People dont forget when we fool with their countries, these have long term effects. If you look at Iran, they used to be our best friends in the Middle East. We didn't have issues with that country until we replaced their leader Mossadeghs in 1953. We have never been cool with that country since. Look at Cuba. Why are we screwing with them? They have some of the best medical treatment in the world. They have amazing lung cancer treatment were they can heal people with late stage lung cancer like more than half of the time. But it hasn't been brought to America because of the trade embargo. That country is literally poor because we don't allow them to trade wih other people.. Look at Iraq, we have been there for going on 20 years. Why?
What you have to ask yourself is would our country be any different if we didn't steal the resources of other countries. Because that's what this is about. If you hear a politician ever say that we're going into a country because of "human rights abuses" stop listening to them right there, they're full of s$'s. Iran had a leader that wanted to nationalize its oil, cuba had a leader that wanted to nationalise its biggest industries.
What this does is kicks out foreign investors i.e. American investors and the country takes the profits. Good leaders use the resources for their people other countires don't. So it comes down to do you think your life would change if we didn't go into other countries. It's hard to say. For me personally, I think my life would be the same. I mean look at Iraq, a war for oil. We have been there for going on 20 years and I have not benefitted. It has cost trillions of dollars.
Our lives would directly change if our country invested in us. Infrastructure, health, exucation. Its simple, if people are educated, they can work in specialized jobs, and that grows the ecobomy. I you spend money in infrastructure, construction workers spend money and yhat grows the economy. If you pay for peoples medical bills, they dont go poor they get sick and are still functioning membera in the economy.
You wanna know what doesn't grow the economy tax cuta. Tax cuts have a low return in the economy all though its depenxent on how its structured of course. We just gave over a trillion it tax cuts for what? I didn't ses it in my paycheck. So what are we doing?
I agree, we should not be meddling with other countries. What happened in the past is done, can't change that. But we shouldn't meddle in there affairs more today to make up for things we messed up in the past. Just leave them alone.
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism. I think we should look to developed countries whose governments are not bankrupt (trade surplus!) as a rolemodel and try to pinpoint what they are doing right (Like Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea..). Then copy what they are doing.
Well they are still taking taxes out of my paycheck. Not convinced it's a true shutdown.
Very little of the government is actually shutdown. National Park Services, National Forestry Services of the USDA, HUD are all full shutdown. Departments such as FAA, IRS, and DOD are mostly working with minimal furloughs.
People dont forget when we fool with their countries, these have long term effects. If you look at Iran, they used to be our best friends in the Middle East. We didn't have issues with that country until we replaced their leader Mossadeghs in 1953. We have never been cool with that country since. Look at Cuba. Why are we screwing with them? They have some of the best medical treatment in the world. They have amazing lung cancer treatment were they can heal people with late stage lung cancer like more than half of the time. But it hasn't been brought to America because of the trade embargo. That country is literally poor because we don't allow them to trade wih other people.. Look at Iraq, we have been there for going on 20 years. Why?
What you have to ask yourself is would our country be any different if we didn't steal the resources of other countries. Because that's what this is about. If you hear a politician ever say that we're going into a country because of "human rights abuses" stop listening to them right there, they're full of s$'s. Iran had a leader that wanted to nationalize its oil, cuba had a leader that wanted to nationalise its biggest industries.
What this does is kicks out foreign investors i.e. American investors and the country takes the profits. Good leaders use the resources for their people other countires don't. So it comes down to do you think your life would change if we didn't go into other countries. It's hard to say. For me personally, I think my life would be the same. I mean look at Iraq, a war for oil. We have been there for going on 20 years and I have not benefitted. It has cost trillions of dollars.
Our lives would directly change if our country invested in us. Infrastructure, health, exucation. Its simple, if people are educated, they can work in specialized jobs, and that grows the ecobomy. I you spend money in infrastructure, construction workers spend money and yhat grows the economy. If you pay for peoples medical bills, they dont go poor they get sick and are still functioning membera in the economy.
You wanna know what doesn't grow the economy tax cuta. Tax cuts have a low return in the economy all though its depenxent on how its structured of course. We just gave over a trillion it tax cuts for what? I didn't ses it in my paycheck. So what are we doing?
