Hi GG I hear people talk about the drug companies having a vested interest in not finding a cure, but I struggle to understand that line of reasoning.
a) I understand most current drugs are off-patent, so margins on them are low. A new drug would be protected by patent, so profit would be higher.
b) Then I ask myself - supposing I were rich. How much would I pay for a drug that cured me, and made me fully-productive economically and emotionally? And how much would I pay for a drug that at best kept me hanging together, curtailing my productiveness? And if I was a drug company, I think I'd go for the cure.
I realise you do not share my cynicism about the drug companies attitude to profit.
Patients with Parkinson's often live for 20 to 40 years plus taking huge amounts of drugs every day....a continued source of income to the companies.
A cure, such as development of a 1 off op to administer gene therapy , for example, or Turnip's electrical stimulator, stops that income at a stroke.
Unless you feel the drug companies are benevolent bodies, they will not fund such research but continue developing drugs, having a "new" formulation ready to enter the market under patent as the old one expires.
I wish I had your faith in their desire to find a cure and only want the best for us.
After my dealings with them over the DAs/OCD horror they brought into our lives I realise that their production of the drugs that keeps PWP going comes at a price....the hope of a cure from their actions.
My hope lies in the actions of researchers not under the funding control of these companies.
I started work in the NHS in 1962. Nearly all patients with leukaemia died. Now most children survive as a result of chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants.
I was there when the first kidney transplant took place...now a common cure for kidney disease.
Heart transplants ..another successful way of replacing something that had stopped working.
I feel we are on the verge of new treatments with stem cells and gene- therapy which will revolutionise the way we treat a whole range of illnesses.
I do agree with you to some extent. I guess it was the comment about pharma having a vested interest in keeping us unwell. I wondered if that idea applied to all conditions or just PD. And if just PD then why.
I think Big Pharma sees the world through the eyes of big business as we expect them to.
They are focused on profits.
Much of the time we benefit and they develop drugs which manage our symptoms.
Obviously the major money-spinners for them are conditions which don't kill but can be managed for many years with their medication.
As the patents run out , they have a new improved version ready to launch.
Parkinsons, MS, diabetes, asthma..etc are all conditions that often mean a life-time of profit for the companies.
We can't blame them. They are in it to make money not as philanthropists.
But we can blame them for falsifying statistics, bribing doctors, misleading advertising etc.
We need them, but we need them to be fair and honest and properly regulated.
Research funded without their input will lead the way to better treatments and possibly cures.
The law is moving slowly to ensure this happens but we need to put pressure on politicians and patient advisory groups such as PUK who benefit from Big Pharma funding to make it happen.
BigPharma will survive as did the makers of iron lungs and leg irons when the polio vaccine arrived!
Funding for non- pharmaceutical approaches is hard to find.
Apologies for not following your arguement but aren't transplants treatments? They extend life, but do they cure? The person will still be on long term medication for organ rejection.
So that leaves childhood leukemia. ....... Surely big pharma has been behind that research?
Yes of course companies jump at the chance of developing drugs to follow successful transplants and we need them to!
But...they will not fund research to develop these techniques.
The surgical interventions which offer a return to near-normal life were developed by doctors in a non- Pharma setting.
That is what I hope will be the future of gene and stem cell transplants for Parkinson's and many other conditions.
But these will reduce the role of drug manufacturers and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.It is unlikely that gene therapy and stem cell transplants will need anything like the amount of drugs post a successful procedure than before.
Karen S. asks is everything on the internet reliable information? Well, it seems that the only thing you will be able to trust on the internet will be your own medical records . . . once the government's sold them on.
A thought about ways of finding reliable information on the internet. When I am trying to assess the reliability of anything I read the main thing I consider is the reputation of the person or organisation and what I understand of their motivation.
In general I find it easier to trust people I've met (or corresponded with), people affected by Parkinson's and charities.
Takes me a while but I get there! I too think the answer will be in gene therapy. Not just because big pharma may be blocking a cure but i dont hold much hope that drugs can actually cure Parkinsons, though they may be able to stop its development or arrest progression.
