If someone would come up with a cure it wouldn't see the light of day I guarantee that.
exactly neither would the person who discovered it.
Its like we will never see a gasoline car get 500 miles to the gallon
Its refreshing to see another person who clearly uses his own mind and doesnt believe the BS the govt and media force feed us.
Like i said already, the human race is always going to be filled with greed and corruption. Thats just the way it is. People need to start waking up and realizing that
Quote Originally Posted by SteelCash:
If someone would come up with a cure it wouldn't see the light of day I guarantee that.
exactly neither would the person who discovered it.
Its like we will never see a gasoline car get 500 miles to the gallon
Its refreshing to see another person who clearly uses his own mind and doesnt believe the BS the govt and media force feed us.
Like i said already, the human race is always going to be filled with greed and corruption. Thats just the way it is. People need to start waking up and realizing that
I do. I also read books and newspapers. I also watch the news on TV. I also have some common sense. And I spend too much time researching these topics. More so than you I imagine.
Stay ignorant. It's a much nicer world to live in when you're naive. Sometimes I wish I didn't care... but not really.
Quote Originally Posted by wmi799:
Steel Cash watches youtube I'll bet
I do. I also read books and newspapers. I also watch the news on TV. I also have some common sense. And I spend too much time researching these topics. More so than you I imagine.
Stay ignorant. It's a much nicer world to live in when you're naive. Sometimes I wish I didn't care... but not really.
i'm with kapono, the money and fame in the science community from creating a cure for cancer would far overshadow any incentive to try and not cure cancer, in my opinion. but what the darn do any of us really know about this. anyone have any specific experience in the upper levels of pharmaceutical research.
but also, keep in mind that cancer isn't one disease. it is many diseases and many variations of diseases. there's not a cure for cancer. there may be cures for different types of cancers at different stages. i imagine the issue is more complex than a thread like this gives it credit.
Again... one company finds a cure, 5,000 companies don't want it to hit the market place. These companies, as you would guess, have lots of money and influence (aka power). This is why it won't happen. They will not let their cashcow disappear without doing something about it.
Why are cigarettes legal? They kill 430,000 people in the U.S. alone every year. They clearly offer no benefit to the user. The user gets addicted, and often dies as a result. They give us absolutely no benefit and they kill us. So why are they legal? Why doesn't the government ban the sale of them? Because there are a lot of people making a lot of money and peoples' pockets get lined.
The gov't wants to "protect us" from drugs with prohibition (which doesn't work) yet alcohol is legal. Why? Same reason... money. Alcohol consumption kills 85,000 people every year in the U.S. alone and provides absolutely no useful benefit to us.
What's the point? Money and greed dictate. Morals and values do not.
Why did the FDA confiscate patient records from Dr. Burzynksi? Why did they try for over a decade to shut him down when his natural medicine works with no side effects and he was breaking no laws? Why did the judge NOT EVEN KNOW why the FDA was trying to shut him down?
Gotta run. Have a great week fellas.
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i'm with kapono, the money and fame in the science community from creating a cure for cancer would far overshadow any incentive to try and not cure cancer, in my opinion. but what the darn do any of us really know about this. anyone have any specific experience in the upper levels of pharmaceutical research.
but also, keep in mind that cancer isn't one disease. it is many diseases and many variations of diseases. there's not a cure for cancer. there may be cures for different types of cancers at different stages. i imagine the issue is more complex than a thread like this gives it credit.
Again... one company finds a cure, 5,000 companies don't want it to hit the market place. These companies, as you would guess, have lots of money and influence (aka power). This is why it won't happen. They will not let their cashcow disappear without doing something about it.
Why are cigarettes legal? They kill 430,000 people in the U.S. alone every year. They clearly offer no benefit to the user. The user gets addicted, and often dies as a result. They give us absolutely no benefit and they kill us. So why are they legal? Why doesn't the government ban the sale of them? Because there are a lot of people making a lot of money and peoples' pockets get lined.
The gov't wants to "protect us" from drugs with prohibition (which doesn't work) yet alcohol is legal. Why? Same reason... money. Alcohol consumption kills 85,000 people every year in the U.S. alone and provides absolutely no useful benefit to us.
What's the point? Money and greed dictate. Morals and values do not.