I agree, we should not be meddling with other countries. What happened in the past is done, can't change that. But we shouldn't meddle in there affairs more today to make up for things we messed up in the past. Just leave them alone.
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism. I think we should look to developed countries whose governments are not bankrupt (trade surplus!) as a rolemodel and try to pinpoint what they are doing right (Like Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea..). Then copy what they are doing.
My grandpa probably turned 5 times in the coffin from this BS, I am going to mentioned this to my aunt when I see her. They are both anchology doctors who worked in USSR and traveled many times to Cuba appointed by USSR.
I don't like fo put a label on things because people get emotional about labels. But America has what you call a mixed economy. You have many private industries and then you have things that everybody agrees should be taken care of by the government. The cops, fireman, social security, food stamps are all social programs. The private businesses and the social programs together make up our mixed economy.
Basically, by spending money this way you get two benefits; one the people benefit who are directly helped from the program, and two you get people that benefit when the economy grows through jobs.
We don't have a trade surplus because we import more than we export. We don't export anymore because it is too expensive to make things here. Because its expensive to live in America the cost of labor is higher than other parts of the world and the cost of labor affects the cost of a product. If you can make a product somewhere else for less money, you can sell the product at a cheaper price, and you can sell more of the product.
But that is kind of misleading. The biggest contributor to our gross domestic product (GDP) is Consumption or the resources we use up. Our consumption is high because we import cheap goods from other countries. Having a trade surplus isn't a good measurement of having a succesful economy. Basicallly, we are partially successful as a country because we import cheap things which create a trade deficit. If we didn't import cheap goods it would take more of our money to buy everyday things like tooth paste. GDP is a better indicator of how your economy is doing than trade deficit/surplus.
Well they are still taking taxes out of my paycheck. Not convinced it's a true shutdown.
Very little of the government is actually shutdown. National Park Services, National Forestry Services of the USDA, HUD are all full shutdown. Departments such as FAA, IRS, and DOD are mostly working with minimal furloughs.
Yep, they can never truly shut down the entire government. Everyone just kind of limps along. And of course they're still going to collect taxes. That'll happen until the cockroaches finally take over.
They have amazing lung cancer treatment were they can heal people with late stage lung cancer like more than half of the time. But it hasn't been brought to America because of the trade embargo.
With a wife in the business, I can confidently say hahahahaaa!
They have amazing lung cancer treatment were they can heal people with late stage lung cancer like more than half of the time. But it hasn't been brought to America because of the trade embargo.
With a wife in the business, I can confidently say hahahahaaa!
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism.
I know I hate it when the government invests in critical infrastructure! Damn socialists!
You know what I’m talking about. Infrastructure is fine. But free healthcare isn’t really free. Neither is free college.
I don't advocate for "free college", but I'd certainly advocate for having a head of the department of education that wasn't put there to intentionally torpedo the effectiveness of the department.
And nobody knowledgeable (who wasn't being disingenuous) would suggest that "free healthcare" is a thing, but it is completely accurate to point out that our per-capita cost of healthcare is considerably higher than other countries.
And that is per CAPITA cost -- meaning the number is baselined against all US citizens. All US citizens don't actually have or receive meaningful healthcare, though (either due to lack of quality access in their area, or lack of funds/insurance) -- so the actual "per PARTICIPANT" cost is almost certainly an even less favorable comparison.
Clearly something needs to be done to improve the cost-effectiveness of that system.
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism.
I know I hate it when the government invests in critical infrastructure! Damn socialists!
You know what I'm talking about. Infrastructure is fine. But free healthcare isn't really free. Neither is free college.
I don't advocate for "free college", but I'd certainly advocate for having a head of the department of education that wasn't put there to intentionally torpedo the effectiveness of the department.
And nobody knowledgeable (who wasn't being disingenuous) would suggest that "free healthcare" is a thing, but it is completely accurate to point out that our per-capita cost of healthcare is considerably higher than other countries.
And that is per CAPITA cost -- meaning the number is baselined against all US citizens. All US citizens don't actually have or receive meaningful healthcare, though (either due to lack of quality access in their area, or lack of funds/insurance) -- so the actual "per PARTICIPANT" cost is almost certainly an even less favorable comparison.
