www.ditl.org

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/healt ... ld.html?hp

That's pretty darn cool, but like the article says, there's no incentive for the drug companies to make it. After all, what's the point of doing something if you can't make hundreds of billions of dollars from it?

Tsukiyumi wrote:After all, what's the point of doing something if you can't make hundreds of billions of dollars from it?

That's why we don't have a cancer cure; They could probably make something, but chemo costs the people so much that its more expensive than they could make a cure, so some say, and it actually makes sense, sadly

That's a bit of an Oliver-Stone-ish POV. I'd say that a cure for cancer is still beyond our reach because it is so oddly unlike any other type of disease of which we know. Cancer isn't the destruction of or damage to tissues that we think of when we hear the word "disease;" rather, it's the over-healthiness of particular tissue, to phrase it a certain way.

Mikey wrote:That's a bit of an Oliver-Stone-ish POV. I'd say that a cure for cancer is still beyond our reach because it is so oddly unlike any other type of disease of which we know. Cancer isn't the destruction of or damage to tissues that we think of when we hear the word "disease;" rather, it's the over-healthiness of particular tissue, to phrase it a certain way.

Yeah, I don't believe that, I just said that it made sense.

K.