The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards.
Did you know: What the media does NOT want you to read is at https://market-ticker.org/nad.
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
The Market Ticker Read Message in The Market Ticker
Top Forum Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie Logout
Page 2 of 3  First123Last
 Ceiling? Or Sanders?
Tickerguy 195k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2023-05-25 13:03:48

@Neal A cure, yes, they would be able to charge anything for that when it comes to cancer. However, what this really says is...... there is no cure.

And that's even more-dangerous because getting drugs approved in the US doesn't require that they be MORE effective than what is already known -- it just has to show "something."

That's a very serious problem because it leads to all manner of trouble -- including deliberately ignoring promising possibilities that cost almost nothing. A formal, proper trial costs a LOT of money, and if there's no money in it...... And worse, if you don't have to do BETTER than what is previously known to get approved then you wind up with everyone pushing CRAP simply on the basis of how much money it costs -- instead of how well it works.

----------
The difference between "kill" and "murder" is that murder, as a subset of kill, is undeserved by the deceased.
Andrew 195 posts, incept 2014-09-24
2023-05-25 13:22:27

@Tappedout that "10000 pennies" was a great video.
Hadn't thought about that guy recently.
Here's another I'd forgot about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rl1xgT3....
Cmoledor 2k posts, incept 2021-04-13
2023-05-25 13:22:36

God I love how you explain things Karl. Still wish I could have been a student or worker of yours. Fuck my life would more than likely have been improved.

----------
The whole world is one big fucking scam
Full throttle till the end. Ocdawg
Take the stick you tried to beat me with and go fuck your own face. Ishmael
Radiosity 1k posts, incept 2009-03-05
2023-05-25 13:34:22

I was going to post the same video as Indianarube, it shows the futility of taxing the rich quite effectively. It's Bill Whittle, incidentally :)

----------
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Lewfalo 66 posts, incept 2023-03-09
2023-05-25 13:52:23

Cancer is one of those that there may never be an answer, similar with autoimmune disease. They are a strange combo, because on the one hand you have the body's own immune system destroying its healthy tissues, but that same deadly immune system by itself can't seem to defeat cancer in some cases.

And the cause of it all? Is it really all down to genetic programming? I've had both autoimmune and cancer, both low grade, but I've always lived a "healthy lifestyle" without risk factors other than family history.

I think pharma is quite evil, but I've never believed any institution is withholding cures. For the vast majority of humans, good health is their responsibility alone, and it's not exactly that difficult to achieve, so big pharma is really rich and powerful because of people's individual choices.
Jesjohn94 1k posts, incept 2019-05-07
2023-05-25 14:57:43

USA spends double per capita on healthcare compared to Europe with its universal healthcare. Given how I keep hearing how inefficient socialized anything is that must mean the health outcomes in USA must be far superior with all that money spent. Oops, it's actually significantly worse. The way new drugs are funded mainly in USA doesn't come close to the delta in money spent either.
Tickerguy 195k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2023-05-25 14:58:40

@Jesjohn94 careful there -- we pay for all the tech development and they use it for "free" PLUS add on socialist inefficiency.

Get rid of that and they lose HUGE; their cost would be double ours AND they'd have shittier outcomes.

----------
The difference between "kill" and "murder" is that murder, as a subset of kill, is undeserved by the deceased.
Poorsaver 525 posts, incept 2008-05-20
2023-05-25 15:09:08

lewfalo wrote..
I think pharma is quite evil, but I've never believed any institution is withholding cures

Yeah, pull the other one

----------
"I'm going to need a hacksaw"----Jack Bauer
"You can get killed walking your doggie!"----Vincent Hanna
Greenacr 808 posts, incept 2016-03-15
2023-05-25 15:13:56

One thing that has gone missing from discussions about deficits, debt ceilings, CMS, and spending in genera is FRAUD and WASTE. 30 years ago it was a source of big savings now not a mention from either side of the political aisle. Now we are doling out $$ to Ukraine, illegals, climate scams, etc.