Clearly something needs to be done to improve the cost-effectiveness of that system.
We fund the govt. through taxes. The money should go to programs that benefit us. The Government Accountabillity Office showed that a single payer system is cheaper for the country than having private healthcare. I personally would rather have a single payer system and pay slightly higher taxes than paying out of pocket insurance and medical costs. With single payer you don't have to worry about the insurance company screwing you if you get sick or an unfortunate illness from bankrupting you.
I don't understand why people wonder how much things cost when we talk abouy social programs. No one cared what the Iraq war costs. Republicans didn't care what the 2018 tax cut cost. But when we try and talk about programs that help people and grow the economy people ask where the money is going to come from?
They have amazing lung cancer treatment were they can heal people with late stage lung cancer like more than half of the time. But it hasn't been brought to America because of the trade embargo.
"Heal people half the time" is false in every way. The average outcome is an extra 3 months ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26927662 ) which is why almost nobody here was interested when they already have similar survivability with existing drugs. As with all treatments some people will get a few years, the vast majority gets a few months. And that is in a very controlled population instead of the wider reality. If you aren't white, aren't male, or don't smoke the efficacy goes way down. Cuba is homogenous white smokers so that is the direction they went. Hopefully the future is in more tissue agnostic drugs like anti pdl1, since that is what I have to hear most about in practice presentations
You don't have to be salty. Since you're getting technical I said "like half the time." I said "like" because I do not know the exact percentage of people that can be helped.
You are being just as disengenious by using the minimum value in a range. The doctor in the PBS shows his data as giving a range of between 3-11 months extension in life. But his research is also conservative as its goal is to just show that this treatment can be helpful to Americans so they could get through the embargo red tape and get the research started in the U.S.
I am not a doctor so I rely on the expertise of others and use my best judgement to gauge their reliability. The synopsis you showed is from one study in 2016. That is hardly a consensus of all doctors, especially considering that the treatment is just being given clinical trials in the U.S.
If you watch the full documentary in Cuba you may have a different opinion. No matter what the exact number of people that can be helped by this medication is Americans did not have a chance to use it for too long because of an unneccesary embargo.
If you tell me that this drug is exactly the same as other medications that are available, I would call you a liar. I can clearly see this is not the same as other options through the case studys that are available. Anectdotely, I would also ask why so many people are excited about this medication if it does not do anything different?
You don't have to be salty. Since you're getting technical I said "like half the time." I said "like" because I do not know the exact percentage of people that can be helped.
Help vs heal is completely different. No one gets healed with any of these drugs, they only live a few extra months/years.
Originally posted by: CaliforniaGamingSD
You are being just as disengenious by using the minimum value in a range.
Median is average, not minimum. A significant percent didn't even get 3 extra months.
Originally posted by: CaliforniaGamingSD
The synopsis you showed is from one study in 2016. That is hardly a consensus of all doctors, especially considering that the treatment is just being given clinical trials in the U.S.
That study is a clinical trial in Cuba started before the embargo was lifted. Phase 3 is the last step before approval so it is already many years into the process. USA is not involved.
Originally posted by: CaliforniaGamingSD
If you tell me that this drug is exactly the same as other medications that are available, I would call you a liar. I can clearly see this is not the same as other options through the case studys that are available. Anectdotely, I would also ask why so many people are excited about this medication if it does not do anything different?
The same drug is not available, but other drugs show similar outcomes, which is why very few companies are working on it. No one is going to invest billions of R&D to get a result they already have. For the general population it just isn't a great advancement yet, and not enough are convinced the base concept is a good path forward. If it is so amazing, why isn't it available in tons of european/asian countries not affected by the embargo?
Originally posted by: CaliforniaGamingSD
Here's another article from this month showing my main point, that an unneccessary embargo is preventing people from receiving cancer treatment.
"In the most recent of several Cuban trials, patients receiving Cimavax lived about three to five months longer than those who did not." - certainly looks like what I found, nobody is healed.
"Cimavax is currently available in Cuba, Colombia, Peru, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Paraguay" - and the embargo isn't actually stopping them, they could get the drugs right now by going somewhere with no travel/economic restrictions.