Why did the FDA confiscate patient records from Dr. Burzynksi? Why did they try for over a decade to shut him down when his natural medicine works with no side effects and he was breaking no laws? Why did the judge NOT EVEN KNOW why the FDA was trying to shut him down?
i agree that money and agreed control everything, particularly our government. i also agree that cigarettes and alcohol are legal due to money and the fact that, at least in the case of alcohol, government and special interests like using it.
however, i can't make the transition to the diea that no one is interested in finding a cure for any type of cancer or that if someone did it would never see the light of day. there are companies working independent of government, independent of each other and in other countries. i have to think that if someone invented something that would make him or them the most famous people in their field, perhaps in the history of mankind, and tens of billions of dollars, or more, there would be incentive to publicize it and someone could make it happen. there's a lot of money and greed in that.
i agree that money and agreed control everything, particularly our government. i also agree that cigarettes and alcohol are legal due to money and the fact that, at least in the case of alcohol, government and special interests like using it.
however, i can't make the transition to the diea that no one is interested in finding a cure for any type of cancer or that if someone did it would never see the light of day. there are companies working independent of government, independent of each other and in other countries. i have to think that if someone invented something that would make him or them the most famous people in their field, perhaps in the history of mankind, and tens of billions of dollars, or more, there would be incentive to publicize it and someone could make it happen. there's a lot of money and greed in that.
Your "Proof" that "a cure for Cancer" is not going to happen is the fact that cigarettes and alcohol are legal???
I must admit that the way you can connect alcohol, tobacco and cancer is interesting:
1. The fact that alcohol which once was illegal and made legal again by the vote of the American people.
2. Cigarettes that were once promoted as healthy by doctors and are NOW being made obsolete by restrictive laws on who can smoke and where people can smoke, not to mention social stigma.
Points #1 and #2 Prove to you that a cure foe cancer is never going to be a reality???
I drank until I had to quit, and I smoked for 19.5 years BUT, and I can state NEVER once wanted to try experiencing life as a cancer patient... Possible that was just me...
Really SteelCash?
Your "Proof" that "a cure for Cancer" is not going to happen is the fact that cigarettes and alcohol are legal???
I must admit that the way you can connect alcohol, tobacco and cancer is interesting:
1. The fact that alcohol which once was illegal and made legal again by the vote of the American people.
2. Cigarettes that were once promoted as healthy by doctors and are NOW being made obsolete by restrictive laws on who can smoke and where people can smoke, not to mention social stigma.
Points #1 and #2 Prove to you that a cure foe cancer is never going to be a reality???
I drank until I had to quit, and I smoked for 19.5 years BUT, and I can state NEVER once wanted to try experiencing life as a cancer patient... Possible that was just me...
i agree that money and agreed control everything, particularly our government. i also agree that cigarettes and alcohol are legal due to money and the fact that, at least in the case of alcohol, government and special interests like using it.
however, i can't make the transition to the diea that no one is interested in finding a cure for any type of cancer or that if someone did it would never see the light of day. there are companies working independent of government, independent of each other and in other countries. i have to think that if someone invented something that would make him or them the most famous people in their field, perhaps in the history of mankind, and tens of billions of dollars, or more, there would be incentive to publicize it and someone could make it happen. there's a lot of money and greed in that.
Drug companies all say they are working on cures, but the real truth is they are just working on new drugs to treat cancer.
Cancer will be cured when there is a another disease that is has big a money maker as cancer is.
Sit down and think about all the things that would happen, if cancer got cured. Everybody living to a 100, millions of workers around the world out of jobs, hopsitals closed, worlds natural resources burned up even faster, with people living longer, etc etc etc, the list can go on how devasting curing cancer would be. So to think if 1 company came up with the cure, it would ever see the light of day right now, just because it would make them famous and some money, means you arent looking at the bigger picture and the bigger money.
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i agree that money and agreed control everything, particularly our government. i also agree that cigarettes and alcohol are legal due to money and the fact that, at least in the case of alcohol, government and special interests like using it.
however, i can't make the transition to the diea that no one is interested in finding a cure for any type of cancer or that if someone did it would never see the light of day. there are companies working independent of government, independent of each other and in other countries. i have to think that if someone invented something that would make him or them the most famous people in their field, perhaps in the history of mankind, and tens of billions of dollars, or more, there would be incentive to publicize it and someone could make it happen. there's a lot of money and greed in that.
Drug companies all say they are working on cures, but the real truth is they are just working on new drugs to treat cancer.
