Tony Erikson Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I know it sounds a stupid question and I would like to first apologies to anyone to anyone who has had a bad experience with the disease and take exception to me asking it. What I mean, to elaborate on the question, is with all the money that goes into anything associated with it like cancer research ect, what would they do after they had found a cure ? It has to be a big industry anything to do with cancer and once they find a cure and its passed onto the chemical companies to rip us off with it, they will effectively have to shut up shop wouldn't they ? So although I know they are actually trying to cure it they will be shooting themselves and everyone who works in the care of people with it in the foot if say tomorrow they made a drug that just cured you. I am struggling to see where the incentive is to actually say 'here we invented this and no more cancer'. I bet its a billion £ industry and over night they would be closing the doors while passing the biggest cash cow to a corporate company since tobacco. Plus with the mortality rate dropping, we would soon be in a real problem trying to adjust. Immigration would have nothing on the year on year expansion of the population. Like I said I am not trying to cause any offence, if this looks like I am being insensitive, but it would be more logical to me that if they ever did find a cure for them to sit on it until we could adjust. The power of whoever was to market it would over night make them probably the most powerful company ever and that sort of power would have to be thoroughly thought through before being handed over. So who would benefit if they said here is now a pill and who would the losers be I guess is the real question. This could be said of lots of cures for lots of illnesses. Perhaps we should just let nature take its course and if you're buggered you're buggered. It would sort out the pensions and population kerfuffle. I did hear once, and it's something I believe that the drugs companies for one don't seriously want a cure. It costs far more money in drugs keeping you alive than curing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimba Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 This could be said of lots of cures for lots of illnesses. Perhaps we should just let nature take its course and if you're buggered you're buggered. It would sort out the pensions and population kerfuffle. I did hear once, and it's something I believe that the drugs companies for one don't seriously want a cure. It costs far more money in drugs keeping you alive than curing you. That is the sort of thought that ran through my mind when i started thinking about it. Don't get me wrong Im not suggesting that anything of a conspiracy type nature is going on but I think if a magic bullet, so to speak, was ever invented I really do think that it would have to be seriously thought about the consequences of rolling it out to the mass market given how much is invested in the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Very probably yes. It was once assumed that "cancer" was a single disease with a single cause, but we know much more about it than we used to. It's still theoretically possible that we might one day find something that will kill any and all cancerous growths, but everything we know suggests that it won't happen in practice. And the same is true for most other diseases we find difficult to treat/cure. Relatively speaking what we know is still the tip of the iceberg and people's diseases are as different as their personalities. The drug companies are saying that the blockbuster era is at an end, not least because they think they have pretty much every small molecule which can be manufactured in patented compound banks and they can't find uses for most of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 General Electric were supposed to have invented a light bulb that would never blow and promptly locked away the patents. Would a pharmaceutical company do the same with a cancer cure? No, the board would get lynched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimba Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 Surely, there would not be the one cure for cancer, given that cancers vary depending on the type. I am no medical expert, but wouldn't that be the case?Yes I think its a very complicated thing cancer with many faces so it would probably need many cures and my question in that instance would be irrelevant but I do know that it could in theory be possible to make something to target all tumors regardless, even more so now with all this gene research that's going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 That is the sort of thought that ran through my mind when i started thinking about it. Don't get me wrong Im not suggesting that anything of a conspiracy type nature is going on but I think if a magic bullet, so to speak, was ever invented I really do think that it would have to be seriously thought about the consequences of rolling it out to the mass market given how much is invested in the status quo. You only have to look at the example of the 'cure' for stomach ulcers to see a good example. http://www.yourhealthbase.com/ulcer_drugs.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 General Electric were supposed to have invented a light bulb that would never blow and promptly locked away the patents. Would a pharmaceutical company do the same with a cancer cure? No, the board would get lynched. You mean like NICE do whenever they reject a drug for use within the NHS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimba Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 General Electric were supposed to have invented a light bulb that would never blow and promptly locked away the patents. Would a pharmaceutical company do the same with a cancer cure? No, the board would get lynched.Wasn't there a city in the US that rolled out electric cars on mass and all the stations to charge them, only to have an unknown change of policy on the whole thing and the lot scrapped ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimba Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 You only have to look at the example of the 'cure' for stomach ulcers to see a good example. http://www.yourhealthbase.com/ulcer_drugs.htm Thanks for that, very interesting link. I got as far as the omzoprazol part and its side effects and had to stop reading because I have used it and other similar stuff, so me and my man boobs have gone into ignorant mode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimba Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 General Electric were supposed to have invented a light bulb that would never blow and promptly locked away the patents. Would a pharmaceutical company do the same with a cancer cure? No, the board would get lynched.this is what I was thinking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F But this topic is getting too conspiracy theory for me, It just the more you think about things of this nature you realize just what a Pandoras box it would actually be rather than the good thing that it should be on the surface of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.