Do doctors hide medical cures?

[HighwayMan]

What do people think of this? Do you believe there are cures or excellent treatments that have been withheld from the public for economic purposes? The medical system is structured in a way in which doctors and many people in the healthcare industry depend on people being sick for them to have jobs. Imagine how many people will go out of work if, say, they found a cure for diabetes. Or AIDS. Or any one of diseases for which you have to depend on several different kinds of specialists for. Or heck - even acne, for which there are again millions of treatments and cosmetic products they want you to buy. If a great number of these cures were to be suddenly discovered, the whole industry would collapse like a house of cards.

IMO, it is a bit suspicious that so many millions of dollars are invested in research, and all the time you hear reports of "exciting progress" but never actually a solution.

 

[Ectezus]

What do people think of this? Do you believe there are cures or excellent treatments that have been withheld from the public for economic purposes? The medical system is structured in a way in which doctors and many people in the healthcare industry depend on people being sick for them to have jobs. Imagine how many people will go out of work if, say, they found a cure for diabetes. Or AIDS. Or any one of diseases for which you have to depend on several different kinds of specialists for. Or heck - even acne, for which there are again millions of treatments and cosmetic products they want you to buy. If a great number of these cures were to be suddenly discovered, the whole industry would collapse like a house of cards.

IMO, it is a bit suspicious that so many millions of dollars are invested in research, and all the time you hear reports of "exciting progress" but never actually a solution.

I guess it's possible but I wouldn't consider it probable.

If a research team discovers a cure it's hard to make everyone be silent about it, besides the reward would be huge AND if they discovered it there are probably other researchers close behind them so you want to take credit asap while you can.

People have conspiracy theories about practically everything. 9/11 truthers, Roswell, the global warming conspiracy swindle, the list of nutjobs goes on and on.

Dont get me wrong, trying to find evidence for your theory is great. It's what makes science works. But there's a point where you stop being a 'researcher for the truth' and start being just stone cold f*ck nuts.

There are a lot of psychological studies about this subject: Why are people so inclined to think something is other than it looks...
There are some interesting points and it has some roots in the way we've evolved on when and how to believe another person.

- Ectezus

 

[Autumnleaf]

Of course they hide cures. Researchers get money from funding sources which make them sign nondisclosure agreements. Does anyone recall how long it took for such a scientist to break his nondisclosure agreements to blow the whistle on how bad smoking is for people? Even when it happened the man was discredited and the 60 Minutes report on it was hushed up.

 

[CCGirl]

I think the big pharmas have a vested interest in finding cures, which would eliminate their need to have people continue buying their products.

 

[jayem]

The idea is preposterous. Suppose some researcher did discovered a simple "cure" for diabetes. (Which kind, BTW? Type I, Type II, or both? A single effective cure would truly be astounding, since they are quite different diseases.) Why would it be kept secret? It would be a multi-multi billion dollar product. Every pharmaceutical manufacturer on earth would be after it. And even after current diabetics are cured, people would still develop new cases of diabetes. The market would be unending. Not to mention it would be a sure Nobel Prize for whoever discovered it. The same is true for HIV, or for any type of cancer, or any chronic disease. Of course, people are free to believe any fool thing they want, but the idea that any such enormous medical advance would be suppressed defies rational thinking.

The reason medical research is costly is because we already know the simple and easy stuff. What we lack is a thorough understanding of disease at the molecular level. If cures are to be found, this is where they'll be. But this research is very expensive and results take time. And I'm not even considering the time and cost of clinical trials if any discoveries are promising. It's only in a conspiratorial fantasy that anything of this magnitude can be hidden.

 

[Braunwyn]

The idea is preposterous. Suppose some researcher did discovered a simple "cure" for diabetes. (Which kind, BTW? Type I, Type II, or both? A single effective cure would truly be astounding, since they are quite different diseases.) Why would it be kept secret? It would be a multi-multi billion dollar product. Every pharmaceutical manufacturer on earth would be after it. And even after current diabetics are cured, people would still develop new cases of diabetes. The market would be unending. Not to mention it would be a sure Nobel Prize for whoever discovered it. The same is true for HIV, or for any type of cancer, or any chronic disease. Of course, people are free to believe any fool thing they want, but the idea that any such enormous medical advance would be suppressed defies rational thinking.

