@morellifit “Here’s the benefits (without disclosing risks) and my advice and my website on how to buy them for me btw this is not medical advice I’m not even a doctor so don’t come after me when something really terrible happens”
Be careful with people like this
If a migrant is caught committing a crime, the judge should have to offer the punishment here or the punishment in their home country, whichever is more severe.
Most don't mind our punishments and will gladly commit crimes in return for a brief, free staycation in prison
JUST IN: Ilhan Omar claims a disclosure listing her wealth as high as $30 million was an “accounting error”— says her real net worth is $18,000-95,000.
9.9/10 oncology drug reps that walk through my door are trying to sell me on burdening taxpayers to the tune of 100k+ to buy a couple more miserable months for patients.
Over 50,000 people in the U.S. die from pancreatic cancer every year. After this drug is approved and widely used, that number will remain essentially the same.
In absolute terms, they are reporting a median survival shift of around six months. Yet we know resistance inevitably develops, as it does in all cancers subjected to drugs targeting mutations in the RAS/MAPK/PI3K pathway.
If the goal is to meaningfully reduce cancer mortality, this does not move the needle.
This is where decades of focus and billions in NIH/NCI funding have concentrated. National Cancer Institute is funded at roughly $9 billion per year, and a substantial portion of that budget is devoted to oncogenes and what is marketed as targeted therapies.
This is then layered on top of a drug development and healthcare model where drugs like this can cost over $100,000 per patient.
These are incremental gains at the late metastatic stage, where the biology is already stacked against you.
Meanwhile, the two areas that actually determine population-level outcomes—early detection and prevention—remain neglected.
If we are serious about reducing the number of people who die from pancreatic cancer, the priority cannot be continuing to optimize late-stage interventions that predictably yield temporary gains.
The goal should be zero deaths. Right now, we are not on a path that gets us there.
It is not surprising that this view is being met with backlash. Much of the criticism is coming from people whose incentives—academic , financial, or institutional—are tied to maintaining the current system in biomedical research and the biotech and pharma sectors that profit from it.