There's no money in curing disease.

[JLam]

I ran across someone arguing that you won't see any more diseases cured because there's no money in it for the drug companies. I can cite smallpox, polio, etc., as things that have been mostly eradicated, but it's tough to come up with anything that's been cured recently.

I'm sure that lots of small, non-glamorous ailments are cured all the time, but I'm not a doctor and don't know about any of them.

Can someone help me out and let me know of any kind of ailment that's been cured in, say, the last 5 years?

[HopkinsMedStudent]

It depends.

Are there price controls (i.e. vaccines) that cover any potential products?

Or is the product available to be sold in the free marketplace.

A cure for cancer would be sold in the free marketplace (at least initially) therefore its an enormous incentive for drug companies to push in that direction.

However, vaccines are in the domain of price controls/regulation by the federal government, slowing the impetus for development

[Anti_Hypeman]

Cancer cant be cured %100 of the time but the survival rate is increasing.

[JLam]

I'm not talking about cancer. I'm talking about ANYTHING that's been cured. I know that the guys who discovered that ulcers are caused by bacteria just got the Nobel in medicine, but that's about it.

Many times I hear advocates of homeopathy, etc., say that medicine currently just treats the disease, but doesn't cure it because there's no money to be made off of a cured person. What is the argument against that?

[geni]

I'm not talking about cancer. I'm talking about ANYTHING that's been cured. I know that the guys who discovered that ulcers are caused by bacteria just got the Nobel in medicine, but that's about it.

Many times I hear advocates of homeopathy, etc., say that medicine currently just treats the disease, but doesn't cure it because there's no money to be made off of a cured person. What is the argument against that?

The problem is that we delt with all the easy stuff back in the 60s and are now trying to deal with far more complex illnesses.

[Bronze Dog]

Mostly, I'd say that you point out the ad homenim. Though one possible argument is that it's more profitable for a person to live into old age. I don't know if that's true, but it looks plausible to me.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Whats the limit then? If someone gets cured of cancer it doesn’t count? Nothing can be cured %100 of the time people still die from chicken pox. You have to define what percentage of people the treatment must cure to be considered curable.

Homeopathy has never cured anything. They have to prove it works not that the alternatives dont work. Modern medicine is bunk so why dont you eat a rubber chicken instead of surgery? Makes as much sense as homeopathy until they provide some evidence thats its more effective than eating rubber chickens.

[BLACK HAT]

We recently had a big breakthrough in oncology with respect to curing cervical cancer (http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16851827^421,00.html).

[Bronze Dog]

Additional argument to make: "Are you saying doctors aren't interested in finding cures for diseases they or their families might catch?"

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Do you mean cured permanently or fixed with ongoing therapy?

Anyway, a group of lysosomal storage diseases have been fixed by Genzyme. This includes Tay-Sachs and Gaucher disease.

The Nobel prize was just awarded for curing many cases of stomach ulcer.

~~ Paul

[Art Vandelay]

There certainly is a lot of money in HIV drugs. And flu vaccines.

We recently had a big breakthrough in oncology with respect to curing cervical cancer (http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16851827^421,00.html).
It's a vaccine for HPV, not a cure for cervical cancer. The media seem to be having trouble distinguishing between the two.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I ran across someone arguing that you won't see any more diseases cured because there's no money in it for the drug companies. I can cite smallpox, polio, etc., as things that have been mostly eradicated, but it's tough to come up with anything that's been cured recently.

I'm sure that lots of small, non-glamorous ailments are cured all the time, but I'm not a doctor and don't know about any of them.

Can someone help me out and let me know of any kind of ailment that's been cured in, say, the last 5 years?

It's not clear whether you mean curing a disease in an individual or eliminating a disease from our population.

There are few possibilities of eliminating infectious disease. Smallpox has been done. Polio is possible. I suppose you could say that eradication of polio would destroy the market for its vaccine, but given the political will to do so it can be done and once done vaccine production would cease. But that is just a single disease. There is no real prospect of elminating other infectious diseases.

If you mean curing disease in an individual then if I take antibiotics for a Strep throat then I will have been cured. Full stop.

The more interesting point is that for bacterial diseases, antibiotic courses tend to be short and sharp, which means that over a lifetime the average person will not take very many doses which limits their revenue potential. This has caused a practical problem because we now perceive that research into antibiotics has been left rather fallow- we have a stock of effective drugs and the costs of developing new ones would not be repaid. Unfortunately this has left us a bit flat-footed as antibtiotic-resistance has begun to erode our useful antibiotic repertoire and there is now serious concern that bacterial diseases will get out of our control in our lifetimes.

