HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Sept 25, 2013 11:24:36 GMT -5
Congrats, Kent! and thanks for volunteering! Look, I'm obviously taking over this thread with my opinions and I don't want to do that. It's a really personal matter to a lot of people, and people have a right to their opinion.... so I'll take a break from it for awhile.
|
|
jeep108
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 20:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by jeep108 on Sept 25, 2013 11:48:41 GMT -5
There may not be a so called cure, all I can say is don't do what my dad did. He avoided doctors his whole life. If he would of at least had yearly exams to have his blood work done or even had his hiatal hernia checked. He may not be dying from stage 4 Esophageal cancer. Preventive care can go a long ways as well.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 25, 2013 11:50:52 GMT -5
From: www.scpr.org/news/2011/12/08/30262/california-teen-wins-grand-prize-potential-cancer-/ A 17-year-old from Cupertino recently won a $100,000 grand prize for developing a possible cancer cure.
Remember those science fairs where top contenders included posterboard displays about frog life cycles or hoverboards made out of vacuum cleaners? Turns out high school science has come a long way since then — and so have high school scientists.
Angela Zhang, a 17-year-old senior at Cupertino's Monta Vista High School, just won $100,000
Lots and lots of possible cancer cures are developed, but fall apart once you take them out of the lab and into the human. Only about 1% of the findings in the lab actually make it to a point where they go into clinical trials and only a fraction of that make it out of the clinical trials. News articles like this drive me nuts because the general public has absolutely NO idea what is involved in bringing a treatment to the public. So when the popular press prints something like this, the general public (who have the scientific understanding of a gnat) assume that those of us who are working our collective asses off are holding out. I wish! If you are so sure that big pharma and the research community are holding out, why don't YOU get involved? Why don't you take massive amounts of science classes and get advanced degrees so you can work long hours in a lab for peanuts and tell us exactly what we're doing wrong. Most of us are doing it for the love of the subject. I don't do it for shits and giggles, when I need to roll out of bed at 2 am for another time point in an experiment, or I need to show up in the lab at 10 pm on a Sunday evening because building maintenance has told us our freezer alarms are going off.....at which point, I need to find 30 sq ft of freezer space in already stuffed freezers in order to save precious, irreplacable samples, I don't blow it off because I KNOW what I'm trying to do, to save and I made the commitment. I've spent all weekend in our monkey facilities during one clinical trial we did because the monkeys needed to be dosed twice a day, every single day. We had 6 people working on the study, so I was scheduled every third weekend. If you've ever been in monkey facilities, you have to garb up to the nth degree because monkeys carry this cute little virus called Herpes B. It's a derivative of herpes that most of us harbor, but if humans get the monkey strain, it's fatal about 98% of the time. I've spent days dealing with blood from Africa, where most of the samples harbored the AIDs virus. As good as personal protection is, tubes still break and gloves still puncture. Oh, and for those of you who think that we are so well paid, when I started out in 1981, my salary was a whopping $11,000 in Boston. 50% of my take home salary went to rent. Before I went out on disability, after acquiring an MS and most of a PhD (and having presented yearly in national and international meetings, with a list of publications a mile long), my salary was a shade over $60K and I was one of the higher paid people in the lab. Both Drama and I have done things in the lab that most of you would not think of doing. Resuscitating a mouse or rat? Rubbing ointment on a penis? Milking rats? You all were appalled when we posted things like this, but this is the norm for us.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 25, 2013 11:50:58 GMT -5
Cancer is a mutation* of DNA. We have yet to be able to map the entire human DNA sequence, yet we're somehow supposed to have cancer all figured out? If you mean cure as in no one ever has cancer again, I doubt it. If not ever, then definitely not in my lifetime. Too many variables and life finds a way, even if life in this case means cancer cells. But I'm slightly pessimistic in that I wonder what even worse disease/virus/bacteria is next if we figure out all the stuff we have now considering antibiotics have lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria. *Maybe malfunction is a better word? Not sure, don't even play a scientist on TV
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 11:52:27 GMT -5
DQ Mich. in the lab at 10 pm on a Sunday evening because building maintenance has told us our freezer alarms are going off.....at which point, I need to find 30 sq ft of freezer space in already stuffed freezers in order to save precious, irreplacable samples,