"One reason for that is that Keays is currently taking Tagrisso" - and they are already getting similar cancer treatments.
Sure he can't get one specific drug from one specific place that may or may not help, but there are tons of EU drugs we don't have simply because they haven't been fully studied here yet too. Bringing it back to Trump, we would have far more drugs if the FDA was removed
Bunnyboy, what do you think about the video I posted from VICE. If you play it and scroll over to the 4:00 minute mark it says something about Dr. Carl June using the HIV virus in his research with leukemia and blood cancer and getting 90 percent remmission in some cases.
It sounds like they're saying that you have to use different viruses in association with this treatment to attack different types of cancer. So you just don't take a pill or get a shot and go home. If I'm understanding this correctly, do you know which viruses they are using in the American studies?
Also, what they are saying is that if you treat certain cancers with a more classic approach and the cancer goes away, the cuban treatment helps prevent the cancer from returning.
This isn't locked yet? I'm really proud of you guys.
Yeah I'm glad. I haven't seen a political discussion this calm in ages.
Thats because the people that dont actually have arguments, that just want to come in here and shout garbage get drowned out by the folks who have reasonable arguments.
Well they are still taking taxes out of my paycheck. Not convinced it's a true shutdown.
Very little of the government is actually shutdown. National Park Services, National Forestry Services of the USDA, HUD are all full shutdown. Departments such as FAA, IRS, and DOD are mostly working with minimal furloughs.
DoD is funded, but DHS (which includes Coast Guard and CBP ironically) is not. FBI is also unfunded and running out of reserve money to fund operations and sources. All the people not furloughed are not being paid atm, too. One paycheck is a problem, but missing a second right before mortgages/rent will cause serious issues.
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Then, as Greece some years back sadly showed, us, it becomes a VERY bad thing.
Then, as Greece some years back sadly showed, us, it becomes a VERY bad thing.
You have a misunderstanding of Greece's problem from a few years back if you think it was "socialism", in particular.
They have a massive problem with tax evasion, combined with large debt loads, and were stuck in the Eurozone in a way that didn't give them the kinds of government controls over monetary policy that exist outside of the eurozone that allow countries to better deal with debt loads in a functional way.
That is more-or-less distinct from any socialist policies they might have had as a country.
(plenty of other socialist - by our standard - countries in the Eurozone that managed to not run into the same crisis)
Bunnyboy, what do you think about the video I posted from VICE. If you play it and scroll over to the 4:00 minute mark it says something about Dr. Carl June using the HIV virus in his research with leukemia and blood cancer and getting 90 percent remmission in some cases.
It sounds like they're saying that you have to use different viruses in association with this treatment to attack different types of cancer. So you just don't take a pill or get a shot and go home. If I'm understanding this correctly, do you know which viruses they are using in the American studies?
Also, what they are saying is that if you treat certain cancers with a more classic approach and the cancer goes away, the cuban treatment helps prevent the cancer from returning.
(No fda, thats funny.)
None of the stuff I know about uses viruses, maybe thats just a delivery mechanism?
Old way was surgery (cut out everything, including good stuff, hope you got it all) or chemo (burn away all fast growing cells, includes good stuff like hair/stomach cells).
New way is target just cancer cells, either by stuff that binds to specific mutations, or cutting off the blood supply to the tumor, or blocking cell division signals.
Next gen is making the immune system attack the cancer cells, and it has a memory so it will keep attacking if it returns. Since cancer cells are your own cells it will usually not remove them. The cuba idea is train the immune system to remove the cell growth signals (EGF) that are floating around so the cancer stops growing, but the good cells need those signals too. Other drugs trigger the cancer cell death signals so the body clears it out normally, or attach a tag to the cancer cells that the immune system already recognizes so it attacks the whole thing.
Comments
People dont forget when we fool with their countries, these have long term effects. If you look at Iran, they used to be our best friends in the Middle East. We didn't have issues with that country until we replaced their leader Mossadeghs in 1953. We have never been cool with that country since. Look at Cuba. Why are we screwing with them? They have some of the best medical treatment in the world. They have amazing lung cancer treatment were they can heal people with late stage lung cancer like more than half of the time. But it hasn't been brought to America because of the trade embargo. That country is literally poor because we don't allow them to trade wih other people.. Look at Iraq, we have been there for going on 20 years. Why?