Both sides of the aisle are benefiting greatly from the all the scraps falling form the dinner table. We must continue to SPEND!
Synopsis 94 posts, incept 2010-02-05
2023-05-25 15:29:25

@ Indianarube I remember watching that video when it first came out. Then, in 2011, he was explaining how to cover a 3.7 trillion dollar budget. As ridiculous as it seemed at the time, it is essentially half of what the budget is today.
Lewfalo 66 posts, incept 2023-03-09
2023-05-25 15:37:38

@Jesjohn94

It's depends on where in Europe you are referring to. The "universal" part is somewhat a myth. Usually, you don't receive health care unless you pay into the system through employment, or then officially receive unemployment if not working, or you are demonstrably indigent (these are the smallest in number, but probably go to the doctor the most). Some countries have private insurance companies managing the public system as well, and every "customer" has to pay something additional for their care.

In terms of care itself, it simply sucks. Just as you would expect if there is artificial unlimited demand and limited supply. Doctors are paid almost nothing compared to their counterparts in the USA. A surgeon in Spain makes max 3,500 euros a month, net. You think a doctor in the USA would agree to that? UK doctors make much more, but nothing compared to the USA.

If you look at per capita death for the first few months of covid, for example, Spain and Italy had the worst, similar to NYC. Central and Eastern Europe did quite well. So what does that tell you about the health care in Spain and Italy? You wait 6 to 10 months to see a specialist, the GPs are atrocious. Perhaps it's a good place to get really sick if it's otherwise expensive and the treatment doesn't require much skill, but stay away from European universal public healthcare if you can, and instead buy private insurance. That's the only good thing I see about European health care, the health insurance is dirt cheap.
Tritumi 1k posts, incept 2008-11-29
2023-05-25 20:19:18

Out of time?

Shucks, time is just another social construct, bro.

So don't give me a hard time, man.

/s (in case of need)
Indianarube 1k posts, incept 2020-03-22
2023-05-25 21:27:33

@Synopsis yep, it has doubled. You've been here long enough to have read "The Lily Pond" I'm sure. We're pretty close to halfway covered in my estimation. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=....
Bluto 2k posts, incept 2021-07-10
2023-05-25 21:27:45

Quote:
Thus the first change is that all claims must be made in the context of the current single year impact, and only that year. Forward, unenforceable claims must be barred.


Yes. I just read how the latest deal might involve extending the debt ceiling into 2024, and agreeing to cut some future spending in the individual appropriations bills later this year.

That is unacceptable, and if McCarthy is dumb enough to give up debt ceiling leverage for future promises, he deserves to lose his speakership.

The way I understand it is that Republicans have leverage on BOTH the debt ceiling and the individual appropriations bills. They could raise the debt limit to $100 trillion, but without authorization from Congress, that money cannot be spent.

Conversely, they can authorize the funds, but without a concurrent authorization to exceed X dollars in debt, the Treasury cannot issue debt to pay for authorized spending.

So unless I am mistaken, these are not one, but TWO, points of leverage the Republicans have. And they should use them both to cut spending and bring about policy changes.

----------
"You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end -- which you can never afford to lose -- with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever
Bluto 2k posts, incept 2021-07-10
2023-05-25 23:13:30

Quote:
At the core of the problem is the business model of the medical system. It is designed to treat and not cure. Treating gives a lifetime of tests, drugs, consultations, etc. Curing is a single billing.


"Cures", unlikely. "Prevention", absolutely.

As there are known cancer triggers (smoking, abestos, etc.), I am convinced that there are many others that are simply more difficult to correlate. But with computers finding those associations is trivial, assuming you get good "input" data. But if N is large enough (millions), you can tolerate a lot of noise and garbage in your data.

The other side of the equation is the ability of the body to fight off cancers. I believe a big component of this is having proper nutrition, vitamins, and micro-nutrients. Using computers to determine correlations would again be very useful.