We had that happen when I was on maternity leave. My bosses moved the samples. They forgot to inform me so I head on down to the -80 and find all our samples are gone! One giant panic attack later I find out what happened. I told my boss it would have kinda been nice to be told BEFORE I showed up for work they nearly gave me a stroke.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 25, 2013 12:20:03 GMT -5
kudos to my colleagues in pharma and research for even trying to explain the process to people that just refuse to believe. I don't have the patience for that this AM. sesfw - thank you for sharing your experience. I'm so happy you are cancer free There's no reason to get defensive. I was just asking the question. I was mainly asking if donating to cancer research was effective. Apparently it is. Though my follow up question is why do researchers need to solicit donations from the general public anyway? Isn't most medical research funded by government grants, or by pharmacutical companies? Furthermore, I think it's a valid question to ask. In our for profit model of medicine, and all the money being poured into cancer research and treatment, can we expect the powers that be to find a cure if one exists? Or just develop long term treatments that require the patient to pay lots of money over a long period of time? Again, I'm not making any acusations, but I think it's a valid question. No need to get defensive. I've never subscribed to the idea that researchers are above all forms of criticism.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Sept 25, 2013 12:30:04 GMT -5
Cancer is a mutation* of DNA. We have yet to be able to map the entire human DNA sequence, yet we're somehow supposed to have cancer all figured out? If you mean cure as in no one ever has cancer again, I doubt it. If not ever, then definitely not in my lifetime. Too many variables and life finds a way, even if life in this case means cancer cells. But I'm slightly pessimistic in that I wonder what even worse disease/virus/bacteria is next if we figure out all the stuff we have now considering antibiotics have lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria. *Maybe malfunction is a better word? Not sure, don't even play a scientist on TV Nope, sorry. Cancer is the unregulated proliferation of cells (rapid and out-of-control cell division). DNA can certainly be damaged, but it is not cancer. And many contemporary studies of genes and DNA are beginning to show that is has a weight of about 20% (or so) when factoring in disease - the other 80% (or so) is environment (a HUGE issue) and lifestyle ( no, NOT "blaming the victim"). It points back to the known theory that "genetics loads the gun but environment pulls the trigger." There are some VERY interesting studies of telomeres (the protective "ends" of the DNA strands) out there right now! Many studies have shown and maintstream medicine pretty much accepts that telomeres can shorten and get damaged over the decades, but a recent NIH study of middle aged men showed that with some modest lifestyle changes, these men actually REVERSED their telomere aging process. Fascinating implications for how we live, care for our bodies - and unfortunately for how we/our bodies are forced to confont toxins and pollutants in our environments.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 25, 2013 12:32:12 GMT -5
Though my follow up question is why do researchers need to solicit donations from the general public anyway? Isn't most medical research funded by government grants, or by pharmacutical companies?
Because money dries up. My boss has a fantastic track record with regards to grants, his record is roughly 50% of the grants submitted from the federal government (when the norm is around 10-20%). However, the last 3 years with the budget f&%$ up, he has submitted 4 grants and has not gotten a single one. The federal government is holding out on funding and cutting funding of those grants which have already been funded (most grants are for periods that range from 1-7 years, depending upon the type of study).
Pharmaceutical funding is even flakier. IME, they throw a lot of $$ and want the work done NOW. But you have a change of guard and projects get dropped in a heartbeat. The last animal trial we did, we were trying to move from TX to KY. Right before the scheduled move, a pharmaceutical company threw a couple million $$ (monkey studies are obscenely expensive in that the animals alone run about $5000 each and their LAR costs around $30,000/mo). So for 8 months, we did that last study with a skeleton staff. The hope was that this would continue after we moved, but there was a change in admin and all funding for that line of research dried up.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 25, 2013 12:35:27 GMT -5
Nope, sorry. Cancer is the unregulated proliferation of cells (rapid and out-of-control cell division). DNA can certainly be damaged, but it is not cancer. And many contemporary studies of genes and DNA are beginning to show that is has a weight of about 20% (or so) when factoring in disease - the other 80% (or so) is environment (a HUGE issue) and lifestyle (no, NOT "blaming the victim"). It points back to the known theory that "genetics loads the gun but environment pulls the trigger."