What you have to ask yourself is would our country be any different if we didn't steal the resources of other countries. Because that's what this is about. If you hear a politician ever say that we're going into a country because of "human rights abuses" stop listening to them right there, they're full of s$'s. Iran had a leader that wanted to nationalize its oil, cuba had a leader that wanted to nationalise its biggest industries.
What this does is kicks out foreign investors i.e. American investors and the country takes the profits. Good leaders use the resources for their people other countires don't. So it comes down to do you think your life would change if we didn't go into other countries. It's hard to say. For me personally, I think my life would be the same. I mean look at Iraq, a war for oil. We have been there for going on 20 years and I have not benefitted. It has cost trillions of dollars.
Our lives would directly change if our country invested in us. Infrastructure, health, exucation. Its simple, if people are educated, they can work in specialized jobs, and that grows the ecobomy. I you spend money in infrastructure, construction workers spend money and yhat grows the economy. If you pay for peoples medical bills, they dont go poor they get sick and are still functioning membera in the economy.
You wanna know what doesn't grow the economy tax cuta. Tax cuts have a low return in the economy all though its depenxent on how its structured of course. We just gave over a trillion it tax cuts for what? I didn't ses it in my paycheck. So what are we doing?
I agree, we should not be meddling with other countries. What happened in the past is done, can't change that. But we shouldn't meddle in there affairs more today to make up for things we messed up in the past. Just leave them alone.
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism. I think we should look to developed countries whose governments are not bankrupt (trade surplus!) as a rolemodel and try to pinpoint what they are doing right (Like Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea..). Then copy what they are doing.
If will be a new way of life, a new religion, your new A.I. god.
Well they are still taking taxes out of my paycheck. Not convinced it's a true shutdown.
Very little of the government is actually shutdown. National Park Services, National Forestry Services of the USDA, HUD are all full shutdown. Departments such as FAA, IRS, and DOD are mostly working with minimal furloughs.
People dont forget when we fool with their countries, these have long term effects. If you look at Iran, they used to be our best friends in the Middle East. We didn't have issues with that country until we replaced their leader Mossadeghs in 1953. We have never been cool with that country since. Look at Cuba. Why are we screwing with them? They have some of the best medical treatment in the world. They have amazing lung cancer treatment were they can heal people with late stage lung cancer like more than half of the time. But it hasn't been brought to America because of the trade embargo. That country is literally poor because we don't allow them to trade wih other people.. Look at Iraq, we have been there for going on 20 years. Why?
What you have to ask yourself is would our country be any different if we didn't steal the resources of other countries. Because that's what this is about. If you hear a politician ever say that we're going into a country because of "human rights abuses" stop listening to them right there, they're full of s$'s. Iran had a leader that wanted to nationalize its oil, cuba had a leader that wanted to nationalise its biggest industries.
What this does is kicks out foreign investors i.e. American investors and the country takes the profits. Good leaders use the resources for their people other countires don't. So it comes down to do you think your life would change if we didn't go into other countries. It's hard to say. For me personally, I think my life would be the same. I mean look at Iraq, a war for oil. We have been there for going on 20 years and I have not benefitted. It has cost trillions of dollars.
Our lives would directly change if our country invested in us. Infrastructure, health, exucation. Its simple, if people are educated, they can work in specialized jobs, and that grows the ecobomy. I you spend money in infrastructure, construction workers spend money and yhat grows the economy. If you pay for peoples medical bills, they dont go poor they get sick and are still functioning membera in the economy.
You wanna know what doesn't grow the economy tax cuta. Tax cuts have a low return in the economy all though its depenxent on how its structured of course. We just gave over a trillion it tax cuts for what? I didn't ses it in my paycheck. So what are we doing?
I agree, we should not be meddling with other countries. What happened in the past is done, can't change that. But we shouldn't meddle in there affairs more today to make up for things we messed up in the past. Just leave them alone.
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism. I think we should look to developed countries whose governments are not bankrupt (trade surplus!) as a rolemodel and try to pinpoint what they are doing right (Like Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea..). Then copy what they are doing.
