What was the first disease to be cured?

Answer 1

last major disease cured was polio in the late 1950's. one would think with all the technology since then, more diseases would have been cured. but curing diseases and cancer is not in the best interest of the health care industry. can you imagine all the money lost if there were a cure for any cancer? billions of dollars would be lost and thousands of people in the health care industry would be out of work. follow the money and you will see why nothing will ever be cured! not even the common cold. the otc drugs for colds and flu only treat symptoms, not the cause. the truth in a nut shell is that doctors only give out drugs and/or cut out parts that we supposed don't need. God put them parts there for a reason. imagine going to the doctor for a sore toe because you kept hitting it with a hammer. the doctor will either give you some pain pills or cut the toe off. this is the curing the symptoms, not the cause. curing the cause would be to stop hitting your toe with a hammer! --- There is a popular misconception that is misguidedly repeated that goes something like this: "They haven't cured a disease since polio." In 1955, Jonas Salk M.D. developed a preventative vaccine for polio (the same idea behind the influenza vaccine). Polio was never cured. It was systematically and widely prevented. Since polio doesn't mutate on the level that influenza does, we see cases of the flu and only rarely - if ever - see cases of polio.

Typically, people will use this misconception to illustrate that, indeed, it is possible to cure a disease, but doctors don't do it now because there is a world wide conspiracy to make money off of the sick. Somehow, we are to swallow this idea that even with global communication connecting everyone to everyone else and the fact that there are doctors all over the world with perfectly healthy consciences who have retired from the profession casting away their former allegiances, that the conspiracy is so airtight, no one would let out the secret formulas to the health of the world. Somehow, we are to believe that everyone in the health care profession is under strict orders from the legal system in every country in the world to keep the population sick.

Do pharmaceutical companies take advantage of people? There is strong evidence to support that they do. Are people in the medical research profession looking for ways to cure people? There is strong evidence to support that they are. You can bet that if humans have problems, scientists are looking for a way to solve it, not for the sake of money, but for the sake of science.

But let's make the assumption that it IS for the sake of money. It is important to take into account that it is a cure that will make much more money for a research team than any symptom suppressant or vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies are in competition with each other. By the logic of those who would have us believe that the almighty dollar is the reason that these companies don't research for cures, we would also have to believe that these companies would rather out compete each other. Why would a corporation settle for sharing the wealth when they could take the full 100%? These companies are hasty and greedy, but they're not stupid.

But still, one could make the case that once the world is rid of the disease, the company's revenues will deplete to a staggering zero. Here we are left to believe that the wonder cure and its associated disease was the only thing that the company had keeping it financially afloat (It isn't: Companies usually supply more than just one drug for one sickness); the pharmaceutical company would not simply develop another symptom suppressant for something else (of course, it would); and of course there must be a world wide shortage of diseases for companies to treat (...there aren't). The pharmaceutical company would still make more money finding and distributing a cure, giving it the corner on the market for long time until it would have to return to 'business as usual'.

Another important point to make is that this assumes that the cure is also somehow a preventative measure distributed to everyone: That not only the sick will be cured but that those who are not sick will not ever get sick. A cure is given to people that are sick with the disease. A preventative measure is something you take to avoid the disease (a vaccine). A cure would make a company money as long as a preventative measure were not discovered, since people would still be getting the disease. By the 'almighty dollar' logic, there should be loads of cures and no vaccines. But there are many preventative measures and few cures. It seems to me that there's every reason that business people would want to find a cure.

Answer 2

I think that depends on what your definition of CURED is.
To me it menas a disease that is eradicated. Gone. Forever.
If you have to take a medication for the rest of your life, that is NOT a CURE!

Nowadays, we no longer look for cures. We look for treatments. Why?

Because there is no money in curing disease. There is LOTS of money in treating them though.

Think about it. If cancer were CURED tomorrow, Billions of dollars would be lost. ALl of the Cancer Treatment Centers would have to shut down. Oncologists would no longer be making the outrageous salaries that they are today. All of the Big Pharmaceuticals would stop producing all of the DRUGS that they push.

The same goes for AIDS, HCV, MS, MD and Herpes. Just those few diseases would cause many Pharmas to lose billions in profits.
It depends on what you think cured mean. Many diseases cant be cured but can be treated which is the most used term instead of "CURED."

---

There is a popular misconception that is misguidedly repeated that goes something like this: "They haven't cured a disease since polio." In 1955, Jonas Salk M.D. developed a preventative vaccine for polio (the same idea behind the influenza vaccine). Polio was never cured. It was systematically and widely prevented. Since polio doesn't mutate on the level that influenza does, we see cases of the flu and only rarely see cases of polio.

Typically, people will use this misconception to illustrate that, indeed, it is possible to cure a disease, but doctors don't do it now because there is a world wide conspiracy to make money off of the sick. Somehow, we are to swallow this idea that even with global communication connecting everyone to everyone else and the fact that there are doctors all over the world with perfectly healthy consciences who have retired from the profession casting away their former allegiances, that the conspiracy is so airtight, no one would let out the secret formulas to the health of the world. Somehow, we are to believe that everyone in the health care profession is under strict orders from the legal system in every country in the world to keep the population sick.

Do pharmaceutical companies take advantage of people? There is strong evidence to support that they do. Are people in the medical research profession looking for ways to cure people? There is strong evidence to support that they are. You can bet that if humans have problems, scientists are looking for a way to solve it, not for the sake of money, but for the sake of science.

But let's make the assumption that it IS ultimately for the sake of money. It is important to take into account that it is a cure that will make much more money for a research team than any symptom suppressant or vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies are in competition with each other. By the logic of those who would have us believe that the almighty dollar is the ultimate reason that these companies don't research for cures, we would also have to believe that these companies would rather gamble on out-competing each other than bank on a sure cure. Why would a corporation settle for sharing the wealth when they could take the full 100%? These companies are hasty and greedy, but they're not stupid.

But still, one could make the case that once the world is rid of the disease, the company's revenues will deplete to a staggering zero. Here we are left to believe that the wonder cure and its associated disease was the only thing that the company had keeping it financially afloat (It isn't: Companies usually supply more than just one drug for one sickness); the pharmaceutical company would not simply develop another symptom suppressant for something else (of course, it would); and of course there must be a world wide shortage of diseases for companies to treat (...there aren't). The pharmaceutical company would still make more money finding and distributing a cure, giving it the corner on the market for a long time until it would have to return to 'business as usual'.

Another important point to make is that the 'almighty dollar logic' assumes that the cure is also somehow a preventative measure distributed to everyone: That not only the sick will be cured but that those who are not sick will not ever get sick. A cure is given to people that are sick with the disease and as such it would not prevent others from getting sick with the disease. A preventative measure is something you take to avoid the disease (a vaccine). A cure would make a company money as long as a preventative measure were not discovered, since people would still be getting the disease. By the 'almighty dollar' logic, there should be loads of cures and no vaccines. But there are many preventative measures and few cures. It seems to me that there's every reason that business people would want to find a cure.

Answer 3

Who can tell? Many diseases are yet to be discovered. If you wanted a specific answer, maybe you should ask 'How many known diseases have been cured,'

:D this guy is a pingas cupcake:D

Answer 4

The only disease ever "cured" is Small Pox. Several diseases, including Polio, malaria and Leprosy are close or have potential for a cure/vaccine soon.

Answer 5

Smallpox was the first disease to actually be eradicated on the earth. In times past, it killed hundreds of thousands every year around the world.