Alright, let me come back and defend myself here. Being a scientist myself, I do in fact understand the issues at stake, though parts of my post were poorly worded - and I used bad examples - which led to the wrong impression. The problem of posting at 3am.
The reason that you have these kinds of reports is that the scientists doing the research are not the ones writing the press releases, never mind the actual articles that get published.
Yes, sensationalist publications are a big problem, for the reason you mention.
I am talking about the separate problem that there is often a disconnect between scientific research and industrial product development. Scientists do research - they aren't set up to develop the results of their discoveries into functioning clinical technologies and manufacturing processes.
Thus, there's a disconnect between the basic discovery and the development of a clinical technology: the academic lab (yes, often government-funded) can do the first, but someone else (usually a drug company) needs to do the latter. Plenty of discoveries aren't followed up as a result.
My apologies for using a stereotypical "cured cancer" sounding headline, which made me sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Progesterone is a steroid hormone, and as a result has anti-inflamatory properties.
Okay - that particular one was probably a poor example; I read a mention of it just a couple of days ago and didn't bother to follow it up with further research. Thank you for correcting me.
In general, however, there's a well-established phenomenon that drug companies focus on developing patentable drugs that are marketable to wealthy populations. Which you can hardly blame them for - they are, after all, in business.
This means they will focus on the next treatment for alzheimers, or another anti-inflammatory for arthritis, rather than, say, new drugs for malaria or possible new uses for old drugs that have fallen out of patent. While it is possible to prescribe drugs off-label, relatively few clinical trials are done on the effectiveness of off-label uses of older medications precisely because generic competition would prevent a return on the investment required for that research, if done by the pharmaceutical company.
I'm NOT talking about alternative/holistic pseudoscientific crap or what have you. Rather, the basic situation is that that the profit/ROI goals of a pharmaceutical company (something I do *NOT* blame them for) do not always address the exact same needs as public health.
This is why governments and private philanthrophy have had to step in to fund malaria research, and there are plenty of other cases where research that might not present a maximal ROI opportunity for a pharmaceutical company would be a good idea for a government with public health goals.
I'm not knocking the idea of government funded health research, but I can assure you that they already do that.
The government funds plenty of basic science research - most academic biology labs are largely funded by the NSF or NIH - but comparatively little of the relatively more expensive product development research.
Product development, bulk synthesis, and manufacturing research are all also necessary for medical technologies to reach the clinic, and those are still almost exclusively the domain of private enterprise, where they have to pass the ROI filter.
This leaves additional room for government to step in with a different set of goals.