And then to add to the confusion, not all environmental triggers have been identified.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Sept 25, 2013 12:38:12 GMT -5
Nope, sorry. Cancer is the unregulated proliferation of cells (rapid and out-of-control cell division). DNA can certainly be damaged, but it is not cancer. And many contemporary studies of genes and DNA are beginning to show that is has a weight of about 20% (or so) when factoring in disease - the other 80% (or so) is environment (a HUGE issue) and lifestyle (no, NOT "blaming the victim"). It points back to the known theory that "genetics loads the gun but environment pulls the trigger."And then to add to the confusion, not all environmental triggers have been identified. Very true! That is the scariest part of all to me . . . about 80% of the industrial chemicals now in common use did not exist until after WWII. Sometimes I think we are unwittingly engaging in the largest unregulated, uncontrolled chemical/environment experiment known to man . . . and all of us are the test rats
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 12:44:13 GMT -5
IME, they throw a lot of $$ and want the work done NOW
And don't bother to give you the f-ing information you need to do the work because it's "copyrighted". Dude if I could reverse engineer your drug based on your HPLC method I sure as hell would not be working for peanuts in an academic lab. I'd be Walter White.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,479
|
Post by chiver78 on Sept 25, 2013 12:47:06 GMT -5
kudos to my colleagues in pharma and research for even trying to explain the process to people that just refuse to believe. I don't have the patience for that this AM. sesfw - thank you for sharing your experience. I'm so happy you are cancer free There's no reason to get defensive. I was just asking the question. I was mainly asking if donating to cancer research was effective. Apparently it is. Though my follow up question is why do researchers need to solicit donations from the general public anyway? Isn't most medical research funded by government grants, or by pharmacutical companies? Furthermore, I think it's a valid question to ask. In our for profit model of medicine, and all the money being poured into cancer research and treatment, can we expect the powers that be to find a cure if one exists? Or just develop long term treatments that require the patient to pay lots of money over a long period of time? Again, I'm not making any acusations, but I think it's a valid question. No need to get defensive. I've never subscribed to the idea that researchers are above all forms of criticism. who's getting defensive? not me. and I wasn't referring to your OP, but the "conspiracy theory" sorts of posts on the first page and since. people outside the pharma and research worlds tend to think that the only drugs/treatments that are ever worked on are the ones that make it to market, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. it's just a very long and involved process, with lots of testing and validation along the way.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Sept 25, 2013 12:52:23 GMT -5
kudos to my colleagues in pharma and research for even trying to explain the process to people that just refuse to believe. I don't have the patience for that this AM. sesfw - thank you for sharing your experience. I'm so happy you are cancer free There's no reason to get defensive. I was just asking the question. I was mainly asking if donating to cancer research was effective. Apparently it is. Though my follow up question is why do researchers need to solicit donations from the general public anyway? Isn't most medical research funded by government grants, or by pharmacutical companies? Furthermore, I think it's a valid question to ask. In our for profit model of medicine, and all the money being poured into cancer research and treatment, can we expect the powers that be to find a cure if one exists? Or just develop long term treatments that require the patient to pay lots of money over a long period of time? Again, I'm not making any acusations, but I think it's a valid question. No need to get defensive. I've never subscribed to the idea that researchers are above all forms of criticism. Understanding human nature it's easy to believe that there might only be a focus on a profit incentive. However, again knowing human nature, any scientist/researcher/doctor that finds a "cure"/vaccine for cancer will not be able to keep that to themselves for all the money in the world. Every schoolchild knows the name of Jonas Salk.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 12:56:00 GMT -5
Money doesn't go as far as people think either. $5 Million for 5 years sounds like a lot but what outsiders don't realize is that 60% of my boss's salary has to come out of that, 100% of my salary and any other staff members has to come out of that, fees for animal care and handling (if using) come out of that, all supply costs come out of that, all equitpment purchasing and repairs come out of that. . .
Hell my Sharpies have to come out of that account!
One case of Acetonitrile costs $800-$1200 and since I do HPLC I go thru A LOT of cases of ACN. No I can't just use something else or find another random supplier. We're contracted with certain suppliers and there are only a handful of companies that deal in these chemicals in large amounts anyhow.
