3 ms·

I'm pretty sure he's making reference to the large pharmaceutical companies that earn more by treating problems than fixing them. The incentive is to continuou

by zadkey 7y ago

I'm pretty sure he's making reference to the large pharmaceutical companies that earn more by treating problems than fixing them. The incentive is to continuously charge these people for the rest of their life. They make more money if you stay sick, so they can keep treating you. If you are cured, then the flow of money stops until you get sick again.

habitue 7y ago
People always state this like it's some dirty secret, but it's an ongoing calculation for any given pharmaceutical company. If they think a cure is within reach, then they try to go for it, because if they focus purely on treatment and a competitor discovers an easily findable cure, then they make no money on the treatment. If, however, after a lot of work, a cure seems elusive, it makes sense to focus on treatment. Both for the sinister reason that people pay more over a lifetime for treatments, but also for the less sinister reason that it's usually much easier to develop treatments than cures, and having a treatment and not having a cure is strictly better than not having a treatment and also not having a cure.
- zadkey 7y ago
  Sure but, What is stopping them from discovering a cure, patenting it, and then never manufacturing it?
  - akiselev 7y ago
    Many countries would ignore the patent and manufacture it, driving people to medical tourism, and then the patent will expire in 18-23 years anyway.
  - habitue 7y ago
    Patents run out and they are made public. If you go through the expensive process of developing a drug, you're likely to want to get a return on that. If there is enough evidence for the cure to work that a company wants to bury it, they're more likely to not patent it. Also, this presupposes that the companies are actively trying to do evil. In reality, most people would rather have cancer cured than not cured. The profit motive can bend these incentives, but I think the caricature of a company full of amoral sociopaths making decisions to maximize human suffering are kind of... unrealistic.

by zadkey 7y ago

habitue 7y ago

People always state this like it's some dirty secret, but it's an ongoing calculation for any given pharmaceutical company. If they think a cure is within reach, then they try to go for it, because if they focus purely on treatment and a competitor discovers an easily findable cure, then they make no money on the treatment. If, however, after a lot of work, a cure seems elusive, it makes sense to focus on treatment. Both for the sinister reason that people pay more over a lifetime for treatments, but also for the less sinister reason that it's usually much easier to develop treatments than cures, and having a treatment and not having a cure is strictly better than not having a treatment and also not having a cure.

zadkey 7y ago
Sure but, What is stopping them from discovering a cure, patenting it, and then never manufacturing it?
- akiselev 7y ago
  Many countries would ignore the patent and manufacture it, driving people to medical tourism, and then the patent will expire in 18-23 years anyway.
- habitue 7y ago
  Patents run out and they are made public. If you go through the expensive process of developing a drug, you're likely to want to get a return on that. If there is enough evidence for the cure to work that a company wants to bury it, they're more likely to not patent it. Also, this presupposes that the companies are actively trying to do evil. In reality, most people would rather have cancer cured than not cured. The profit motive can bend these incentives, but I think the caricature of a company full of amoral sociopaths making decisions to maximize human suffering are kind of... unrealistic.