Conspiracy theories......

Not the first time I've heard this one. I've also heard there is a cure for AIDS and if you have enough money you can get it and people like Magic Johnson and Charlie Sheen have bought it.
The laugh is I drink in a Joseph Holts pub. Joeys has done more to raise money for Cancer research than probably any one person or company. It is why it's called the Holt Radium Institute. Are Joeys in on the conspiracy or have they been taken for mugs ?
People really are stupid.
 
The laugh is I drink in a Joseph Holts pub. Joeys has done more to raise money for Cancer research than probably any one person or company. It is why it's called the Holt Radium Institute. Are Joeys in on the conspiracy or have they been taken for mugs ?
People really are stupid.
Alcohol increases your chance of cancer too which is probably why Sir Joey raises money for CR.
 
Today in my local the bar maid was holding court with 4 guys.
Apparently 'they' are deliberately not finding a cure for cancer so that the money keeps rolling in. I mean, we've had 30 years to find a cure and yet.......

Whenever I hear this one I have to ask “which” cancer they want a cure for. Because cancer refers to a category of over 100 different diseases. The only common factor is rogue cell replication but this can be caused by a multitude of factors, cell types and mechanisms. Some types of cancer we have very effective treatments for - prostate and testicular cancer has a 97-98%+ survival rate thanks to modern medicine. So if this conspiracy is true, they’re doing a terrible job in some areas.

It also just doesn’t make sense, if they had a cure why would they let people die rather than… you know… sell them the cure? I imagine most people would pay quite a lot to not die. And the good part is they might get it again and now all of a sudden you’ve got repeat customers.

We have no cure for the common cold either, again because it’s not actually one illness, it’s hundreds. If we had one there’d be people selling it on every street corner.
 
It also just doesn’t make sense, if they had a cure why would they let people die rather than… you know… sell them the cure? I imagine most people would pay quite a lot to not die. And the good part is they might get it again and now all of a sudden you’ve got repeat customers.
Not saying I believe it but I could make an argument why they wouldn't just sell it.
Let's say the cost is £20k for the miracle cancer curing drug.
Lots of people simply couldn't afford it and would just have to die.
Therefore, there would be strong arguments made as to it should be available on the NHS in the UK and the NHS simply couldn't afford to pay that out for everyone who got cancer.

Can you imagine how many godundme accounts would be set up.
 
Not saying I believe it but I could make an argument why they wouldn't just sell it.
Let's say the cost is £20k for the miracle cancer curing drug.
Lots of people simply couldn't afford it and would just have to die.
Therefore, there would be strong arguments made as to it should be available on the NHS in the UK and the NHS simply couldn't afford to pay that out for everyone who got cancer.

Can you imagine how many godundme accounts would be set up.
That’s why we need death committees. NICE.
 
Not saying I believe it but I could make an argument why they wouldn't just sell it.
Let's say the cost is £20k for the miracle cancer curing drug.
Lots of people simply couldn't afford it and would just have to die.
Therefore, there would be strong arguments made as to it should be available on the NHS in the UK and the NHS simply couldn't afford to pay that out for everyone who got cancer.

Can you imagine how many godundme accounts would be set up.

But in that scenario the NHS are paying pharmaceutical companies for it. They don't produce medicines themselves, they are supplied. How the cure is distributed in the NHS is not the pharmaceutical company's problem, it's the UK government's. The pharma companies who have the cure would make even more money if the NHS decided everybody should get it - they would be lobbying for exactly that.

And it's not an unsolvable problem for a government either, you can just levy a new type of NI to cover it, I don't think people would have a qualm with that. If you do some quick maths, 0.5% get cancer in a year and 70% survive, so only 0.15% would need this cure (maybe less given a lot of those would be older people who are in end of life care and might not want it). Even if it cost £1m per person, it would still be less than a third of the pensions budget - so theoretically affordable, but would mean the average worker paying £100 a month more in tax. To basically be immune from cancer. Many would argue that sounds like a great deal and that is a worst case scenario and could decrease over time as the cost to produce it inevitably decreases.

Even making the most extreme assumptions, it's incredibly hard to see any scenario that could exist where this wouldn't be economic for workers, for governments, or for pharmaceutical companies. It's a straight up everybody wins scenario.
 
But in that scenario the NHS are paying pharmaceutical companies for it. They don't produce medicines themselves, they are supplied. How the cure is distributed in the NHS is not the pharmaceutical company's problem, it's the UK government's. The pharma companies who have the cure would make even more money if the NHS decided everybody should get it - they would be lobbying for exactly that.

And it's not an unsolvable problem for a government either, you can just levy a new type of NI to cover it, I don't think people would have a qualm with that. If you do some quick maths, 0.5% get cancer in a year and 70% survive, so only 0.15% would need this cure (maybe less given a lot of those would be older people who are in end of life care and might not want it). Even if it cost £1m per person, it would still be less than a third of the pensions budget - so theoretically affordable, but would mean the average worker paying £100 a month more in tax. To basically be immune from cancer. Many would argue that sounds like a great deal and that is a worst case scenario and could decrease over time as the cost to produce it inevitably decreases.

Even making the most extreme assumptions, it's incredibly hard to see any scenario that could exist where this wouldn't be economic for workers, for governments, or for pharmaceutical companies. It's a straight up everybody wins scenario.
Amazing.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.