My grandpa probably turned 5 times in the coffin from this BS, I am going to mentioned this to my aunt when I see her. They are both anchology doctors who worked in USSR and traveled many times to Cuba appointed by USSR.
I don't like fo put a label on things because people get emotional about labels. But America has what you call a mixed economy. You have many private industries and then you have things that everybody agrees should be taken care of by the government. The cops, fireman, social security, food stamps are all social programs. The private businesses and the social programs together make up our mixed economy.
Basically, by spending money this way you get two benefits; one the people benefit who are directly helped from the program, and two you get people that benefit when the economy grows through jobs.
We don't have a trade surplus because we import more than we export. We don't export anymore because it is too expensive to make things here. Because its expensive to live in America the cost of labor is higher than other parts of the world and the cost of labor affects the cost of a product. If you can make a product somewhere else for less money, you can sell the product at a cheaper price, and you can sell more of the product.
But that is kind of misleading. The biggest contributor to our gross domestic product (GDP) is Consumption or the resources we use up. Our consumption is high because we import cheap goods from other countries. Having a trade surplus isn't a good measurement of having a succesful economy. Basicallly, we are partially successful as a country because we import cheap things which create a trade deficit. If we didn't import cheap goods it would take more of our money to buy everyday things like tooth paste. GDP is a better indicator of how your economy is doing than trade deficit/surplus.
Well they are still taking taxes out of my paycheck. Not convinced it's a true shutdown.
Very little of the government is actually shutdown. National Park Services, National Forestry Services of the USDA, HUD are all full shutdown. Departments such as FAA, IRS, and DOD are mostly working with minimal furloughs.
Yep, they can never truly shut down the entire government. Everyone just kind of limps along. And of course they're still going to collect taxes. That'll happen until the cockroaches finally take over.
They have amazing lung cancer treatment were they can heal people with late stage lung cancer like more than half of the time. But it hasn't been brought to America because of the trade embargo.
With a wife in the business, I can confidently say hahahahaaa!
They have amazing lung cancer treatment were they can heal people with late stage lung cancer like more than half of the time. But it hasn't been brought to America because of the trade embargo.
With a wife in the business, I can confidently say hahahahaaa!
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism.
I know I hate it when the government invests in critical infrastructure! Damn socialists!
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism.
I know I hate it when the government invests in critical infrastructure! Damn socialists!
You know what I’m talking about. Infrastructure is fine. But free healthcare isn’t really free. Neither is free college.
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism.
I know I hate it when the government invests in critical infrastructure! Damn socialists!
You know what I’m talking about. Infrastructure is fine. But free healthcare isn’t really free. Neither is free college.
I don't advocate for "free college", but I'd certainly advocate for having a head of the department of education that wasn't put there to intentionally torpedo the effectiveness of the department.
And nobody knowledgeable (who wasn't being disingenuous) would suggest that "free healthcare" is a thing, but it is completely accurate to point out that our per-capita cost of healthcare is considerably higher than other countries.
And that is per CAPITA cost -- meaning the number is baselined against all US citizens. All US citizens don't actually have or receive meaningful healthcare, though (either due to lack of quality access in their area, or lack of funds/insurance) -- so the actual "per PARTICIPANT" cost is almost certainly an even less favorable comparison.
Clearly something needs to be done to improve the cost-effectiveness of that system.
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism.
I know I hate it when the government invests in critical infrastructure! Damn socialists!
You know what I'm talking about. Infrastructure is fine. But free healthcare isn't really free. Neither is free college.
I don't advocate for "free college", but I'd certainly advocate for having a head of the department of education that wasn't put there to intentionally torpedo the effectiveness of the department.
And nobody knowledgeable (who wasn't being disingenuous) would suggest that "free healthcare" is a thing, but it is completely accurate to point out that our per-capita cost of healthcare is considerably higher than other countries.
And that is per CAPITA cost -- meaning the number is baselined against all US citizens. All US citizens don't actually have or receive meaningful healthcare, though (either due to lack of quality access in their area, or lack of funds/insurance) -- so the actual "per PARTICIPANT" cost is almost certainly an even less favorable comparison.
