Opening a hypothetical preverbial can of worms

I got into a friendly heated debate with a good friend of mine at PCRI.

My platform. If a cure existed it would never see the light of day as the true profit in cancer treatment is treating the disease not curing it.

His platform. We would see it after it had been proven to work in trials but that in order to be referred to as a cure those trials might take decades. There was more but I was so fixated on arguing my point I didn't retain all that much.

So your opinions.... If there was a cure would we see it

Dano yup they sure are but the forum has been real quiet. Even as a kid I couldn't help myself from throwing rocks at a hornets nest

Its not so much money...it's ego...pride...group think and failure to to admit mistakes,etc...that turn the worm...tho money is there as well...at least for now this is all shaded in hypocrisy{counterintuitivly thats a sign of hope}...tho soon to be a dark light rising...once more....and then again...again the phoenix spreads the folded wings...sans the wax of pretense....

To answer the question directly{maybe!}...a cure{antidote?} by definition{mine I reckon}...can not help but present its self...even in spite of the sting or foul taste...

Put that in your funk and wagnallis...tee hee...

I personally believe you are correct. The truth, if an actual cure ever actually came to exist, might be able to break out anyway, despite attempts to suppress it.

But the financial incentive against supplying us a double blind, RCT that proves 1 apple a day or 1 X supplement pill a day(if such a crazy thing actually existed, not saying it does) cures or prevents all or most cancer is pretty overwhelming.

Just think about it: You are a PC surgeon, and have spent years of your life and lot's of money to get to where you are now: the most esteemed surgeon in your area. Finally, you have a mind boggling amount of money coming in when you do surgery. You also have tremendous power and respect and admiration at your location because you are the busiest surgeon at your hospital. You bring in tons of money to the hospital when you bring your patients to them. If there is anything you don't like or anything you want that you are not getting, a simple hint that you might go over to the other hospital, or maybe start your own surgery center, solves that problem quickly. Now you come upon some solid evidence that all anyone needs is an apple a day, rather than your surgery. Whatcha gonna do? Considering human nature, what is likely to happen, assuming you ave the power to prevent the release of that data?

Now apply a similar argument to the pharmaceutical industry. Billions brought in from a patented prescription drug, or tell the people that all they need is an apple a day to keep the doctor away, rather than your pill? Which one will they choose? What do you think is going to happen, considering human nature? Do you think it's at least possible that if they can keep that info about the apple away from you, they will? Do you think they will ever be funding a big study to prove that about the apple? Or if they do, will they release the results? Unless of course it proves ( in a biased study or not biased) the apple is useless, then you are certain to hear about that.

Now, I am in no way saying that such info exists and is being suppressed. I am just of the opinion that if it did, we could not expect the big money guys to tell us, we can not expect them to do good research to try and find out, and we can expect to see research when it shows something is useless or even worse harmful. There is zero financial incentive to provide a cure other than the treatments for which huge $ can be charged, and huge financial incentive to keep one from being found.

Now, all of that only applies to anything outside of their control by way of patents. If Merck tomorrow had a pill that would cure cancer, or at least(even better) keep us from suffering from that cancer as long as we took the pill, and could charge us 10K a year or more for many years- or maybe 100K for a one shot cure deal, then there would be financial conflict in the system, but it would probably get to us. The conflict would be between the long term cancer treatment industry, and Merck's opportunity to rake in billions off of that patented cure. I think in that case, the cure would get to us.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 9/13/2016 10:57:08 AM (GMT-6)

Your honor, the prosecution rests

Well said Dano

MHO
I mostly agree with Todd.
The discoverer will mostly be a big pharma employee and thus the cure will be owned and shelved by that company.

Or maybe,..............
Might we see an astronomically high price for it. Kind of like Provenge, at one time it was $90,000. Might we see half a mill?? I mean it will still be profitable

Hi Todd, well, I tend not to agree, but let me explain. :) Just recently Gilead Sciences launched a drug that cures Hepatitis C, at a cost of about 80,000$ for 12 weeks. I think that the scientists are generally very excited when they find a compound that reacts against the target. To get this molecule to Phase III is a monster job, with years of hard work, tweeking, testing, and loads of money invested in research. I bet all those scientists and company executives are hoping like crazy that the drug works as good as it possibly can, so that it can be launched. Yes, unfortunately many of these drugs have only the 3 mo. average survival advantage (good enough for FDA). But many have much higher, Gleevec, for example, has made leukemia into a managable condition.

Having said that, I do think that the cases of overpricing or raising prices despite the production costs going down should be put to scrutiny. There was no shortage of controversy following the pharma industry and the regulatory bodies. A true cure or cures for cancer, will see the light of day, and there will be plenty of other challenges: antibiotic resistence, dementia (all phase 3 trials have pretty much failed in the last 15 years), etc, etc. There. That is it. :)

Nice post clock. I value your viewpoint. I do tend to have a cynical side. I would like to point out 2 things to counter.

1 most of the cures and vaccines you speak of were discovered prior to the Rise of the all-Mighty Corporation.

2 the profit margin between treating shingles and the vaccine are similar

I am glad there is optimism

Sorry Boogee I missed your post as well. Thank you

Same arguments were used in my lifetime about the 100 mpg carburetor.

Also, my father-in-law's pet theory about a pill to cure obesity.

The carburetor is pretty easily disprovable by simple physics and energy analysis of fuels.

The medical things are imponderable. Maybe, but who knows? I sure like to think that a successful cure would indeed be brought to market. That may just be a naive optimism.

I do know in pharmaceuticals that bringing anything to market is phenomenally expensive. The many failures also have to be funded by the few successes. And even the successes lose patent protection after a relatively short time, so the high-cost window is not too long. Then come generics. So costly pharmaceuticals aren't surprising.

I agree with you clock, I do not think this cure would be kept secret, but I do think it would be very expensive, for a good long while.

Here is the crux...Big Pharm gets a bad rap for their profit margins (and they do make billions), and to some degree scrutiny is warranted. BUT...there is a fine line between scrutiny and discouragement, and the truth is the desire for great profit has driven the discovery of most of the medical advancements of the last 50 years. Without those advances the life expectancy of humans would probably be around 50 years of age (average).
We really don't want to remove that incentive to great discovery.

I guess there would be far less PC cases ..

Be well.

"I absolutely disagree, based on historical events observed in my lifetime. We've seen a cure for polio. We've seen immunizations against mumps, measles, and a variety of other diseases that were crippling or life threatening."

Sorry to be the pessimist.
We live in a different world now than when those were discovered.
I believe there is less high moral character now.

But, again the cost of the cure could certainly be held for ransom. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We may some day know, or not.