Of course they do. It enables them to afford to do some research on drugs for rarer diseases.

It is also quicker and easier to "re purpose" existing drugs, many of which get off label use anyway.

My point was that people think that the pharma industry is actually working AGAINST a cure for diseases, to keep people sicker, a claim which has no basis at all (just conspiracy theorists). Yes, the profits of major blockbusters fund the research on these rare diseases, which is a good thing.

I don't know whether you're for or against the re-purposing of drugs, but it helps treat a lot of off-label conditions, which will become on-label conditions once the appropriate studies are completed. Case-in-point: Viagra was to be a heart drug, due to it's dilation effects on blood vessels. Turned into an ED treatment due to it's dilation effects on blood vessels. Nothing wrong with re-purposing a drug, especially if it helps heal other symptoms. I'm sure if Viagra helped with ALS, etc. it'd be acceptable to a ton of people to re-purpose the drug for that disease. Again, not sure whether you were pro or con this re-purposing, but if it helps people, I'm all for it.

Right now, there are shortages of vital chemotherapy drugs yet the spending on ED drug advertisements has no limits.

A few thoughts:

• Money not spent on ads cannot make the vital chemotherapy drugs become approved for use. It's not as if taking it away from one pot opens doors elsewhere.
• It's likely that these chemotherapy drugs are not available because either the facility is shuttered or a hold has been put on the products due to regulatory agency observations. Or the facility doesn't have the capacity to meet market demands. Either way, money not spent elsewhere won't make these problems disappear. It's not as if the FDA is going to lift the locks off the doors because ED ads are less frequent.
• Finally, I doubt that the big pharma companies that make ED drugs are even making these vital chemotherapy drugs. You can't just say "big pharma" is wasting money on ED ads instead of funneling toward cancer drugs. These companies are publicly-traded companies, and are not going to produce each other's drugs. The oncology subsidiaries of these companies are usually separate from the pharma subsidiaries, so they're likely even operating as distinct companies (J&J has 100+ subsidiaries, for example).

While I agree that it sucks that some chemotherapy drugs are off-market right now for whatever reason, you can't just basically say the money spent on ads would alleviate this problem. Whether it's regulatory lapses, capacity issues, or just plain separate companies involved, taking money from another bucket and throwing it at the problem is not a solution.

Penguin your points support the conclusion that corporations and their profit motives are not the solution to our health care problems. And why wouldn't money spent on ads be better spent on producing drugs that people dying of leukemia need to be cured? Its a tragedy and another failure of our health care system that a wealthy country such as ours can't seem to produce the drugs that will cure sick people.

Is there really someone still left that can't get an erection that hasn't heard that there are pills to help?

Here's the story about dangerous drug shortages.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health/when-the-drug-you-need-to-cure-a-cancer-is-nowhere-to-be-found/2011/04/11/AFH802zD_story.html

Its a tragedy and another failure of our health care system that a wealthy country such as ours can't seem to produce the drugs that will cure sick people.

It's not the purpose of our national health care system to produce all innovative drugs for the human race. Granted there are laboratories and universities supplying a few drug patents here and there, but the vast majority of innovative drugs come from global pharmaceutical companies, some based in the U.S. (Pfizer, J&J), some based in other nations (GSK, AstraZeneca).

As for our "wealth", yes, we're very wealthy as a nation in some respects, but in others, we're not. We have trillions of dollars in foreign debt, we spend more than we take in for taxes, and as a country in general, we're health poor. That being said, we have a ton of innovative researchers working for our pharma companies trying to come up with new drugs for these diseases. Again, it's not as if we're going to come up with a new solution to a disease just by stopping the advertisements on TV.

Pharma research takes years to come up with disease solutions. The first stage is to alleviate symptoms to help patients lead a better life. The next stage is coming up with solutions to cure or prevent the disease. Leukemia and other cancers are so far incurable, as you're dealing with unchecked body/blood cell growth (i.e. cancer), not an invader (i.e. virus or bacterial pathogen) that can be rid from the body.

You're acting as if throwing money at a disease will magically allow scientists to have the "aha!" moment. It won't. Money does not speed up clinical trials of current drugs being tested, nor does it make scientists smarter.

Finally, you're acting as if these ED drugs and their advertisements are wasting money as opposed to generating money. While I agree that there are a bunch of ads on TV today, they must be generating more business, otherwise the companies would pull them and realize more profit in the end.

