ReeferMadness

Know any cancer victims? The treatment is barbaric and the results are so abysmal that the cancer industry made up its own yardsticks. Now you are considered a success if you live 5 years from the time you are diagnosed. The cancer industry proudly trumpets it's success in increasing the number of people who live past this arbitrary 5 year line in the sand. But what they don't tell you is that some/most/all of that increase is due to the fact that they can detect tumours earlier than they used to. If you can find the tumour sooner, even if the treatment is absolutely useless, you'll still have an increased 5 year survival rate. Drug companies and doctors are rewarded for treating people, not curing them. Reward mediocrity and failure and you should only expect more of the same. I say reward success. Is that too hard to follow?

detect whatever the hell you like... I've said plainly that I have no evidence of any conspiracy. I just think the system sucks and produces results that are much more favorable to the drug companies than to the poor schmucks who actually take the drugs.

Again with the conspiracy theory accusation. Go back and read the early part of the thread.

what's wrong is when my doctor comes to me and proposes to put me on medication for life. I don't feel like feeding some pharmaceutical giant's bottom line permanently. Not to mention the side effects. Thanks, anyway, though.

Either it isn't enough or they're funding the wrong things. Also, some portion (I wasn't able to find out a percentage)of the CIHR funded research is done in conjunction with "industry partners", in other words the pharmaceutical companies. As for a whole new generation of medicine, I'm getting sick of the good news almost-breakthroughs. How about we get some actual results and then celebrate. It seems like at least once a month I read about some miraculous cancer research discovery. And yet cancer is still the leading killer of Canadians. Go figure.

Yeah, good point. Except for one small thing. We're always being told that the reason that drugs cost a bloody fortune is that those poor old drug companies spend so much on research. So I suppose the answer is for drug companies to get out of the research business (which they're obviously lousy at anyway) and cut the price of the drugs. Excellent idea, smallc!

According to the Canadian Cancer Society, in 2010 there will be 76,000 people in this country who die from cancer alone. What's too risky is relying on the free market to solve difficult problems. By definition, you can't count on the results of any research. If you could, the results would already be known and you wouldn't need research.

The readily available information was about the US. I don't think that the basic economics of the pharmaceutical companies change at the 49th parallel.

The scenario that I laid out is an example of how the market favors small improvements with low risk over large improvements with greater risk. Obviously, that might vary from case to case but in general, I would say it is to their financial benefit to not have a cure. However, if it could be proven they'd buried a cure, the resulting public backlash could wipe them out. Which I'm sure is prudent from the standpoint of the drug companies and their investors. However, the implication for the rest of that is that relying on drug companies to develop drugs that will make us well is not a good option. It will tend to keep us alive and sick (and paying) longer. A better option would be to publicly fund research with an emphasis on patient results, not basic research. Or perhaps award a large cash prize based on proven results. Example: For a proven way to cure or prevent 80% of lung cancer, the company is awarded the health care savings for a period of 3 years.

Now, you just sound like an apologist for the failures of all those multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical monstrosities. You know, the ones that spend more money marketing drugs than developing them. I know that it's tough for someone who has deeply held beliefs to let go of them. But these companies are in the business of making money, not saving lives. If they happen to do both, I'm sure that's an added bonus for them. But the latter is not necessary for the former. And I'll take the lack of a list of cures as your tacit admission that there aren't very many.

Here - look at this: link Any other questions?

smallc, you keep telling me that we can cure diseases but I'm still waiting for the list of those that have been cured recently. I looked at your links. One is broken. The other lists the top ten medical breakthroughs, none of which are cures. They're just more ways the medical industry can generate profits. Read this article. It's long but worth the read. It describes how the 40 year war on cancer has produced lots of basic research, some treatment improvements but no cures. Here's an excerpt that supports my premise about the type of research that actually gets funded:

Let's get something straight. I don't think there is a conspiracy. There is no need for a conspiracy. It's simply the way the system works. Let's say you're an executive for a big pharmaceutical companies and you are presented with 2 proposals for treatment for a disease. Each proposal requires an outlay of $50 million. Proposal 1 represents a radical departure from current thinking and a small chance that the result would be an all-out cure for the disease. The projections indicate that there is a 10% chance that there would be a significant improvement in life expectancy which would profit your company $40 million annually for the lifetime of the patent. Additionally, there is a 1% chance of an all-out cure which would profit your company a windfall $500 million during the first year but just $5 million per year thereafter until the patent expires. Proposal 2 represents an improvement on conventional treatment. It will produce a drug that will modestly increase the life expectancy and reduce the side effects of the currently available treatments. Since patients with this disease are desperate, even modest improvements will produce a signficant demand. The projections indicate that there is a 50% chance that the research will succeed and if it does, your company will generate a profit of $25 million annually for the life of the patent. You are legally obligated to make the best choice for your shareholders, not for the general public so you pick option 2. The system sucks, guys. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Really. "Better treatment" is a code word for new drugs that can be patented, ensuring that the big pharmas continue to generate fat profits. Treatment generates continued cash flow. Cure kills the golden goose. New vaccines are just a continuation of a concept that was discovered decades ago. And many vaccines (like the flu vaccines) need to be constantly redeveloped, ensuring continued cash flow to big pharmas. Cures. The only one that comes to mind is the discovery that most ulcers are caused by infectious agents. Why don't you list all of the cures you know of? I can tell you that it's been nearly 40 years since Richard Nixon declared that finding a cure for cancer was a "national goal". Since then, progress has been spotty at best. Two of the main treatments (radiation and chemotherapy) are both carcinogenic themselves. Review the literature and you will find plenty of enormously costly drugs that increase life span by a few months or less. Since Nixon's declaration about $200 billion has been spent on research. This is the sum total spent over 40 years on the second leading cause of premature death. Compare that to a half trillion dollar "defence" budget in one year alone. And how much of that $200 billion was spent on cures instead of just "treatments" that go to improving cash flow but make little difference to the patient? The cancer industry got tired of bad press so they solved the problem by calling people "survivors" if they were still alive after 5 years. How many 45 year-olds do you know that are satisfied to live 5 years, a lot of it puking as a result of the "treatment"? I can readily name plenty of diseases and conditions that we "treat" (in many cases with little success and lots of side effects). They're gold mines for the medical and pharmaceutical industries Here is a short list. alzheimers schizophrenia asthma allergies gout arthritis parkinsons disease MS cancers (bloody near all of them) diabetes herpes Come down with any one of these and there is a little "ka-ching" sound in the offices of health ministries, pharmaceutical giants and doctors. Because you're going to be using their drugs and services for a long time, maybe for as long as you live.

