Curing diseases vs. finding "better" ways to treat them

[Joemonkey]

In Chris Rock's Bigger and Blacker he talks about how they'll never cure AIDS, just find better ways to treat it. To paraphrase, he says in 20 years someone will be at work and someone will say "you feeling OK today?" and the response would be "oh my AIDS is just acting up again"

Now, suppose we take something like diabetes. There are industries for insulin, syringes, pills, blood sugar level monitoring machines, etc. that probably employees thousands of people. If I were to find a cure, a shot or pill that totally fixes diabetes, and it cost something like $20 per dose to manufacture, but also had $20 million worth of research put into it, would it ever get released to the public? This multi million dollar industry of diabetes testing, supplies, and treatment would be GONE, along with all the jobs pertaining to the manufacturing of them and the jobs of thousands of researchers and chemists that were working on better treatments or even their own cure.

suppose cancer, AIDS, heart disease, lung disease, etc. all had $20 cures invented, but releasing it to the public would crush our economy by putting thousands of doctors, pharmaceutical researchers, chemists, etc. out of their jobs. Would you hide the cure and simply work on treatment that still generated money?

 

[dsity]

i would secretly approach those companys and threaten to release the cure if they didn't hand over a pretty penny...

 

[her209]

Well, do tax payers have to foot the medical bill either way?

 

[msparish]

OP, you're dreaming. Diseases are very complex, and except for very few, total cures are beyond our current grasp. Despite our advances in technology, humans aren't magical.

Besides, say someone did create a cure for diabetes and it only costs $20 to manufacture. No one is stopping the company from selling it for thousands of dollars. For example, say someone has a disease that generally costs $100,000 dollars over their lifetime to treat. If you develop the cure, sell it for $100,000 dollars a person.

 

[akodi]

You have a bleak perspective of science.

The diabetes pharmaceutical industry is huge and the market will continue to grow to fit patient demands. If there was a pill to cure diabetes I guarantee that patients would sell off everything they have to rid themselves of the daily rituals (pin pricks, shots..etc). Who's to stop a company from charging what they want? But here's the thing, I doubt anyone could give you a straight answer on how a patient becomes or is genetically dispositioned to be diabetic. Scientists have implicated BMP/Chordin/Notch signalling in pancreatic development, but there is no definitive answer to Diabetes. There are Nature and Cell papers recently that only implicate pathways involved in Pancrease development however fails to provide a cause. $20 million dollars for a company to pay for the research of a $20 pill is a drop in the hat to these big companies.

Money needs to go into basic research. There will always be disease, and more acute treatments will flood the market but if we cannot resolve the mechanism underlying AIDS/Cancer/etc. we may have to continue forking over millions to these companies for their topical cures.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: dsity
i would secretly approach those companys and threaten to release the cure if they didn't hand over a pretty penny...

1.) Get it all in cash
2.) Release the cure
3.) Go public with the fact that the company was willing to keep the cure secret
4.) Profit!



I guess there are also some industries that are, in a sense, in business to put themselves out of business, at least in an ideal world. Antivirus companies, for example: if they'd find some amazing way of educating a computer on what a "bad" program is, and this program would be able to adapt to protect against future threats, what'd be the point of the AV company still existing, other than just a small support team?
Corrections facilities or jails: What if they found a way to finally stop all offenders from repeating crimes? Bam, no more jails, and fewer police needed.


It could put people out of business, but that always happens in business. If cures for cancer, heart disease, etc, were found, it would also be a boost for the economy: much lower health care costs, longer lifespans, and thus more productivity from a healthier population. Result: An initial economic hiccup, but the economy is kind of like a sine wave with a variable period. It always fluctuates and bounces back, but at the peaks, it always seems to reach a little point of stability. I imagine that if people were less impatient in general, the economy wouldn't experience this, and would be more stable in general. "Oh look, the stock market is doing well! Invest everything!" This causes a surge of growth, which leads to a small recession. Slow & steady growth is key to stability; fewer surges means fewer recessions.

But I digress. Sure initially you'd have high unemployment. But you'd also have a lot of thrilled people who don't need to take time off from work because of being hospitalized with previously-life-threatening illnesses, or perhaps never coming back to work at all. Longer lifespans also allows for greater education of society in general; those who don't die prematurely could put their learning to more use than ever before.

