OnlyPolls on Yik Yak | do you think the cure for cancer has already been found, but it’s not a profitable thing to release?

Yik Yak

Download

Join communities on Yik Yak Download

OnlyPolls 10w

do you think the cure for cancer has already been found, but it’s not a profitable thing to release?

#poll

yes

They wouldn’t do that!!!!! 😢

516 votes

Anonymous 10w

some specific cancers yea sure maybe but cancer is way too broad for there to be one blanket cure

Anonymous 10w

I need everyone that voted yes to at least explain what cancer is bc this is on the same level of those vaccine conspiracy theorists

Anonymous 10w

We would've heard of a rich billionaire's kid being cured of cancer

Anonymous 7w

There is no realistic way to pull this off because 1) the scientific papers related to these discoveries come out in increments. Therefore other scientists would also be researching along the same lines and everyone will want to be the first to get there and the scientific prestige at this level is legendary. 2) there are way too many cancers and they’re all cured with different treatments.

Anonymous 7w

To be clear, a cure for cancer and a way to prevent people from getting cancer preemptively (something like a vaccine) are completely different things. Thats not even mentioning the very different kinds of cancer there are. A cure for cancer would be an INSANELY profitable thing to have because people would keep getting cancer and you’d be the only person/company to be able to treat it (something akin to the current situation with insulin).

Anonymous 7w

No because 1. Covering that up would be a huge undertaking that would require too many people to stay quiet. (There are truly soooo many people that are a part of any major medical breakthrough. You’ve got a ton of researchers, undergrads, collaborators, etc etc) 2. I feel like it is far more likely and far easier for major investors from pharma/biotech/etc to just not fund the projects that seem like they won’t be most profitable.

Anonymous 7w

More logical question: do companies avoid investing in research for cures they don’t believe will be profitable?

Anonymous 10w

There is no “cure for cancer”. It’s not a unified disease, they all have different causes, MOAs, and treatments. And there’s significant variation in cancers affecting the same tissue. A blanket cure is not possible.

Anonymous 7w

You forgot the option for “They wouldn’t do that🙄”. Not that corporations aren’t that selfish, but people aren’t. And people aren’t that stupid; whoever invents it would report their findings to someone who stands to make a fortune from it, not lose one. There’s no one monolithic evil conspiracy called “they”. Different zillionaires and companies aren’t all a big happy family. If one group tried to suppress it, their competitors would be all too happy to sell the cure and undercut them

Anonymous 6w

There’s a ton of research about the amount of resources being spent on detection and treatment of breast cancer but something like 5% or less on prevention or causes (pink ribbon, inc. is an interesting documentary about it. It’s on kanopy if your school or library has that). So while I agree with some people here about the complication/impossibility of having one blanket cure, i definitely think that there’s not as much research as people might think going in to researching a cure

Anonymous 7w

I don’t think it’s been found already, but I do think if it had been found we probably wouldn’t know about it.

Anonymous 7w

As someone who has lost 3 family members to cancer, and whose significant other is battling cancer right now, yes, yes I do. Think of all the rich share holders and non-profit owners whose pockets would be significantly less lined with money if cancer disappeared.

-1

Anonymous 7w

Dr sebi was curing cancer for decades before he died

-3

Anonymous

#1 10w

a billionaire has enough money to cover up anything. It makes me think of Kanye’s (I know, sorry) song “Roses” where he talks about how his grandma died from aids but Magic Johnson somehow survived

Anonymous

OP 10w

1, hiding the cure to cancer is not profitable that’s not how business works and 2, researchers would almost certainly leak regardless of any silence money

Anonymous

#4 10w

1 patient cured = 1 less customer. Curing cancer would never be profitable to big pharmaceutical companies and there would be a giant loss of jobs. The researchers would probably “commit suicide” if yk what i mean

Anonymous

OP 10w

40% of the world will get cancer my man. There will always be enough patients

Anonymous

OP 10w

And once the cure is out, people won’t have to worry as much about preventing. Also being rich doesn’t make you comically evil

Anonymous

OP 10w

And it doesn’t matter if the researcher “commits suicide”, the cure will have already been leaked

Anonymous

#3 10w

true, but isn't cancer fundamentally cells multiplying, mutating, and being unable to go through apoptosis? yes, there are different types of cancer, but i think that even one cure would be able to set a foundation for the others. I could just be ignorant, but I find our lack of progress to be suspicious.