Cancer will be cured when there is a another disease that is has big a money maker as cancer is.
Sit down and think about all the things that would happen, if cancer got cured. Everybody living to a 100, millions of workers around the world out of jobs, hopsitals closed, worlds natural resources burned up even faster, with people living longer, etc etc etc, the list can go on how devasting curing cancer would be. So to think if 1 company came up with the cure, it would ever see the light of day right now, just because it would make them famous and some money, means you arent looking at the bigger picture and the bigger money.
cd, i understand about population control, i'm just not convinced that out government, and every other government of civilized countries, are powerful enough to prevent someone from curing cancer to make their billions and get their fame. i don't think all these governments are competent and coordinated enough to get together to shut down a cancer cure.
and again, i'm not a scientist, but i don't think there is a cancer cure. there are many types of cancers and would have to be many types of cures, just like there are many treatments for the different types of cancers. so if someone cured just pancreatic cancer, that would never see the light of day because of population control?
cd, i understand about population control, i'm just not convinced that out government, and every other government of civilized countries, are powerful enough to prevent someone from curing cancer to make their billions and get their fame. i don't think all these governments are competent and coordinated enough to get together to shut down a cancer cure.
and again, i'm not a scientist, but i don't think there is a cancer cure. there are many types of cancers and would have to be many types of cures, just like there are many treatments for the different types of cancers. so if someone cured just pancreatic cancer, that would never see the light of day because of population control?
I do. I also read books and newspapers. I also watch the news on TV. I also have some common sense. And I spend too much time researching these topics. More so than you I imagine.
Stay ignorant. It's a much nicer world to live in when you're naive. Sometimes I wish I didn't care... but not really.
LOL! You don't have a clue.
Histrionic personality disorder. It's sad
Quote Originally Posted by SteelCash:
I do. I also read books and newspapers. I also watch the news on TV. I also have some common sense. And I spend too much time researching these topics. More so than you I imagine.
Stay ignorant. It's a much nicer world to live in when you're naive. Sometimes I wish I didn't care... but not really.
cd, i understand about population control, i'm just not convinced that out government, and every other government of civilized countries, are powerful enough to prevent someone from curing cancer to make their billions and get their fame. i don't think all these governments are competent and coordinated enough to get together to shut down a cancer cure.
and again, i'm not a scientist, but i don't think there is a cancer cure. there are many types of cancers and would have to be many types of cures, just like there are many treatments for the different types of cancers. so if someone cured just pancreatic cancer, that would never see the light of day because of population control?
Oh, Please, Please, Please... I honestly and really, really want to know specifically and exactly who is funding the "population control" that is using cancer to control the population? Is the population control just in the United States? Is cancer being used to control the population in Europe? Possibly South America?
I already know that "they" are behind the use of cancer for population control. The question is WHO ARE "THEY"???
And I so want to Thank You in advance for the specific answer as to who "they" are.
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
cd, i understand about population control, i'm just not convinced that out government, and every other government of civilized countries, are powerful enough to prevent someone from curing cancer to make their billions and get their fame. i don't think all these governments are competent and coordinated enough to get together to shut down a cancer cure.
and again, i'm not a scientist, but i don't think there is a cancer cure. there are many types of cancers and would have to be many types of cures, just like there are many treatments for the different types of cancers. so if someone cured just pancreatic cancer, that would never see the light of day because of population control?
Oh, Please, Please, Please... I honestly and really, really want to know specifically and exactly who is funding the "population control" that is using cancer to control the population? Is the population control just in the United States? Is cancer being used to control the population in Europe? Possibly South America?
I already know that "they" are behind the use of cancer for population control. The question is WHO ARE "THEY"???
And I so want to Thank You in advance for the specific answer as to who "they" are.
Oh, Please, Please, Please... I honestly and really, really want to know specifically and exactly who is funding the "population control" that is using cancer to control the population? Is the population control just in the United States? Is cancer being used to control the population in Europe? Possibly South America?
I already know that "they" are behind the use of cancer for population control. The question is WHO ARE "THEY"???
And I so want to Thank You in advance for the specific answer as to who "they" are.
Your buddy Steel. He saw it on youtube. Along with the guy who drove across country on water. Plus Elvis lives. We never landed on the moon.
