kedong

Members
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About kedong

  • Rank
    Aces Prospect

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  1. It's also incredibly foolish to base everything on money. Money is one component in like 1000 that is the FDA approval process, albeit an important component, but not as influential as the effect of the drug. If people are gonna be focused on talking about money then why is that no one ever talks about the money lost during drug development? about 10 in 10,000 potential drug candidates make it into phase III and 1 in 10 gets FDA approval after phase III. Do you realize how much money is lost in the 9 that failed phase III? why is't that no one ever talk about that, it takes anywhere between $50-150mil to go through a FDA approval process.
  2. I think this is right, drugs definitely have their benefits, but it's not the best solution for a problem. Psychological issues should be dealt with in a preventative manner and drugs should be used as like a last resort type of measure. I just don't like people screaming "corrupt corporate big pharma" crap as a legitimate reason to discredit drugs.
  3. There is some corruption everywhere, but that is not a good reason to suspect everything wrong with one particular industry. I don't know much anti-depresents, but i'd imagine they get approved because they show benefits to people who take them, not everyone, but enough so that it is approved for public use. Drugs like anti depresents are still relatively new and the conditions they treat are extremely biologically complicated. Currently they are very crude, much like cancer treatment of 30 years ago, but it's at least a start. Real dangers are those homeopathic and naturalpathic "practicioners" who are literally ripping sick people off by promoting some "anti-coporate" crap that does nothing. Worse of all, they blame the patients when it doesn't work.
  4. The authors of the paper never once mentioned a cure in their paper. It's also the reason why I chose Global news' article because they didn't really mention a cure either. Many other news sites said this is some miracle cure from a malaria vaccine, that is the fault of the journalists not the scientists here. Because the drugs can prolong the life of a person with a disease and that the side effects is acceptable given the benefits. All drugs go through the same rigorous FDA approval process. There is just a constant battle between the FDA and the companies about when the end point is. If the FDA does not like it, the FDA does not approve it.
  5. That might be that case, but it doesn't mean that this will never hit the market. Drug companies want to develop the best possible treatment to cancer as possible, that's the nature of a competitive market. Before anyone mentions that drug companies are suppressing a "cure", there will never be a true "cure" to cancer, that's like trying to "cure" evolution. Best thing people can do is find a better and better treatment so we turn cancer into a condition that people die WITH rather than dying FROM.
  6. I dont usually post much on this forum but i think this new is pretty cool: Source: http://globalnews.ca/news/2273934/ubc-researchers-use-malaria-protein-to-help-fight-cancer/ Actual scientific paper: http://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/abstract/S1535-6108%2815%2900334-7