Scientists find treatment to kill every kind of cancer tumor!!!

reply to post by rickymouse

People go to doctors a lot and also go for testing to make sure they are cancer free.

There's no need for that to stop if there is an effective treatment.

Fifteen to twenty percent minimum of all money going through the medical field has to to with cancer one way or another. Knock of this money and a lot of people are out of work. A doctor will still be working but his office staff will be less. This would equate to a loss of at least a hundred thousand workers in the medical field in this country alone.

You seem to be jumping all over the place with your arguments. One min you are talking about pharmaceutical companies profit and then the next min you are talking about doctors working in hospitals. Not only do you want to lump all Pharmaceutical companies into one big sinister 'big pharma' group but you want to include all hospitals and doctors as well. Jeez grow up..The entire medical profession of companies , hospitals , doctors nurses , charities and researchers are not holding giant secret meetings behind your back. Pharmaceutical companies are not worried about what goes on with doctors, Pharmaceutical companies just want to make a profit.

You seem to be hanging on very tightly to this idea that there's a huge conspiracy when all your arguments for it don't make the slightest bit of sense especially when it comes to finance.

like i've said time and time again :

What a company would lose in profits from a small 2-5 year period where a person was dying from cancer they would then gain back from maybe 20 more years of them suffering from other age related illnesses that need expensive drugs and treatments.

The drug companies stand to make as much if not more money from finding a cure/effective treatment and keeping patients alive for further expensive treatments and as you pointed out..testing.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


I am talking about the complete medical industry of the USA. In excess of 22 percent of the countries Economy. You can't take apart a puzzle and look at each part individually, you have to know what the puzzle looks like overall to see the whole picture.

We need to get some more manufacturing jobs in the USA instead of supporting an industry that profits by our sickness.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


thats because when no one is looking they are going to x these scientists, thats why you arent hearing anything about it ^^

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by rickymouse

 

So you're suggesting a company would pass up the chance to be one the richest companies in the world. Plus miss out on repeat business from satisfied customers out of professional curtsey to other competing corporations in a failing world economy?

Of course they wont be interested in treatments that they can not make a profit from, but that doesn't mean they would throw away a good profit making treatment.

A huge percentage the people who would be saved from dying from cancer would be in the over 50 range and would then be in the market for more drugs and treatments for other age related illnesses for the rest of their lives. Its a win win situation for the company who finds the most effective treatment.

edit on 8-4-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

What do you mean "can't be patented"?
Whilst it's true that certain natural compounds etc etc can't be patented per se that doesn't stop you patenting a specific use in a certain environment for that compound.
If a drug company wants to patent something, they will.
Simple as.

reply to post by Pardon?


Hi Pardon? there are certain things cant be patented because they exist naturally. Vitamins is a simple example or using hemp oil.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Hi Pardon? there are certain things cant be patented because they exist naturally. Vitamins is a simple example or using hemp oil.

edit on 9-4-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

You can patent a process to extract or refine a natural substance and as I said, you can patent the USE of a natural product for a specific purpose.
For instance, I could not patent hemp oil or vitamin C for existing uses but if I discovered a new use for them I could certainly patent that. Or if I discovered a new way of administering them I could patent that too.

reply to post by Pardon?


Not in Europe or new Zealand it seems.

The European Patent Convention and New Zealand Patents Act specifically exclude methods of medical diagnosis and/or treatment from patentability.

www.claytonutz.com...

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Not in Europe or new Zealand it seems.

The European Patent Convention and New Zealand Patents Act specifically exclude methods of medical diagnosis and/or treatment from patentability.

www.claytonutz.com...

edit on 9-4-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

The biggest market is in the USA and the patent s of new techniques etc is applicable there.

Here's the European get out clause for patentability:

"Stating that it is "difficult to see why applicants and inventors in the field of diagnostics should be deprived of a comprehensive patent protection", the EPO Board of Appeal took a restrictive interpretation of the patent exclusion for diagnostic methods. Inventions referring exclusively to new methods carried out during the examination phase in order to collect clinical data of a human being or animal independent from the subsequent use of these data may no longer be excluded from patentability under Article 52(4).[3] As an example, methods for obtaining data, in-vitro diagnostic techniques and measurements of blood parameters are patentable."