Originally posted by: msparish
OP, you're dreaming. Diseases are very complex, and except for very few, total cures are beyond our current grasp. Despite our advances in technology, humans aren't magical.

Besides, say someone did create a cure for diabetes and it only costs $20 to manufacture. No one is stopping the company from selling it for thousands of dollars. For example, say someone has a disease that generally costs $100,000 dollars over their lifetime to treat. If you develop the cure, sell it for $100,000 dollars a person.

Until enough desparate people pool resources to violate the patent and manufacture the drug illegally, and sell it for much less.

 

[kitkat22]

I fear, though, this may happen with gene therapy. I have hemophilia and I would seriously like a straight out cure, however, the complexities of gene therapy may only lend it to temporary fixes before retreatment is needed. They may ultimately get a cure, but they lose out on millions if they cure once versus a lifetime of treatment.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: msparish
OP, you're dreaming. Diseases are very complex, and except for very few, total cures are beyond our current grasp. Despite our advances in technology, humans aren't magical.

Besides, say someone did create a cure for diabetes and it only costs $20 to manufacture. No one is stopping the company from selling it for thousands of dollars. For example, say someone has a disease that generally costs $100,000 dollars over their lifetime to treat. If you develop the cure, sell it for $100,000 dollars a person.

wow talk about bleak. Beyond our grasp? Ummm I'm pretty sure they have said the same thing for everything we HAVE cured. "Polio will never be cured... it's beyond our grasp!"

While I agree with the OP that it does seem that is the way things would work, (just one) of the angles you have to take into account the Insurance companies, whom I'd imagine have a pretty tight grasp of what exactly is going on in the "field of research". It is obviously MUCH cheaper for them to hand out $20 cures versus having you on a lifetime of treatment plans.

On the same note, NO treatment is ever $20. A bottle of penicillin costs more still today. If there was a cure found, the initial cost/price of that cure would be tons of cash. Sure not as much as the on going treatment, but it surely would be a significant chunk of change.

Keep in mind this "theory" is hardly anything new. Tin Foil Hat wearers have been saying this for ever. Many simply BELIEVE there is and has been a cure for things such as cancer and AIDS and "the government" is keeping it from us for the very reasons the OP and Chris Rock have stated.

Personally, I don't believe in all the conspiracies. I tend (read: try) to have a more positive outlook.

 

[Chadder007]

Been listening to Robert Scott Bell on the radio much?

 

[Gibsons]

The thing that bothers me about this conspiracy is the implication that a cure for cancer or AIDS or whatever is easily available if someone just wanted it enough. If it was really easy, then the theorists could and should come up with a cure themselves, I don't see what's stopping them (well, actually I do...).

 

[child of wonder]

There's always the question of "if AIDs and HIV are so deadly, why isn't Magic Johnson dead?"

His explanation is that he follows his treatment plan to the letter as told by his doctors.

However, I'm sure countless others with HIV do the same thing but they're dead within a few years.

Not that I'm saying Magic is alive today because he's wealthy, but it certainly begs the question.

 

[Acanthus]

At least pick a real fight instead of an imaginary one.

How about politicians and the rich/famous getting bumped up on the line for organs?

 

[axelfox]

I don't think 20m is all that much. I think certain drugs alone have that revenue.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: msparish
OP, you're dreaming. Diseases are very complex, and except for very few, total cures are beyond our current grasp. Despite our advances in technology, humans aren't magical.

Besides, say someone did create a cure for diabetes and it only costs $20 to manufacture. No one is stopping the company from selling it for thousands of dollars. For example, say someone has a disease that generally costs $100,000 dollars over their lifetime to treat. If you develop the cure, sell it for $100,000 dollars a person.

Actually the final per dose cost would cover the R&D costs so the initial cost would likely be significant. That said if a company was to discover the "magic bullet" for diabetes I have no doubt that it would be marketed and sold just like automobiles were marketed and sold without regard to the impact on farriers, the bridal and harness industry, and blacksmiths.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
The thing that bothers me about this conspiracy is the implication that a cure for cancer or AIDS or whatever is easily available if someone just wanted it enough. If it was really easy, then the theorists could and should come up with a cure themselves, I don't see what's stopping them (well, actually I do...).

where is that implication? Who implied its "easily available"?