Histrionic personality disorder. It's sad
Quote Originally Posted by Randisist:
Oh, Please, Please, Please... I honestly and really, really want to know specifically and exactly who is funding the "population control" that is using cancer to control the population? Is the population control just in the United States? Is cancer being used to control the population in Europe? Possibly South America?
I already know that "they" are behind the use of cancer for population control. The question is WHO ARE "THEY"???
And I so want to Thank You in advance for the specific answer as to who "they" are.
Your buddy Steel. He saw it on youtube. Along with the guy who drove across country on water. Plus Elvis lives. We never landed on the moon.
Clubdirt... I believe there are companies and individuals that are looking for a cure. But if a person came up with a cure, they would need to get FDA approval. That costs a ton of money. About 1.8 million I believe. Not a lot of people have that much money. And all the pharmaceuticals are making so much money off the treatment of cancer, they couldn't match the income with a cure. Also the FDA has collected BILLIONS for approval of different chemo drugs and other drugs to treat cancer and it's symptoms. And they will make billions more off of new drugs in the future. You introduce a cure and all that money stops if it gets approved. Imagine it... the cessation of cancer drugs. For that matter, the cessation of cancer treatment. You take a pill and you're cured. Wow! We might be talking about money in the trillions being lost by thousands of companies worldwide. There's just too many big players in the game to let this happen. It would stop at the FDA, because they wouldn't approve it, because it's against their interests and the interests of Big Pharma. And how much money trades hands from Big Pharma to the FDA? Ha! I don't know, and I probably don't want to know.
Clubdirt... I believe there are companies and individuals that are looking for a cure. But if a person came up with a cure, they would need to get FDA approval. That costs a ton of money. About 1.8 million I believe. Not a lot of people have that much money. And all the pharmaceuticals are making so much money off the treatment of cancer, they couldn't match the income with a cure. Also the FDA has collected BILLIONS for approval of different chemo drugs and other drugs to treat cancer and it's symptoms. And they will make billions more off of new drugs in the future. You introduce a cure and all that money stops if it gets approved. Imagine it... the cessation of cancer drugs. For that matter, the cessation of cancer treatment. You take a pill and you're cured. Wow! We might be talking about money in the trillions being lost by thousands of companies worldwide. There's just too many big players in the game to let this happen. It would stop at the FDA, because they wouldn't approve it, because it's against their interests and the interests of Big Pharma. And how much money trades hands from Big Pharma to the FDA? Ha! I don't know, and I probably don't want to know.
Clubdirt... I believe there are companies and individuals that are looking for a cure. But if a person came up with a cure, they would need to get FDA approval. That costs a ton of money. About 1.8 million I believe. Not a lot of people have that much money. And all the pharmaceuticals are making so much money off the treatment of cancer, they couldn't match the income with a cure. Also the FDA has collected BILLIONS for approval of different chemo drugs and other drugs to treat cancer and it's symptoms. And they will make billions more off of new drugs in the future. You introduce a cure and all that money stops if it gets approved. Imagine it... the cessation of cancer drugs. For that matter, the cessation of cancer treatment. You take a pill and you're cured. Wow! We might be talking about money in the trillions being lost by thousands of companies worldwide. There's just too many big players in the game to let this happen. It would stop at the FDA, because they wouldn't approve it, because it's against their interests and the interests of Big Pharma. And how much money trades hands from Big Pharma to the FDA? Ha! I don't know, and I probably don't want to know.
First... Good Post. Honestly, no sarcasm at all...
But... (I know there has always got to be at least one.)
I believe what you are forgetting is the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit. Granted, cancer is big money, but there will always be causes that the pharmaceutical companies can capitalize on.
Weight Loss Wrinkles Hair Loss Alcohol Addiction Caffeine Addiction Memory building drugs Drugs to stave off Alzheimer's Drugs to fight drug addiction Drugs to improve eyesight Drugs to improve hearing
Plus if cancer were cured I have all the faith that another disease would take its place.
Then there is research into prolonging the shelf life of food.
How about research into regrowing limbs that have been lost.
Genetic research has not even had the surface scratched for the potential it hold.
Just a bit of food for thought.
