is finding a cure simply about money?

hypothetically if Bill Gates funded research and gave 1 billion, would that do the trick? Maybe its simplistic but I feel its a matter of money (with most diseases)

On a tangent, but funny how back in the old days Polio was a big problem and they found a cure (before the time of big pharma)

I am thinking of writing the Gates foundation to help.

This is an interesting article that discusses the issue with cure. Well worth a read: It's an interview with the nobel prize winner and GI Dr. Barry Marshal:

The Dr. Who Drank Infectious Broth, Gave Himself an Ulcer, and Solved a Medical Mystery
discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery


The article was posted on the crohnsmapvaccine website to draw parallels. In their case they only need to raise ~7 million USD. If it's a cure, well that remains to be seen, but for that small amount they deserve a chance to prove/disprove. Problem is Remicade alone generates ~6 billion a year in revenue for pharma. So that's what they are up against. Same problem as is discussed in the article and antibiotics and GI income from treating ulcer patients.

Jen77 said...
I don't know. The problem with cures is that people won't need treatment anymore. It's much more valuable for companies to make medications for us to buy all the time. Rather then a one time year. Probably why we still haven't cured things like the common cold.

The common cold is caused by a virus, and "cures" for viral infections aren't well-developed. Vaccines is a better approach for controlling viral infections, but with the common cold, it's a multitude of unique viruses that can cause the cold; and to add to that, those various viruses frequently mutate. That makes it really hard to develop a vaccine for colds. I would have to be multiple vaccines (maybe dozens) and given quite frequently. It's also arguably not worth the money and effort in the case of common colds because they're relatively mild, but I'm sure a ton of people (myself included) would LOVE to not have to deal with any more colds (they're not so mild when I get them because they wreck my sinus condition every time).

There are so many diseases in this world including many rare ones, so big pharma's would never be out of a job or money if they found cures for cancer and many chronic illnesses IMO. It's doable to find cures for many things I'm sure, maybe they just aren't smart enough to figure out the diseases and how to cure them. They could put whatever price tag they wanted to on cures if they could find them to begin with so I don't really see money being the issue I think it's lack of skills and knowledge that holds them back.

When you think about how long our disease has actually been around, it's actually really lame they haven't figured it out yer, I know that the didn't really start trying to figure it out way back when it first came about, so that's why we are decades behind in finding a cure and who knows if they ever really will.

The notion that pharmaceutical companies aren't interested in cures is ludicrous. First of all, you may not be aware but hepatitis C is being cured as we speak by new, name-brand medications such has Harvoni and Viekira. They are extremely expensive and companies like Abbvie are making big time money on it.

I don't think Crohn's is curable. The problem is that not enough attention is being focused on how to implement societal changes to prevent the disease (i.e. hygiene, over use of antibiotics, diet, MAP in the environment, stress, etc.).

actually you're wrong, it is a cure. you take the medication for a fixed duration (anywhere from 12 to 24 weeks depending on the genotype) and you are CURED >90% of the time. I.E. you are hepatitis c RNA negative and you do not have the virus anymore. And you don't have to take the drug anymore . . . so I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

Are you saying something isn't a cure if there is a small minority who don't get cured from a drug? I don't think any cure has ever existed that works for 100% of people. For the greater than 90% of people who are completely cured, this IS a cure in any kind of way you define it.
If more cures were feasible pathophysiologically, pharmaceutical companies would be all over it especially if the disease is common (i.e. Hepatitis C). A drug patent is valid for about 10 years so that is their window to make money before it becomes generic. I can see how there may be a profit motive to make a maintenance medication that requires repeated dosing than a one time cure, but assuming there is no collusion, a competing pharmaceutical company would then make the cure and blow the other company out of the water.
I agree there is little incentive to research cures for rare diseases, but Crohn's is common and on the rise.