If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Scientists create drug that "has killed every kind of cancer tumor it has come in contact with". Still no cure for.....um, hold that thought   (foxnews.com) divider line 107
    More: Spiffy, tumors, cancer tumors, cure, blood cells  
•       •       •

14499 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 9:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 09:44:35 AM  
100% effective cure for cancer. Works every time. www.tactical-life.com
 
2013-04-04 09:46:21 AM  

Alonjar: Or, you know... this new research could give them better understanding of CD47 manipulation, which could lead to a cure or fix for your problem.

NO WAIT YOU'RE RIGHT!  STOP.  STOP.  EVERYBODY STOP.  HALT THE RESEARCH!  LabGrrl on fark says its not a good idea!

Phew, that was a close one.  Zombie apocalypse averted!


Oh, honey, if I wanted you to put on your tin foil hat, I'd show you that a couple of those papers on CD-47 have my name on them, or my name in the works cited...because my lab was working with those antibodies.

Or, I'd show you the correlation between laboratory work and autoimmune diseases...

Those can tin foil hat you pretty fast.

There are many, many treatments that we have that kill 'every kind of cancer tumor.' The trick is NOT KILLING THE PATIENT.

/If I was against research, I would not be allowing myself to be a human scid mouse so my treatment might save a cancer patient's life.
//The correlation between lab staff and autoimmune disease is generally believed to be from solvents but that should never stop a good tin foil hatin'
///hatters gotta hat
 
2013-04-04 09:49:36 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Edsel: As usual, the media takes a lab discovery and runs with it... Will be really curious to see what the effects on healthy tissues are. Unless there's a way to target this only to cancer cells, may be pointless.

"Although macrophages also attacked blood cells expressing CD47 when mice were given the antibody, the researchers found that the decrease in blood cells was short-lived; the animals turned up production of new blood cells to replace those they lost from the treatment, the team reports online today in the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "

I know it's only mice so far but this sounds promising.


so, not very useful if your bone marrow is infected.
 
2013-04-04 09:52:18 AM  
so let me guess, after your immune system eats your cancer it eats the rest of you and you disintegrate into a quivering bloody mass.
 
2013-04-04 09:55:14 AM  
Exactly how many times is this going to be repeated?
 
2013-04-04 09:55:42 AM  

Egalitarian: so let me guess, after your immune system eats your cancer it eats the rest of you and you disintegrate into a quivering bloody mass.


i4.ytimg.com
 
2013-04-04 09:55:49 AM  

LabGrrl: blipponaut: LabGrrl: Oh, yeah, let's mess with CD47. You know, the protein screwed up in some autoimmune diseases, like the one I'm dying of, where my body takes the "do not eat" label off of healthy lung tissue. That's a GREAT IDEA. What could possibly do wrong?

You're really dying of some disease related to this? I'm sorry to hear that.

I've a form of Interstitial Lung Disease so rare it has no name. Almost all the other patients developed it at 65, and I got it at 37. We literally have no idea how my long my lifespan could be, but yup, it's thought to be related to CD47 (primarily because it's unresponsive to treatments for CD40-related disease.) My body om nom noms my lungs (and other tissues) because it doesn't recognize the signal *not* to.

Long story short, all these 'new' cancer drugs that use the immune response have a slow, lingering, painful death from rare autoimmune diseases as a potential side effect. Just think, the experimental procedures keeping me alive could keep them alive, too. yay.


It seems some of your lung cells are genetically flawed to not produce, or have lost the ability to produce, CD47 which would explain why they are the only organ affected by your condition.

This in completely different than a drug that would temporarily suppress CD47 in order for the immune system to see and destroy cancer cells.  Other cells in the body might be destroyed as well but there are thousands of times more of those cells than the cancer cells.  The hope is for a temporary hit to those cells but that replacement healthy cells will be created.  That fact this has been successful in animal studies that contain human cancers is very promising.  The next huge step will human testing.  Will the drug not work?  Will the brain, heart or some other critical organ be affected and not easily recover.   Will the cancer keep coming back?

The answers will not be known for at least 5 years, maybe 10.
 
2013-04-04 09:57:12 AM  

Egalitarian: so let me guess, after your immune system eats your cancer it eats the rest of you and you disintegrate into a quivering bloody mass.


No, because it eats the blood cells FIRST. So you become a quivering mass of plasma. Now that's better than a zombie movie ANY DAY.
 
2013-04-04 09:59:13 AM  
Yeah, you know what else kills every cancer cell? THROWING A CANCER PATIENT IN A FARKING BLAST FURNACE.

Do we plan to greenlight one of these every other day? There are hundreds of treatments that kill cancer cells. The "Holy Grail" would be one that doesn't also kill every other cell in your body.
 
2013-04-04 10:02:06 AM  
Why do admins keep green-lighting the same stories about an article from LAST YEAR.
 
2013-04-04 10:02:14 AM  
Best lab related April Fools ever... The i can only imagine the delivery at Make-A-Wish.

"Great news, Timmy; we've developed a cure for your terminal lymphoma!"
"Horray, i'm going to live long enough to be friends with my younger brother!"
"Just kidding, April Fools!"

Classic.
 
2013-04-04 10:05:34 AM  
The real problem with curing cancer is what happens when you don't remove the original source.  What happens when you don't find the virus, or the microscopic radioactive particle, or the genetic damage?  The thing about cancers that it's not just a "disease", it's a description of a particular way in which the body can kill itself if your basic units of life get corrupted.  Tumors aren't much more than human pearls, and there's a flaw that must be removed in there somewhere.  How could a drug like this not be temporary?  Seems like it could only be permanently effective for cancers caused by known virus infections.  Otherwise, what stops whatever damage caused the tumor from just doing it again?
 
2013-04-04 10:08:16 AM  

whitman00: This in completely different than a drug that would temporarily suppress CD47 in order for the immune system to see and destroy cancer cells.  Other cells in the body might be destroyed as well but there are thousands of times more of those cells than the cancer cells.  The hope is for a temporary hit to those cells but that replacement healthy cells will be created.  That fact this has been successful in animal studies that contain human cancers is very promising.  The next huge step will human testing.  Will the drug not work?  Will the brain, heart or some other critical organ be affected and not easily recover.   Will the cancer keep coming back?

The answers will not be known for at least 5 years, maybe 10.


They've been working on this particular locus for more than a decade already (I think it's closer to 20 years at this point). The reason they don't move out of the mouse model has everything to do with the fact that as soon as you put the antibodies into a mouse *with* an immune system, the mouse dies of autoimmune disease. These work GREAT in scid mice.
That and your CD47-null mice die fast from E.coli and have decreased lifespans, so most of the basic research with CD-47 mutants ends 'and they all died from an infection in the animal facility.' We can't get good data on it when the model is flawed.

/Which is why everyone is back to apoptosis signals, radioprotectants and 'gene repair' therapies.
 
2013-04-04 10:08:57 AM  

beantowndog: MidnightSkulker: Science reporting goes like this:
Paper: "We found a small but measurable positive effect of substance X in this extremely narrow animal model."
Media: "CANCER CURE FOUND"

Paper: "We actually cured cancer.  All of it."
Media: "Team of scientists die in lab explosion"


Nice.
 
2013-04-04 10:17:33 AM  
Well since everyone is debating what might be in the article what the conspiracy theory nuts are already here, here's the link to the PNAS article, it's open access so you can read it (and possibly thinks) for yourselves.

/Research how does it farking work?
 
2013-04-04 10:19:01 AM  
Cancer will never be cured.  In America, cancer is just too much of a welcome cash cow for just about every facet of the American health care/health insurance industry, and finding an easy cure would cost them billions in profits.  It's much better for them to convince you that you're going to die and subject you to an obscenely expensive regimen of treatments and medications and surgeries that can bleed every last penny from your bank accounts.

Simply saying, "Hey!  You have cancer.  Give me a thousand bucks for this drug, and you'll be fine," is not attractive when they can tell you, "Well, we have these drugs.  They're cheaper than the really effective ones, and they might not work or make a difference like the expensive ones will.  If only you could afford those.  Have you thought about maybe holding a bake sale or selling your house and cars and cashing in that retirement account?  I'm much more confident in the expensive ones."
 
2013-04-04 10:24:08 AM  

Mr Guy: The real problem with curing cancer is what happens when you don't remove the original source.  What happens when you don't find the virus, or the microscopic radioactive particle, or the genetic damage?  The thing about cancers that it's not just a "disease", it's a description of a particular way in which the body can kill itself if your basic units of life get corrupted.  Tumors aren't much more than human pearls, and there's a flaw that must be removed in there somewhere.  How could a drug like this not be temporary?  Seems like it could only be permanently effective for cancers caused by known virus infections.  Otherwise, what stops whatever damage caused the tumor from just doing it again?


