Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 June 24

= June 24 =

x linked ichthyosis
if x linked ichthyosis is a skin condition does that mean it applies to anywhere where there is skin or only certain parts of the body where theres skin?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_ichthyosis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.127.156 (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What parts don't have skin? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The interior, eyeballs, etc. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The article says "particularly on the neck, trunk, and lower extremities"; so, less, but not necessarily none, elsewhere. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Cancer research
I have been told that there is an urban legend which says that institutions which are supposedly seeking a cure to Cancer, Aids and the like don's actually want to find a cure as this would stop their funding. While it sounds reasonable, as the scientists have mortgages to pay and don't want to lose their jobs, my thin faith in humanity urges me to not believe this. Is there any truth to this and if so, what is the evidence used to support this claim? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The team who finds the cure would have enormous fame in their own field and could either stay on to help their employer make the cure cheaper to produce, or they would easily find an other job thanks to their newly acquired fame. Also if they are not making any progress at all, the company that hired them would cancel their contract and instead hire someone who can show they are making some sort of progress in their understanding of where the problem is and how to fix it. I think there are enough incentives to find cures, and no incentives to hide good results. --Lgriot (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the ides of "the cure" for cancer is flawed. Cancer is not "a" disease, it is a category. What works for one type of cancer may not work for others. Even the same type of cancer in different patients will respond differently. --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What the OP calls an urban legend is more like a conspiracy theory. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course there's an urban legend which claims this. Bertrand Russell also had one about a teapot. These are easy to invent - maybe the Illuminati cancelled Firefly too - and there are an infinite supply of them. As unfalsifiable claims, the onus is on the person claiming these things to supply their proof. Otherwise they may be discarded out of hand. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If they actually had a cure for something ready to go, then no, they wouldn't hide it, but they might need to charge a huge amount for the cure, as they only get to sell it to each patient for one course of treatment, and need to recover all their costs and make a profit from that. Look at the costs for the cure for hepatitis C: . Where it gets uglier is when the pharma company has to allocate funds for study. They of course look at potential return on investment, and a one-time cure has less ROI than a lifetime treatment, so, unless they have reason to believe it will cost far less to find a cure, then the money goes toward the treatment, not the cure, as that's the more profitable option. This is a limitation on capitalism, and a reason why government (taxpayer) funded university studies make sense, as they don't have the same profit motive, unless they have been co-opted by big pharma. A university makes money primarily from enrollment and endowments and government grants, all of which may well increase if they find a cure for a major disease (and a Nobel Prize for Medicine sure wouldn't hurt). SinisterLefty (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The urban legend reminds me of the Board of Longitude, which was created in 1714 to offer prizes up to £20,000, and other financial support, to people who developed better methods for navigators to determine their longitude at sea (which at the time was a most serious problem). Some members of the board worked on solutions themselves (I forget the specifics), and there were accusations that they never paid out the £20,000 prize because then the board would have no reason to exist.  The fact that the board was abolished in 1828 because the problem had been solved, and yet the £20,000 prize was never paid, seems to suggest that the accusations were true. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)