The reason medical research is costly is because we already know the simple and easy stuff. What we lack is a thorough understanding of disease at the molecular level. If cures are to be found, this is where they'll be. But this research is very expensive and results take time. And I'm not even considering the time and cost of clinical trials if any discoveries are promising. It's only in a conspiratorial fantasy that anything of this magnitude can be hidden.

Well said and +1.

 

[HighwayMan]

Why would it be kept secret? It would be a multi-multi billion dollar product.

For the one who discovers it, yeah - but I'm talking about the entire market. Those who are specialists in a particular field for which there would now be a cure and no need for them.

Every pharmaceutical manufacturer on earth would be after it. And even after current diabetics are cured, people would still develop new cases of diabetes. The market would be unending.

Then you misunderstand my point. A cure is something that fixes the problem permanently and doesn't allow for "developing other cases". It isn't much of a "cure" if you still need treatments and doctors.

Of course, people are free to believe any fool thing they want, but the idea that any such enormous medical advance would be suppressed defies rational thinking.

The reason medical research is costly is because we already know the simple and easy stuff. What we lack is a thorough understanding of disease at the molecular level. If cures are to be found, this is where they'll be. But this research is very expensive and results take time. And I'm not even considering the time and cost of clinical trials if any discoveries are promising. It's only in a conspiratorial fantasy that anything of this magnitude can be hidden.

A fantasy would be someone discovering a magical cure in a test-tube and having evil government men chasing after him, but that's not what I'm suggesting. More like under-playing, under-exposing or pushing research in the wrong direction, away from the big breakthroughs that will actually change people's lives. And I'm not saying something like this is definitely happening, but that economically it makes sense.

 

[Maren]

The idea is preposterous. Suppose some researcher did discovered a simple "cure" for diabetes. (Which kind, BTW? Type I, Type II, or both? A single effective cure would truly be astounding, since they are quite different diseases.) Why would it be kept secret? It would be a multi-multi billion dollar product. Every pharmaceutical manufacturer on earth would be after it. And even after current diabetics are cured, people would still develop new cases of diabetes. The market would be unending. Not to mention it would be a sure Nobel Prize for whoever discovered it. The same is true for HIV, or for any type of cancer, or any chronic disease. Of course, people are free to believe any fool thing they want, but the idea that any such enormous medical advance would be suppressed defies rational thinking.

The reason medical research is costly is because we already know the simple and easy stuff. What we lack is a thorough understanding of disease at the molecular level. If cures are to be found, this is where they'll be. But this research is very expensive and results take time. And I'm not even considering the time and cost of clinical trials if any discoveries are promising. It's only in a conspiratorial fantasy that anything of this magnitude can be hidden.

+2

 

[LightHorseman]

Of course they hide cures. Researchers get money from funding sources which make them sign nondisclosure agreements. Does anyone recall how long it took for such a scientist to break his nondisclosure agreements to blow the whistle on how bad smoking is for people? Even when it happened the man was discredited and the 60 Minutes report on it was hushed up.

single example you can think of where doctors have knowingly with held cures?

 

[Braunwyn]

HighwayMan, just to put it out there, I'm a scientist at a big pharma. So, ime...medical research is so complicated, so tedious and today (for me), very annoying. There are so many variables that come into play when considering a 'cure'. Sure, there's probably a cure for everything but coming up with a compound to hit a therapeutic target (we have thousands for any disease you can think of) is just one grain of sand in a very sandy beach. You guys have no idea what it takes to get a molecule from point A to point Z (site of action) without the molecule degrading, failing to absorb, not being eliminated, not killing you or causing a cascade of whatever side effects. It's so much work. And let me tell you, if anything it's a crazy race to get anything (a drug improvement, treatment, etc) to the proof of concept stage, let alone a cure.