One reason why antibiotic research has been less of a priority is that the big money is in common chronic diseases. These are unlikely to be "cured" in any simple medical sense for the forseeable future, so the attempt to produce a cure in reality equates to an attempt to control and even the most cynical Big Pharma executive can throw resources into these problems because he is unlikely to destroy his market by being "too" successful.

[LostAngeles]

jlam, I've got one major word that'll help you with this one. Penicillin.

Without penicillin and its cousins and other antibiotics, I, for one, would probably not be here writing this message. With the advent of safe anethesia, sanitatiary practices in the operating room, and other surgical advancements, I, for one, am here.

I had strep throat. Strep throat often led to rheumatic fever back in the day. In my particular case it infected the tonsils and eventually became resistant to penicillin. They were able to switch me over to erthomycin until they could perform the tonsilectomy.

Without such things, I could be dead or horribly scarred at best. Now, it's nothing and I walk away with a nigh immunity (and no gag reflex from all the throat cultures. ;)).

Seriously. It's generally a nothing disease now. All thanks to the magic of antibiotics.

I'd say a good number, if not most, bacterial infections are curable at this point.

[burrahobbit]

I think the Homeopaths and others are creating a deliberate confusion between "cured" and "eliminated".

Small pox has been eliminated (or eradicated) worldwide. Polio is being attacked with varying degrees of success. India is spending a lot of money on this. I do not see any vaccine companies complaining that they will be OOB if polio vanishes. They will just move to other diseases

It is a fact that a lot less research is going into vaccines than into antibiotics. Probably because it is more difficult to charge a lot for a vaccine which is usually purchased in large volumes by governmants than for drugs bought retail by patients.

Still no support for quacks. Most treatments for most illnesses do completely cure them (except for the chronic and degenerative diseases). A full course of antibiotics CURES TB. Homeopathy does not cure anything (except the financial needs of the homeopath)

[Soapy Sam]

Hey- if we're going to be paranoid, let's do it right.

There is no disease. The whole thing is a conspiracy. Doctors are the paid hirelings of the evil Pharmas. They inject you with poison to make you sick, then sell lots more toxin to keep you alive. (Because like cures like, see? Hair of the dog? Every shaman knows this.)

And they put crushed rock in breakfast cereal to give people piles.

And cattle die beacause they're witched.

Common knowledge.

And Darwinism doesn't apply to bacteria, because Darwinism is false. There are no "resistant" bacteria. The pharmas are just watering down the ABs. (Or does that make them MORE effective. I get confused)

There are no bacteria anyway. That was a French idea. And Pasteur worked for the booze industry. Drunk. What did HE know, eh?
No money in curing disease?
Two words:-



ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION.

[No_Know]

The topic was not no money in curing desease. It had to do with is there less money in curing the disease than treatment?

Originally~...But the thread starter seems to have asked what if any diseases have been cured in the last/past five (5) years?

I might think that if there is a treatment and people do not get treatment and die from lack of treatment, it should not be held against the treatment.

Percentage? I might think 100% of people treated-except in special cases (not general percentages, special cases). However all other percentages provide some relief at least for those on whom it works.

I would like cure to refer to onetime successful treatment with No recurrence nor. (Next though would be other illness caused helped by the cure for something else).

[Mojo]

I ran across someone arguing that you won't see any more diseases cured because there's no money in it for the drug companies. Try to get them to apply a little critical thinking. The above would only be the case if there was only one drug company, with a monopoly on the supply of drugs. In the real world, there are a number of drug companies competing with each other. If one company can come up with (and patent) a cure for a condition (or even a treatment that is better than anything else on the market) they will have an advantage over their competitors. As the saying goes, "Invent a better mousetrap..."

This is why woos have to invent the conspiracy they call "Big Pharma."

[jmercer]

Diseases are cured every day. Bronchitis, pneumonia, streptococcus, and others. When we talk about curing cancer, for example, we're talking about curing a completely different class of illnesses; cancer doesn't have a single cause. Seventy percent of cervical cancers (mentioned earlier by Black Hat) are caused by two different viruses for which a vaccination has been devised; a common cause of stomach cancer is the bacteria that causes ulcers, so treating ulcers with antibiotics will reduce the incidents of stomach cancer. Both of these treatments are preventative; once the cancer has occurred, however, we're talking damaged cells gone amok that must be killed.

And let's not forget diseases that are caused by environmental conditions, such as smoking, asbestos exposure and other external factors. The only preventative measure is to prevent exposure; there's no possible vaccine or other preventative treatment available, unless you intend to re-engineer the human cell. A similar argument can be made for radiation sickness, melanoma from overexposure to UV, and even many reasons for heart disease, stroke and so on, where the primary contributors can be diet and lifestyle.

