I mean this is no attack to the medical researchers but from a business standpoint cancer is big business is it not? And if they found a cure, it would cost the medical community millions. So why would they? Same for Jerry’s kids I mean those telethons have been raising money forever. Have they found a cure nooo. But as Chris Rock said, “Jerry’s hair sure does stay black.”
So I wonder, if there ever will be a cure for cancer, when money is at stake? Remember the Saturday Night Live sketch when I think it was Steve Martin invented a model for a car that would not break down or use gas. The car companies and the oil companies said wow great invention and then they killed him and put his model car along with the others from other inventors that mysteriously passed away.
So what do y’all think? Will they ever come up with a CURE not just medicine that helps cancer since there is so much money at stake.
I mean with all the money spent they should have(found a cure by now) after all we sent someone to the moon.
::wildest bill post this in GD wondering if he can stay out of the pit for once::
#1. There are numerous types of cancer. Thus, any “cancer cure” likely would not be some holy grail of healing.
#2. Physicians and others would still be needed to diagnose and treat cancer patients, regardless of whether or not an effective treatment was available.
An argument that cures are suppressed because people profit from the disease is weak at best. Think of the financial gain for pharmaceutical companies, treatment centers, etc. in producing, selling, and distributing a “cure.”
#3. Those who had that big “Eureka” moment, whose years of research finally paid off, would not be likely to keep it quiet, regardless of the consequences.
Re: the crack about Jerry’s kids. Donations to Jerry’s kids presumably go into the research fund, not into Jerry’s pocket. I’m aware that there are plenty of charities that use funds for other things than the issue at hand, such as paying those doing the collecting.
However, my friend the oncologist takes any grants he gets and uses them (barely) to cover the cost of his cancer research. He’s certainly paid for doing that research and being a physician in a university setting. But trust me…there’s no one getting filthy rich on grants to run research labs.
They will find a cure for cancer because money IS at stake. Whoever finds the cure simply has to do the following:
Keep the processes for the cure secret (if this is possible in todays society)
Patent the cure
Make sure to apply the cost of the cure to only those who can afford it, essentially making them rich beyond belief.
Provide to those politicians and people in power, the cure for cancer, to keep them off their backs for monopolization.
Considering that a # of politicians, leaders and wealthy business execs are easily capable of having cancer, along with their loved ones, they would have a vested interest in getting that cure at whatever the cost.
Of course this could easily backfire, but if human history has shown anything worthwhile, it has shown that greed can easily override common sense.
Just consider the path to finding a cure for cancer the same as a rainbow and pot of gold. Whoever finds the cure first, gets the gold.
Well, just a few points:
Not all medical researchers are making money, Bill. Believe it or not, there are many researchers who will never see as much as your average plumber. And the drug companies are not bogarting the research–it’s being done by scientists, doctors, and graduate students all over the world. Money is not a motivation for anyone. Hell, if it were, we never would have cured polio or smallpox, now would we?
There is no evil medical conspiracy.
Almost everyone knows someone who has suffered from or died of cancer.
There are many, many different types of cancer. Some are preventable, some are treatable, some are curable. All are different, and not all are understood.
The stories about the water-powered car or the 100 mpg carburetor are urban legends. False, untrue, not factual.
The amount of money, time, and hard work that have been put into cancer research should be indicative of the difficulty of the task. Comparing putting a man in space to curing cancer is not comparing apples and oranges–it’s comparing apples and Wankel rotary engines. There’s no relation at all.
The simple truth is that cancer is not yet fully understood, just like so many other things. But to suggest that researchers are only interested in money and do not care about solving the mysteries of cancer is doing them a grave, and insulting, disservice.
Others are already addressing your points quite well, so I just wanted to point out how demonstrative this statement is of a lack of critical thinking. To analogize, parse this statement:
“If Jesus really existed, he would already have come back by now.”
Or, this one:
“If I was ever going to win the lottery, I already would have.”
More to the point, ask yourself this, Bill: When was the last time someone you know got polio? Are you aware of what the lifetime medical treatments for polio used to be, and what they cost?
I think Wildest Bill’s point is that there is more of a motive to find a drug which someone must continue to consume in order to keep the patient healthy, than something a patient would have to take once.
The net effect on health is basically the same, but in one case the maker of the medicine makes a lot more money over the lifetime of the patient.
Ya know Bill, I can’t help but feel that you didn’t think for very long about this question before posting. Reasons for curing cancer that spring into my mind almost immediately:
Money. As others have said, you make the cure and patients will pay pretty much whatever you charge even if it ain’t covered by insurance. Then someone will come along and analyze your cure and sell the knock-off for less.
The discoverer may just save the life of a loved one or him/herself.
That pesky Nobel Prize.
The only people who have anything to loose are the companies who make the fake spit. And their death squads are just the worst.
Who is this “they”? There isn’t one big super-conspiracy for the medical community that keeps cures under wraps so doctors can get rich (or is there?). Believe me, if Merck or Pfizor developed the cancer pill tomarrow, they would make billions.
Actually, they do have cures for several forms of cancer. Under the right circumstances, many cancers are 100% treatable with chemotherapy, drugs, radiation, or surgery. I can’t tell you if there will every be a “cancer pill” that cures all forms of cancer at every stage of the disease.