It's not like you get the money and head off into the sunset to do research. You have overhead costs, running a lab is NOT cheap.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 25, 2013 13:01:46 GMT -5
IME, they throw a lot of $$ and want the work done NOW
And don't bother to give you the f-ing information you need to do the work because it's "copyrighted". Dude if I could reverse engineer your drug based on your HPLC method I sure as hell would not be working for peanuts in an academic lab. I'd be Walter White. One of the drugs we were working on with the monkeys had an incredible ability to alleviate inflammation of periodontal disease (I guess I can talk about this because the research was done over 10 years ago) AND it reversed the effects of bone loss. The first study we did, we injected it sc twice a day. Second study, we were narrowing down the dose, still injected. We could give the monkeys periodontal disease and bring them back to health in about 6 months of injecting this drug 2x/day. However, that was not acceptable in going into human trials, we needed to find an oral dose that the monkeys would take. Only problem was this drug was FOUL! We got some pills made up of fruit ingredients to see if we could get the monkeys to take the pills and they loved the grape ones. So drug company formulated the drug in grape pills to give the monkeys. Monkeys would take the pills out of our hands and scarf them down like candy. But once the drug was included into the grape pills, monkeys spit 'em out. In one of our more brilliant moments, a coworker and I decided to split a pill and take it to and take and see what was wrong....why the monkeys refused the pill with drug. OMG! I don't think I have ever taken anything so foul in my life! We went out for Chinese food to try to get the taste out of our mouth. Nada. So then we stopped at a local place, that had the most flameworthy Mexican food (in S. TX). Nada. It took 3 days to get the taste out of our mouth and we swallowed the pills whole! So despite having a really good drug that has an excellent benefit, the fact that (1) no patient would agree to inject themselves 2x/day for periodontal disease and (2) compliance taking the pill would be nil with regards to the fact that you could not cover up the foul taste of the drug, pretty much marked paid to this study.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 25, 2013 13:02:54 GMT -5
Cancer is a mutation* of DNA. We have yet to be able to map the entire human DNA sequence, yet we're somehow supposed to have cancer all figured out? If you mean cure as in no one ever has cancer again, I doubt it. If not ever, then definitely not in my lifetime. Too many variables and life finds a way, even if life in this case means cancer cells. But I'm slightly pessimistic in that I wonder what even worse disease/virus/bacteria is next if we figure out all the stuff we have now considering antibiotics have lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria. *Maybe malfunction is a better word? Not sure, don't even play a scientist on TV Nope, sorry. Cancer is the unregulated proliferation of cells (rapid and out-of-control cell division). DNA can certainly be damaged, but it is not cancer. And many contemporary studies of genes and DNA are beginning to show that is has a weight of about 20% (or so) when factoring in disease - the other 80% (or so) is environment (a HUGE issue) and lifestyle ( no, NOT "blaming the victim"). It points back to the known theory that "genetics loads the gun but environment pulls the trigger." There are some VERY interesting studies of telomeres (the protective "ends" of the DNA strands) out there right now! Many studies have shown and maintstream medicine pretty much accepts that telomeres can shorten and get damaged over the decades, but a recent NIH study of middle aged men showed that with some modest lifestyle changes, these men actually REVERSED their telomere aging process. Fascinating implications for how we live, care for our bodies - and unfortunately for how we/our bodies are forced to confont toxins and pollutants in our environments. Hmmm...I thought it was some malfunction in the DNA of those cells that cause the unregulated proliferation - whether your own genes or environment cause the malfunction or not.
|
|
greeniis10
Well-Known Member
Joined: May 9, 2012 12:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 1,834
|
Post by greeniis10 on Sept 25, 2013 13:02:56 GMT -5
Thanks for starting this thread and asking this question, Phoenix84! I have learned a LOT in the last few pages. Personally, I am not a fan of traditional Western medicine, but I do get my annual check-ups and routine tests because there's not sense NOT being proactive these days. However, I do feel that the healthcare industry is all about money and I get disillusioned at times but I also don't believe that it's all a conspiracy, either.
I appreciate the lessons from all of you in the industry about how complicated cancer and research is. It has definitely opened my eyes and I'll speak differently now when this topic comes up in real life.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 13:04:59 GMT -5
I'm at my wit's end with this acid reflex study. They want me to independenty verify their results so they can go on to human testing.
I can't and I've been working on this since last december! I'm flying blind and it could all be solved if they'd just give me their method so I can replicate it. Nope it's "copyrighted", I just need to try harder.
Thank God my boss understands and is familar with the run around I'm getting. If he didn't I'd be in some really deep doo doo because to an outsider it looks REALLY bad that I can't finish this project.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 25, 2013 13:11:11 GMT -5
Money doesn't go as far as people think either. $5 Million for 5 years sounds like a lot but what outsiders don't realize is that 60% of my boss's salary has to come out of that, 100% of my salary and any other staff members has to come out of that, fees for animal care and handling (if using) come out of that, all supply costs come out of that, all equitpment purchasing and repairs come out of that. . .