 

[ForumMaster]

well i know this isn't exactly what you mean, but scientists have actually come very close to finding a cure for AIDS. they synthesized an enzyme that destroys the virus inside the cells which kills the HIV before it can cause AIDS. it will be quite some time before we can reverse AIDS and actually revive the immune system, but it will happen.

Link for the non-believers.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

There's no shortage of diseases and people needing treatment. Once one is down, on to the next. Now, if someone had an anti-fat pill that actually WORKED, that'd be something.

...and no, the "tape worm larvae" pills don't count.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Gibsons
The thing that bothers me about this conspiracy is the implication that a cure for cancer or AIDS or whatever is easily available if someone just wanted it enough. If it was really easy, then the theorists could and should come up with a cure themselves, I don't see what's stopping them (well, actually I do...).

where is that implication? Who implied its "easily available"?

If the profit motive/conspiracy is all that prevents a cure from being discovered, then it follows that the science mustn't be too hard.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
There's no shortage of diseases and people needing treatment. Once one is down, on to the next. Now, if someone had an anti-fat pill that actually WORKED, that'd be something.

...and no, the "tape worm larvae" pills don't count.

DNP will take weight off of you real fast. It's just really dangerous.

 

[lyssword]

basically, if you have a disease and think they will find cure within next 20 years, you better be rich

 

[msparish]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: msparish
OP, you're dreaming. Diseases are very complex, and except for very few, total cures are beyond our current grasp. Despite our advances in technology, humans aren't magical.

Besides, say someone did create a cure for diabetes and it only costs $20 to manufacture. No one is stopping the company from selling it for thousands of dollars. For example, say someone has a disease that generally costs $100,000 dollars over their lifetime to treat. If you develop the cure, sell it for $100,000 dollars a person.

wow talk about bleak. Beyond our grasp? Ummm I'm pretty sure they have said the same thing for everything we HAVE cured. "Polio will never be cured... it's beyond our grasp!"

One word makes a big difference. I'm sure we will see effective treatments and cures for many diseases in my lifetime. However, this isn't an instant process, hence the use of the word current. I was making the point that no one is currently hiding cures.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Gibsons
The thing that bothers me about this conspiracy is the implication that a cure for cancer or AIDS or whatever is easily available if someone just wanted it enough. If it was really easy, then the theorists could and should come up with a cure themselves, I don't see what's stopping them (well, actually I do...).

where is that implication? Who implied its "easily available"?

If the profit motive/conspiracy is all that prevents a cure from being discovered, then it follows that the science mustn't be too hard.

Or it follows that since there's less profit to be gained from finding cures that there's no funding for it to begin with. Science is particularly hard when you can't even begin the research.

 

[Joemonkey]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Gibsons
The thing that bothers me about this conspiracy is the implication that a cure for cancer or AIDS or whatever is easily available if someone just wanted it enough. If it was really easy, then the theorists could and should come up with a cure themselves, I don't see what's stopping them (well, actually I do...).

where is that implication? Who implied its "easily available"?

If the profit motive/conspiracy is all that prevents a cure from being discovered, then it follows that the science mustn't be too hard.

Or it follows that since there's less profit to be gained from finding cures that there's no funding for it to begin with. Science is particularly hard when you can't even begin the research.

Well, if it is a fact that money donated to Race for the Cure is just lining the pockets of researchers ONLY working on better treatments and NOT funding research towards an all out cure, maybe I'll stop donating...

then again, i don't think anyone would be donating to anything if they didn't think they were working on an actual cure but just more profitable ways to treat something

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: Gibsons
The thing that bothers me about this conspiracy is the implication that a cure for cancer or AIDS or whatever is easily available if someone just wanted it enough. If it was really easy, then the theorists could and should come up with a cure themselves, I don't see what's stopping them (well, actually I do...).

where is that implication? Who implied its "easily available"?

If the profit motive/conspiracy is all that prevents a cure from being discovered, then it follows that the science mustn't be too hard.

Or it follows that since there's less profit to be gained from finding cures that there's no funding for it to begin with. Science is particularly hard when you can't even begin the research.

The Gleevec story indicates that the funding for potential cures is there.

Not to mention non-profit research.