Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if private capital can't or won't fund cures, who will? or should?
Eh, this is a bunch of hysteria over nothing. I can tell you right now as someone who is very deep in the biotech world that insane amount of money are being pumped into flat-out cures. I mean just look how much money and capital investment has been dumped into a company like CRISPR Tx. There are tons of companies, including top 10 pharma, working on CAR T therapies with the ultimate goal of eradicating all traces of cancer. Believe it or not, we have already cured some forms of childhood cancer for over 50 years now. I mean I know the conspiracy theorists love this idea of pharma not trying to cure diseases so that they can maintain a constant flow of money, but that doesn't explain why every single academic institution on Earth from the likes of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford to Cambridge still can not cure some types of cancers, because they don't answer to any stockholders and aren't looking to make profit. There IS no conspiracy people. I know that's what you want to hear. No one wants to hear the truth that: curing cancer and other major diseases is harder than putting a man on the moon and that we really aren't as smart as we think we are when it comes to biology and medicine. If you've never done professional level biomedical research you really don't have room to comment. It is insanely difficult to try to treat disease without killing a person or causing unacceptable side effects.
Last edited by fibonacci; 08-16-2018 at 03:44 PM..
Eh, this is a bunch of hysteria over nothing. I can tell you right now as someone who is very deep in the biotech world that insane amount of money are being pumped into flat-out cures. I mean just look how much money and capital investment has been dumped into a company like CRISPR Tx. There are tons of companies, including top 10 pharma, working on CAR T therapies with the ultimate goal of eradicating all traces of cancer. Believe it or not, we have already cured some forms of childhood cancer for over 50 years now. I mean I know the conspiracy theorists love this idea of pharma not trying to cure diseases so that they can maintain a constant flow of money, but that still doesn't explain why every single academic instution on Earth from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Cambridge still can not cure some types of cancers, because they don't answer to any stockholders and aren't looking to make profit. There IS no conspiracy people. I know that's what you want to hear. No one want to hear the truth that: curing cancer and other major diseases is harder than putting a man on the moon and that we really aren't as smart as we think we are when it comes to biology and medicine. If you've never done professional level biomedical research you really don't have room to comment. It is insanely difficult to try to treat disease without killing a person or causing unacceptable side effects.
Right now in the thick of things with my wife, we recently discussed CAR T. I think retail $300K+ per treatment. The director told us that if the patient doesn't have the means, it will cost them zero. In fact depending on the provider if involved with trials/research, and the insurance company's deal with pharma, the cost to the patient could be very low. A few years back we paid $10/mo for Imbruvica with a retail price of $98K/yr. My wife insured with BXBS/Obamacare.
You are correct. The point is: depression was originally identified as melancholy.
And schizophrenia was originally diagnosed as being possessed by demons.
I don't understand your point in regards to the conversation.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Tax payers would have an incentive to find a cure. G.S. does not.
Thats short sighted and ridiculous. Cure cancer, and you will have a huge windfall, find a way to completely prevent it, there is another windfall, then you move onto whatever kills cancer survivors, the end goal is figuring out a way to make people live forever. or at least be free of all disease..realistic or not. Those windfalls fund the next stage of "fixing things" for the human body and lead to more windfalls.
Thats short sighted and ridiculous. Cure cancer, and you will have a huge windfall, find a way to completely prevent it, there is another windfall, then you move onto whatever kills cancer survivors, the end goal is figuring out a way to make people live forever. or at least be free of all disease..realistic or not. Those windfalls fund the next stage of "fixing things" for the human body and lead to more windfalls.
We aren't going to live forever so the entire idea is nonsensical.
We aren't going to live forever so the entire idea is nonsensical.
No, the entire idea is not nonsensical, although I did preface it with "realistic or not" the point is that right now we know people can live past 100 on a fairly regular basis. You honestly don't think there is a TON of money to be made extending that to 150 or beyond? Not to mention improving the quality of like for those last years by avoiding things like cancer? In 1900 the average lifespan was 47 years, and in 2018 its 78 years, thats a 65% increase. To think similar advances cant be made going forward is shortsighted, and indeed nonsensical. The revenue and economic boost that would come from that is absolutely worth being considered by lots of entities.
No, the entire idea is not nonsensical, although I did preface it with "realistic or not" the point is that right now we know people can live past 100 on a fairly regular basis. You honestly don't think there is a TON of money to be made extending that to 150 or beyond? Not to mention improving the quality of like for those last years by avoiding things like cancer? In 1900 the average lifespan was 47 years, and in 2018 its 78 years, thats a 65% increase. To think similar advances cant be made going forward is shortsighted, and indeed nonsensical. The revenue and economic boost that would come from that is absolutely worth being considered by lots of entities.
That is not a sustainable model that would be supported by G.S. All those elderly people would have to be supported somehow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