A universal plan will lower the overall cost of drugs to Canadians by two means: 1. Governments are in a much stronger position to negotiate with the drug companies 2. Lower overall administration costs through centralization of paper work from the insurance companies However, the real problem isn't the costs, it's the underlying economics of health care. The drug companies are making so much money treating disease and conditions, there is no motivation to discover cures. And governments provide pathetically little funding to researchers so that cures may be found.

Yeah, that oil is going to last forever.

Excellent point. There are active movements in many provinces consisting of people whose attachment to the country is much weaker than the attachment to their province. The movement is bigger in Quebec because the organizers were much more successful in tapping into a sense of resentment.

Well, you haven't made yourself clear. Look, I don't know whether Quebec is more corrupt than anywhere else. But if it is, it's ridiculous to point the blame elsewhere. I recall a news story about the Montreal mayoral race and how the mob was involved in road construction contracts. True? You tell me. But is it someone else's fault? I can't see how. By the way, the term "English Canada" is an insult. Canada is a cultural mosaic and has more dimensions than you can shake a stick at. The "two founding peoples" story is something Qubeccers like to hear because it justifies them having more importance than are justified democratically by the numbers. The "two founding peoples" story was never true because it ignores completely the First Nations. And it's less relevant today because it diminishes the role other ethnic groups have had in building this country.

They're both divisive in their own way but that's where the comparison ends. Trudeau was a leader who was capable of inspiring people. He was an intellectual (remember when that was a good thing?) whose main failing was impatience and disdain for people who couldn't or wouldn't share in his vision. Harper doesn't even try to be a leader. His handlers focus on portraying him as a competent manager. If the Liberals could come up with a modern day Trudeau today, he would show Harper for the petty, manipulative weasel he is. Harper is a wannabe-westerner who is just too pathetic for words.

You are shifting the debate from Quebec to Canada. Your post sounds like a mix between "The devil made me do it" and "The dog ate my homework".

The letter to Coulter was certainly a blunder. It's hard to believe an experienced politician could be politically naive as to give an adversary ready ammunition. But in no way is Anne Coulter a victim. She wasn't (as she claimed) "prevented" from speaking. She used both the letter and the Ottawa fracas as part of her publicity campaign. Without them, most of us would have been entirely unaware that this pathetic creature was going to be in our country. WRT Allan Rock, yes he certainly ought to own up to his part in sending the letter. Still is anyone really surprised? Most people in senior leaderhsip positions have their minions do things so they can have plausible deniability.

You mean to say the PD won't admit to having threatened to rape a prisoner or detainee.

Excellent column. Thanks for the link Argus (although it was actually written by David Warren, not Randall Denley). I don't get how anyone who has read the stories that have been printed so far can exonerate the police. By all accounts, they failed to react on day 1, when the violence was actually occurring (some have even suggested that there were agents provocateur among the blac bloc). Then they completely overreacted the following day, with mass arrests of peaceful protestors and innocent bystanders, including journalists and tourists. At this point, I think there is a legitimate question as to whether the police action was motivated by security concerns or by politics. Based on what I've read, I'll bet many of those arrested and released will think twice about joining any peaceful protest in the future. I wonder if that consequence is entirely unintended. If people in this country actually cared and if the media in this country actually functioned, there would be some further investigation as to exactly what happened. It would be nice to have even some basic information such as how many people were detained and released (suggesting the police have no real evidence of any wrong doing) vs the number that will actually be charged and prosecuted. The police ran roughshod over constitutionally guaranteed rights and there needs to be some accountability. I suspect the only way there will be any public reckoning is if some of the individuals have the resources to pursue civil action. I hope that there is a class action suit brought against the police to bring them to account for their actions.

What a goofy thread. Everyone in Canada should carry firearms. Police and property owners should have the power to be judge, jury and executioner. For the grand crime of, wait for it, vandalism. If we put all of this together, the result is, what? Running gun battles in the streets? Groups of protestors in armed standoffs with police? Then what? Do we call in the army too? The problems are complex. The "solutions" being proposed are simplistic. Unconstitutional. And dangerous. When it comes to simpletons who automatically think the only answer to violence is greater violence, a little thinking can be a dangerous thing. :ph34r:

The group Lawyers Against the War sent to various Canadian judges and police agencies a request to have George Bush arrested for war crimes. They were given various reasons why it couldn't be done but interestingly, not once were they told there was no evidence of war crimes. Lawyers Against the War.