Our lab costs a couple million $$ to run each year. We have 2 admins, a database person (part time), 4 lab staff and 3 clinical staff. Salaries run from around $25K up to about $65K for the group. 2 of us in the lab have procards (what we buy our supplies on) that have a $30K credit limit. We probably bump up against the credit limit about half the time (so supplies for the lab run about $50K/mo). It's nothing for me to slam through $20K in supplies in a week by myself.
Since we're not doing animal studies much now anymore, we have a clinical staff and we have to pay our human guinea pigs. So the smoking study, gestational diabetes study (1 and 2), preterm birth study (800 patients, 4 centers), CVD study.....all of these patients are paid out of grant funding for participating.
A coworker just told me that we've had 4 freezers go down while I've been out. One needs to be replaced, it needs over $10K in repairs and the parts are not available for it. Timing sucks.
|
|
greeniis10
Well-Known Member
Joined: May 9, 2012 12:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 1,834
|
Post by greeniis10 on Sept 25, 2013 13:17:22 GMT -5
And, I think the "answer" to Phoenix84's original question and the subsequent one of "Why do we need to continue to fund / donate to cancer research?" lies right here in this thread: EDUCATION.
When soliciting for donations they should not take the warm, fuzzy route of "Without your donations we can't find a cure!" and then show pictures of sick children. What they NEED to do is say: Cancer is complex. We're learning a lot about it but there's SO much more to know! Help us keep going! In addition to donating money, donate your time and yourself to testing programs. Here is how the money is allocated and here's why research takes longer than most people think, etc.
I get what Drama said earlier about making it simple when asking for funding because that's what people understand, but they need to educate people as to where the money goes, how quickly it is used, but also how much progress has been and will continue to be made.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 13:19:55 GMT -5
One needs to be replaced, it needs over $10K in repairs and the parts are not available for it
Time to get out the duct tape and paper clips. We have a plate reader that blew. It's so old they no longer make parts for it or service it. I'm borrowing another lab's because we don't have the money to replace it. We want to replace it eventually but right now that current grant covers 30% of my salary, part of my PI's salary and the kits, that's it.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 13:22:52 GMT -5
People also need to do research into a lot of these charities. Not as much money as you think is going into the hands of researchers. It's going right back into the pockets of the people running the charity and their marketing departments.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 25, 2013 13:23:59 GMT -5
We have a plate reader that blew. It's so old they no longer make parts for it or service it. I'm borrowing another lab's because we don't have the money to replace it. We want to replace it eventually but right now that current grant covers 30% of my salary, part of my PI's salary and the kits, that's it.
We have 3 of them and I'd send you our old one if I could. One of them has propitiatory software on it that we've been trying to delete because we don't use it for that purpose anymore. I'm sure some IT geek could reprogram it, but since it's not been a priority, it's just been sitting in the lab gathering dust.
If you can swing it (when your budget loosens), I HIGHLY recommend Molecular Devices reader. It is more expensive, but in the 13 years we've had our's it has had ZERO problems.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 25, 2013 13:28:16 GMT -5
Cancer is complex. We're learning a lot about it but there's SO much more to know! Help us keep going! In addition to donating money, donate your time and yourself to testing programs. Here is how the money is allocated and here's why research takes longer than most people think, etc.
The problem is that most people's eyes glass over and they are utterly clueless as to what you're saying. They don't understand hoops that we have to deal with (as evidenced by the people on this board) and assume things that are not true. We can talk until we're blue in the face, but we're not going to change anyone's mind. They are still going to be convinced that Big Pharma and research is withholding information and in reality we've had a cure for cancer/AIDs/periodontal disease/acid reflux all this time and have just made people suffer because we're sadists.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Sept 25, 2013 13:39:18 GMT -5
Cancer is complex. We're learning a lot about it but there's SO much more to know! Help us keep going! In addition to donating money, donate your time and yourself to testing programs. Here is how the money is allocated and here's why research takes longer than most people think, etc.The problem is that most people's eyes glass over and they are utterly clueless as to what you're saying. They don't understand hoops that we have to deal with (as evidenced by the people on this board) and assume things that are not true. We can talk until we're blue in the face, but we're not going to change anyone's mind. They are still going to be convinced that Big Pharma and research is withholding information and in reality we've had a cure for cancer/AIDs/periodontal disease/acid reflux all this time and have just made people suffer because we're sadists. Exactly. My experience is in the legal field, not medicine/research, but if you don't have something attention-grabbing/simple/catchy, no one will make it past the first sentence. We just spent more than a year trying to distill a set of fairly complex rules into a "how-to" guide for unrepresented litigants, and guess what? Even after making it as simple as possible, no one reads it, because court rules are boring. Possibly even more boring than cancer research, because there are no monkeys involved.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 13:42:31 GMT -5
in reality we've had a cure for cancer/AIDs/periodontal disease/acid reflux all this time and have just made people suffer because we're sadists.
