economist article

> > Critique of a recent article in "The Economist" . . .

> Blaming "corporations" for any of this is silly. Several
> of these things may be due to stupidity, but not to
> "corporations".

I think the point of the critique is that the Economist Article doesn't
even consider addressing the problems of cancer at what may be the root:
which are problems, the fixing of which, would be too costly to business.

Yes, I realize that the "costliness" would also effect people who work for
these companies. . . so we can argue from there. . .but, again, the EC.
article doesn't even mention this . .

>
>> The Economist's jump from the rising cancer rate to how
>> drugs and diagnostics can beat it -- sidestepping why -- is
>> for a good reason: Corporations have got to get paid.

>If drugs and diagnostics could really beat it, the
>"corportations" stand to get paid *less* than they currently
>are.

I don't understand this. Once they have a patent on a drug that works,
moeny flows in.

> In fact, the willingness of western medicine to wipe
>out diseases has been demonstrated. Name an ailment
>wiped out by chiropractors or accupuncturists -- who also
>handle billions of dollars a year in business.

I don't think anyone's defending them here.

> > > Critique of a recent article in "The Economist" . . .
>
> > Blaming "corporations" for any of this is silly. Several
> > of these things may be due to stupidity, but not to
> > "corporations".
>
> I think the point of the critique is that the Economist Article
> doesn't even consider addressing the problems of cancer at what
> may be the root: which are problems, the fixing of which,
> would be too costly to business.
>
> Yes, I realize that the "costliness" would also effect people
> who work for these companies. . . so we can argue from
> there. . . but, again, the EC. article doesn't even mention
> this . .

It's a fair criticism, agreed. I don't get The Economist, btw,
and I'm lucky to read three issues a year. I happened to see
this issue at my friend's house last night, and it wasn't an
"entire issue devoted to cancer" like the article you quoted
said. "Beating cancer" was just the cover story.

>>> The Economist's jump from the rising cancer rate to how
>>> drugs and diagnostics can beat it -- sidestepping why -- is
>>> for a good reason: Corporations have got to get paid
>>
>> If drugs and diagnostics could really beat it, the
>> "corportations" stand to get paid *less* than they currently
>> are.
>
> I don't understand this. Once they have a patent on a drug
> that works, moeny flows in.

That depends. If a single startup company arrives at a cure,
it will obviously earn money. If the company already makes
a very popular, more expensive and less effective therapy, it
could potentially loose money.

Also, if cancer could really be wiped out, say by releasing an
engineered virus into the wild that prevents it, the entire
industry would cease to exist.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> Also, if cancer could really be wiped out, say by releasing an
> engineered virus into the wild that prevents it, the entire
> industry would cease to exist.

You never know: thinking on the positive side, maybe there are still
people like Jonas Salk out there somewhere...

Cheers,
Jon

> > Also, if cancer could really be wiped out, say by releasing
> > an engineered virus into the wild that prevents it, the
> > entire industry would cease to exist.
>
> You never know: thinking on the positive side, maybe there are
> still people like Jonas Salk out there somewhere...

I can tell you that there are. Some of my best friends are
cancer researchers.

-Carl

> > > Also, if cancer could really be wiped out, say by releasing
> > > an engineered virus into the wild that prevents it, the
> > > entire industry would cease to exist.
> >
> > You never know: thinking on the positive side, maybe there
> > are still people like Jonas Salk out there somewhere...
>
> I can tell you that there are. Some of my best friends are
> cancer researchers.

One of whom, by the way, says we simply have no way of making
a statement like 'longevity-adjusted cancer rates are going up'
(we were discussing this last night) -- the data simply doesn't
exist, according to him.

-Carl