Quote Originally Posted by SteelCash:
Clubdirt... I believe there are companies and individuals that are looking for a cure. But if a person came up with a cure, they would need to get FDA approval. That costs a ton of money. About 1.8 million I believe. Not a lot of people have that much money. And all the pharmaceuticals are making so much money off the treatment of cancer, they couldn't match the income with a cure. Also the FDA has collected BILLIONS for approval of different chemo drugs and other drugs to treat cancer and it's symptoms. And they will make billions more off of new drugs in the future. You introduce a cure and all that money stops if it gets approved. Imagine it... the cessation of cancer drugs. For that matter, the cessation of cancer treatment. You take a pill and you're cured. Wow! We might be talking about money in the trillions being lost by thousands of companies worldwide. There's just too many big players in the game to let this happen. It would stop at the FDA, because they wouldn't approve it, because it's against their interests and the interests of Big Pharma. And how much money trades hands from Big Pharma to the FDA? Ha! I don't know, and I probably don't want to know.
First... Good Post. Honestly, no sarcasm at all...
But... (I know there has always got to be at least one.)
I believe what you are forgetting is the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit. Granted, cancer is big money, but there will always be causes that the pharmaceutical companies can capitalize on.
Weight Loss Wrinkles Hair Loss Alcohol Addiction Caffeine Addiction Memory building drugs Drugs to stave off Alzheimer's Drugs to fight drug addiction Drugs to improve eyesight Drugs to improve hearing
Plus if cancer were cured I have all the faith that another disease would take its place.
Then there is research into prolonging the shelf life of food.
How about research into regrowing limbs that have been lost.
Genetic research has not even had the surface scratched for the potential it hold.
I'm not sure I follow the argument. Surgery can provide a cure for early stage, localized cancer and there are constant advancements in surgical techniques (incorporating lasers, cameras, etc.). There are also constant improvements in early detection methods and imaging technology which leads to reduced usage of chemotherapy. Nobody's standing in the way of preventing advanced cancer.
I think there's also a misconception about how medical research is carried out. The real work is done in universities by people who couldn't care less about drug companies and have dedicated their lives to making significant scientific findings. The results are published in journals which are peer reviewed by other scientists who also couldn't care less about drug companies and well before any drug companies could have any influence.
That said, if a promising drug is too simple/inexpensive, it might be hard to find a private investor (i.e. a drug company) to finance the necessary clinical trials. But in the internet age people would definitely know that it exists and it would eventually get pushed ahead one way or another.
This thread is all over the place.
I'm not sure I follow the argument. Surgery can provide a cure for early stage, localized cancer and there are constant advancements in surgical techniques (incorporating lasers, cameras, etc.). There are also constant improvements in early detection methods and imaging technology which leads to reduced usage of chemotherapy. Nobody's standing in the way of preventing advanced cancer.
I think there's also a misconception about how medical research is carried out. The real work is done in universities by people who couldn't care less about drug companies and have dedicated their lives to making significant scientific findings. The results are published in journals which are peer reviewed by other scientists who also couldn't care less about drug companies and well before any drug companies could have any influence.
That said, if a promising drug is too simple/inexpensive, it might be hard to find a private investor (i.e. a drug company) to finance the necessary clinical trials. But in the internet age people would definitely know that it exists and it would eventually get pushed ahead one way or another.
Again... one company finds a cure, 5,000 companies don't want it to hit the market place. These companies, as you would guess, have lots of money and influence (aka power). This is why it won't happen. They will not let their cashcow disappear without doing something about it.
Why are cigarettes legal? They kill 430,000 people in the U.S. alone every year. They clearly offer no benefit to the user. The user gets addicted, and often dies as a result. They give us absolutely no benefit and they kill us. So why are they legal? Why doesn't the government ban the sale of them? Because there are a lot of people making a lot of money and peoples' pockets get lined.
The gov't wants to "protect us" from drugs with prohibition (which doesn't work) yet alcohol is legal. Why? Same reason... money. Alcohol consumption kills 85,000 people every year in the U.S. alone and provides absolutely no useful benefit to us.
What's the point? Money and greed dictate. Morals and values do not.
Why did the FDA confiscate patient records from Dr. Burzynksi? Why did they try for over a decade to shut him down when his natural medicine works with no side effects and he was breaking no laws? Why did the judge NOT EVEN KNOW why the FDA was trying to shut him down?
Gotta run. Have a great week fellas.
I disagree with the alcohol part and its benefits. Lots of good stories have been a result of alcohol. Add to it all the times it helps people get laid. Alcohol does have some benefits.