 

[Maren]

For the one who discovers it, yeah - but I'm talking about the entire market. Those who are specialists in a particular field for which there would now be a cure and no need for them.

Not really, it wouldn't be that hard for most researchers to find work in a related area. For example, the diabetes example, they could work to cure other types of diabetes. Or, they could even switch to a different disease. While the specifics of the disease would be different, it is still similar enough that they would have no problem adapting. And after being involved in finding a successful cure, these researchers would be in high demand.

Then you misunderstand my point. A cure is something that fixes the problem permanently and doesn't allow for "developing other cases". It isn't much of a "cure" if you still need treatments and doctors.

I think you misunderstand what was said. The point is that while the people cured would remain cured, you'd still have people getting diabetes. While the cause of Type 1 is unknown, it is likely that we'd still have children (and even some adults) being diagnosed. And with Type 2, which appears to be somewhat tied to diet and exercise, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would still be diagnosed.

A fantasy would be someone discovering a magical cure in a test-tube and having evil government men chasing after him, but that's not what I'm suggesting. More like under-playing, under-exposing or pushing research in the wrong direction, away from the big breakthroughs that will actually change people's lives. And I'm not saying something like this is definitely happening, but that economically it makes sense.

As for what you appear to be suggesting here, it still doesn't make sense; nor is it the question you asked in the OP. While people do sign non-disclosure/confidentiality agreements, the fact is that their work is audited by those providing the money -- and it makes no sense for those providing the money to keep throwing money at researchers who are making no realistic progress -- particularly if the audits tend to show they are not following up on lines of research which show promise. Not to mention that those who act as you describe above and are caught would be unable to find employment in any research/scientific field and open themselves to criminal prosecution/civil suits for fraud.

 

[ebia]

There's more than enough sickness out there to keep everyone busy. The healthcare industry doesn't need to keep people sick.

That said, there is something to be said for a system that pays at least one segment of the industry in a way that gives them a vested interest in keeping people healthy. This is the case when it comes to General Practitioners in the UK. G.P.'s a paid by the government according to the number of people on their books. The more they keep people healthy, the more patients they can have on their books and still satisfy their demands, so the more money they make. Consequently the UK has the best preventative medicine standards in the world.

 

[Joachim]

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are the most evil people in this country. Doctors have become nothing more than pill pushers and the drug companies are nothing more than drug manufactuers. The only thing that seperates Merck from Carlos Escobar is that Merck is doing something that is legal under United States law.


And then it even gets better because when these companies do mess up they simply try and get tort reform passed so they aren't held legally accountable.

 

[CCGirl]

The only thing that seperates Merck from Carlos Escobar is that Merck is doing something that is legal under United States law.

QFT

 

[LightHorseman]

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are the most evil people in this country. Doctors have become nothing more than pill pushers and the drug companies are nothing more than drug manufactuers. The only thing that seperates Merck from Carlos Escobar is that Merck is doing something that is legal under United States law.


And then it even gets better because when these companies do mess up they simply try and get tort reform passed so they aren't held legally accountable.

So... what would you like to see drug companies do other than manufacture drugs? The Can Can maybe?

 

[Joachim]

So... what would you like to see drug companies do other than manufacture drugs? The Can Can maybe?

It is their job to sell drugs. However, it is a problem when they basically wine and dine doctors, professionals which people seem to blindly and naively trust, unlike lawyers, and basically give them inducements to write as many prescriptions as they need to. For many of the basic ailments, there are actually homeopathic remedies that will work just as well as a drug, especially for more moderate infections. That doctors have turned into high class versions of drug dealers has proved terrible for medicine because we are now in a situation where many people develop infections that have antibiotic resistency because every time they have even the most minor ailment the doctor simply proscribes a new type of pill. Don't even get me started on the whole mental health industry because more than half of it is simply a scam designed to convince people who have nothing wrong with them that they do so they'll go and fork some money over for a pill.


They may still be a part of the problem because they feed into the pill addicition cycle, but I admire all of those people who cross into Canada to buy the cheaper pills and then smuggle them across the border because they represent the true American spirit even as Merck tries to make another buck off of the whole game.