Or did we?
Why do people think just because we “went to the moon” we should have solved all the worlds problems? Going to the moon is easy. Is basically the culmination of 500 years of rocket technology and newtonian physics. Build a big enough rocket, point it in the right direction and you can put an elephant on the moon.
Apparently the technology to develop a cure for cancer is a lot harder. Also keep in mind, medical science has not cured one VIRAL disease (from the common cold to AIDS).
I think Jmullany got the essence of my post. Thanks for clarifying that. That is the way I should have said it. If they ever do come out with a cure, it will be given in increments to keep people on the medication instead of just making it go away for good.
All of you make very good counter points. I am probably wrong on this one. It would be nice to see more progress though. I have lost some people very near to me because of cancer.
I mean they got medicine for everything these days. It seems like with the medical and technology andvances it should be almost cured by now.
btw I don’t feel the same way Chris Rock does about Jerry Lewis. I think he really cares about those kids. I was just trying to add a little color to the post.
If there were in fact a vaccine developed that effectively prevented all forms and types of cancer, within a generation the cancer industry would be bankrupt.
But by then, outbreaks of other diseases will have picked up the slack and new industries surrounding the treatment of those diseases will have covered the losses to the economy.
Bill…the trouble with cancer is that we really don’t understand much about genetics right now. We need basic research like the Human Genome Project and new protein research.
It’s like complaining that we’ve been struggling against gravity for thousands of years, why hasn’t anyone come up with anti-gravity? Just because the problem is easy to state doesn’t mean the solution is easy.
Bill, do you even understand what cancer is? Every cell in your body has the ability to divide. But most of the time that ability is turned off. Sometimes the factors stop cell division are turned off…but why?
The latest idea to be applied to cancer is, get this, evolutionary theory. Cells can be looked at as asexual organisms. Cells which successfully turn off various anti-growth mechanisms have differential reproductive success over those that don’t. Therefore, cancer cells evolve greater and greater malignancy. This is why you can often be cured if they catch cancer early, because the cells haven’t had time enough to evolve dangerous charateristics.
Anyway, most research is funded PUBLICLY, not by for-profit corporations. It’s not just the drug companies trying to find expensive drugs, it is taxpayer funded and taxpayer controlled labs.
Also, sojourn26 is a little confused about how patents work. You cannot patent a secret. In order to patent something you have to explain to everyone how you did it. In return you get a 17 year monopoly on its use. After the 17 years anyone manufacture your invention. Patents benefit the public because if you don’t have a legal way of profiting from your discovery you will keep it secret.
If you keep a discovery secret you don’t have to disclose your methods. But then anyone who can duplicate your work can patent it…and you’ll end up paying THEM royalties. Suppose Pfizer came up with a cheap cancer curing drug. They could keep the formula secret and make billions, but what if Merck analyzes the formula? Merck could then patent the formula and have a monopoly on the product. It is much better to patent the formula yourself and have legal protection and guaranteed profits for a generation.
From a strictly economic point of view, it makes perfect sense for drug companies and doctors to find a cure for cancer. We’re all going to die of something, and odds are it’ll be expensive. By saving the lives of cancer patients, you have far more opportunities to sell them drugs and treatments for conditions that they never would have contracted if they’d died, and you still clean up when they get something else terminal or wither away in the nursing home. Dead people are crummy consumers of health care.
As to the continuing debate, Jmullaney gave me a better perspective of the debate. I can see your point that most (if not all) companies would not release the discovery of a cure since it would essentially place them with minimum profit. Essentially this would follow along the lines of drug addiction, but instead it would become some type of cure addiction. Back alley drug dealer: Sky-Scraper drug dealer, is there much of a difference? Not really, other than one will be legal. But isn’t this this way it already is?
As to the companies monopolizing on the cure and selling it to the rich, well, a company can still do this since cancer will never die out. To many factors that lead to cancer and to many cancers in general for a company to worry about losing the market.
Actually, the company that reverse engineers it probably can’t patent it, for two reasons. They haven’t “invented” it within the meaning of the statute (35 U.S.C. 102(f)), and are therefore not entitled to a patent, and the product was known or used by others prior to its “invention” by the applicant (35 U.S.C. 102(a)).
However, if it is possible to reverse engineer the product, then it is in the best interests of the inventor to patent it. The second company may not be able to get their own patent, but they can go out and undersell and bring prices down to a competitive, nonmonopoly level.
By the way, did anyone here see Nova on PBS a couple weeks ago? The episode was titled “Cancer warrior,” and was devoted to a new class of cancer treatment drugs called angiogenesis inhibitors. (These drugs don’t cure the cancer, but they can prevent metastatic tumors [tumors spread around the body by malignancies] from getting any bigger than the head of a pin.)
ENugent is correct, if the product is in widespread use you probably can’t get a patent if you reverse-engineer the secret, but you can sell it without paying royalties.
I was imagining more of a secret secret, kept in the company vaults but never released to the public, only to the selected hyper-rich. If they tried THAT then their prior discovery wouldn’t help them to deny a reverse-engineering competitor the patent if they got ahold of a sample. They’d have to reveal that they discovery was squelched in order to deny the other company the patent.