Quote Originally Posted by SteelCash:
Again... one company finds a cure, 5,000 companies don't want it to hit the market place. These companies, as you would guess, have lots of money and influence (aka power). This is why it won't happen. They will not let their cashcow disappear without doing something about it.
Why are cigarettes legal? They kill 430,000 people in the U.S. alone every year. They clearly offer no benefit to the user. The user gets addicted, and often dies as a result. They give us absolutely no benefit and they kill us. So why are they legal? Why doesn't the government ban the sale of them? Because there are a lot of people making a lot of money and peoples' pockets get lined.
The gov't wants to "protect us" from drugs with prohibition (which doesn't work) yet alcohol is legal. Why? Same reason... money. Alcohol consumption kills 85,000 people every year in the U.S. alone and provides absolutely no useful benefit to us.
What's the point? Money and greed dictate. Morals and values do not.
Why did the FDA confiscate patient records from Dr. Burzynksi? Why did they try for over a decade to shut him down when his natural medicine works with no side effects and he was breaking no laws? Why did the judge NOT EVEN KNOW why the FDA was trying to shut him down?
Gotta run. Have a great week fellas.
I disagree with the alcohol part and its benefits. Lots of good stories have been a result of alcohol. Add to it all the times it helps people get laid. Alcohol does have some benefits.
Clubdirt... I believe there are companies and individuals that are looking for a cure. But if a person came up with a cure, they would need to get FDA approval.
only in america. i don't think we should assume a cancer cure would necessarily come from here.
as to the 1.8 million for fda approval, these companies spend billions on research and development. would $1.8 million be that hard to come up with if they legitimately thought they had a drug that would be worth tens of billions?
Quote Originally Posted by SteelCash:
Clubdirt... I believe there are companies and individuals that are looking for a cure. But if a person came up with a cure, they would need to get FDA approval.
only in america. i don't think we should assume a cancer cure would necessarily come from here.
as to the 1.8 million for fda approval, these companies spend billions on research and development. would $1.8 million be that hard to come up with if they legitimately thought they had a drug that would be worth tens of billions?
I'm not sure I follow the argument. Surgery can provide a cure for early stage, localized cancer and there are constant advancements in surgical techniques (incorporating lasers, cameras, etc.). There are also constant improvements in early detection methods and imaging technology which leads to reduced usage of chemotherapy. Nobody's standing in the way of preventing advanced cancer.
I think there's also a misconception about how medical research is carried out. The real work is done in universities by people who couldn't care less about drug companies and have dedicated their lives to making significant scientific findings. The results are published in journals which are peer reviewed by other scientists who also couldn't care less about drug companies and well before any drug companies could have any influence.
That said, if a promising drug is too simple/inexpensive, it might be hard to find a private investor (i.e. a drug company) to finance the necessary clinical trials. But in the internet age people would definitely know that it exists and it would eventually get pushed ahead one way or another.
As a pharmacist, this might be the most informed thing I've read in this entire thread.
Quote Originally Posted by Weekends:
This thread is all over the place.
I'm not sure I follow the argument. Surgery can provide a cure for early stage, localized cancer and there are constant advancements in surgical techniques (incorporating lasers, cameras, etc.). There are also constant improvements in early detection methods and imaging technology which leads to reduced usage of chemotherapy. Nobody's standing in the way of preventing advanced cancer.
I think there's also a misconception about how medical research is carried out. The real work is done in universities by people who couldn't care less about drug companies and have dedicated their lives to making significant scientific findings. The results are published in journals which are peer reviewed by other scientists who also couldn't care less about drug companies and well before any drug companies could have any influence.
That said, if a promising drug is too simple/inexpensive, it might be hard to find a private investor (i.e. a drug company) to finance the necessary clinical trials. But in the internet age people would definitely know that it exists and it would eventually get pushed ahead one way or another.
As a pharmacist, this might be the most informed thing I've read in this entire thread.
Jfio... so you're a pharmacist. Do you think I'm out of line in saying that Big Pharma would never let it happen? Do you think we'll ever see a cure? One more if you don't mind. What is your opinion of the American Cancer Society?
Thank you in advance. (handshake)
Jfio... so you're a pharmacist. Do you think I'm out of line in saying that Big Pharma would never let it happen? Do you think we'll ever see a cure? One more if you don't mind. What is your opinion of the American Cancer Society?
neither would the person who discovered it.
Hot Forum Topics
