Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:36 am    Post subject: Why are there no cures? Reply with quote

There are no profits in cures, only in disease management. I don't believe there is a conspiracy amongst drug companies, I just don't think they actively research cures. Periodically you even here of "breakthroughs" regarding diabetes or cancer but they never turn into anything.

If drug companies put as much effort into curing disease as they did managing them we would have cured cancer and most other major diseases long ago.
Swift





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 57
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps you have forgotten the existance of such diseases as polio, and TB. Until the 1950's they were two of the most feared diseases in Canada. Every summer thousands contracted polio, Many did not survive. Others were left partially or totally paralized. Some survivors were confined t an iron lung for the rest of their lives. In the fifties, there were still facilitiessolely devoted to the care of TB patients. There has been a huge reduction in many other diseases .

The medical conditions that remain large problems require a much deeper understanding of biology than has been available up to now. Today we are on the verge of having the knowledge of how the body works at the molecular level that will enable us to cure many of the remaining diseases, such as cancer. From 1900 to 2000 the life expectancy at birth increased by almost 30 years. This increase was mainly the result of the elimination of diseases that caused the death of many children and young adults. The life expctancy of people aged 65 has also increased, but by much less.

I don't think your complaint has much validity, considering the progress made in the last century. Treating symptoms is almost always easier than finding a cure, so when a disease is first researched treatments for the disease usually are available before a cure is found. many of the leading causes of death in 1900 are nowhere to be found on the list for 2000. I have no doubt that the 2100 list will look much different from the 2000 list
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think a rather substantial part of the problem is competition and lack of research sharing. Realistically that is both an advantage and a disadvantage - Of course, the last thing we want to do is make that research all public domain(although a lot of that research is being done in the public domain through things like the NRC, universities etc..

Although I do agree with you to some extent craig - pharma companies are interested in profits, and realistically profits exist in management.

Similar to energy companies - energy companies don't want to research renewable energy because it cuts into potential profits; of course, one could argue that they should corner the market in order to exploit profits and not get stuck trying to play catch-up later.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although there is no cure yet for all forms of Cancer, there have been major advancements in the last few decades.

If Terry Fox were alive today, he wouldn't have died because the form of cancer he had is easily treatable now.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A vaccine was just developed (and approved) to prevent cervical cancer.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephen wrote:
A vaccine was just developed (and approved) to prevent cervical cancer.


Cervical cancer is one of few cancers to be caused by a virus. It was a long time coming. Now that the easy one is down...
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More than a few viruses cause cancer.

Plus, viruses aren't always the easiest to neutralize... see HIV and the common cold!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Why are there no cures?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB