Shared publicly  - 
 
Hard to believe. But I do.
 
[Benign, naturally-occurring virus kills all breast cancer within a week.]

"When combined in a lab recently, AAV2 eradicated all the breast cancer cells 'within seven days,' according to researchers. Better still, it proved capable of wiping out cancer cells at multiple stages, negating the need for differing treatments used today."

Go-go-gadget science! Now so long as the pharmaceutical companies can determine a way to patent it and make money off of it... ;)

#medicine
Scientists at the Penn State College of Medicine said this week they have discovered a virus that is capable of killing all grades of breast cancer “within seven days” of first introduction in a labor...
11
3
Alan Cox's profile photoZeeshan Ali's profile photoSteve Romanow's profile photoRăzvan Sandu's profile photo
19 comments
 
I can almost promise that this will be the last time you hear about this. I find a story like this almost once a month at the least. Some lab comes up with a fantastic breakthrough, but there isn't a drug company out there that is actually, honestly wanting to cure any of this. Sorry for the pessimistic attitude, but it's just not profitable to cure Cancer.
 
We need some sort of open source business model for medicine. One that goes beyond producing patent expired stuff. ATM the incentives are all wrong. 
 
A virus to cure cancer? i think thats a bad idear... Almost all related Movies tell us: When you do a virus for good it will go out and wreak havoc...
 
Because movies are like fiction and stuff? ;-) Almost all movies tell me the good guy gets the gorgeous woman, but at least in my reality that didn't work.
 
Shure they are, but you know Murphy's law: The worst case will happen. And if it can be envisioned it is possible.
 
+Nick Veinot somewhat paranoid I think. There are lots of bodies very interested in curing it - because a lot of countries have actual government run health research, and there are charities highly involved.

Unfortunately an awful lot of brilliant solutions turn out to only work in the lab, just like an awful lot of brilliant software designs
 
The goverment is the litle sissi of the industry. and pharma companies earn a golden nose with public health systems.

But the second thing you said is most likely true: not much of what is working in the lab suceedes in the field test.
 
+Alan Cox I'm not saying there aren't people interested in curing it, I'm just saying that the people that actually produce, market and sell the drugs aren't very interested in going that route. Look at the money produced right now by people getting cancer treatment right now. If the hundreds of thousands per person (depending on the type of cancer treatment of course) got boiled down to even a couple thousand dollar cure these companies would loss millions (if not billions). Considering these groups also have shareholders to attend to, and salaries to pay as well, it just doesn't make good business to cure things. So the scientists find the possible solutions; the drug companies buy the rights to them; and then the idea gets shuffled in with other potential prospects, and soon research is halted due to some reason or another. I may be paranoid but seeing how a lot of large corporations act these days, and their general disdain for anything besides profits; very little would surprise me at this point.
 
You are right though +Alan Cox that success may be found in other countries where health care is not designed the same way as the U.S.
 
I still need to hear that compelling plan on how to finance open source development of medicine ;) Just keep in mind that currently an average drug costs 800m$ to develop + it has an average time to market of about 11 years.
 
+Felix Kaechele source for these numbers? I suspect they are exaggerated to benefit the industry and do not truly reflect reality.
 
A good start, +Felix Kaechele, would be to eliminate advertising because big drug companies currently spend more on advertising than on research.
 
Its a bit more complicated than that. If you are designing medications to maximise impact as is done by government funded work in many states then complex drugs for hard problems afflicting a few rich people are not interesting anyway. It's tackling things like malaria that matter. And if you've got several hundred million people at risk of malaria the cost to the state of all the illness and deaths is also truely vast.

One of the great evils of the current system is that the financial model seeks to extract maximum revenue from diseases suffered by people with money while ignoring real life-changing opportunities across the world that the rich don't generally get.

The other is that the industry is focussed on drugs that suppress a problem not cure it. The subscription model may be a good one for software but its not a nice one for medication.
Add a comment...