The harder question is not how do we make it not temporary, but how do we make it temporary. Once your body is making antibodies, it doesn't often 'forget' how to make those antibodies (there are exceptions). If it's making antibodies to something it is encountering all the time, it is probably not stopping. The promise of "it will only temporarily target a protein that your body is using in places other than the cancer, and it won't go anywhere else" is a pipe dream.
It's a good premise: Tell the body to kill off the cancer the way it kills off all the other misfiring cells. The problem is that the science of killing cancer is better by far than the science of fixing a screwed up immune system. (We literally have about 6 drugs, and another 3-4 antibodies, that work on autoimmune diseases, and the gentlest of them is still a liver-killer that has cancer as a side effect.) Until we are funding research on fixing out-of-control immune systems better, it's nuts to invest in drugs with out-of-control immune systems as a side effect.
Right now, we have cancer treatments that cause severe autoimmune diseases, which are treated by drugs which cause cancer. That is a problem.
 
2013-04-04 10:26:32 AM  

Random Discord: Exactly how many times is this going to be repeated?


Until someone finds the cure for Alzheimer's?
 
2013-04-04 10:28:59 AM  
If it works, it will be on the market in a few years. Patents are only good for a short time - they like to cash in as much as possible before they go Generic.

Expect US citizens to pay 500% more than the rest of the world.
 
2013-04-04 10:32:19 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Cancer will never be cured.  In America, cancer is just too much of a welcome cash cow for just about every facet of the American health care/health insurance industry, and finding an easy cure would cost them billions in profits.  It's much better for them to convince you that you're going to die and subject you to an obscenely expensive regimen of treatments and medications and surgeries that can bleed every last penny from your bank accounts.



No. When you take their student loan payments out of their monthly salary, a good deal of the laboratory staff around the world make less than minimum wage. While PIs can rake in the dough (and not all of them, by a long shot) your techs, lab assistants, chemical handling people and even laboratory managers live the lush lifestyles of the ten-thousandaires. Some of them make as much as four tens. And that's terrible.

If the people handling the data weren't often on food stamps, it would be possible to believe they've all bought into a plan to keep the cures down....but do you really believe that no one making a lush 26k a year but in on the great secret cure would've gone "Hey, Mr. Jobs, for 2 million dollars I'll give you this cure..."

Hell, half the techs I know would give you their data for a beer and a new pair of shoes.
 
2013-04-04 10:34:31 AM  

Skarekrough: So, can I start smoking again or not?


This. I just got back from Italy. Everyone there smokes like a chimney. A true cure for cancer will be huge money, and personally I would probably take up occasional smoking again.
 
2013-04-04 10:38:33 AM  

LabGrrl: The harder question is not how do we make it not temporary, but how do we make it temporary.


True, again, assuming we correctly manage to identify the cause.  The biggest issue, from my perspective, that cancer has is that it's a true disease of symptoms, most of the symptoms being caused by the autoimmune response to the corruption.  It's dangerous to associate "treating tumors" with "stopping cancer", because all cancer has a cause, known or unknown.  We freak out about things that are "cancerous" because they skew your statistics.  Cancer causing means we think this thing causes the type of damage that sometimes doesn't get repaired and sometimes causes cancer.  The "cure" for cancer isn't killing tumors, it's correctly killing only unsalvageable cells and somehow resetting the other cells back to correct genetic strings.  A "cure" for cancer would be one that actually makes cancerous cells correct again.
 
2013-04-04 10:39:51 AM  
It removes this tag from your cancer
3.bp.blogspot.com

Jeff Foxworthy "I got cancer and gum!"
 
2013-04-04 10:40:24 AM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

So you're saying I DIDN'T have to be blended with Selmak..?
 
2013-04-04 10:45:14 AM  

Jument: Skarekrough: So, can I start smoking again or not?

This. I just got back from Italy. Everyone there smokes like a chimney. A true cure for cancer will be huge money, and personally I would probably take up occasional smoking again.


Best evidence seems to be that it's okay to occasionally smoke cigarettes, as long as you smoke some weed every week to clear the tar out of your lungs.  However, if you ever fail to clear any tar out of your lungs, at some point you'll probably get cancer.

