What happens when: Cure for Cancer

[High Lord Tolkien]

A radio host made a comment the other night stating that the only way America can recover from the economic mess we're in was if we came up with a cure for cancer and sold it to the rest of the world.

It got me thinking about what happens when somebody somewhere does develop a true cure for cancer.

Lets assume that's it's still administered as a chemotherapy and not some sci-fi concept like a few pills (although that would be nice) and requires 3 or so treatments.
It kills just the cancer 100% but no longer the normal cells.
Side effects are nonexistent.


What would be the world wide effects?

Lets say that one company develops the drugs.
Is that company suddenly a goldmine?
Or would there be a worldwide call to distribute the drug for free?
What if one country had a lock on it and refused to distribute it outside their own country, you had to come there and pay a fortune for it?

I find the idea interesting.

[SoulBiter]

First I dont agree with the premise made by the radio host. America will come out of this economic mess, it will just take some time.

But the second part is interesting. I think that if its developed then it will be expensive at first but I think because of the number of patients needing treatment the cost would be relatively low after enough places were set up to be able to do the same treatment.

[finn]

Amongst the greatest beneficiaries would be big tobacco, if smoking doesn't kill (at least not via cancer) then smoking will get a new lease of life too!

Perhaps someone should point this very obvious benefit out to them and get them to fund cancer research rather than pushing patches and gum in an attempt to keep the addicts hooked.

[Farsailer]

Let's be realistic: a true cure for cancer will never get out of the lab in the US. I realize this will come off as cynical, but one shouldn't underestimate the power of Big Pharma and hospitals to keep their gravy train going. If we can cure ourselves of cancer for life, what's the cancer care market going to be like in a few years?

When the Salk vaccine eliminated polio, that wiped out almost the entire polio care industry. Callous as this will sound, that sure pissed off a lot of people with vested interested in that industry. So it's no coincidence Big Pharma doesn't really try to eliminate diseases, rather they prefer to be able to "treat" them because that's where the money is.

Same thing with kidney dialysis: just think what would happen if tomorrow someone had a cure for diabetes...

[ParanoiA]

Amongst the greatest beneficiaries would be big tobacco, if smoking doesn't kill (at least not via cancer) then smoking will get a new lease of life too!

Perhaps someone should point this very obvious benefit out to them and get them to fund cancer research rather than pushing patches and gum in an attempt to keep the addicts hooked.

You know, that's a cool observation. Finding a cure for cancer to secure their business model. I like it.

[Kinslaughterer]

I'm sorry to say but cancer won't ever be cured in a conventional sense. It is not a virus or bacterium. Perhaps the only actual "cure" will be some form of gene therapy that eliminates it before it can occur.

Secondarily, Pharma isn't US it is its own entity and will benefit the larger economic situation in a very small way. That and they will most certainly bottleneck delivery to keep the price very high unless a non profit or university were to produce the proper treatment.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Let's be realistic: a true cure for cancer will never get out of the lab in the US. I realize this will come off as cynical, but one shouldn't underestimate the power of Big Pharma and hospitals to keep their gravy train going. If we can cure ourselves of cancer for life, what's the cancer care market going to be like in a few years?

When the Salk vaccine eliminated polio, that wiped out almost the entire polio care industry. Callous as this will sound, that sure pissed off a lot of people with vested interested in that industry. So it's no coincidence Big Pharma doesn't really try to eliminate diseases, rather they prefer to be able to "treat" them because that's where the money is.

Same thing with kidney dialysis: just think what would happen if tomorrow someone had a cure for diabetes...

I'm a type1 diabetic.
I've had a few conversations like this with doctors and other specialists.
I point out that a cure would cripple the diabetic industry.
They point out that there are so many different avenues of research free from "big pharma" influence that it's unlikely.
Also there are so many people personally devastated by cancer that no one is going to cover up a cure.

[Tjol]

All cigarette taxes will have to be revoked. Several states will be up a creek. All the puritans who've been running around telling other people what to do because it's a 'health concern' will have to find something else to be self righteous about.

Unfortunately, they'll still have an excuse to tax food, whether healthy people or unhealthy people buy it, so we'll be trading one small victory for one big loss. Still need a cure for diabetes, as well as a perfect synthetic joint replacement, then they won't be able to use obescity as an excuse to tax food.

[dlbpharmd]

Let's be realistic: a true cure for cancer will never get out of the lab in the US. I realize this will come off as cynical, but one shouldn't underestimate the power of Big Pharma and hospitals to keep their gravy train going. If we can cure ourselves of cancer for life, what's the cancer care market going to be like in a few years?