These are all considered "diseases" - but in reality, they're often caused by external damage. The only cure for external damage is to prevent the damage from taking place - which is not a medical responsibility.

Which, of course, brings us to genetically-based disorders and diseases. Some of these may be treatable in the future if gene therapy ever becomes a reality; I certainly hope so, because gene therapy holds great promise in the treatment of many remaining inherent diseases for people.

As Geni indicated, the simpler diseases have already been addressed, leaving only the more complex ones.

[Alkatran]

You also have to remember it's not only companies that do this type of research. Governments fund research (Canada pays for a lot of health care, curing things = good for Canada) and universities fund research (a university would be ECSTATIC for the reputation of curing cancer).

If there was an 'easy' cure for cancer, it would have been found.

[CFLarsen]

Whats the limit then? If someone gets cured of cancer it doesn’t count? Nothing can be cured %100 of the time people still die from chicken pox.

Heck, people still die from pneumonia, colds and minor infections.

[Melendwyr]

I really don't think there's a conspiracy to hide the "secret cures" for serious ailments.

There's a "conspiracy" to make people more accepting of taking lots and lots of drugs for all kinds of conditions... but one of the primary motivations is a desire to do good by making people more accepting of medical intervention in general.

[Bronze Dog]

A little bit of tu quoque (sp?): Alternative medicine isn't interested in cures (there's no evidence they've ever found any), because they want people to come back for things like "maintenance adjustments" and so forth.

[Psi Baba]

Building on what Mojo said, when sCAM merchants attempt to accuse "Big Pharma" of being profit-driven, greedy, evil, conspirators, yet at the same time try to claim that there is no money in curing a disease, they don't realize the contradiction they just made. Assuming executives in the pharmaceutical industry are greedy, callous, and self-serving (and I've sure most of them are), then that means they would be interested primarily in short-term gain, not long-term gain. Remember, most of these guys are middle-aged or older. Surely they would take the route that would yield enormous profits now, rather than concerning themselves with whether their company will continue to make money after they're gone by merely continuing to peddle treatments (this is in reference to sCAM merchants who claim that these cures exist already "Big Pharma" knows about them but refuses to market them). An actual cure for diabetes, for example, would create a monstrous influx of immediate revenue for the lucky company that marketed it first that would likely dwarf what they take in from sales of insulin (not to mention what it would do to all their competitors who are relying on insulin sales for their revenue and would suddenly have little or no market for it). It's inconceivable that a corporate exec would pass at the chance to sell something like that. Besides, it would not eliminate the occurance of the disease, only cure those who already have it so the market would never dry up completely.

[American]

Everyone is affected by death and disease. Not everything is about money, only 98% of things.

Most researchers are on a mission to help people (whom they may have known personally - relatives who died of whatever disease). The business folks are a strange bag of investors... some are there just for money, others because they've lead an aimless life and landed there by chance. They are all highly influenced by lobbying groups and patient advocacy ("The MS Group" for example, and a thousand others). There is money in cures, and more importantly, those cures will save your own life and loved ones' too.

[Bronze Dog]

Additional note: If Big Pharma was super-greedy and ruled the FDA, they'd probably reduce regulations and start selling quackery like magic homeopathy water and magnets. Almost pure profit, no testing necessary.

[Belz...]

I ran across someone arguing that you won't see any more diseases cured because there's no money in it for the drug companies. I can cite smallpox, polio, etc., as things that have been mostly eradicated, but it's tough to come up with anything that's been cured recently.

I'm sure that lots of small, non-glamorous ailments are cured all the time, but I'm not a doctor and don't know about any of them.

Can someone help me out and let me know of any kind of ailment that's been cured in, say, the last 5 years?

I'd think that a live, healthy person who is more likely to catch more diseases in the future is better than a sick, dying person with no faith in the medical system. Curing diseases makes money. Preventing them would be an entirely different discussion.

[Bronze Dog]

I'd think that a live, healthy person who is more likely to catch more diseases in the future is better than a sick, dying person with no faith in the medical system. Curing diseases makes money. Preventing them would be an entirely different discussion.
Good point. Of course, it seems that quackery's well trusted, despite its complete lack of effectiveness.

Point in favor of selling effective prevention: There will always be lots of new people being born into the world who will need preventive medicine. Sex is just too popular for that trend to stop.

[Belz...]

Good point. Of course, it seems that quackery's well trusted, despite its complete lack of effectiveness.

