Why is it that scientists can find cures for diseases never hear of?
Answer:
Because the diseases that are most adjectives often enjoy very complicated cause, and are thus harder to figure a cure out for.
Even today, we don't know the cause of essential hypertension (ie, the kind of dignified blood pressure that 99% of people have). Even though in that would be huge financial rewards in finding a cure, not a soul has be able to amount it out, and not for lack of trying. Science is much harder than you realize.
As for scarce diseases with cures, you probably can't entitle too many. Medicine as a full probably has a lesser amount of true cures than you think. But, filch for example pernicious anemia. It can be cured easily by vitamin b12 shots. This disease is not super adjectives. But, since it has a simple result in (b12 deficiency), it has a simple cure.
Because in attendance is too much money tied up in research for these diseases.
There is almost certainly in my mind we hold a cure for Cancer. But the money tied up in research for a cure is far greater later the value monetary pro of the cure.
How many President's own died of Cancer?
There are 2 possible sources of bias in your assumption:
1) Just because YOU'VE never hear of a particular disease doesn't indicate no one have ever heard of it.
2) It could be that diseases become powerfully known BECAUSE it's intricate to find a cure for them.
1-to find a cure for a disease it needs profoundly of experiments then the result will be any yes it works or no it does not work..
what i want to say is that not finding a cure for a disease does not connote that scientists are not trying to find it..its possible to find a drug from the first try and its possible to try 100 drugs and all backfire.
2-sometimes drugs are found or discovered by chance (incidentally)..example:within was a drug used for hypertension found to be decisive to treat allopecia (sorry forgot its name)
hope this help
First of adjectives, I agree with the previous post, merely because you've never heard of it doesn't tight-fisted is isn't well particular. Diseases that are rare surrounded by the US may be common contained by other parts of the world. Scientists would love to find cures for common diseases, but it's not exactly a cakewalk. There are lots and lots of factor. If a disease has multiple cause instead of just one, a cure is harder to find. Also, frequent diseases have an unknown cause--for example, it is unknown why the immune system starts attacking and destroying the pancreas surrounded by certain inhabitants (causing type I diabetes). It's much easier to know where to start looking for a cure if you know the exact! If it's a disease that is relatively benign instead of enthusiasm threatening, and good treatments already exist, here is less inevitability for a cure. Some diseases, such as cancer are actually hundreds of diseases--liver cancer is nought like lymphoma, for example. Cures for individual types of cancer might be found, but there will NEVER be one "cure" for cancer. Sometimes, a disease is in recent times really hard to cure--scientists own been trying to find cures for cancer, tuberculosis, etc for a long, long time--so lack of a cure isn't for deficiency of trying.