When the Salk vaccine eliminated polio, that wiped out almost the entire polio care industry. Callous as this will sound, that sure pissed off a lot of people with vested interested in that industry. So it's no coincidence Big Pharma doesn't really try to eliminate diseases, rather they prefer to be able to "treat" them because that's where the money is.

Same thing with kidney dialysis: just think what would happen if tomorrow someone had a cure for diabetes...

I don't know a single health care provider at any level who actively WANTS patients to be sick or remain sick, no matter what their condition is. If patients have to suffer so I can stay on a "gravy train," well then I'd rather dig ditches for my living.

As tough as it may be for many of you to hear, there will never be a SINGLE cure for "cancer." The term cancer encompasses dozens if not hundreds of separate conditions, all of them different in a variety of ways. There will never be a magic pill for cancer, and if there was, it certainly wouldn't be free of side effects. There's no such thing as "good medicine."

As much as the last century of research has taught us, we're just not as smart as we like to think we are. But, we've come so far. Childhood leukemia is not the death sentence it used to be. We treat breast cancers better now than we ever have - probably because we spend more research dollars in that area than any other cancer type. Men live with prostate cancers for years after diagnosis. But, we still don't have a handle on lung cancers, pancreatic cancers, and so forth.

[ParanoiA]

All cigarette taxes will have to be revoked. Several states will be up a creek. All the puritans who've been running around telling other people what to do because it's a 'health concern' will have to find something else to be self righteous about.

No, because then they'll have "costs" to reference as the justification for their intrusion. Unless the cancer meds are free, of course.

[Dromond]

Amongst the greatest beneficiaries would be big tobacco, if smoking doesn't kill (at least not via cancer) then smoking will get a new lease of life too!

Perhaps someone should point this very obvious benefit out to them and get them to fund cancer research rather than pushing patches and gum in an attempt to keep the addicts hooked.

[Avatar]

Good posts, Dlb and Kins.

Carrying on the hypothetical though, or going with Kin's gene therapy idea, I probably agree with this:

That and they will most certainly bottleneck delivery to keep the price very high unless a non profit or university were to produce the proper treatment.

There's that commercial thing I was talking about in the other thread. As much as I believe Dlb is largely right when it comes to the people on the sharp end of health care, pharmaceutical companies don't pour all that money into research for fun. They expect profit. Ok, fair enough, they deserve some if they find it, but I would hope it wouldn't be at the expense of the patients well being or survival.

--A

[finn]

I'm a lot less convinced. The primary motivation for Pharma Corporations is to make money; that is their charter. They will seek to make the maximum profit and will cost their products based upon what the market will bear both pricewise and public perception wise. They will charge as much as people are prepared to pay before choosing alternatives but they will keep that price sufficiently within arguable reason, so as not to detract from sales by public backlash at effectively witholding treatments/cures by making them prohibitively expensive.

What they will not do is make drugs affordable if there is a "need" for them, unless there is a situation where market dominance allows for a 'loss-leader'. In effect the greater the actual need for life or health the greater the price; somewhat akin to the price of water in the desert as opposed to that at the oasis. You only have to look at Big Pharma asking 1 months wages from Africans for a single HIV treatment. It can be argued that the costs associated here are greater, water is scarcer in the desert and has to be transported there etc., but there is a large factor of "they'll pay if they want to live".

Big pharma are not the only examples of this, privatised water in South America has been subject to witholding unless high prices are paid.

[Avatar]

Yeah, but there's a difference betwen the pharmaceutical companies and the doctors, which is the distinction that Dlb was drawing. But yes, I do worry about the distribution from the patent holders side.

Hopefully it will be a university or non-profit group that comes up with something like this. We can only hope.

(And even then, somebody has to manufacture it etc.)

--A

[Vraith]

The points about Pharma being a business, and the problems surrounding that issue are good...but I think, in reality, they have only 2 choices, because cancer is so HUGE a problem: 1) Keep any cure absolutely secret [meaning never use it on anyone, or word will leak out]. Which is a bad idea historically...almost every single significant discovery has been simultaneously or near-simultaneously made by several different people/groups at once, and also because all secrets eventually come out...if the secret comes out, be prepared for bombs, murder, and lawsuits.
2) Make it as cheap as possible as fast as possible and make money on the volume. If not, be prepared for bombs, murder, lawsuits.
A cancer cure isn't like anything else...not even the polio mentioned earlier, and the world that the cure would happen in is nothing like it was then, either.