Anonymous

#4 10w

how does that make any sense? if the issue of cancer is negated then there won’t be 40% of the world to treat. cancer is one of the most expensive things you can go through and causes an insane financial burden for most people. Most of the habits people do every day also promote cancer and are super unregulated in the US. I also don’t think you can become a billionaire ethically.

Anonymous

#4 10w

i think you underestimate the power that money can give you as well. there is a lot of stuff that is silenced in the media

Anonymous

OP 10w

If it was silenced you wouldn’t know about it

Anonymous

OP 10w

And if pharma companies made money by treating diseases rather than curing them, vaccines wouldn’t exist

Anonymous

OP 10w

Yes there would be 40% because that’s the chance of you getting it in your lifetime. 40% of Americans will get it. Then they get cures, more Americans are born, and then 40% of them get it

🌲

Anonymous

OP 10w

But companies produce vaccines and cures all the time. Patents make these things worth investing in. Also, nobody wants to be the guy who stopped the cure to cancer.

Anonymous

#4 10w

vaccines also make a lot of money. I’m sure the cure to cancer would until the patent expired, but treating it is a $15 billion+ industry. cancer is also good for population control

-2

Anonymous

OP 10w

Vaccines are cures. Curing the most common disease known to man would be very profitable. And it’s not the pharmaceutical company’s job to curb the population

Anonymous

OP 10w

The more people, the more profits. So explain why pharma companies would want people to die

Anonymous

#4 10w

if people are healthy then they won’t need to rely on pharmaceutical companies

-2

Anonymous

OP 10w

Being healthy doesn’t stop you from getting cancer

Anonymous

OP 10w

And ur changing the subject

Anonymous

OP 10w

You’re not wrong, but you’re losing all the nuance. This is like saying that an infection is fundamentally a microscopic organism that multiplies at the expense of the host, causing damage to keep increasing its population. It’s technically true, but it strips away all the important details. For example, not all infections can be cured by the same antibiotics or antivirals, and some can’t be cured by those at all.

Anonymous

#6 10w

You can say that the development of antibiotics and antivirals did lay a foundation for the improvement of that tech, which is true. But the same is for cancer as well. We’ve identified genes whose mutations cause cancer and we know their MOAs, and many of our treatments are variations of others. But there are so many compounding factors that no single treatment system can possibly cure everything.

Anonymous

#4 10w

Or maybe thats just what they want you to think😬😬😬😬☠️

Anonymous

OP 7w

They’ve actually made pretty incredible progress on a number of cancers, lung cancer being one example. But they’re fundamentally all different illnesses. A penguin and an eagle are both birds, it doesn’t mean they’re the same thing. For example I just attended a friend’s dissertation in oncology. They found a genetic mutation that consistently improved the prognosis for several types of cancers but makes it worse for about the same number of others.

Anonymous

#10 7w

So in other words the epidemiologies and causes, and by extent treatments, are going to be totally different

Anonymous

#10 7w

Downvoting oncology research bc it doesn’t fit ur conspiracy is wild lmao

Anonymous

#2 7w

I talked to John Cancer and he said they're hiding the medicine drug that cures all conditions

Anonymous

#11 7w

Ok that’s fair

Anonymous

#11 7w

I take everything back

Anonymous

#6 7w

6, cancer is a unified disease. All cancer is the same thing: every cell in your body has a kill switch and when that kill switch is activated and misfires, it sometimes causes the cell to turn cancerous. Many things can cause the kill switch to misfire, but all cancer is the result of the same bodily

-8

Anonymous

#4 7w

This isn’t right.

Anonymous

#4 7w

While cancer is technically unified under the label “cancer” that doesn’t actually mean anything. Our human labels and categorizations have no bearing on the physical world. The “kill switch” you talk about isn’t one single protein or anything. Apoptosis is an extremely complex process that we have not fully dissected. So yes, all cancer is “cancer” and it’s all linked to some sort of malfunction in apoptosis, but saying that isn’t at all useful to its treatment or its study.

🍋

Anonymous

#3 7w

I have cancer & knowing hm money they make off of just me getting treatments i wouldnt put it past them to keep it secret. Let alone considering fundraising & other sources. Also, the fact that i know for a fact research facilities that have found safer treatment options dont share them with other hospitals (I can only assume because they want to be the only supplier)