Point in favor of selling effective prevention: There will always be lots of new people being born into the world who will need preventive medicine. Sex is just too popular for that trend to stop.

Still, good Catholics don't need prevention. The pope said so.

[geni]

An actual cure for diabetes, for example, would create a monstrous influx of immediate revenue for the lucky company that marketed it first that would likely dwarf what they take in from sales of insulin (not to mention what it would do to all their competitors who are relying on insulin sales for their revenue and would suddenly have little or no market for it). It's inconceivable that a corporate exec would pass at the chance to sell something like that. Besides, it would not eliminate the occurance of the disease, only cure those who already have it so the market would never dry up completely.

It gets even better when you consider that most companies makeing money out of insulin are probably focusing on manufactoring generics so are not really in a position to influence R&D.

[pgwenthold]

Considering that an awful lot of drug development is also occuring with NIH support by individuals, this conspiracy has to go well beyond the Big Pharma level, all the way to federal government (of course the claim is that the NIH is just controlled by Big Pharma, which isn't true. The FDA might be, but the NIH isn't).

But to the point, it's the academics who get in the way of this claim. Although many are supported by the industry, most have independent research programs and are trying to establish themselves as big shots. The best way to do this would be to cure the common cold or anything else, for that matter.

As Psi Baba notes, the benefit of curing a big-time disease is going to HUGE for the company or individual who does it. Even at the company level, you have the opportunity to put all your competitors out of business. Take that opportunity and move on to the next disease.

It's not like we will run out of diseases to treat. They will just get harder and with people who are older, on the whole.

[uruk]

Do you mean cured or erradicated?

[JLam]

Good info here folks. Thanks.

[goodgirlonhere]

Now there are diseases that have been "Prevented" more than cured/eradicated. Small pox/polio has a "vacine" which is given as a preventative for getting the disease at an early age. Other countries do not always have this "prevenative" and the diseases STILL exists. It's just the disease has been circumvented from occurring in large masses.
There is good money in finding "cures" for diseases. The loss of money isn't from the cure but from the lack of funding associated with finding a cure. A cure for a disease like MS for example, is always raising money for research. What if the research panned out and a cure was found? Now the emphasis would no longer be focused on the scientist researching the disease but on the distribution and making of the cure. The original scientist who worked so hard in finding the cure, now face losing their jobs because their work has been completed.
So in that aspect as a Research Scientist there would be "no money for finding a cure". However, from the drug manufacturers standpoint there is LOTS of money to be made. They no longer have "shell out" research dollars but manufacturing dollars. That doesn't take quite as many scientist or researchers.

[Bronze Dog]

Now there are diseases that have been "Prevented" more than cured/eradicated. Small pox/polio has a "vacine" which is given as a preventative for getting the disease at an early age. Other countries do not always have this "prevenative" and the diseases STILL exists. It's just the disease has been circumvented from occurring in large masses.
There is good money in finding "cures" for diseases. The loss of money isn't from the cure but from the lack of funding associated with finding a cure. A cure for a disease like MS for example, is always raising money for research. What if the research panned out and a cure was found? Now the emphasis would no longer be focused on the scientist researching the disease but on the distribution and making of the cure. The original scientist who worked so hard in finding the cure, now face losing their jobs because their work has been completed.
So in that aspect as a Research Scientist there would be "no money for finding a cure". However, from the drug manufacturers standpoint there is LOTS of money to be made. They no longer have "shell out" research dollars but manufacturing dollars. That doesn't take quite as many scientist or researchers.
And then the research scientists move on to researching new cures for the countless other diseases and conditions out there, or even safer, more effective, or even cheaper cures for existing treatable conditions, since that is their job and specialty, possibly using funds that came alongside their Nobel Prizes for finding previous cures. If, sometime in the Star Trek age, they cure everything, they'll use their scientific training in other endeavors.

[Alkatran]

And then the research scientists move on to researching new cures for the countless other diseases and conditions out there, or even safer, more effective, or even cheaper cures for existing treatable conditions, since that is their job and specialty, possibly using funds that came alongside their Nobel Prizes for finding previous cures. If, sometime in the Star Trek age, they cure everything, they'll use their scientific training in other endeavors.

It's almost sad, the fact that no matter how much we do there'll still be something left to find out, especially in mathematics. But really, when you think about it, it's wonderful to know that even 2000 years from now we won't have all the answers.

[Belz...]

It's almost sad, the fact that no matter how much we do there'll still be something left to find out, especially in mathematics. But really, when you think about it, it's wonderful to know that even 2000 years from now we won't have all the answers.

Or won't we ? Only time will tell.