And by finding both triggers and preventives, more about cancer would be discovered, leading to even better treatments.

Hopefully our medical system goes this direction when it collapses, instead of hellish Soviet-style rationing.

----------
"You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end -- which you can never afford to lose -- with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever
Tonythetiger 858 posts, incept 2019-01-27
2023-05-25 23:15:24


Regarding a "cure" for cancer, the fact that cancer cells primarily generate energy via the fermentation of glucose despite the availability of oxygen (Warburg Effect) suggests that an extension of TG's High Fat/Low Carb/Moderate protein diet into the realm of High Fat/NO Carb diet might be effective at slowing or stopping cancer's growth, perhaps to the point of eliminating it entirely.

You see some hints at this effect in papers on cancer, though most of those papers are seeking a 'cure' that disrupts the cancer's ability to process glucose rather than trying to eliminate the cancer via removal of the glucose.

Here is a link to a 2020 paper which reviews the literature on diet based approaches to addressing cancer:

"Revisiting the Warburg Effect: Diet-Based Strategies for Cancer Prevention"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article....

Quote:
For example, inhibiting glucose transport slows glucose supply to cancer cells, slowing cancer metabolism and biomass synthesis. As a result, cancer cells fail to grow and instead undergo apoptosis

and
Quote:
However, several cancer cells also lack the mitochondrial enzymes necessary to metabolize ketone bodies. Theoretically, the drop in glycolytic ATP production achieved by CR (calorie restriction) cannot be compensated for via oxidative phosphorylation; thus, ATP depletion, cell growth inhibition, and death ensue.

and
Quote:
Several preclinical models have reported that ketosis is associated with tumor growth inhibition either by direct action or as an indicator of the effect of maximal insulin inhibition

and
Quote:
In 2005, Breitkreutz et al. investigated gastrointestinal carcinomas in a randomized trial of 23 moderately malnourished patients and found that a high-fat diet may support the maintenance of both body weight and body cell mass, while decreasing lymphocyte numbers; several aspects of quality of life were rated as improved by patients consuming a fat-enriched artificial liquid diet.


Granted those quotes are based on work in other papers, looking at other aspects of the cancer problem, but taken at face value they suggests that removing glucose from the blood entirely might go a long way toward "treating" cancer.

Without fancy and expensive pharma owned drugs.

Now I'm not a biology nerd and I frequently get lost when the 10 syllable words start showing up in organic chemistry, but that's what appears to be a logical conclusion based on what I've read.

Pharma researchers seem to dance around the elimination of glucose from a tumor via drugs as a strategy, based on the assumption that there 'must be' glucose in the blood, when most non-cancerous cells can survive without glucose entirely, suggesting that eliminating carbs from your diet altogether might prove quite effective at starving cancer to death. (my admittedly stretched conclusion based on what little I've read)


I'd be interested in hearing the thought of others who are more knowledgeable than I am on the topic. Perhaps there are other papers I've missed which disprove my hypothesis, or I'm misinterpreting something.

TG's HFLC diet might go a long way at reducing the risks of getting cancer in the first place. Shifting to a No Carb version may give cancerous cells a tough row to hoe and give improved odds of surviving to those who have cancer.









----------
"War is when the Government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself." - Benjamin Franklin
Ronniemcghee 411 posts, incept 2012-07-28
2023-05-26 07:45:03

History Buffs ~
Who In Congressional testimony said ~

The standard of living of the average American has to decline. I don't think you can escape that.

Mannfm11 8k posts, incept 2009-02-28
2023-05-26 07:45:12

Horse shit endowed by a herd of horses asses. Tax the rich, we get the bill. What DC does is shovel money to their desired rich and send us the bill.

I heard some whore talking about Social Security in the context of what life expectancy was in the mid 1930's. The mistake there wasn't that people didn't live to be old, but that so many got killed young. The people that didn't get killed young paid into the system. My gradndparents were in their late 30;s to mid 40's in 1935. Every one of them lived past 81 years old. The problem was 2 fold, they paid in a pittence and the government spent the money.