Aww shit you caught me. For the record this isn't a "new" drug I'm trying to validate, it's two drugs that have been marketed for eons crammed into one capsule. So I'm not withholding anything, you can just take one of each seperately.
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Sept 25, 2013 13:54:21 GMT -5
ok- I'm going to try to word this to the best of my ability. Cancer is a big deal in my family. Both of my grandfathers died from cancer (Brain for one and Bone for the other), my husband and I each lost dear friends and mentors to cancer (one to Brain and one to Colon). My mom is a breast cancer survivor and my dad has had two spots of skin cancer surgically removed from his face so far this year. My mom is a huge supporter of the American Cancer Society- specifically the local Relay for Life. As a company we have been a sponsor of the local Relay event for the past decade.
However-
I am a natural cynic. I question everything. I do not feel that large, for profit corporations will always have my best interest in mind. I do not feel that the government is ever going to be 100% truthful or 100% transparent.
It raises my eyebrows and makes me wonder when those of you doing medical research are given such small budgets when Big Pharma has billion dollar a year profits. Why are they not funneling more of those profits into research? When the Susan G Komen people have spent millions trying to copyright the pink ribbon and sending cease and desist letters to anyone that uses "for the Cure" in their fundraising. Really is dog sledding for a cure really going to confuse people into thinking it's the same thing as the 3 day walk for a cure? When we do any fundraising for the Relay we are told over and over again that we can't use the phrases "for a cure" or "for the cure" on anything.
I would rather they spend a larger portion of the money they raise fundraising on research and less money trying to sue a kid for starting "Cupcakes for a Cure" and selling cupcakes to raise money for a charity.
I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion. I think that more money needs to be allocated to medical research. But I also think that Big Pharma has a whole bunch of stockholders to make happy every quarter.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 14:06:26 GMT -5
But I also think that Big Pharma has a whole bunch of stockholders to make happy every quarter.
When the Susan G Komen people have spent millions trying to copyright the pink ribbon and sending cease and desist letters to anyone that uses "for the Cure" in their fundraising
I totally agree with this but I didn't see anyone questioning the charity soliticing the funds. That's where I tend to become a cynical asshole.
I think there are a lot of problems with funding and how it's handled but I'm not going to accuse every person involved as being part of a giant conspiracy and call them too stupid to figure out how to cure cancer after 20+ years.
I also think there's a lot of problems on the corporate side of things, I get to experience many many headaches thanks to them.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 25, 2013 14:13:29 GMT -5
Sheila....Big Pharma probably dumped about $20 million into our lab alone to do some basic research. Big Pharma kept us afloat in the mid 1990s when federal funding was as scarce as hen's teeth. The problem is that no one hears about this. We spent 5 years working on a drug that went into the trash because of problems with practical applications. And we are ONE lab (and relatively small one, at that). What happened to us is not uncommon and not particularly note worthy.
They had a good drug that had excellent practical applications. But there was no way to deliver the drug to the patient and make money off of it. I would imagine that most people would rather lose their teeth than inject themselves 2x/day for 6+ months. Sad, but true when you consider that many would rather lose their teeth than brush/floss and regularly see their dental hygienist (observed a LOT of this).
I agree with you, I think that more money should be allocated to research. That would make my job a hell of a lot more steady. Over the last 30 years I have done basic research, I can remember at least 6 times where money was so scarce that I was starting to worry about my job...and as I have been one that will do everything and anything, then there have been at least 3x where I was the last remaining person in the lab that my boss held onto until funding came in. Right now, I know of a lot of labs where I worked that went defunct because no funding was available. Lab staff was released and the labs are just gathering dust. There is a lot of feast and famine in research.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,479
|
Post by chiver78 on Sept 25, 2013 14:14:28 GMT -5
SGK is a corporation looking out for its bottom line, it's nothing like the charity it was when it first came into existence. I deliberately opt for NOT pink! items as often as possible.
that said, Big Pharma still rakes in the $ because there's an awful lot of research being done within these companies. it isn't all happening in academia.
|
|