To my knowledge there has never been a cure for any disease. There are preventative medications and immunization boosters. But is there or will there ever be a cure? I just don't think that the world was equipped with the tools to rid itself of diseases.
That's what I thought. But I can't name one. Alls that I know of are many treatments that may or may not work...depending on your bodies' receptiveness to the treatment.
I see what you're getting at. That treatment could be successful or unsuccessful, but a cure is 100% full proof? Well, philosphically speaking there isn't any treatment that is 100% successful... Medically, most general infections are 'curable' by antibiotics. I'm sure someone who is in the medical profession can explain this, I'd be interested to know as well.
If there were a cure for say..AIDS, how would the government make any money? Because of AIDS, they now have a steady income for the rest of umm...eternity.
There is most definitely a cure for that and many other diseases, but if they started handing out medication, there would be no need for "research funding". Now those with enough moolah of course can get a dose of the good stuff and be on their way, but you had better believe they signed a hefty non-disclosure agreement. Case in point, look at Magic Johnson. Looking awfully healthy for a guy who should be in the last stages of AIDS. The government has so many money making plots it's disgusting. Look at all of the new "diseases" that are cropping up. Restless leg syndrome? Come on! The medication for that alone cause side effects that you will probably need more medication for. Take a look back less than 50 years ago. How many of the elderly were on meds? not a whole hell of a lot. Now? we attribute meds with old age. Look. We are nothing but a bunch of drug-fed hypochondriacs being danced around on puppet strings. But hey, what do I know? I'm just another social security number who's trying to make it in this dog-eat-dog world.
The elderly weren't on as many meds because there weren't as many elderly. People would die before they got to that point. Same with now - if those people taking all the meds stopped taking them, they'd die from one or another disease.
If you really think that an AIDS cure exists and it's being hidden, I feel sorry for you, because you must be pretty depressed all the time thinking the worst of everyone.
A cure for AIDS per se may not exist, and it may not be kept hidden by the government or pharmaceutival companies BUT as long as prices for treatment stay as high as they are, as unreachable for those most affected by the disease, well..
See, an antiretroviral treatment is a cure for AIDS if there ever was one, it cures a painful death in a near future, it allows for decades of healthy living w/HIV, it saves the lives of millions of children who would otherwise grow up alone in hostile circumstances... withholding in a way,as governments in association with pharamceutical companies do, the possibility of extending this treatment to everyone,everywhere,that isn't just hidding a cure, it is a crime on humanity.
However there is a cure, for the AIDS epidemic, it's called Safe Sex, but as long as reigning religions (catholicism,christianity,judaism,and islam)have their way with the poverty stricken populations of the world, AIDS will just continue to spread and wipe out entire countries.
But then again, to solve that issue, we would have to do something to make reality bearable for the poor so that they would not have to live in a world so propense.
Don't feel sorry for me, I'm not depressed, I'm just a democratic socialist. @>--'--
Yeah, it has, but I don't think that's what the author is looking for. Smallpox was eradicated by immunization, not cures. If someone released smallpox tomorrow and people got sick, we would not be able to cure the sick. We could immunize those who weren't yet, though.
I'm not clear on why it has to be 100% in all cases to be a cure. In my opinion, if you can take a drug for awhile and then stop taking it and the disease is still gone, that was a cure for you. Hence AIDS meds are not cures, because you have to keep taking them, whereas taking penicillin for strep throat is a cure.
Also - though human variation plays a role in who a cure works for and not (ie an elderly frail person might not be as successful as a 30 yr old healthy person), most of the difference lies in disease variation. Bacteria propagate very quickly - many generations in a day. They therefore change very rapidly, so two people with say, e coli infections might in fact have bacteria in their body with rather different properties, so the same drug isn't going to work on both. In that sense, we will never have a 'cure' in the sense that the original author wants for any disease caused by bacteria or viruses. For a noncommunicative disease such as type 1 diabetes this is not necessarily the case, though even in those cases there can be variations so probably not.
I forgot about those...I am really being reminded of some things here. But I guess just because the disease can recur does not mean you were not cured of it initially. Even though technically doctors say you're in remission or its dormant. But being cured, I thought, meant never to occur again. Like chicken pox...there is no cure for it. But once you get it usually you never get it again. Am I rambling? I hope not.
"You and I wear the dangerous looseness of doom and find it becoming. Life, for eternal us, is now and now is much to busy being a little more than everything to seem anything, catastrophic included.."
Generally speaking, drug companies make too much money from a doctor writing out a repeat prescription for a patient to ever want to publicise a 'cure'. If a drug company came up with a cure for a particular disease/illness, then that drug has a limited shelf-life ... so the unlimited earning potential of that drug is lost. Drug companies - naming no names - in the UK take the junior doctors on nights out, will pay for EVERYTHING, endless bottles of wine (which I am in no way complaining about) are put on the tables.... and in return we have to listen to a short talk about their new wonder drug and why it is so much better than their rivals. They hope that by plying us with wine and lots of food, we'll prescribe their drug in the future. (It's blatant bribery... but if I'm being honest I don't care... I get a good meal once in a while *sob* rather than a quick bite of a sandwich, nearly breaking my neck, running up the stairs to the next arrest bleep!) I don't know why they don't just take the pharmacists out, because they're the ones who draw up the meds, no matter what you put on the drug chart!) Anyay what I wanted to say is that like most things in life, it all boils down to money.
...money makes the world go 'round, greed is the word. A cure is a one-time thing, whereas treatment can be never-ending, and therefore, keeps the cash coming...