ANSWER THIS QUESTION? How did they come to the conclusion they could spend the same money twice? That is in essence what they have done with every dime paid into Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Could the entire scheme be that they are spending it all while we are getting another bill for the same thing. What people were paying into Social Security in 1950 was a small fraction of their income paid today. They are going to not only make us pay the money again, they are going to fuck us on the annuity again. Life expectancy hasn't increased in years, because they are too busy killing young people.

I got a hospital bill for a trip to the hospital last October. $137,000 for no treatment save a little pharma and in MRI. It wasn't everything. It was likely 10 times what Medicare and United Healthcare paid, maybe more. But with no insurance some poor slob would have faced that bullshit, likely offered a plan to pay half and all the other schemers would have stuck it in their ass. United Health totally denied some reported billings.

You know how to fix this don't you? Outlaw health insurance and go back to charity hospitals. I think the bill for 13 days for the room was $39,000, more than I collect out of 17 houses in a not so cheap city in a month. That's a nice room in Vegas, chips, champaign, hookers and maybe a little blow to boot with money left. Then they complain they don't get paid.

What is coming next is they are going to kill us rather than pay. They are already doing that in Canada and England. They are likely doing it here, because that is what they were doing during CV19. I'm seeing all the people dying. How much dead wood did they wipe out? How many life long treatments did they create in young people, many which would have been better off firing a 22 revolver up their ass than take the jabs.

We will own nothing and like it? The only people that are going to like it already own nothing. They own nothing because the system is designed that no dollar is left behind. My grandma never made more than a minimal social security check and somehow died with something like 1994 $20,000. She came to Texas in a wagon around 1905. How many people have $40,000 to leave their kids. Plus a farm? It is suspended now, but the estate tax was created to make sure what the medical business and the undetaker didn't get out of a moderately well to do middle class person, the government made certain less was passed down. The rich could afford to avoid much of it. There was a bill on my fathers estate. There didn't have to be. He could have blown it and become a ward of the state or spending excessive time fooling with doctors.

There is no shortage of tax revenues. There is a shortage of honest politicians. Guys like Biden and Bernie never had to make a living. Neither seems to be too interested in sharing their wealth. In net, both have cost the average working stiff thens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. All the CV19 bullshit and hardly a peep. You would think they might have hearings on how the system looted trillions and killed millions. I think we know who owns DC. The same families that owned the British East India Company. Somehow we got their flag, the flag of a company with a mnopoly on opium and Saltpeter.

----------
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith
Flappingeagle 5k posts, incept 2011-04-14
2023-05-26 07:48:41

OK, time for my morning stream of consciousness.

The cure for cancer is locked up in the same vault as the 100-mpg carburetor. If, a cure for cancer is found there is no way it can stay secret. Not only will one (or more) of the people who discover it let everyone know, in time others will discover it as well even if the first group keeps it a secret.

I am doing Keto right now coupled with 18/6 five days a week. I give myself a break from 18/6 about two days a week and have breakfast. If I ever get cancer, I am going to do my very best to go on a 14-day fast. Nothing but water with a pinch of salt.

The country is so addicted to deficit spending AND has been manipulated to the point where a responsible party is considered irresponsible when it seeks to control spending. Then, couple that with the large government bond market being the basis for the risk-free rate (lol) which a lot of other debt uses as a basis for its pricing. Then, you have the luxury(?) of being the world's reserve currency which lets you print with a reduced effect at home because the world needs dollars. Which leads to a great run while it lasts but, I'm afraid like Icarus you eventually get too close to the sun and the thing falls apart spectacularly.

Personally, it seems to me that it both peaked and began to fall apart in the 1960s. Lots of things happened then. Extra deficit to fund a war and great society at the same time. Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, everyone can go (has the ability to go) to college, immigration reform, the US needing to import oil, it all (most) seems to have gotten started in the 1960s.

