Reply to Re: A cure for cancer found
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
A cure for cancer? A treatment for cancer? It's all the same in this case.
A cure means: First you have it, afterwards you don't.
A treatment means: First you have it, afterwards you have it less.
When my death is postponed by a year that's better than when its not, but its not nearly as good as being cured. And if a doctor calls me cured but I die six months later anyway I'd be quite disappointed. (Though being disappointed while dead might have some technical difficulties.)
And I'd say if someone has money to experiment these kinds of things, they will have the money to create these drugs too.
No.
Just because you have a working experiment doesn't mean you have a drug. That's the starting point. From there on you still have many millions of dollars in development cost ahead of you. Drug legislation is pretty strict in the western world, scientist aren't just allowed to feed random substances to patients just because it happened to work in rats. There's a lot of rules you need to abide to. You could say the rules should be relaxed, but it wouldn't be the pharmaceutical companies that would be hurt. It would be the drug user who might get all kinds of toxic side effects (such as with Thalidomide case I mentioned earlier).
A cure means: First you have it, afterwards you don't.
A treatment means: First you have it, afterwards you have it less.
When my death is postponed by a year that's better than when its not, but its not nearly as good as being cured. And if a doctor calls me cured but I die six months later anyway I'd be quite disappointed. (Though being disappointed while dead might have some technical difficulties.)
And I'd say if someone has money to experiment these kinds of things, they will have the money to create these drugs too.
No.
Just because you have a working experiment doesn't mean you have a drug. That's the starting point. From there on you still have many millions of dollars in development cost ahead of you. Drug legislation is pretty strict in the western world, scientist aren't just allowed to feed random substances to patients just because it happened to work in rats. There's a lot of rules you need to abide to. You could say the rules should be relaxed, but it wouldn't be the pharmaceutical companies that would be hurt. It would be the drug user who might get all kinds of toxic side effects (such as with Thalidomide case I mentioned earlier).