Yes, we need to find a cure for cancer. And to your original point, we need to ensure a steady supply of current chemo drugs for current patients. Although as I stated earlier they were probably put on hold due to safety or other risks that regulatory agencies observed. When patient safety is at risk, would you want the FDA to just have these drugs released anyway?

Throwing the ad money toward more research actually hurts cancer research. The company will generate less profit and be able to invest less money down the road for research if you pull advertising. I'm sorry you don't see that, but that's the truth. There's no scientist working at a pharma company that has said "man, if we only had a few more bucks to play with we would've found the cure for cancer last year".

Now, if you want to complain about funding, the gov't has underfunded and cut the budget of the NIH for years now. That's taxpayer-funded, not pharma company-funded. Before you complain about ad money that should go to research, maybe you should look in the direction of the money that actually HAS been cut from NIH's budget and directed elsewhere to fund studies on the migration of slugs in North Dakota and other pet projects like that.

Cytarabine used in the United States is manufactured by three companies: Bedford Laboratories, Hospira and APP Pharmaceuticals.

None of which have ED treatments being marketed, btw.

“We are currently facing manufacturing capacity constraints that are resulting in back orders of some products and we are working diligently to prioritize and expedite manufacturing for all current orders,”

Just as I said. Manufacturing capacity & large increases in orders equals backorder. You don't want to produce too much or it will expire before you can sell it all. Just-in-time manufacturing creates these problems from time to time. Nowhere in the article did it say that money would've solved the problem.

I don't know where you got the idea that leukemia and other cancers are across the board incurable...or do I misunderstand you?

Secondly, cytarabine is not a new drug and is generic. It should be relatively inexpensive.

Otherwise, well said. Slugs migrate in North Dakota? I'm gonna tell Dennis!

I don't know where you got the idea that leukemia and other cancers are across the board incurable...or do I misunderstand you?

You know of a cure that makes it disappear and never return? Cancer might go into remission because of chemotherapy drugs, but there's no cure. That was my point. Leukemia comes back in many cancer patients. i.e. chemotherapy slowly shrinks and kills the cancerous cells (actually all cells, but whatever), or you can excise them if the tumor is accessible. But by no means are you "cured". Some loonies believe that scientists are holding back a cure so they can continue with chemo, etc. to boost profits, which is crap. But the point I was making was that there's no bulletproof cure, just treatments that shrink or excise the cancer.

Secondly, cytarabine is not a new drug and is generic. It should be relatively inexpensive.

Exactly the point. Taking money from advertising and throwing it in the corner of research and manufacturing is not going to make the cytarabine produced any faster...the article said manufacturing capacity constraints were to blame, not funding. Blaming ED drug ads for the lack of a cure for cancer is ridiculous.

Slugs migrate in North Dakota?

The point was to show the ridiculous pet science projects that get funded via the federal budget each year (in place of NIH funding, etc.). Each year these pet projects get exposed (from studying daffodil growing in Mississippi to slugs in ND, etc.) yet they keep finding their way into the budget. The point was to show how cutting that useless spending could actually help fund projects at the NIH.

My point was that "does it suck that cancer still occurs and no cure's been found?" Sure, but that doesn't mean that throwing ad money will help find a cure any quicker. Which leads to the double whammy of having less profits down the road to fund this research when ads generating profits are eliminated.

I do know of people whose cancer went away and never returned. I am not as certain why as you seem to be, but recent research suggests that once the cancer cells are damaged, in a subset of all cancers, the body finally identifies them as foreign and takes them out. Acute myelogenous leukemia comes back in about 50% of those who go into remission, for example. Hodgkins Disease has an even higher cure rate. Admittedly these statistics could be better and that is what the newer "targeted" therapies are being designed to do. I just have a little more of an optomistic view of this issue than you.

I see ad money thrown at statin drugs, Viagra and antiplatelet drugs, but I haven't seen an add that goes, "8 out of 10 oncologists use cytarabine" or "I'm not a smoker but if I were, and got lung cancer, I would tell my doctor to use Carboplatin".

I understood your point about snail migration. I thought it was a humorous way to make it. I certainly think that research money is wasted on pet projects AND on fighting wars that we should not be in AND "fault finding junkets"...etc.

