that, he doesn't erupt with rage and resentment when facing tough questioning:

 

Fox News’ scrappy White House correspondent grills Biden, who plays along

Whenever President Biden leaves a stage or lectern after an appearance in front of the media, the last voice viewers hear usually belongs to Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy.

In a post-Trump age when reporters are no longer dealing with a tsunami of misinformation or general hostility toward their trade, Doocy has emerged as an old-school, combative correspondent, peppering White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki — and occasionally Biden — with queries on how the president’s policies differ from promises made on the campaign trail...

“I know he always asks me tough questions, and he always has an edge to them, but I like him anyway,” Biden said before calling on Doocy at a recent briefing.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-03-04/fox-news-white-house-correspondent-peter-doocy-biden

 

And as for the teleprompter issue, it seems Trump needed one to keep him grounded in reality:

Donald Trump Blames Revolutionary War 'Airport' Gaffe on Teleprompter Breaking: 'That's Not a Good Feeling'

In his Independence Day address, President Donald Trump wrongly claimed that the Continental Army "took over the airports" during the Revolutionary War, more than 100 years before the advent of manned aircraft. When asked about the gaffe while departing the White House on Friday, Trump blamed the mistake on a teleprompter malfunction.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-blames-revolutionary-airport-gaffe-teleprompter-malfunction-1447792

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/6/2021 at 1:36 PM, simple1 said:

No. You posted  "creating a cancer charity that spends all the money collected on lobbyists(?) probably won't help."

 

Biden's charity invested US$2.5m on lobbying, which generated  funds of US$400m for cancer treatment improvements. Whilst billions are invested with improving cancer treatments, Biden's charity achieved an excellent contribution / return on investment in a short period of time -  he and his team are to be congratulated, not criticised.

Treating cancer is ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. They'd have done better funding research to PREVENT cancer happening in the first place, IMO.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Treating cancer is ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. They'd have done better funding research to PREVENT cancer happening in the first place, IMO.

 

<deleted> criticising someone who has raised US$400m for cancer treatment.  BTW try some researching before posting.

 

 Biden had already obtained $1.8 billion for cancer research via the 2016 Moonshot

 

https://cancerletter.com/articles/20201116_1/

Edited March 7, 2021 by simple1

[simple1]

7 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Which is more profitable?  Curing it, or developing long term treatment/ mitigation that keeps patients coming back for years and years of expensive treatment?    One shot, or $$$ millions in chemo/ radiation?

 

What's the objective to keep shareholders happy?  Preventing and curing disease, or maximizing the return on their investment $$$?  (I can tell you which one gets the managers better bonuses)

 

Between saving taxpayer money and getting billions in lobby money, which do you figure most politicians would vote for?

 

 

Do you have any proof from credible sources pharma industry Board's policy is the above?

[Tug]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense. Biden has taken plenty of questions from the press. Just not in a formal press conference setting. Not only that, he doesn't erupt with rage and resentment when facing tough questioning:

 

Fox News’ scrappy White House correspondent grills Biden, who plays along

Whenever President Biden leaves a stage or lectern after an appearance in front of the media, the last voice viewers hear usually belongs to Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy.

In a post-Trump age when reporters are no longer dealing with a tsunami of misinformation or general hostility toward their trade, Doocy has emerged as an old-school, combative correspondent, peppering White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki — and occasionally Biden — with queries on how the president’s policies differ from promises made on the campaign trail...

“I know he always asks me tough questions, and he always has an edge to them, but I like him anyway,” Biden said before calling on Doocy at a recent briefing.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-03-04/fox-news-white-house-correspondent-peter-doocy-biden

 

And as for the teleprompter issue, it seems Trump needed one to keep him grounded in reality:

Donald Trump Blames Revolutionary War 'Airport' Gaffe on Teleprompter Breaking: 'That's Not a Good Feeling'

In his Independence Day address, President Donald Trump wrongly claimed that the Continental Army "took over the airports" during the Revolutionary War, more than 100 years before the advent of manned aircraft. When asked about the gaffe while departing the White House on Friday, Trump blamed the mistake on a teleprompter malfunction.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-blames-revolutionary-airport-gaffe-teleprompter-malfunction-1447792

 

 

 

Awwww take it easy on the trump supporters lol they are desperate for anything to prop up the image of their idol lol

[rcuthbert]

I wonder if he consults with physicians about sociopolitical matters?