Be it MS or NMO is not that different. None of them can be treated and the symptoms are more or less the same, so no appropriate treatments to consider. CRABs or Tysabri are out of the question since they don't seem to affect the course of the disease.Doing so will help patients get the appropriate treatments and will help more researchers collect the best data in their pursuit of a cure.
Now, about the cure... I would agree if instead of the word "cure" they used a more sincere expression i.e. "something FDA approved to bring us money regardless of effectiveness."
I get angry when I hear about researchers looking for "cures". No disease has been cured in the last 50 years. Researchers look for products worth selling.
Real breakthroughs come from people caring for some loved one: Lorenzo's oil, DAC, LDN (a little), CCSVI
Little scientists in white suits looking for money under the microscope are of no interest to me.
That 's just my personal opinion, mostly biased and maybe inaccurate.
Vaccines definitely train our own bodies to detect and find viruses and bacteria before they pose a threat. They are excellent in preventing diseases but worthless for treating them. And those are a breakthrough of the late 19th and early 20th century. The other major breakthrough of drug science was antibiotics, which is probably thanks to them that we are alive and talking right now.
The last major breakthrough came from technological advances of other sciences, not drugs. We have the technical means to see inside our bodies in realtime, intervene surgically even in the heart and head. We can make transplantations.
But how about the medical science itself? Able to diagnose nearly everything and cure nothing. When was the last time a disease was cured? Good or bad, curing diseases is not profitable. How many thousands of people would lose their jobs should MS was cured tomorrow? What about cancer? Drugs of today have the same mode of action with chemo of the 50s.
I don't mean that there is some kind of conspiracy and other stupid stuff. I only believe that NOBODY is going to research a drug that will put them out of business.
Who is going to make research on DAC? Who on LDN? Who on natural remedies? Carnitine works better than amantadine. Why is it not prescribed, instead? I disagree with the romantic point of view that there are some people researching for the good of humanity. There are only employees of companies wanting to make as much as possible by making products of pharmaceutical nature. There is nothing wrong with the employees. They have to survive, somehow. But having our society to devote their knowledge to building products and not to improving the life of humans disgusts me. There should be some other way to use these great brains instead of looking for boss' money under the microscopes.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a communist!
About the cure of cancer. What if a cheap, not patentable, natural substance is found to be a potential cure? Is anybody going to hire researchers to make proper trials? I doubt it. And this is why I doubt about the motivation, not of researchers themselves, but the money-centric system.
The fact that we are now alive is because of drugs and breakthroughs of the early 20th century. Life expectancy has doubled in the western world. Less wars after 1945, no child mortality, no chickenpox, no polio, antibiotics.
But what about the modern drugs? What is the breakthrough? Statins? Viagra? Taxol? Glivec? Tysabri? Vioxx?
- Similar Topics
- Last post