No oncologist will say "cured" when talking about cancer. Again, you can either excise it or try to kill the cancerous cells via chemo, but you cannot "cure" it (i.e. guarantee ridding the body of these cells and ensuring no return. That's why they use the term "remission"...you may no longer have the cells in your body, but nobody guarantees they will not return. If even one cancerous cell is left, it can divide and multiply and regrow the tumor.

Are there treatments to put cancer into remission? Sure. But is there a foolproof cure? No. I'm optimistic that we'll find new treatments, just like you, for targeted diseases, but I don't think there will be a one-size-fits-all approach to cancer, which seems to have many different causes, whether they be genetic (either inherited or point mutations in our DNA) or environmental (i.e. smoking or living near radiation, etc.).

My point was to replace your term "cure" with "remission", because NO doctor will say "son, your cancer is cured". That alone was my point. You can put cancer into remission, but there's no cure, per se.

I do know of people whose cancer went away and never returned.

That's remission, not a cure. Just because it doesn't come back doesn't mean they were "cured". Again, it's a wording issue, but no doctor will use "cure" with "cancer".

I agree but I know a lot of oncologists and I know they do use the word "cure".

I also agree that cancers develop through a lot of different pathways and there are already many forms of treatment and there will be many more. It would be simple-mindedness to think that we would ever have a single drug that would cure all people with any single disease.

If you think there's a cure for cancer, I've got oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

Anyone who uses the term "cure" for cancer doesn't really understand the term then. Cure means "won't come back". No sane doctor would make the case that once you have treatment that cancer won't come back. They may be using it as a layman's term for "in remission", but you're certainly never "cured" per se.

It would be simple-mindedness to think that we would ever have a single drug that would cure all people with any single disease.

Agree with you, but only to a certain extent. Some diseases are easily cured, but these are the diseases we've figured out and mostly eradicated (i.e. polio, etc.). Those that remain (cancer, heart disease, etc.) are not really diseases so much as life conditions. What I mean by that is this: Heart disease is due to clogged arteries, blood pressure issues, smoking, etc. Cancer is unchecked cell growth, whether it be due to smoking, radiation, or just random DNA mutations that turn cells into monsters. Whereas polio is due to a single virus, heart disease and cancer are conditions that are caused by life in general (we all have to die of something).

Some people point to things like vaccines, pharma drugs, etc. and say "look, as we have more vaccines and drugs, the cancer rate is increasing" instead of looking at the real reason, which is "look, we've eradicated many diseases with vaccines and drugs, so we're seeing people live longer and obtain these life conditions that kill them, like cancer and heart disease". You're right in that there's no one-size-fits-all approach to these condition "diseases". But that's only because we pretty much have eradicated all of the single-source diseases by now.

I stand by my statement, and I am not a layman when it comes to cancer and I am sorry to tell you that they must have misplaced my commitment papers. Once remission has been achieved there is a chance for cure. There are thousands of people walking around who have been off treatment for years and who die of old age after being treated as children and young adults.

Show me a picture of the ocean front property. Is it anywhere near La-La land where you live?

Vaccines don't cure. They prevent.

I am not a layman when it comes to cancer and I am sorry to tell you that they must have misplaced my commitment papers.

I didn't say you were a layman. I said that rather than go into a lengthy explanation of "well, when you remove cancerous cells (via chemo or excising the tumor) you're not really cured, because it can grow back from just a few cells that are left", doctors could use a simple phrase (like "cured") to explain that they no longer are being sickened by the tumor. But in medical terms, you're not cured, per se...you're in remission.

I said no sane DOCTOR would call it a cure, not a guy talking to one. It's not exactly dumbing down, but it's similar.

Once remission has been achieved there is a chance for cure.

No, once remission is achieved there is a chance for it never to come back. No doctor would say "you'll never have cancer again". Although, the only way to not have stomach cancer again is to remove the stomach. Same with any other organ. But as I said, you're not cured, per se. You may be in remission, but no doctor would guarantee that it'll never return, especially if just one or two cells might have made their way somewhere else in the body (i.e. metastatized).

Vaccines don't cure. They prevent.

Correct, but they were developed based on learning how the disease works and is shut down. Now we prevent the disease instead of letting it ravage our body before killing it.

There are thousands of people walking around who have been off treatment for years and who die of old age after being treated as children and young adults.

Does that mean they were cured and never had another bout with cancer? NOPE. Again, you confuse remission with cure.

Sure sane doctors report cures of cancer. Are you an oncologist? If so, how many insane ones do you know?