Have a good one,

Flap

----------
Here are my predictions for everyone to see:
S&P 500 at 320, DOW at 2200, Gold $300/oz, and Corn $2/bu.
No sign that housing, equities, or farmland are in a bubble- Yellen 11/14/13
Trying to leave
Rangeishot 3k posts, incept 2021-11-18
2023-05-26 07:49:43

Neal wrote..
There are over 100 million people on this planet who are millionaires and every year a few million either get a potentially deadly cancer themselves or their child/spouse/parent/sibling does. Think they wouldnt pay a few hundred thousand to cure that loved one?


You're right about the spend, but you're also low by at least an order of magnitude. As a teenager I worked for a guy who was above-average wealthy, to the tune of around $2 million (more impressive back then, of course). His wife was diagnosed with leukemia, extremely rare in an adult, usually extremely fatal. He immediately shut down the company and spent most of their money flying her all over the place trying various experimental cures. They even went to China at one point. She did survive it, for what it's worth. Later he told me those little wearable continuous-chemo pumps did the trick (experimental at the time).

----------
The IRS makes criminals out of taxpayers. The FairTax makes taxpayers out of criminals.
Vernonb 3k posts, incept 2009-06-03
2023-05-26 10:15:46

@Tonythetiger,

So true. Seems logical that if cancer is starved of fuel or the ability to process the fuel the result is the same. The former is more easily implemented but takes actual discipline.


Let us look at those covid vacs that apparently ruined the body's ability to target and destroy cancer cells. Now cancers proliferate in the body and this carb laden culture squares the issue.

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Lauhe 13 posts, incept 2019-06-18
2023-05-26 10:15:53

How about reducing 'warmachine' spending?

Is that not also responsible for deficit spending?

Neal 319 posts, incept 2014-01-09
2023-05-26 10:24:05

@TG, you are correct that there is no money to be made doing the research on identifying cancer risks. But considering the billions the governments in scores of countries give to universities to do all kinds of research then surely they can fund the basic research such as determining if a keto diet prevents cancers or identifying cancer triggers?
Same applies to most diseases, research, be it government funded or funded by charities and foundations doesnt make money but saves money that is spent treating the illness. As the old saying goes an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure
Tonythetiger 858 posts, incept 2019-01-27
2023-05-26 15:01:45


The government could probably balance the budget if they could figure out how to eliminate most of the wasteful spending they do.

Anyone who has ever had a chance to see how the government budgets and spends money first hand knows that is true. The rules they must follow ensures that they will waste a major portion of their money on stupid, unnecessary stuff.


Case in point, the group I work for bought replacement chairs for a conference room about 10 years ago (the current chairs were perfectly fine, but they had allocated budget dollars for such things and so 'HAD' to spend it).

After 9 months of paperwork, the chairs were delivered in boxes. Another two days were spent assembling them and moving them to the 4th floor of the building, where the old chairs were replaced (and adopted for personal use by various team members). Net cost paid per chair was over $450.

I looked at an online Staples catalogue and discovered chairs with all the same features could be purchased for $250 each, by phone, and delivered in one day, assembly included.

There were 42 chairs. Total cost paid = $18,900, plus time for assembly.

Total waste = $8,400, plus salary costs of two people for two days on assembly, plus salary cost for one person over 9 months.

44+% wasted dollars, not to mention the wasted labor for the paperwork and assembly.

When I pointed out the absurdity of the situation to the person who had ordered the chairs, he replied that he 'had to follow the rules' no matter how stupid it seemed.

The government workers know this is the case. They really don't have a choice but to implement stupid. It's their job.







----------
"War is when the Government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself." - Benjamin Franklin
Jack_crabb 16k posts, incept 2010-06-25
2023-05-26 20:39:11

Quote:
They really don't have a choice but to implement stupid. It's their job.


Gallows would fix that shit in a hurry.

----------
Molon Labe
Where is Henry Bowman when you need him?
How many are willing to pledge this? We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 2 of 3  First123Last