Why are some disease and illness so easy cure and others so hard?

[Wesley_Clark]

@bump

It’s probably because it’s an off-label use; I’m sure that if they thought there was merit to cimetidine as an anti-viral, they’d go the loratadine/desloratadine route (or vice-versa) and create an “anti-viral” drug that either is a metabolite of cimetidine or metabolizes into cimetidine, and sell it at a huge premium as a prescription drug.

Some doctors would figure it out and just tell their old farts to go get generic cimetidine at Wal-Mart, but many others would prescribe the expensive stuff since that’s what’s labeled as anti-viral, and they’re risk-averse enough to not take a chance.

But considering that none of that’s been done, Occam’s razor would point to it not being effective enough to be worth that trouble, which considering how much herpes and shingles problems that people have, probably means that it’s not very effective.

I don’t agree with that. The average clinician is about 20 years behind the latest research, and there is no way doctors can keep up with all the advances. Also the fact that there is a profit motive in medicine, treatments like that will not get the airtime. Occam’s razor does not imply that doctors should be up to date on the latest medical advances, following all the various research, and not influenced by the profit motive in medicine.

Drugs like loratadine and desloratadine wouldn’t work since those are H1 antagonists, supposedly cimetidine works because it is an H2 histamine receptor antagonist, which is also a receptor on suppressor T cells.

[bump]

@Wesley_Clark

I don’t agree with that. The average clinician is about 20 years behind the latest research, and there is no way doctors can keep up with all the advances. Also the fact that there is a profit motive in medicine, treatments like that will not get the airtime. Occam’s razor does not imply that doctors should be up to date on the latest medical advances, following all the various research, and not influenced by the profit motive in medicine.

Drugs like loratadine and desloratadine wouldn’t work since those are H1 antagonists, supposedly cimetidine works because it is an H2 histamine receptor antagonist, which is also a receptor on suppressor T cells.

I didn’t do a good job of explaining what I meant, now that I’ve re-read it.

What I was saying is that if research indicated to pharmaceutical companies that cimetidine had real potential as an anti-viral drug, they’d probably engage in the same sorts of shenanigans that brought us desloratadine when the loratadine patent wore off. (i.e. market a metabolite of loratadine as a prescription anti-allergy drug, when the precursor is available in generic form.)

The second part was more speculation about how doctors would react to the drugs being marketed this way- my point was that the vast majority would just prescribe the prescription version, and line the company’s pockets.

The third part was pointing out that since this hasn’t happened, it’s not terribly likely that cimetidine is really that effective.

[sweat209]

@artemis

That’s exactly the problem. And killing off the virus generally means the immune system has to kill off the virally infected cells - which is what the virus is usually doing anyway (unless it is one that can go dormant like VZV), so the immune system’s doing as much damage to the body as the actual infection is. That’s why viral infections represent such a tough problem to solve!

If the virus is in cell it may be harder for the immune system or drugs to find it. Where the bacteria and fungi are not in cell and out so it easier for the immune system or drugs to find it.

The protein of virus may be so different than bacteria and fungi that the immune system or drugs don’t know what to do.

[Smeghead]

An impressively incorrect summary.

[sweat209]

@Smeghead

An impressively incorrect summary.

I think most of the people here did good job explaining some of the problems .

If you what to believe in conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies holding back cure for profit go head and believe it.

I still see the pharmaceutical companies will make lot profit with cure.

[Smeghead]

@sweat209

I think most of the people here did good job explaining some of the problems .

If you what to believe in conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies holding back cure for profit go head and believe it.

I still see the pharmaceutical companies will make lot profit with cure.

Good heavens. You don’t seem even to be able to understand simple statements of criticism. I don’t believe in conspiracies or any such nonsense. I was saying that YOUR summation presented in the earlier post managed to be almost completely incorrect. That is, you didn’t manage to correctly summarize information that had been clearly presented to you.

[KarlGrenze]

@sweat209

If the virus is in cell it may be harder for the immune system or drugs to find it. Where the bacteria and fungi are not in cell and out so it easier for the immune system or drugs to find it.

The protein of virus may be so different than bacteria and fungi that the immune system or drugs don’t know what to do.

Mmm… Rewind, based on this.

Viruses, bacteria, and fungi can and DO live inside the cells. That’s actually what many prefer, as they’re not as exposed to the elements as outside.

The difference is that various microbes (of all classes) have adapted very well to living inside some cells, and have found ways to evade the immune system. The immune system is actually quite good at attacking and defending against microbes that get inside the cells.