Why do scientists have such a difficult time finding a cure?
- Thread starter DTW
- Start date
Hey guys, thanks for all the replies. I respect all the theories and insight provided here. However, i never meant for this thread to escalate into such a hostile debate between forum members. i think we've gotten a lot of information here (or misinformation, some might say), but that's what this place should be about..healthy discussion and sharing useful info, which others could benefit from. Thanks
Who even says they are having trouble finding a cure? I mean there is not a cure yet, but it is slowly progressing. That is the whole thing with science when it comes to something like diseases. It progresses very unevenly and slowly with nothing for certain until it happens. No branch of science really applies that well to finding a cure I mean what formula explains how trillions or more neurons work together? I mean no one even knows how to begin testing that and our understanding is insignificant partly because how do you find out how it all works? Even if you learn how 1 neuron works how do you understand the interactions between them all or how hormones and in what amounts effect that? I mean modern computers can not even model the trillions of atoms that make up even a small tissue. All our technological limitations really come into play when trying to fight what mother nature created. We should be thankful we have anything and science does an amazing job given the circumstances. Its just by nature a very slow uncertain guessing game.
Also I think if someone could cure male pattern baldness as in regrow unlimited hair for a practical cost they would do it. I mean tons of men want more hair, but it all comes down to cost/benefits and our current treatments are not that amazing so a lot of people just ignore it. A cure would make a ton more then any hair transplants because it has a much higher cost/benefit so more people would buy it. Its just not possible yet because any company wants the money if they could do it and if they dont some other company will.
Also I think if someone could cure male pattern baldness as in regrow unlimited hair for a practical cost they would do it. I mean tons of men want more hair, but it all comes down to cost/benefits and our current treatments are not that amazing so a lot of people just ignore it. A cure would make a ton more then any hair transplants because it has a much higher cost/benefit so more people would buy it. Its just not possible yet because any company wants the money if they could do it and if they dont some other company will.
freakout
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 3
The relationship of the medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies goes to the heart of why environmental causes fail to be identified in many diseases.
Pharmaceuticals are venture capitalists who invest for profit. They provide 98% of research funding while only 2% come from government and non-binding grants.
Most researchers are focused on developing biomedical treatments - NOT TO find nor declare environmental causes simply because there are no ROIs there. Government provided funding should be used exclusively on isolating environmental causes which is not always the case.
23 years after it was found the gastro-intestinal ulcer is caused by a bacteria and can be CURED by 2 weeks of antibiotics, pharmaceuticals continue to aggressively market 'treatments' that hide symptoms but have to be taken for life BUT NOT KILL THE BACTERIA. $2 billion in annual sales of those drugs is the only logical reason for such a behavior.
General practioners are often times educated by "medical" (pharma) representatives on these treatments. Ask your doctor to give you a prescription for stomach ulcer - if its not an antibiotic, be cautious of that doctor.
Pharmaceuticals are venture capitalists who invest for profit. They provide 98% of research funding while only 2% come from government and non-binding grants.
Most researchers are focused on developing biomedical treatments - NOT TO find nor declare environmental causes simply because there are no ROIs there. Government provided funding should be used exclusively on isolating environmental causes which is not always the case.
23 years after it was found the gastro-intestinal ulcer is caused by a bacteria and can be CURED by 2 weeks of antibiotics, pharmaceuticals continue to aggressively market 'treatments' that hide symptoms but have to be taken for life BUT NOT KILL THE BACTERIA. $2 billion in annual sales of those drugs is the only logical reason for such a behavior.
General practioners are often times educated by "medical" (pharma) representatives on these treatments. Ask your doctor to give you a prescription for stomach ulcer - if its not an antibiotic, be cautious of that doctor.
freakout
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 3
Mercado wrote a book arguing that 'androgenetics' (hormones and genetics) failed to stand up on its own over the last 20 years.Vox said:
Called 'pseudoscience' by a finasteride salesman and 'wacky' by, who I believe, is a Merck representative, both of whom have never read the book, is not surprising.
There is no doubt that male hormones are involved in male pattern baldness, according to Mercado. For years, it is believed that male hormones directly influence scalp hair follicles to shrink and die. 'DIRECT' is a key word in this belief which became widely accepted by the research community while even Propecia scientists could not state it as a fact. "Scientists believe DHT and family history are key factors in hair loss"
A study involving 28 men and 11 women conducted in 2003, accidentally discovered that male hormones do NOT directly influence human scalp hair follicles. NOT being direct, it provides the opportunity to interupt the process of male pattern baldness in ways other than androgen neutralizers. Mercado developed a non-pharmacological system he calls "Physiological Countermeasures" which can supplement the efficacy of currently available treatments.
There are two types of male pattern baldness - one of which cannot be treated with finasteride. Finasteride is only effective in vertex diffusion but not in frontal recession which affects many male pattern baldness patients.
But mimicking the efficacy of finasteride is as easy as literally raising a foot on top of a table while seated for hours. Taking finasteride before sleeping would render finasteride useless. I know how absurd that sounds like until one reads his arguments. The more difficult type is the frontal recession which require active and tactical approach.
According to Mercado, male pattern baldness is not in itself genetic BUT merely THE CONSEQUENCE of a genetic or acquired neurophysiological phenotypic trait that is triggered by forced behavior in academic studies or similar situations. Being neurophysiological, it is possible to retrain the body to override its effect.
It should be noted the primary function of all hormones including androgens is at the physiological level. Thus, to Mercado, only physiology can explain the patterns of male baldness as opposed to a purely androgenic standpoint which cannot account for the patterns. The book contains 6 possibilities which explains why male pattern baldness takes the typical 'horseshoe' pattern including the 'Tight Galea' theory.
freakout