 

[LightHorseman]

It is their job to sell drugs. However, it is a problem when they basically wine and dine doctors, professionals which people seem to blindly and naively trust, unlike lawyers, and basically give them inducements to write as many prescriptions as they need to. For many of the basic ailments, there are actually homeopathic remedies that will work just as well as a drug, especially for more moderate infections. That doctors have turned into high class versions of drug dealers has proved terrible for medicine because we are now in a situation where many people develop infections that have antibiotic resistency because every time they have even the most minor ailment the doctor simply proscribes a new type of pill. Don't even get me started on the whole mental health industry because more than half of it is simply a scam designed to convince people who have nothing wrong with them that they do so they'll go and fork some money over for a pill.


They may still be a part of the problem because they feed into the pill addicition cycle, but I admire all of those people who cross into Canada to buy the cheaper pills and then smuggle them across the border because they represent the true American spirit even as Merck tries to make another buck off of the whole game.

*LMFCO* Right... name... heck, ANY homeopathic "remedy" that has been shown to be effective than a placebo using double blind testing?

 

[Maren]

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are the most evil people in this country.

Sorry, I don't buy this, especially about doctors. While there are doctors that are evil and do nothing but push pills, I believe there are more doctors who actually care for their patients and try to cure their patients rather than push pills.

As for pharmaceutical companies -- I'm not sure you can assign motives to corporations as a whole. There are pharmaceutical executives that I'm sure are evil, though as a whole I don't think we can indict the entire industry on the basis of some of the executives.

As for trying to maximize profits (not sure if that was what you were calling evil but it seems to be a commonly used reason), I don't see how they are different than most other corporations. Personally, Microsoft seems to be the most "evil" when it comes to maximizing profits -- they appear to sell their products at a price many times the production and research costs, instead seemingly relying on the highest price the market will bear. It is interesting to me that Microsoft has made more millionaires than any other company, while at the same time making the founder the richest person in the United States. Yet I don't often hear people calling Microsoft evil for maximizing profits to a far greater extent than pharmaceutical companies.

Though, for my money, I think insurance companies have to be the most evil; you pay premiums for years and then they try to find a loophole to keep from paying out when you have a claim.

Doctors have become nothing more than pill pushers and the drug companies are nothing more than drug manufactuers.

As for doctors, I touched on that above. And I have to agree with LightHorseman, the drug company comment is .

The only thing that seperates Merck from Carlos Escobar is that Merck is doing something that is legal under United States law.

While on an emotional level I might want to somewhat agree, the truth is it is hard to legitimately compare the two. First, I have yet to see a pamphlet put out by the Escobar (or any other) cartel listing the proper dosages, known side effects, and chemical interactions of their drugs -- while it is always supplied by the drug manufacturers (to the point that most of us ignore them). And, two, I have yet to see a drug cartel like Escobar be sued for the ill effects caused by their drugs, much less ever seen one of the cartels pay a settlement.

And then it even gets better because when these companies do mess up they simply try and get tort reform passed so they aren't held legally accountable.

And this could be it's own thread here in E&M; though not limited to drug companies, seems like pretty much every corporation is wanting tort reform so they don't have to be held accountable.

 

[quatona]

I always love a good conspiracy theory.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

HighwayMan, just to put it out there, I'm a scientist at a big pharma. So, ime...medical research is so complicated, so tedious and today (for me), very annoying. There are so many variables that come into play when considering a 'cure'. Sure, there's probably a cure for everything but coming up with a compound to hit a therapeutic target (we have thousands for any disease you can think of) is just one grain of sand in a very sandy beach. You guys have no idea what it takes to get a molecule from point A to point Z (site of action) without the molecule degrading, failing to absorb, not being eliminated, not killing you or causing a cascade of whatever side effects. It's so much work. And let me tell you, if anything it's a crazy race to get anything (a drug improvement, treatment, etc) to the proof of concept stage, let alone a cure.

We all know that you and your illuminati cohorts are hiding these cures for themselves and financial reasons. We already know that your hiding the cure for aids and cancer. Sneaky demons......