Indeed. Seems clear there is potentially much more cash in not finding a cure for anything than in finding one. The golden goose of drugs would presumably be something that didn't cure you, but would keep you alive for as long as you took the drug. Now that's what I'd call profit.





Sadly for the medically illiterate and the knee-jerkers searching for a [ibon mot[/i, [url=http://www.yalemedlaw.com/2011/08/medicinal-leeches-natures-finest-surgical-tool-from-the-swamps/we still do[/url.

Most drugs don't actually cure things - they enable the condition to be managed. Your body is like a machine over time it will wear out and can never be restored to its optimum.



If you have a heart condition surgery is really the only option and that will only work in conjunction with drugs like beta-blockers and AC inhibitors. Before these drugs were developed you would have been lucky to get to surgery.



You may consider this a bad thing because it involves "profit" but you should ask the anyone who takes them whether their quality of life has been improved because of them. You could do the same for the cancer treatments that have increased the quality and longevity of many peoples lives.



Without the drive for competitive advantage and ultimately profit these drugs would never have been developed as quickly as they have. They improve the quality of life for billions of people. Your view on drug companies says much about your irrational take on all things that involve profit making enterprises.

The average cost of bringing a new drug to market is $4bn in some cases it is almost 3 times that. If you think drugs that help manage conditions are a good thing for mankind as whole where would you suggest the money comes from if it not from private sector enterprises?



Medical science is not an exact science - the human body is a very complex organism that doesn't always react identically to the identical inputs. Like all science you will have views that can be polarised. For all the examples you have given you could google and get the opposite view - life is far too short.

I'm sure most reasonable people would agree that companies have the right to earn a decent profit on the investments they make in new products. During my OU studies, I did a case study in a similar field (agro chemicals) where we had to model an investment strategy. The percentage of products that make it to market is very small hence the huge R & D costs per product. So, I understand the requirement for the patenting and making profits from pharmecutical products. However, it would appear that pharmecutical companies are not being honest with the data that they release with regards to the efficacy and safety of their products when they have a moral obligation to do so. [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drugs-giant-roche-accused-of-sitting-on-trial-data-for-flu-treatment-8262319.htmlExample here.[/url

That was not what I commented on.



I was mentioning how such companies routinely avoid telling the whole truth about a drug in order to make it sound better than it might be (both in terms of efficacy and safety) and to improve sales, regardless of the cost to the patient.



And see Neil's post directly above this one.

Completely wrong. Most drugs do indeed "cure" things. For a start, the most overwhelmingly widely prescribed/administered drugs [iaimed[/i at "curing " things - antibiotics - do exactly that. They enable your body to eliminate the infection. Not to "manage" it, but to "cure" it.





I said no such thing, nor do I have anything against "profit".





Straw man. Whatever the answer, it has absolutely nothing to do with the point. The cancer drugs developed could be a bargain, or they could be a gross ripoff, or anything else, the answer to your question wouldn't shed any light on that.





Again, a statement of the bleedin obvious. As it would be to point out that one big drive for profit would be to invent drugs that people have to take forever, to "manage" conditions, as opposed to invent drugs that are only taken short term (to "cure" conditions).



That's not the same as saying that that's what all drug companies do in relation to all drugs - just that if they do NOT do this, then you'd have to conclude (and here's one for you to get your head round) that there was some driver for such conduct which was NOT to maximise profit. That's the bit you're struggling with.





1. You don't [iknow [/imy view on drug companies.

(clue: I don't have one generic view, and there are many drug companies, doing different things).

2. You don't [iknow[/i my "take" on profit making enterprises.

(clue: for many years I ran such entities).



Therefore your [iad hominem[/i is exposed as irrational garbage. If you want to discuss, do try to raise it above schoolboy yah-boo level.

1. Your first point is complete rubbish - the vast majority of drugs manage conditions they don't cure them - If you take headache pills it gives you temporary relief it doesn't stop you getting another. Of the top 5 drugs prescribed in this country 3 are for hyper-tension and cholesterol the top is a pain killer none of these cure anyone - you stop taking them and your condition will return.



2. Look at the top selling drugs - what they do is manage conditions if you go on to a hyper-tensive - beta blocker or AC inhibitor - drug you are on it for life and these drugs pretty much fill 60% of the top ten drugs prescribed in the UK. So you argument about cure doesn't stack up.



3. You need to think before you post or at least use Google - but your arrogance prevents you doing a little research - and you talk about irrational schoolyard stuff - you need to re-read what you type because the vast majority is simply hot headed garbage.

Indeed.



And there is a growing body of evidence that statins are a waste of time – they apparently do nothing whatsoever in female patients, and there is some suggestion that they may even actually be detrimental to older patients.