It wouldn't take much for a good legal team to push that through.


There aren't many people in New Zealand so I don't think the pharma companies would be too bothered about not getting in there.
Although there's a very exploitable clause in the ruling anyway;

Although diagnostic methods are in principle excluded from patentability when practised on the human body, "in vitro diagnostic tests, performed on blood or on other samples removed from the body are patentable as it is considered to be an intellectual exercise".

As much as you would like to believe that there's no way to patent these substances, I can assure you that the pharma companies would find a way.
They're very, very good at that.

reply to post by Pardon?

You can patent pretty much anything under the sun that is made by man except laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. These categories are excluded subject matter from the scope of patents.
Why Can't I Patent a Discovery I Made?

Even if you make a new and useful scientific discovery that no one else has ever thought of, you cannot get a patent on it because you did not actually create the fact you discovered. That fact was always in existence, you were just the first to notice it. However, if you can come up with an invention that makes use of that fact, you can patent the invention.
What Is Physical Phenomena?

Patent law classifies physical phenomena as products of nature. Thus, if your invention occurs in nature, it is a physical phenomenon and cannot be patented.
What Cannot Be Patented? Can I Patent a Living Thing?

It depends. If your invention is a product of nature, it falls under excluded subject matter. However, if your invention does not occur naturally and can only exist through some work on your part, you may be able to get a patent. For example:

You cannot patent a species of mouse that you find running around your laboratory
You can patent a genetically engineered mouse that you designed for use in cancer research
You cannot patent a combination of bacteria with beneficial properties if that combination occurs somewhere in nature
You can patent a species of bacteria that you genetically alter to solve a common problem if that form does not occur naturally

www.legalmatch.com...

This is why you can not patent things like vitamins or hemp oil. If a drugs company worked out that taking vitamin C could cure cancer tomorrow there is no way they could then patent vitamin C. If you mixed something up with the vitamin C it might be possible. But still very difficult. But then if the important thing in that mixture was the vitamin C and everything els was just filler just get a patent then some other company could then got and take vitamin C and then add some other filler and get the same results. Company B then benefits off company A's research and development. So the patent is costly and useless.

This is why big drug companies are not interested in investing in research on simple treatments like vitamins.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Pardon?

 

You can patent pretty much anything under the sun that is made by man except laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. These categories are excluded subject matter from the scope of patents.
Why Can't I Patent a Discovery I Made?

Even if you make a new and useful scientific discovery that no one else has ever thought of, you cannot get a patent on it because you did not actually create the fact you discovered. That fact was always in existence, you were just the first to notice it. However, if you can come up with an invention that makes use of that fact, you can patent the invention.
What Is Physical Phenomena?

Patent law classifies physical phenomena as products of nature. Thus, if your invention occurs in nature, it is a physical phenomenon and cannot be patented.
What Cannot Be Patented? Can I Patent a Living Thing?

It depends. If your invention is a product of nature, it falls under excluded subject matter. However, if your invention does not occur naturally and can only exist through some work on your part, you may be able to get a patent. For example:

You cannot patent a species of mouse that you find running around your laboratory
You can patent a genetically engineered mouse that you designed for use in cancer research
You cannot patent a combination of bacteria with beneficial properties if that combination occurs somewhere in nature
You can patent a species of bacteria that you genetically alter to solve a common problem if that form does not occur naturally

www.legalmatch.com...

This is why you can not patent things like vitamins or hemp oil. If a drugs company worked out that taking vitamin C could cure cancer tomorrow there is no way they could then patent vitamin C. If you mixed something up with the vitamin C it might be possible. But still very difficult. But then if the important thing in that mixture was the vitamin C and everything els was just filler just get a patent then some other company could then got and take vitamin C and then add some other filler and get the same results. Company B then benefits off company A's research and development. So the patent is costly and useless.

This is why big drug companies are not interested in investing in research on simple treatments like vitamins.

edit on 10-4-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

Please tell me how Rockwell Medical patented their version of vitamin D then please?
ir.rockwellmed.com...

Like I've said already, if they want to patent something, they'll find a way.