Of course, a real cure for cancer...well there would have to be some utterly new revolution in biological understanding to make it possible, partly because of the complexity mentioned earlier...and partly because even the things we think we "know" about cancer are a lie..if you're cynical like me..or misunderstandings if you're not.
For example: Sun exposure does NOT cause skin cancer...at least not on its own. There are dozens of discrepencies/errors/omissions in the data, but one pure fact: If you are an African-American living in Los Angeles, wear sunscreen and get 2-4 hours of sun exposure per day, you are 5x as likely as an African living in Africa, no sunscreen, to get skin cancer...oh, and the same is true if you are Irish, or anything else.

[Earthfriend]

When we find the cure for cancer, civilization as we know it crumbles, and only Slick Willy Smith and his faithful canine sidekick will be able to save Humanity. (sorry, couldn't resist...)

[High Lord Tolkien]

I'm hopeful about nanotechnology.


Lots of silly comments but a few interesting links.

current.com/items/89083958_nanotech-may-cure-cancer.htm

[Avatar]

If you are an African-American living in Los Angeles, wear sunscreen and get 2-4 hours of sun exposure per day, you are 5x as likely as an African living in Africa, no sunscreen, to get skin cancer...oh, and the same is true if you are Irish, or anything else.

Interesting thing that. I wonder if people know how carefully real African's (the ones living in Africa I mean), stay out of the sun? It's extremely common to see African women in particular carrying an umbrella during the day, not to guard against rain, but to provide shade at all times.

Maybe we're just more aware of the consequences of exposure...unless it's winter, you'll rarely see a black African sitting in the full sun. The whites do, with only a few centuries of exposure, and the whole tanning / outdoor sport thing. Of course, whites in this country have some of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world IIRC.

I wonder if that's part of the reason for that statistic.

--A

[Zarathustra]

I don't know a single health care provider at any level who actively WANTS patients to be sick or remain sick, no matter what their condition is. If patients have to suffer so I can stay on a "gravy train," well then I'd rather dig ditches for my living.

As tough as it may be for many of you to hear, there will never be a SINGLE cure for "cancer." The term cancer encompasses dozens if not hundreds of separate conditions, all of them different in a variety of ways. There will never be a magic pill for cancer, and if there was, it certainly wouldn't be free of side effects. There's no such thing as "good medicine."

As much as the last century of research has taught us, we're just not as smart as we like to think we are. But, we've come so far. Childhood leukemia is not the death sentence it used to be. We treat breast cancers better now than we ever have - probably because we spend more research dollars in that area than any other cancer type. Men live with prostate cancers for years after diagnosis. But, we still don't have a handle on lung cancers, pancreatic cancers, and so forth.

Great post. I think we'll solve this, but as you say, it will be a lot more complicated than finding a single cure. Most likely, we'll simply find ways to live with cancer so that it won't be a life-threatening condition. Kind of like freckles. Cancer is only a problem when it grows unchecked. Microscopic tumors aren't really a problem--even a lot of them.

I agree with the nanotech optimism, and it's not as far away as some think. We're going to see some amazing things in the next 30 years.

As for the anti-capitalist pessimism . . . we give billions in AIDS medication to Africa, for instance. People aren't completely heartless. Profits for Big Pharma and altruism can go hand-in-hand.

As HLT said, there are simply too many people working on this for a cure to be kept secret. To think that any company would work on this for decades, spending millions on R&D, and then sit on the invention just so they could keep selling inferior drugs that don't cure cancer, leaves out one crucial component: what if another company invents it and doesn't sit on it? No company would take that risk. No scientist would keep quiet--not with the invention of the century and a Nobel Prize waiting for him.

And as DLB pointed out, we already have made tremendous strides. Hell, we've developed a vaccine for cervical cancer. Imagine 20 years ago if someone told you that we'd one day prevent cancer with a shot. (Despite Kinslaughterer's claim, some cancers are in fact caused by viruses.)

We'll cure the rest of them, too. It's just a matter of time.

[Avatar]

As for the anti-capitalist pessimism . . . we give billions in AIDS medication to Africa, for instance. People aren't completely heartless. Profits for Big Pharma and altruism can go hand-in-hand.

Maybe the problem lies in who you're giving it to? Because I don't think that billions of people (or even millions) are getting much benefit from it. Some, absolutely. But not enough.

--A