Cholesterol is a perfect example of an invented disease, which just happens to be massively profitable for drugs of highly dubious value and safety.



The process leading to this started, funnily enough, with a massive hiding of research data: in this case, by Ancel Keys, whose 'seven countries study' supposedly proved that there was a link between a diet high in saturated fat, which caused high cholesterol, which caused heart disease.



Unfortunately, he was a liar. He actually surveyed 22 countries – but then 'forgot' the results of 15 of them because the findings didn't suit what he wanted to find. (Frank Cooper is excellent on this) The fabricated conclusions of his 'research' have been at the heart of US and UK public health policy for 40-50 years, with major ramifications for diet, amongst other things.



It's a perfect illustration, on its own, of what happens when research and trial data is hidden.



[url=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=malcolm+kendrick+cholesterol+myth&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8I've done the Googling for you: there's plenty here on Dr Malcolm Kendrick's work on this.[/url



[url=http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE78.htmThe one at the top is a particularly interesting essay on the subject.[/url Even Keys later admitted that cholesterol in diet does not enter the bloodstream. And, the older you get, then lower cholesterol levels are increasingly dangerous.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-profiteering-scandal-of-firm-hiding-vital-breast-cancer-data-8270020.htmlMore evidence of the caring-sharing side of healthcare companies[/url

Far too simplistic - it depends on the type of cholesterol, there are two types: LDL which clogs up arteries and can result in stroke or heart attack. HDL which removes the LDL into the liver. Too little HDL is as bad as too much LDL. To say cholesterol is an invented condition is completely barmy - even for you. Drug companies do not prescribe drugs and given these drugs have been available for many years if what you suggest was correct these drugs would have stopped being prescribed. Whatever you think of doctors most are highly intelligent ethical humans who genuinely want the best outcomes for their patients - given the volumes of statins prescribed are you seriously suggesting all these people have been hoodwinked? seriously even for you that is a bit far fetched.

QED







Except that the words I used were:

" Most drugs do indeed "cure" things. For a start, the most overwhelmingly widely prescribed/administered drugs aimed at "curing " things - antibiotics - do exactly that.



If you want to argue that point, which drugs that are "aimed at curing" things do you claim fail to cure things?





I'm not sure why you need to make silly points. If I have a headache, I'll take the drug which from experience I know works for me to cure my headache. And in half an hour or so, my headache is indeed cured.



I DO "stop taking" the analgesics. Indeed, in most cases, I'll only need to take the one dose. Once I have taken that dose, in a short time, my headache goes away. My headache is, indisputably, cured.



If you are really saying that if a few weeks later I get another headache it's only because "I stopped taking the drugs" then I'm sorry but that is just irrational. The new headache may be for any one of a number of reasons. The fact that I'm not permanently on analgesics certainly ain't one of them though.





The top is not a painkiller (its Simvastatin, which I happen to know as the doc told my missus that) but yes, painkillers are high in the charts, and for the reasons I have explained they do cure pain in huge numbers of cases. [size=85(There are of course people who suffer from chronic pain but that is usually managed in a variety of ways and the palliative drugs used are not in your top 20 chart)[/size





And? You have changed the argument completely as now you're talking about the "top selling drugs". Who referred to top sellers. You've mentioned three drugs. But there are around 13,000 prescription drugs, so you've a few to run through yet if that's the argument you want to adopt.



More to the point, it was I who pointed out that drugs which "cured" a condition rather than "manage" a condition are very clearly vastly less profitable to drug companies than a one-shot cure pill would be. Yet you fail to acknowledge the argument or the point, and bizarrely, quote stats which seem to [iprove[/i that the biggest earners for drug companies are non-cures! Why have the drug companies not invented a cure for hypertension, or a cure for high cholesterol, etc.? Would you agree that if they did, then they'd never sell another of these big earners?



You need to concentrate and try harder. And no, I haven't failed to notice that you omitted to concede that you don't actually know my view on drug companies, so should not have presumed, ditto that you don't know my "take" on profit making enterprises. You just made hot-headed assumptions which you are now trying to ignore instead of conceding that you were wrong.





... this, from the man who posted:

...... thinking it was a cracking point! Couldn't make it up

This is exactly why you should read the stuff I suggested (and more) before commenting.



And drug companies never prescribe drugs. That's what doctors do. And if you bother to actually read the Goldacre, at the very least, then you'll discover that doctors themselves are either conned or fed the wrong data or a lack of data in general.



And I repeat: cholesterol is an invented disease. I am not a medical expert. Neither are you. I, however, have tried - am trying - to educate myself. Do yourself a favour and do the same instead if first saying that life is 'too short" and then pretending that you actually know more than people who actually bother to read and research.



If you're not careful, you really are going to look very,very silly.