21–30 of 159 posts
Anyone can mix chemicals in a test tube and claim it’s the cure for something. That’s the easy part. Proving it’s safe and effective, that’s what requires a lot of capital expenditure. This statement is a drastic characterization, but you could say “half a dozen PhDs can form reasons to believe they may have found a cure for something”, and the paragraph would end the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how something like high dose vitamin C IV is very expensive. I would assume a handful of oncologists could do the whole thing themselves. We get X patients a year, we randomly suggest the vitamin C IV to half, the half with vitamin C did better or worse by these metrics. Vitamin C is not expensive and they have to collect the outcome data for everyone involved anyway - so where is the expense coming from?…
It happens already. You just have to find the docs who do it. Which usually means attending conferences which focus on specific diseases.
Case in point, Cuba's lung cancer vaccine[1]. Which a company has brought to the U.S. as CIMAvax-EGF[2]. [1]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/09/cuba-ha... [2]: https://www.roswellpark.org/cimavax
As an aside, what makes this a vaccine vs a treatment?
Not 100% sure, because I've only heard about vaccines in preventative contexts before, but based on this description my guess would be that "anything that tells your immune system to Do Stuff" counts as a vaccine. Versus something like Herceptin, which also treats cancer, just with ready-made antibodies that were grown in a lab.
Anyone can mix chemicals in a test tube and claim it’s the cure for something. That’s the easy part. Proving it’s safe and effective, that’s what requires a lot of capital expenditure. This statement is a drastic characterization, but you could say “half a dozen PhDs can form reasons to believe they may have found a cure for something”, and the paragraph would end the same.
If you have to pay 200 homeless to take your 0.0001% better than placebo antidepressants in the context of a huge corporation, and maybe redo the trial a few times, I can see how that gets expensive, but I don't see why it's a de facto rule.
But even the big trials it's weird how expensive people say they are. Most other products require a lot of high paid labor to produce, think of a video game studio for example, also without any guarantee it won't flop, and it certainly takes longer to develop than to do a clinical trial.
That's interesting. I was just reading about how high dose IV vitamin c can induce cell death in a wide variety of cancers, but somehow, despite this being known for decades, nobody has done rigorous research on it. https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/news-eve... From what I can tell there are several things like this - that have promising anti cancer effects, that just don't really get that much atte…
When my wife was alive, some people in her group tried it. There's not much evidence. >> that have promising anti cancer effects I don't know why people gravitate towards the "simple" remedies for cancer, or pose that money making is a barrier for these remedies. Remember, research costs money! DO the funding yourself if you think there's a miracle cure here. (hint: there's not.)
Anyone can mix chemicals in a test tube and claim it’s the cure for something. That’s the easy part. Proving it’s safe and effective, that’s what requires a lot of capital expenditure. This statement is a drastic characterization, but you could say “half a dozen PhDs can form reasons to believe they may have found a cure for something”, and the paragraph would end the same.
Since these are cancer trials I'm assuming no test subjects get paid, and university PhDs research for free, like in every other field, so what necessarily has to be expensive about it? If you have to pay 200 homeless to take your 0.0001% better than placebo antidepressants in the context of a huge corporation, and maybe redo the trial a few times, I can see how that gets expensive, but I don't see why it's a de fact…
That's interesting. I was just reading about how high dose IV vitamin c can induce cell death in a wide variety of cancers, but somehow, despite this being known for decades, nobody has done rigorous research on it. https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/news-eve... From what I can tell there are several things like this - that have promising anti cancer effects, that just don't really get that much atte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since these are cancer trials I'm assuming no test subjects get paid, and university PhDs research for free, like in every other field, so what necessarily has to be expensive about it? If you have to pay 200 homeless to take your 0.0001% better than placebo antidepressants in the context of a huge corporation, and maybe redo the trial a few times, I can see how that gets expensive, but I don't see why it's a de fact…
PhD candidates are paid salary in the Netherlands. Less of course than the senior trial researchers at pharma. I also would not assume there is no compensation for subjects as thats part of the medical-ethical process and not just ‘it helps the subject so no money’.
Case in point, Cuba's lung cancer vaccine[1]. Which a company has brought to the U.S. as CIMAvax-EGF[2]. [1]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/09/cuba-ha... [2]: https://www.roswellpark.org/cimavax
As an aside, what makes this a vaccine vs a treatment?
Anyone can mix chemicals in a test tube and claim it’s the cure for something. That’s the easy part. Proving it’s safe and effective, that’s what requires a lot of capital expenditure. This statement is a drastic characterization, but you could say “half a dozen PhDs can form reasons to believe they may have found a cure for something”, and the paragraph would end the same.
The office behemoths involved are optional. Whats missing is tools to scan the body locally for cheap. The rest can be automated or distributed to people with an interest in success (high-level-analysis by the cure developers).
Here are the volunteers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266700542...