Surely you know me, since you know "a lot of oncologists and...know they do use the word 'cure'." Oh please. Get a grip. NOBODY is "cured" of cancer. Look it up on Wikipedia, or better yet, look it up in medical literature. I'd like to see where this fantasy cure for cancer was found. Show me citations, not "I know oncologists and they use the word 'cure'."

I know theologists who insist on creationist theory and use the term. It doesn't make it true, though.

Again, when they use "cure" it's shorthand for "in remission". No cure for cancer exists. No guarantee on "cancer will not come back" can be made. Until you prove otherwise, please stop lying to yourself and me.

That is my point. I don't know you, but I do know numerous sane oncologists that use the word "cure". As for a guarantee, there is nothing in this life that is guaranteed other than death. As for Wikipedia...not a very good source for a professional to cite. Try the Journal of Clinical Oncology or New England Journal of Medicine.

You still did not answer the question as to whether or not you were an oncologist. I know a lot of oncologists and I know a fake when I see one as well. A person who develops acute lymphoblastic leukemia in childhood and then goes on to live a normal life, after treatment, and then dies of old age is cured. It is that simple a concept to grasp.

Try the Journal of Clinical Oncology or New England Journal of Medicine.

So why don't you show me an article or study in these journals that states that cancer can be cured? Because they don't exist. I asked you for just one study...all of your supposed oncologist friends surely must have read that somewhere, and you can't come up with a single one? Lame. Lying gets you nowhere.

You still did not answer the question as to whether or not you were an oncologist. I know a lot of oncologists and I know a fake when I see one as well.

You don't have to be an oncologist to know that there's no cure for cancer (Denis Leary actually has an album with that title). I'm a research scientist. You're not an oncologist, I'm not an oncologist. But I do know that you've got to be kidding me that your "many oncologist friends" say there's a cure when there isn't one. Just prove me wrong. Study, not hearsay, this time.

A person who develops acute lymphoblastic leukemia in childhood and then goes on to live a normal life, after treatment, and then dies of old age is cured.

You just described remission. Congrats. Remission does not have a timeframe. It can last months, it can last the rest of your life (if you're lucky). But a person who has leukemia as a child, then undergoes treatment, is said to be in remission, not cured. Again, please show me a study to back up your words. Otherwise, as a non-oncologist, you're just talking out of your @ss.

Btw, I looked up that disease you quoted. Here's the prognosis:

The earlier acute lymphocytic leukemia is detected, the more effective the treatment. The aim is to induce a lasting remission, defined as the absence of detectable cancer cells in the body (usually less than 5% blast cells on the bone marrow).

Hmm, LASTING REMISSION, not cure. Defined as the ABSENCE of DETECTABLE cancer cells (i.e. just because the doctors can't detect the cells doesn't mean they're not there). Simple concept to grasp. Keep drinkin' that Koolaid, though!

There's no cure for terminal arrogance and stupidity either.

Everyone has some cancer cells that develop at some point in time. They are taken out by the immune system in most cases. The unfortunate ones go on to develop cancer. There is a difference. Another example is skin cancer. A basal cell cancer can be easily removed and is therefor cured.

Interesting that you would assume I am not an oncologist just because you are not. Preconceived perseverations can be a bad thing. As far as the koolaid is concerned, how juvenile. What are you researching? I mean besides "Denis Leary"? Now there's a guy that really knows cancer. I believe the title of the YouTube video is "Denis Leary-@!$%#". I just looked it up. He's lame and so are your comments if that's the best source you can cite.

There's no cure for terminal arrogance and stupidity either.

So that explains your condition! We found the cause! Seriously, because your friends used the word "cure" you think that there is one, without any scientific evidence to back it up. How cute (and arrogant and stupid) is that?

Everyone has some cancer cells that develop at some point in time.

Really, I'd love to see the research to back that up!

A basal cell cancer can be easily removed and is therefor cured.

Yikes. You really don't understand "cure", do you? If you had stomach cancer and they removed your stomach, would you consider yourself cured? By that token, any disease can be cured. I guess you're cured from heart disease if they remove your heart, right?

Interesting that you would assume I am not an oncologist just because you are not. Preconceived perseverations can be a bad thing.

I don't assume, sir (but you do, taking your friends' layman's terms as the absolute truth). You stated that you have many oncologist friends. You're not an oncologist, since you would've just stated that you ARE an oncologist and your many peers agree with you. Since you didn't say that, I can logically conclude you are not an oncologist. You're not very good at deductive logic, are you?