//Semi-serious
 
2013-04-04 10:50:03 AM  
If I'm understanding the article correctly, basically this antibody they fabricated works by "taking down" the "do not eat" sign that gets put up by the abnormal cells, so that the body is better able to fight the cancer on its own.  Good.  Hope they can mass produce it.  Too much cancer runs in my family and I'm going to need something resembling a back up plan in another 20 years if I drew bad in the genetic card deck.
 
2013-04-04 10:50:29 AM  
I used to work in a CD47 lab and my former boss is working on commercializing this treatment. It's got a lot of promise but the stability of injected antibodies in the bloodstream can be a hurdle to efficacy.

LabGrrl: Oh, yeah, let's mess with CD47. You know, the protein screwed up in some autoimmune diseases, like the one I'm dying of, where my body takes the "do not eat" label off of healthy lung tissue. That's a GREAT IDEA. What could possibly do wrong?


That is not at all how this treatment works. The antibody ligates CD47 which tells the cell essentially that it's starving even when it's flush with nutrients. How deleteriously this will affect non-cancerous tissue, which do not overexpress CD47, remains to be seen.
 
2013-04-04 10:51:21 AM  
 
2013-04-04 10:51:58 AM  

LabGrrl: The harder question is not how do we make it not temporary, but how do we make it temporary. Once your body is making antibodies, it doesn't often 'forget' how to make those antibodies (there are exceptions). If it's making antibodies to something it is encountering all the time, it is probably not stopping. The promise of "it will only temporarily target a protein that your body is using in places other than the cancer, and it won't go anywhere else" is a pipe dream.
It's a good premise: Tell the body to kill off the cancer the way it kills off all the other misfiring cells. The problem is that the science of killing cancer is better by far than the science of fixing a screwed up immune system. (We literally have about 6 drugs, and another 3-4 antibodies, that work on autoimmune diseases, and the gentlest of them is still a liver-killer that has cancer as a side effect.) Until we are funding research on fixing out-of-control immune systems better, it's nuts to invest in drugs with out-of-control immune systems as a side effect.
Right now, we have cancer treatments that cause severe autoimmune diseases, which are treated by drugs which cause cancer. That is a problem.


That's something that my company is working on, although it's slow going.  Funding agencies are stuck in what we like to call "paradigm paralysis," i.e. nobody has made that concept work before, therefore your work clearly isn't going anywhere, so show us something that looks like what everyone else is doing.

As far as your own case goes, is your case written up in any medical journals?  As an immunologist, I'm incredibly curious.  (Also sympathetic.)
 
2013-04-04 10:58:58 AM  
Do mods even follow Fark these days? How many repeats can you have ?!
 
2013-04-04 11:04:46 AM  

chandler_vt: Do mods even follow Fark these days? How many repeats can you have ?!


I thought they just get reposting it so I can keep posting my zombie joke......
 
2013-04-04 11:06:12 AM  

hstein3: As far as your own case goes, is your case written up in any medical journals?  As an immunologist, I'm incredibly curious.  (Also sympathetic.)


Only 2 lines in a metastudy...Since we haven't found a good treatment, I'm boring reading. More treatments for autoimmune diseases are an awesomesauce thing. I've already washed out of azathioprine, CellCept and some other immunosuppressant. I'm at 'stable' on high dose steroids and mtx, but they are crap drugs...the side effects are almost as bad as not breathing.
A lot of people think having a rare disease doc is like House, but in my experience they don't care what you have or why you have it, only if their drug of choice is working.
 
2013-04-04 11:12:38 AM  

LabGrrl: Oh, yeah, let's mess with CD47. You know, the protein screwed up in some autoimmune diseases, like the one I'm dying of, where my body takes the "do not eat" label off of healthy lung tissue. That's a GREAT IDEA. What could possibly do wrong?


Um...unless you have a medical reason to take any therapeutic treatment that derives from this research, it likely won't affect you.

Kinda like how cyanide being deadly isn't an issue if you don't...you know...swallow some.

Sorry to hear about your body trying to do you in but for those without your condition but who do have cancer (like my wife's uncle who is stage 4 adenocarcinoma) this kind of news is welcome.
 
2013-04-04 11:12:58 AM  

LabGrrl: Vodka Zombie: Cancer will never be cured.  In America, cancer is just too much of a welcome cash cow for just about every facet of the American health care/health insurance industry, and finding an easy cure would cost them billions in profits.  It's much better for them to convince you that you're going to die and subject you to an obscenely expensive regimen of treatments and medications and surgeries that can bleed every last penny from your bank accounts.