I'm not conspiracy-minded enough to believe that there are tons of cures out there that are being actively suppressed. But I do wonder where all the money donated for research goes. How much must agencies like The American Cancer Society generate in donations each year? Are we any closer to a cure than, say, 20 years ago? Doesn't seem like it, yet how much money has the ACS taken in during that time? Whatever does it do with all that money?
Having had the painful experience of watching several loved ones succumb to cancer, this is a particular sore spot for me. And don't even bring up chemotherapy. It's barbaric, killing off healthy cells just to try to get at the no-so-healthy ones. It's like cutting your arm off because you have a splinter in your finger.
It does, however, prolong treatment and keep the cash flowing...
0.o
There is cure for lots of diseases... Or am I missing something here?
lot of cures?
Oh
before you refill your prescription...
If there were a cure for say..AIDS, how would the government make any money? Because of AIDS, they now have a steady income for the rest of umm...eternity.
There is most definitely a cure for that and many other diseases, but if they started handing out medication, there would be no need for "research funding". Now those with enough moolah of course can get a dose of the good stuff and be on their way, but you had better believe they signed a hefty non-disclosure agreement. Case in point, look at Magic Johnson. Looking awfully healthy for a guy who should be in the last stages of AIDS. The government has so many money making plots it's disgusting. Look at all of the new "diseases" that are cropping up. Restless leg syndrome? Come on! The medication for that alone cause side effects that you will probably need more medication for. Take a look back less than 50 years ago. How many of the elderly were on meds? not a whole hell of a lot. Now? we attribute meds with old age. Look. We are nothing but a bunch of drug-fed hypochondriacs being danced around on puppet strings. But hey, what do I know? I'm just another social security number who's trying to make it in this dog-eat-dog world.
The elderly weren't on as
The elderly weren't on as many meds because there weren't as many elderly. People would die before they got to that point. Same with now - if those people taking all the meds stopped taking them, they'd die from one or another disease.
If you really think that an AIDS cure exists and it's being hidden, I feel sorry for you, because you must be pretty depressed all the time thinking the worst of everyone.
There is a cure.
A cure for AIDS per se may not exist, and it may not be kept hidden by the government or pharmaceutival companies BUT as long as prices for treatment stay as high as they are, as unreachable for those most affected by the disease, well..
See, an antiretroviral treatment is a cure for AIDS if there ever was one, it cures a painful death in a near future, it allows for decades of healthy living w/HIV, it saves the lives of millions of children who would otherwise grow up alone in hostile circumstances... withholding in a way,as governments in association with pharamceutical companies do, the possibility of extending this treatment to everyone,everywhere,that isn't just hidding a cure, it is a crime on humanity.
However there is a cure, for the AIDS epidemic, it's called Safe Sex, but as long as reigning religions (catholicism,christianity,judaism,and islam)have their way with the poverty stricken populations of the world, AIDS will just continue to spread and wipe out entire countries.
But then again, to solve that issue, we would have to do something to make reality bearable for the poor so that they would not have to live in a world so propense.
Don't feel sorry for me, I'm not depressed, I'm just a democratic socialist. @>--'--
http://comadotcom.blogspot.com
cure
Yeah, it has, but I don't
Yeah, it has, but I don't think that's what the author is looking for. Smallpox was eradicated by immunization, not cures. If someone released smallpox tomorrow and people got sick, we would not be able to cure the sick. We could immunize those who weren't yet, though.
I'm not clear on why it has to be 100% in all cases to be a cure. In my opinion, if you can take a drug for awhile and then stop taking it and the disease is still gone, that was a cure for you. Hence AIDS meds are not cures, because you have to keep taking them, whereas taking penicillin for strep throat is a cure.
Also - though human variation plays a role in who a cure works for and not (ie an elderly frail person might not be as successful as a 30 yr old healthy person), most of the difference lies in disease variation. Bacteria propagate very quickly - many generations in a day. They therefore change very rapidly, so two people with say, e coli infections might in fact have bacteria in their body with rather different properties, so the same drug isn't going to work on both. In that sense, we will never have a 'cure' in the sense that the original author wants for any disease caused by bacteria or viruses. For a noncommunicative disease such as type 1 diabetes this is not necessarily the case, though even in those cases there can be variations so probably not.
antibiotics
death!
100% full proof "cure"! ;) But the government keeps it a secret 'cause there's little money to be made.
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
Gaffaw!!
:-)
LMAO - that one actually made me laugh aloud
"You and I wear the dangerous looseness of doom and find it becoming. Life, for eternal us, is now and now is much to busy being a little more than everything to seem anything, catastrophic included.."
Generally speaking, drug
$$$$$$$$
...money makes the world go 'round, greed is the word. A cure is a one-time thing, whereas treatment can be never-ending, and therefore, keeps the cash coming...
I'm not conspiracy-minded enough to believe that there are tons of cures out there that are being actively suppressed. But I do wonder where all the money donated for research goes. How much must agencies like The American Cancer Society generate in donations each year? Are we any closer to a cure than, say, 20 years ago? Doesn't seem like it, yet how much money has the ACS taken in during that time? Whatever does it do with all that money?
Having had the painful experience of watching several loved ones succumb to cancer, this is a particular sore spot for me. And don't even bring up chemotherapy. It's barbaric, killing off healthy cells just to try to get at the no-so-healthy ones. It's like cutting your arm off because you have a splinter in your finger.
It does, however, prolong treatment and keep the cash flowing...