What are you researching? I mean besides "Denis Leary"? Now there's a guy that really knows cancer. I believe the title of the YouTube video is "Denis Leary-@!$%#". I just looked it up. He's lame

This sums it up in a nutshell. You have no sense of humor, and can't even realize I was being facetious (look it up) when I mentioned a COMEDIAN. He's a COMIC, for God's sake.

He's lame and so are your comments if that's the best source you can cite.

You can't prove a negative, sir. You're the one telling me there's a cure. So prove it. I've asked repeatedly now -- SHOW ONE FRIGGIN' ARTICLE that supports your position. Your insistence that there is one is not supported by facts. Rather, it's based on hearsay from your "friends". Yikes.

Again, just show one article or study that shows a "cure". It's hysterical that you're complaining to me about sources and citations, when you haven't shown a single one!

JCO Mar 1, 1991: 911-918, cure for childhood leukemia, and it's in the title of the article...and yeah, I'm an oncologist.

It's sad that you have to delude yourself and others. When the term "cure" is used in this context, it signifies a remission that has a great chance of not coming back. Unfortunately for you (and the cancer patients), it DOES come back in some cases. That's why the term remission is used. You're in a state where they think the cancer is gone, but you're never out of the woods. Yeah, it might not come back. But to say someone's "cured" only to have them get it back again -- that's misuse of the word "cure". I don't buy that definition...I'm sorry you feel differently. Cure = does not come back. How can you "cure" someone if you didn't completely remove the cancer cells? That seems disingenuous, no?

Yeah, you're an oncologist...rrrriiiight. You must believe in the "you are who you surround yourself with" camp. Many of my friends are teachers...doesn't mean I'm one by osmosis. If you are, you're not very impressive with your lack of knowledge on the subject. Just typing "cure" and "JCO" in Google and spitting back to me one article that used the term (and you don't even know in what context) frightens me if you actually are an oncologist. Yikes. I didn't know you could judge an article by it's cover title.

You said one article. ONE (1) and now you backtrack???? As far as questioning my training, Denis Leary must have dedicated that song to you. By the way, the article was from the Journal of Clinical Oncology, not Google. Did you look it up? A good researcher would. A good researcher would also not use Google as a source without confirming.

I said you found the article via Google. I said that anyone can type "JCO" and "cure" and find an article. Maybe instead of typing here you should learn how to interpret sentences.

I'm not disagreeing that the word "cure" isn't there. I'm disagreeing with you on its context. By using the word "cure" in the article, it said that it was diminishing the likelihood of return. That's not a cure, that's a reduction or remission. It's a good gamble that it won't return (i.e. remission), but you're not guaranteed to be cured of it. 80% of kids never have it return. That means it's not a cure for 20% of all patients. Cure? Hardly. Reduction/remission? Sure. That's my whole point...if it can come back, it's not a cure!

As far as questioning my training, Denis Leary must have dedicated that song to you.

Really? Hmm, seems that the song would've been dedicated to a pompous ass who's so blinded by his own arrogance that he doesn't consider others' opinions to be valid or worth anything. Maybe you should listen to the song and find out who's the real A-hole here...a guy who claims that he knows everything about cancer or the guy who questions that guy.

You said one article. ONE (1) and now you backtrack????

It's obvious you didn't read or even peruse the article. You just said "cure" was in the title and left it as "proof" that a real cure exists. It doesn't take much research to find a title of an article...it takes research to review the content of that article...something you obviously didn't do before you cited it.

A good researcher would also not use Google as a source without confirming.

A good researcher uses Google to find the article. Google isn't a source of anything, dude. It's a search engine. I didn't read a "Google article". I read the real report which was found by a Google search. You need to get a clue. Welcome to this century.

Actually "orphan drugs" are easier to approve than regular drugs like Lipitor, etc. because they do fast-track the approval process and even allow approvals when some observations are found with the data/facility. Of course the company has to clean up the observations and conduct further studies after the fact, but they are allowed to make and market these drugs because of the need for these treatments for those that are suffering. They actually use the term "orphan drugs" in the regs. I agree with you, though, on the FDA rampage...it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch, and with a few facilities showing a disregard for the regulations, it's no wonder they're more cautious now. They've been killed recently for being too lax. Now the tide shifted the other way (which is better for consumer safety in the end).