There is no money in the cure

[Denny Crane!]

There is an idea that medicine companies don't research things that will cure conditions because there is no money in it. That creating medicine that will barely manage a condition, keeping it chronic is more profitable.

I don't buy it, with so much research done by governments, charities combined with amazing advances recently I'd personally guess that this point of view is one of people who don't really understand the complexity of the management of disease, vaccination and management of chronic conditions and other illness. Things generally just don't get cured, but things are massively improving every year.

So what is the opinion of medicinal companies and research? Evil, broken by the system or benign entities just operating as any other business does alongside all the other third parties working towards the betterment of health care.

[Bernem]

There are a lot of orphan diseases that are neglected by pharmaceutical industry because there isn't even money in the treatment as the amount of patients is too small and the research too expensive compared to the revenue of selling the medication.
For example:
The disease our group is researching is such an orphan disease the Juvenile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis. Our research would not be possible without the funding from parents associations. Pharma has little to no interests.

[Denny Crane!]

There are a lot of orphan diseases that are neglected by pharmaceutical industry because there isn't even money in the treatment as the amount of patients is too small and the research too expensive compared to the revenue of selling the medication.
For example:
The disease our group is researching is such an orphan disease the Juvenile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis. Our research would not be possible without the funding from parents associations. Pharma has little to no interests.

Yes where there is limited opportunity for profit through research that is where charities and not for profit must step in, but you don't think a cure for cancer is being suppressed etc.?

[Claudius Gothicus]

Completely agree, the reason being the 'state as a researcher' doesn't really go for profit in economical terms. The profit that a government can actually acquire comes in the form of prestige and belief, not money.

Somethings are just to complicated to actually grasp without decades of research and constant testing, however with the accelerated scientific development seen in the last century I'm quite sure the plagues of the past will be surpassed.
That doesn't mean that we will leave forever, there's always going to be some nasty bug out there ready to screw us but for the most part, and as long as the economy accompanies, we will see more and more nonagenarians.

[Denny Crane!]

Well down to robotic legs being developed for wheelchair users (crap now but you can see potential) to bionic hands, to massively increasing cancer survival rates and such things on the way that if even a tenth of them come off then cancer is going to be so easily treated.

Advances like keyhole surgery was government funded research, in my hometown in the NE of the UK actually, have made operations ten times easier and recovery times quicker. If a patient can have a tumour removed with keyhole surgery they are much better equipped to face the radiotherapy or chaemo afterwards. I don't understand a great deal about medicine but I know enough to be impressed with the way it is progressing.

It annoys me that something like Alzheimers receives virtually no funding when cancer gets the bulk but so long as we are progressing.

[Deadly Virus]

Honestly not surprising, you can't trust any sort of corporation to make a decision that will actually benefit the people rather than themselves.

[Jingles]

I don't think anyone researching the cure for a disease has monetary profit as their primary motivator, whether they work for a company, charity or the government.

[GreyFox]

Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in keeping diseases chronic, rather than curing them. A case in point would be stomach ulcers. Companies were getting huge sums of money for treating the symptoms, with drugs such as Maalox. When research showed that Helicobacter pylori caused it, pharmaceuticals fought the research the entire way until one of the researchers ingested a petri dish of the bacteria and developed all the right symptoms.

[Denny Crane!]

Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in keeping diseases chronic, rather than curing them. A case in point would be stomach ulcers. Companies were getting huge sums of money for treating the symptoms, with drugs such as Maalox. When research showed that Helicobacter pylori caused it, pharmaceuticals fought the research the entire way until one of the researchers ingested a petri dish of the bacteria and developed all the right symptoms.

What do you mean fought it? Can you show me some evidence of this, I'm intrigued because this is the kind of thing I was wondering, if this actually happened.

EDIT:

I've googled it and wiki'd it and it seems like a fairly logical and normal process from initial discovery to the verification of that. It did mention that the researcher swallowed some to prove it but not that he was suffering any kind of duress from drug companies, other than skepticism due to problems in reproduction.

[Jingles]

The great ulcer drug rip-off.

That's the first result I found on google anyway.

[Denny Crane!]

The great ulcer drug rip-off.

That's the first result I found on google anyway.

Cheers reading it now.

[Denny Crane!]

That is interesting, I'd be interested to read more, I see how you pulled that one up on Google but there is little else to go off. This may take a while.

[Kjertesvein]

I'm no expert, but it seems they are two sides of the same coin.

As far as I recall, there are two diffrent ways of investing your money in research:

-One is profit motivated research on specific subjects with a precivable outcome.

-The other is targed on free research. Process is slow, but highly effective because of tight funds and motivated work. May not come up with a (profitable) result at all, and the scientist may not get any kind of honors for it. The result however, is much more ground breaking and fundamental. Most if not all have no pattent.

I don't consider one evil, the other good, however. It's clear that private companys stick to profit, while very large univercitys or state funded univercitys can put money into long-turm free research. Still, only a fraction of state funds in (atleast) Norway are going to free research.

Meh, my wild shot,

~Wille

[Bernem]

Most if not all have no pattent.

This is not correct. About every invention that possibly might rend a profit is patented. Most universities have their own departments dealing with patent questions. And the inventions are the basis for a lot of start up companies often started within the university.

The reality is that innovation is mostly for sale and not for share.

[Kjertesvein]

This is not correct. About every invention that possibly might rend a profit is patented. Most universities have their own departments dealing with patent questions. And the inventions are the basis for a lot of start up companies often started within the university.

The reality is that innovation is mostly for sale and not for share.

I swaer I remember a documentary here(Norway) which reported on how american companys pattern their medicine, and that it was outragious to have monopol on peoples day-to-day health, etc. etc.

Hmmm.. I swear... oh, well... Might be a culturel thing.

~Wille

[Roloc]

There's no money in the cure?? I say . The company that develops the cure first has the monopole and thus all the profit.

[justicar5]

There's no money in the cure?? I say . The company that develops the cure first has the monopole and thus all the profit.

Why research that when you can research an expensive way of suppressing the symptoms that is required every day for life?

[Jingles]

Why research that when you can research an expensive way of suppressing the symptoms that is required every day for life?

I think he means that, you could do that, or you could, if someone is already doing that, research a cure, then patent it, sell it for a ridiculous amount of money (since you've now got a monopoly and can fix the price any which way you want), making you rich, and making the symptom-suppressing drug obsolete in the process.

Heh, sounds like a business plan to me.

[ShockBlast]

Why research that when you can research an expensive way of suppressing the symptoms that is required every day for life?

Not only that but those days it is more profitable to share the market with your competition and surpress the small players.Divide the market and raise the prices together.
Healthcare should be one of the main priorities of the state and the privates should be pushed almost out.They can make money from other business that doesn't require killing people.

[Big War Bird]

Why research that when you can research an expensive way of suppressing the symptoms that is required every day for life?

Company A is making a huge profit on a drug that treats disease C.

Why would Company B that makes no money from Company A's product not want to come up with a cheaper/more effective drug for disease C?