reply to post by dontreally
A cure is a one time solution, and although it might rake in immediate profits, long term, treatment would be far more profitable because it keeps the
problem alive around longer.
"Cure" seems a little subjective to me, if I catch the clap and I take antibiotics to rid myself of the infection, that is considered a cure no?
But, doesn't mean I can't come down with it again. In fact, the same strain can infect you if your partner isn't treated. And, now there are super
strains going around that can't be cured...
If someone rids themselves of cancer with standard treatment, were they "cured"?
In any case, people like yourself that spout the whole "there's no profits in cures!" speeches, always seem very limited in their understanding of
I had a friend, CEO of a biotech company, working on a new treatment for a very, very specific type of cancer. He has clinics in South America but was
in the process for clinical trials to get into the states. His treatment would effectively "cure" a high number of people with this very, very
specific type of cancer.
It slips my mind because we haven't chatted in over two years now.
Mind you, one of the problems with declaring a "cure" for cancer, is that it's nearly impossible to find a be all, end all treatment. Some people
react well, some not at all, and some negatively, with many types of treatment. That's the biggest hurdle in declaring a cure, because it isn't for
Anyhow, back to the business side. As I mentioned before, if you have a profitable treatment program, and I have none, but my biotech company finds a
cure, than to me, a cure is a hell of a lot more profit than nothing at all.
See: 1 dollar is more than 0 dollar.
And well, back to my friend, he made a pretty good buck for those people he treated who reacted positively to his drugs, for him, his entire business
model was on quick, five shot therapies, getting people in and out of the clinics.
the pharmaceutical execs certainly have incentive to prefer treatment to cure, as treatment is more lucrative.
Depends on a few factors. If one drug costs more to produce, requires multiple treatments, and the patients die off before they can pay, it's not as
profitable as charging 10 times the amount, curing them, building your brand and have them pay back the rest of their years they live. Not to mention
the whole putting all your competitors out of business
type deal. Execs tend to love that.
its also disarming to think that the logic of capitalism not only spurs technological growth, but also serves to persuade scientists that money and
funds simply wouldn't be there if cancer were cured.
Industry is industry, cure one ailment and there are thousands more to tackle. I don't think they are worried about running out of problems. And the
psych industry has clearly shown that they will simply make up new ones as they need to,