[Miamipuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not if it was for a rare cancer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see, PR value to the company for curing a rare childhood cancer, even at a loss, vs PR value to the company for refusing to produce the cure because it wouldn't be profitable.

Do you really think a corporation could kill a product like that without it being front page news or covered by cable news 24/7 for months?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately it can be true. It is unlikely this was killed in a late stage (after making clinical trials and getting approved by FDA) before going to market. But it is well known that big pharma don't even bother to do research on rare forms of cancer (i.e. no siginificant return) or widespread diseases amongst poor poeple (see malaria). However DON'T shoot the pharma. They are no angels but they have no other choice. And they cure ppl. They don't run gambling sites.

[/ QUOTE ]



No that is why they have small biotech firms.

Pharma does in fact farm out RD nowadays. It is cheaper because it allows them to spread out their direct outlays towards RD.

Pharma gives the small firms startup money and lets them develope the medication. Even for rare types of cancer.

I find this story dubious to say the least. Many times a drug that will "cure" / knock into remission one form of Cancer will work on other forms of the disease. I can give 50 examples of Drugs that were for a particular type of cancer and low and behold after extensive testing they worked other forms of cancer.

BTW I am not a DR. but know of quite a few that do Cancer research and or have/had oncology practices.