No. When you take their student loan payments out of their monthly salary, a good deal of the laboratory staff around the world make less than minimum wage. While PIs can rake in the dough (and not all of them, by a long shot) your techs, lab assistants, chemical handling people and even laboratory managers live the lush lifestyles of the ten-thousandaires. Some of them make as much as four tens. And that's terrible.

If the people handling the data weren't often on food stamps, it would be possible to believe they've all bought into a plan to keep the cures down....but do you really believe that no one making a lush 26k a year but in on the great secret cure would've gone "Hey, Mr. Jobs, for 2 million dollars I'll give you this cure..."

Hell, half the techs I know would give you their data for a beer and a new pair of shoes.


I wasn't talking about the techs and lab staff. They're getting screwed by the same people, in fact.
 
2013-04-04 11:16:33 AM  

LabGrrl: hstein3: As far as your own case goes, is your case written up in any medical journals?  As an immunologist, I'm incredibly curious.  (Also sympathetic.)

Only 2 lines in a metastudy...Since we haven't found a good treatment, I'm boring reading. More treatments for autoimmune diseases are an awesomesauce thing. I've already washed out of azathioprine, CellCept and some other immunosuppressant. I'm at 'stable' on high dose steroids and mtx, but they are crap drugs...the side effects are almost as bad as not breathing.
A lot of people think having a rare disease doc is like House, but in my experience they don't care what you have or why you have it, only if their drug of choice is working.


That's disappointing to hear.  Rare, unnamed autoimmune condition is the sort of thing that should make most scientists start asking for blood and tissue samples.  I wish I still had connections at a university so I could at least point you at somebody, but these things are always complicated.  Methotrexate is nasty stuff, it's part of the reason we're working on RA.  I hope you (and your doc) find something better in the future.
 
2013-04-04 11:25:01 AM  

Vodka Zombie: LabGrrl: Vodka Zombie: Cancer will never be cured.  In America, cancer is just too much of a welcome cash cow for just about every facet of the American health care/health insurance industry, and finding an easy cure would cost them billions in profits.  It's much better for them to convince you that you're going to die and subject you to an obscenely expensive regimen of treatments and medications and surgeries that can bleed every last penny from your bank accounts.


No. When you take their student loan payments out of their monthly salary, a good deal of the laboratory staff around the world make less than minimum wage. While PIs can rake in the dough (and not all of them, by a long shot) your techs, lab assistants, chemical handling people and even laboratory managers live the lush lifestyles of the ten-thousandaires. Some of them make as much as four tens. And that's terrible.

If the people handling the data weren't often on food stamps, it would be possible to believe they've all bought into a plan to keep the cures down....but do you really believe that no one making a lush 26k a year but in on the great secret cure would've gone "Hey, Mr. Jobs, for 2 million dollars I'll give you this cure..."

Hell, half the techs I know would give you their data for a beer and a new pair of shoes.

I wasn't talking about the techs and lab staff. They're getting screwed by the same people, in fact.


You know that's a horrible thing to say about the oncologists researching this disease, right?
 
2013-04-04 11:25:37 AM  

hstein3: That's disappointing to hear.  Rare, unnamed autoimmune condition is the sort of thing that should make most scientists start asking for blood and tissue samples.  I wish I still had connections at a university so I could at least point you at somebody, but these things are always complicated.  Methotrexate is nasty stuff, it's part of the reason we're working on RA.  I hope you (and your doc) find something better in the future.


I literally have appointment in one week, so, fingers crossed. My rare disease guy is crap, so my local pulmo is trying to step up his game (he does research, but until recently not on this.) My insurance company refused to pay for a dude at a schmancy institute who was willing to foot the bill for most of my treatment in his study...his hospital would still be charging for lab work, etc., they preferred to send me only an hour away to a place that charges them more. Best healthcare in the world...USA! USA!
 
2013-04-04 11:26:47 AM  
It's about time that we made one unhappy citizen content in all our cities.
 
2013-04-04 11:28:05 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I_Am_Weasel: Sgygus: Cyanide?

No. Apparently it's  silica gel.

FTA:The drug works by blocking a protein called CD47 that is essentially a "do not eat" signal to the body's immune system

Wait, you're not supposed to eat that? Why wasn't I warned??!11?!
/so thirsty now


Just curious, do you have cancer?
 
2013-04-04 11:39:13 AM  

jaybeezey: And it should be available in 10-15yrs to the ultra rich.