Clearly something needs to be done to improve the cost-effectiveness of that system.
We fund the govt. through taxes. The money should go to programs that benefit us. The Government Accountabillity Office showed that a single payer system is cheaper for the country than having private healthcare. I personally would rather have a single payer system and pay slightly higher taxes than paying out of pocket insurance and medical costs. With single payer you don't have to worry about the insurance company screwing you if you get sick or an unfortunate illness from bankrupting you.
I don't understand why people wonder how much things cost when we talk abouy social programs. No one cared what the Iraq war costs. Republicans didn't care what the 2018 tax cut cost. But when we try and talk about programs that help people and grow the economy people ask where the money is going to come from?
They have amazing lung cancer treatment were they can heal people with late stage lung cancer like more than half of the time. But it hasn't been brought to America because of the trade embargo.
"Heal people half the time" is false in every way. The average outcome is an extra 3 months ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26927662 ) which is why almost nobody here was interested when they already have similar survivability with existing drugs. As with all treatments some people will get a few years, the vast majority gets a few months. And that is in a very controlled population instead of the wider reality. If you aren't white, aren't male, or don't smoke the efficacy goes way down. Cuba is homogenous white smokers so that is the direction they went. Hopefully the future is in more tissue agnostic drugs like anti pdl1, since that is what I have to hear most about in practice presentations
You are being just as disengenious by using the minimum value in a range. The doctor in the PBS shows his data as giving a range of between 3-11 months extension in life. But his research is also conservative as its goal is to just show that this treatment can be helpful to Americans so they could get through the embargo red tape and get the research started in the U.S.
I am not a doctor so I rely on the expertise of others and use my best judgement to gauge their reliability. The synopsis you showed is from one study in 2016. That is hardly a consensus of all doctors, especially considering that the treatment is just being given clinical trials in the U.S.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.precisionvaccinations.com/cimavax-and-three-additional-cuban-developed-cancer-immunotherapy-treatments-became-accessible-usa?amp
If you watch the full documentary in Cuba you may have a different opinion. No matter what the exact number of people that can be helped by this medication is Americans did not have a chance to use it for too long because of an unneccesary embargo.
If you tell me that this drug is exactly the same as other medications that are available, I would call you a liar. I can clearly see this is not the same as other options through the case studys that are available. Anectdotely, I would also ask why so many people are excited about this medication if it does not do anything different?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1019093001
You don't have to be salty. Since you're getting technical I said "like half the time." I said "like" because I do not know the exact percentage of people that can be helped.
Help vs heal is completely different. No one gets healed with any of these drugs, they only live a few extra months/years.
You are being just as disengenious by using the minimum value in a range.
Median is average, not minimum. A significant percent didn't even get 3 extra months.
The synopsis you showed is from one study in 2016. That is hardly a consensus of all doctors, especially considering that the treatment is just being given clinical trials in the U.S.
That study is a clinical trial in Cuba started before the embargo was lifted. Phase 3 is the last step before approval so it is already many years into the process. USA is not involved.
If you tell me that this drug is exactly the same as other medications that are available, I would call you a liar. I can clearly see this is not the same as other options through the case studys that are available. Anectdotely, I would also ask why so many people are excited about this medication if it does not do anything different?
The same drug is not available, but other drugs show similar outcomes, which is why very few companies are working on it. No one is going to invest billions of R&D to get a result they already have. For the general population it just isn't a great advancement yet, and not enough are convinced the base concept is a good path forward. If it is so amazing, why isn't it available in tons of european/asian countries not affected by the embargo?
Here's another article from this month showing my main point, that an unneccessary embargo is preventing people from receiving cancer treatment.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp....
"In the most recent of several Cuban trials, patients receiving Cimavax lived about three to five months longer than those who did not." - certainly looks like what I found, nobody is healed.
"Cimavax is currently available in Cuba, Colombia, Peru, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Paraguay" - and the embargo isn't actually stopping them, they could get the drugs right now by going somewhere with no travel/economic restrictions.
"One reason for that is that Keays is currently taking Tagrisso" - and they are already getting similar cancer treatments.
