I find myself jaded on this matter, so please forgive me.

[Lik3]

Millions and millions of dollars have been spent on cancer, AIDS, diabetes, and research for other conditions. I have wondered lately if they have all of this money, then how come many people who have "non-curable" illnesses or conditions haven't been cured. All I see is that the ones who are making the money like the so-called charities, organizations, and to an extent, the drug companies who are benefiting, not those who are in need of cures. I have found myself jaded. When if the cures for these illnesses and conditions are in their very hands. How come if this is true, the FDA, the prescription drug companies, and some of the major charities like ADA for diabetes and the Susan Komen Breast Cancer Foundation come together and do a better job of making sure that people are being treated and that there is a cure out there and they are working on it.

When if there is a cure in place already and we in the public have no idea? Where is the lack of ethics in that? It is true that corporations make money, charities do what they can to spread the word out there, and supposedly the government wants to make sure that the people are protected and remain loyal to the nation they reside. However, many regular people spend sometimes hundreds of dollars on medications that would be strong enough to kill a dozen horses, yet they are still ill. The FDA has rejected many drugs that some scientists have tested over and over again that could have been used to cure others. It seems as if those in science and technology have their hands tied. I now even wonder how valuable and non-corrupt some charities are, especially the larger, more well-known charities like The Red Cross, Susan G. Komen, and the March of Dimes are.

I would like to be convinced that I should not be so jaded. Maybe I see things too negatively. Maybe I shouldn't see that the real issue is more about money and corruption and not about using that money and influence to save people's lives and find a cure. To me, the world is black and white. The glass is either half empty or half full. To me, morality is not a shade of gray. We are all humans. We have opinions, likes, and dislikes. There is no in-between.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't have broad knowledge of every condition, but things ARE changing in relation to some of these diseases.

My grandmother was diagnosed with cancer almost 40 years ago. She was treated, but the treatment was horrific and she died soon after. That was the expectation with that type of cancer back then.

I was diagnosed 2-1/2 years ago. People still die from it, but my treatment was MUCH more targeted. I had some bad days and side effects, but nothing like what my grandmother endured. And as far as we know, I'm in remission. Hopefully there is no cancer in my body. I am slightly weakened and with some effects, but my grandmother was a shell of herself within months. I was never that bad off. And I can hope for decades more good life, God willing. I'm planning my life and health like anyone my age can reasonably expect to do.

AIDS is another thing that has changed. I know at one time we considered it a quick death sentence. Now I hear of people who are in reasonable condition, having lived for decades managing the condition.

Some of the treatments have indeed progressed.

 

[JackRT]

In the last century alone an estimated 300 million people died of smallpox. In the 1960s there were several epidemics that took 15 million a year. Then came a concerted vaccination program. The last known death was in 1977. Disease can be beaten.

 

[BlessedVegan]

I can’t speak for all of what you bring up, but plenty of diseases, such as diabetes (at least type 2 in most people), have a cure, as in lifestyle. A lot of cancers have prevention, through lifestyle. The majority of people want a cure that requires them to do no work. They want to be magically delivered from their illness without having to work hard for it. The cure is in their hands and they refuse it. So that is their own fault.

 

[expos4ever]

Much progress has been achieved in defeating illness. I am confident some impressive numbers could be presented.

 

[Lik3]

Much progress has been achieved in defeating illness. I am confident some impressive numbers could be presented.

I agree. I am saying not about technical and other advances. I am referring the fact that not only has there been technical advances, people are being treated, and there are great technicians, physicians, nurses, counselors, and doctors who are compassionate and intelligent people, but I just have a sinking suspicion and it is only that or something else is going on and the public doesn't know everything about it.

Maybe suspicion is the wrong word, but I think that with all of those advances and all of that money, we should have not only been closer, all of which is true and I agree with. However, I try to see all points of view despite my own black or white thinking and viewpoint. I am just thinking that with all of that, shouldn't a cure haven't been at least presented or have gone forward by now? Okay, exactly what impressive numbers? Do you mean how much is being raised? How much the prescription drug companies have provided benefits and what exactly have those benefits produced? Could it be about the number of people who may have been cured, in remission, or are just doing better?

I understand and I thank you all for your responses so far. I won't be writing this if don't tell you that I come from a family with a history of diseases and conditions such as cancer, heart diseases, anxiety, and mental illness. I agree that much has already been done and is being done, but as I mentioned, I am a bit jaded because I feel that maybe it is the FDA or someone else who isn't just making laws, which is true. I am also suspicious of the fact that the inequalities between rich and poor, in America at least, there is something wrong where there is still a technical divide and that technical and class divide could be better explained as far as my inklings. Maybe with that, that would be a good thesis for a graduate student to write about and for a technician or scientist to experiment on. How much of these charity administrators receiving as compared to those who they claim to help?

I am not trying to knock down any personally or insulting the people, but it seems to me that there is too much influence or control by the government or monetarily from some of the drug industry to how charities are run and the the corruption of a few.

 

[Tolworth John]

I would like to be convinced that I should not be so jaded. Maybe I see things too negatively. Maybe I shouldn't see that the real issue is more about money and corruption and not about using that money and influence to save people's lives and find a cure. To me, the world is black and white. The glass is either half empty or half full.

There is not 'One' cancer, any more than there is 'One' flu or cold.
It doesn't help that there isn't just just 'One' research facility or drug company.
But strangly that duplication of effort is a good thing as the competition helps keep the companies on there toes.

Is there price fixing and profitering? Given the enormous cost of developing a drug and of proving it is safe to use. It depends what you mean by price fixing.

 

[JackRT]

About 40 years ago I suddenly developed an arthritic condition in my hands. For about a year I was treated at a major university hospital and then the condition spontaneously disappeared. In my last conversation with the rheumatologist he said "Arthritis is actually at least 600 different diseases. I can cure about 10% and I can treat about 80% and the rest I have no clue what to do."

 

[Willie T]

Cancer has to exist!
If it is cured, and no one contracts it, million dollar industries and empires that have developed around supposedly "fighting" cancer would crumble overnight.
What "progress" that has been made, has been in spite of foot-dragging and outright theft and graft.