Deny and ignore this all you wish but it's the truth.

Please tell me how Rockwell Medical patented their version of vitamin D then please?

The substance already exists in nature

Vitamin D3 is a prohormone produced in skin through ultraviolet irradiation of 7-dehydrocholesterol

so the substance it self is not patented , only one process for producing it is :

Intellectual property

A process for the production of Calcitriol is patent protected (EP 735 510; US 5 698 714; AU 676 982; IL 118 837)

www.cerbios.ch...

But this is starting to go off topic now as patents and the laws surrounding them is not the topic of this thread so if you want to discuss patent law ill ask you to go and start a tread of your own about it.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Please tell me how Rockwell Medical patented their version of vitamin D then please?

The substance already exists in nature

Im just coming in at the tail end of this, but there can be and often are different forms of the same 'vitamins' (chemicals).

Take all the B vitamins.

Or another, Vitamin K-complex.

-K1 (Phylloquinone) is typical in meats etc, enables blood clotting. Cancer: N/A.
-K2 (Menaquinone) is natural also, but less common, with strong results with several cancers.
-K3 (Menadione), is 'industrial grade' and unfit / banned to be used as a vitamin supplement. However, coupled with Vitamin C its a adjuvant therapy solution for many cancer types; although bad for liver; several different cancers than K2.
-K4 Cancer: N/A.
-K5 Used as anti-fungal agent. Cancer: Some results, but less than the others.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

reply to post by Blazer

Yet another in an extremely long line of cures, free energy devices, etc that will change the world and yet are swept under the rug and never heard from again

Won't be the first time it happened. Big Pharma is always looking to try & sell yet more medicines that relieve the symptoms rather than attacking the source. They make more money that way.......

reply to post by Enzo954

Everybody knows that there's more money to be made in the treatment of diseases as opposed to the cure.

'Everybody' is not a conspiracy crank.

reply to post by Enzo954

Everybody knows that there's more money to be made in the treatment of diseases as opposed to the cure.

I would improve the model: Drug companies probably don't mind 'curing' you, as long as they get to be the ones with the patented chems that cost $10,000+ per dose. The system to ensure that be the case, the FDA: If something hasn't passed Phase 3 clinical trials, for something, then it wont or cant be prescribed. Problem: if something cant be patented and be charged $10k+ per dose, then it will never see phase 3 trials by corporations or government.

Next problem: cancer is complex biology, biology being the highest order of chemistry. Expecting some miracle silver bullet chem to come and obliterate ALL cancer types in all human bodies, is entirely the wrong way to look at this. Even fiction concurs: silver bullets are for killing werewolves. In reality, cancer would be vampire, not werewolf. Moreover, the silver bullet everyone yearns for isn't just for killing 'vampires', a better way to understand it is every 'monster' that exists (200+ different types of cancer, with 36,000 different cell line offspring amongst them in each 'vampire organism'). I take it a step further: the truly ideal cancer killing methodology would entail utilizing a specific array of chems for each type of cancer, in some cases each person. This also means not just using one 'chemo', thus not requiring you wage a military scorched earth campaign on a tiny island, an island that already had soil erosion problems. Current pharm methods have them dropping bombs and napalm from b52 bombers, when most of the islands they're bombing actually just need some gardeners to shows up with diverse trees and crops that will grow on each island.

The whale in the room is this: Unless you physically remove cancer (surgery), and only attack this bizarre biology with chems, its never cured, my instincts dictate to me at least.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


I agree with what you are saying.

I think a lot of people forget the huge improvements the medical profession has made in treating some cancers over the last 20 years like Leukemia and skin cancer. Many types of cancer have become very treatable.

Is this more or less reliable than Burzynski?

There are so many medicines in the world, no one knows all they are good for.
What would happen if we did? To my opinion and cosmic search, there is a medicine that cures for almost every illness, including cancer.
Look at this blog: www.meditateicin.blogspot.com
While you are waiting for the all cure, you can be cured also.

So, any news on this Cancer superdrug? The article is one year old...

br0ker
So, any news on this Cancer superdrug? The article is one year old...

Scientists: we've had some interesting results with mice

Media: SCIENTISTS CURE ALL FORMS OF CANCER