Good, because that's when I'm planning to get cancer.

/and I have some time to work on the ultra rich part
 
2013-04-04 11:56:34 AM  

LabGrrl: I literally have appointment in one week, so, fingers crossed. My rare disease guy is crap, so my local pulmo is trying to step up his game (he does research, but until recently not on this.) My insurance company refused to pay for a dude at a schmancy institute who was willing to foot the bill for most of my treatment in his study...his hospital would still be charging for lab work, etc., they preferred to send me only an hour away to a place that charges them more. Best healthcare in the world...USA! USA!


I don't suppose you petitioned the company to appeal to said decision, did you?  Can't say how it would turn out, but you never know when it comes to this sort of thing.

Radak: jaybeezey: And it should be available in 10-15yrs to the ultra rich.

Good, because that's when I'm planning to get cancer.

/and I have some time to work on the ultra rich part


That's actually part of the problem with biologic therapies such as monoclonal antibodies.  They're incredibly expensive to produce (and are likely to remain so for the life of the drug), so these therapies don't help nearly as much as you might hope.
 
2013-04-04 12:01:40 PM  
Did anyone else notice that the fox article just linked to a NYT article which referenced this article below?

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/one-drug-to-shrink-all -t umors.html?ref=hp

Writing for these papers must be easy if all you have to do is summarize other people's work.

also, that original article is just over a year old, so where's the current news? any updates on human trials?
 
2013-04-04 12:03:20 PM  

hstein3: I don't suppose you petitioned the company to appeal to said decision, did you?  Can't say how it would turn out, but you never know when it comes to this sort of thing.


Oh yes. Rejected at three different levels, the last one with the threat of revoking my coverage altogether. It could make a grrl go tin foil hat.
/Some of the questions from the interview with the first rare disease doc only made sense if I'd been a spy.
 
2013-04-04 01:03:22 PM  

vudukungfu: beantowndog: MidnightSkulker: Science reporting goes like this:
Paper: "We found a small but measurable positive effect of substance X in this extremely narrow animal model."
Media: "CANCER CURE FOUND"

Paper: "We actually cured cancer.  All of it."
Media: "Team of scientists die in lab explosion"

Paper; This might work in humans. We'll begin trials in humans soon.
Media: Large Pharmaceutical company's stocks soar on news of highly expensive and controversial treatment.


Paper: This drug is causing people to lose bowel control, bleed from their eyes, and then die painfully in human trials after a weeks time
Media: Large Pharmaceutical company in a bold move announced "Kevorkianalcyanate", a drug guaranteed to take all human pain away after just a week's dosage with only a few minor side effects
 
2013-04-04 01:14:06 PM  
So.. basically this is using Lupus to destroy cancer.
 
2013-04-04 01:21:56 PM  

LabGrrl: hstein3: I don't suppose you petitioned the company to appeal to said decision, did you?  Can't say how it would turn out, but you never know when it comes to this sort of thing.

Oh yes. Rejected at three different levels, the last one with the threat of revoking my coverage altogether. It could make a grrl go tin foil hat.
/Some of the questions from the interview with the first rare disease doc only made sense if I'd been a spy.


If you have any money at all, lawyer up. one $500 phonecall from an atty can make a miraculous attitude adjustment for a provider. Alternatively, a $250 conversation with an attorney will give you a much better idea of where you stand legally- insurance companies love to threaten, bluff, intimidate, lie, cheat and stonewall, but more often than not, you are actually much more in charge than they would like you to know. Persistence and not letting them drive the conversation is key.  Its far more important that you get the correct treatment than you get it paid for, you know. they can hound you for money for the rest of your life, and that's unpleasant, but I believe the alternative is worse.

Alternatively, try to not die until 2014 and Obamacare should kick in and you can essentially choose your own provider and tell the provider to suck it.
 
2013-04-04 01:29:38 PM  
I understand fire destroys cancer very effectively.
 
2013-04-04 01:46:52 PM  

Stahi: [images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 734x480]

So you're saying I DIDN'T have to be blended with Selmak..?


I was not expecting an SG-1 reference in a thread about cancer.
 
2013-04-04 01:55:17 PM  
Let me know when then find a cure for the cancers that are private central banking and the MIC.
 
2013-04-04 02:18:48 PM  
  

willfullyobscure: Alternatively, try to not die until 2014 and Obamacare should kick in and you can essentially choose your own healthcare provider and tell the insurance provider to suck it.


ftfm
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report