Sure he can't get one specific drug from one specific place that may or may not help, but there are tons of EU drugs we don't have simply because they haven't been fully studied here yet too. Bringing it back to Trump, we would have far more drugs if the FDA was removed
This isn't locked yet? I'm really proud of you guys.
Yeah I'm glad. I haven't seen a political discussion this calm in ages.
This isn't locked yet? I'm really proud of you guys.
Yeah I'm glad. I haven't seen a political discussion this calm in ages.
take about 30% off, boys.
Bunnyboy, what do you think about the video I posted from VICE. If you play it and scroll over to the 4:00 minute mark it says something about Dr. Carl June using the HIV virus in his research with leukemia and blood cancer and getting 90 percent remmission in some cases.
It sounds like they're saying that you have to use different viruses in association with this treatment to attack different types of cancer. So you just don't take a pill or get a shot and go home. If I'm understanding this correctly, do you know which viruses they are using in the American studies?
Also, what they are saying is that if you treat certain cancers with a more classic approach and the cancer goes away, the cuban treatment helps prevent the cancer from returning.
(No fda, thats funny.)
This isn't locked yet? I'm really proud of you guys.
Yeah I'm glad. I haven't seen a political discussion this calm in ages.
Thats because the people that dont actually have arguments, that just want to come in here and shout garbage get drowned out by the folks who have reasonable arguments.
Go with a 8 line interstate highway and turn into a game of Frogger.
Believe me many people do care about the costs of funding military operations. But whenever you speak up about it, you get labeled as anti-patriotic
Do you think there's something with that? I do.
Well they are still taking taxes out of my paycheck. Not convinced it's a true shutdown.
Very little of the government is actually shutdown. National Park Services, National Forestry Services of the USDA, HUD are all full shutdown. Departments such as FAA, IRS, and DOD are mostly working with minimal furloughs.
DoD is funded, but DHS (which includes Coast Guard and CBP ironically) is not. FBI is also unfunded and running out of reserve money to fund operations and sources. All the people not furloughed are not being paid atm, too. One paycheck is a problem, but missing a second right before mortgages/rent will cause serious issues.
I don't know if this was your intention, but what your describing in the latter half of your post sounds like some form of socialism.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Then, as Greece some years back sadly showed, us, it becomes a VERY bad thing.
You have a misunderstanding of Greece's problem from a few years back if you think it was "socialism", in particular.
They have a massive problem with tax evasion, combined with large debt loads, and were stuck in the Eurozone in a way that didn't give them the kinds of government controls over monetary policy that exist outside of the eurozone that allow countries to better deal with debt loads in a functional way.
That is more-or-less distinct from any socialist policies they might have had as a country.
(plenty of other socialist - by our standard - countries in the Eurozone that managed to not run into the same crisis)
Sry, my fault. Will tone it down.
Bunnyboy, what do you think about the video I posted from VICE. If you play it and scroll over to the 4:00 minute mark it says something about Dr. Carl June using the HIV virus in his research with leukemia and blood cancer and getting 90 percent remmission in some cases.
It sounds like they're saying that you have to use different viruses in association with this treatment to attack different types of cancer. So you just don't take a pill or get a shot and go home. If I'm understanding this correctly, do you know which viruses they are using in the American studies?
Also, what they are saying is that if you treat certain cancers with a more classic approach and the cancer goes away, the cuban treatment helps prevent the cancer from returning.
(No fda, thats funny.)
None of the stuff I know about uses viruses, maybe thats just a delivery mechanism?
Old way was surgery (cut out everything, including good stuff, hope you got it all) or chemo (burn away all fast growing cells, includes good stuff like hair/stomach cells).
New way is target just cancer cells, either by stuff that binds to specific mutations, or cutting off the blood supply to the tumor, or blocking cell division signals.
Next gen is making the immune system attack the cancer cells, and it has a memory so it will keep attacking if it returns. Since cancer cells are your own cells it will usually not remove them. The cuba idea is train the immune system to remove the cell growth signals (EGF) that are floating around so the cancer stops growing, but the good cells need those signals too. Other drugs trigger the cancer cell death signals so the body clears it out normally, or attach a tag to the cancer cells that the immune system already recognizes so it attacks the whole thing.