3 ms·

We need to stop tolerating these kind of tinfoil conspiration theories. It does not even make economical sense. If you are the first to come up with a cure for

by vletal 6y ago

We need to stop tolerating these kind of tinfoil conspiration theories. It does not even make economical sense. If you are the first to come up with a cure for that disease you will make huge profit compare to the rest of the industry. Especially if the cure involves coming up with a vaccine or a personalized treatment. Thats like the sustainable subscription wet dream of software companies.

d0mine 6y ago
Yeah, let's ignore facts. Let's ignore bankruptcies due to medical bills. Let's ignore $600 EpiPen -- never happened. Let's ignore that it may be cheaper to fly to another country for medical treatment, etc. It is all tinfoil conspiracy theories.
- vletal 6y ago
  Facts? What does a shitty US health care system have to do with "corporations not developing cure for HIV to avoid losing profit" kind of theories.
  - d0mine 6y ago
    Here's a reminder: I was answering this: "they've made HIV a chronic condition rather than a deadly disease, but I'd still like to see it eradicated with a vaccine." note: HIV, no cancer. There is an incentive to sell drugs for chronic conditions. Curing these conditions would cut into the profits for selling drugs for chronic conditions -- I hope it should be hard to misunderstood -- it is just a simple math (lifetime customer for chronic condition vs. a single purchase for the cure).
    - vletal 6y ago
      That's like monopolies, right? The ultra right argument is that they are harmless, because it's easy to disrupt them. In practice that hardly works, due to nasty business practices and lobbying. On the other hand this argument works better for scientific progress. Yes, company selling like insulin shots might not invest into curing diabetes. That does not mean that there is not plenty of researchers looking into that issue, potentially disrupting the market. I just hate that this gets framed in a way that is just a step from conspiracy theories.

by vletal 6y ago

d0mine 6y ago

Yeah, let's ignore facts. Let's ignore bankruptcies due to medical bills. Let's ignore $600 EpiPen -- never happened. Let's ignore that it may be cheaper to fly to another country for medical treatment, etc. It is all tinfoil conspiracy theories.

vletal 6y ago
Facts? What does a shitty US health care system have to do with "corporations not developing cure for HIV to avoid losing profit" kind of theories.
- d0mine 6y ago
  Here's a reminder: I was answering this: "they've made HIV a chronic condition rather than a deadly disease, but I'd still like to see it eradicated with a vaccine." note: HIV, no cancer. There is an incentive to sell drugs for chronic conditions. Curing these conditions would cut into the profits for selling drugs for chronic conditions -- I hope it should be hard to misunderstood -- it is just a simple math (lifetime customer for chronic condition vs. a single purchase for the cure).
  - vletal 6y ago
    That's like monopolies, right? The ultra right argument is that they are harmless, because it's easy to disrupt them. In practice that hardly works, due to nasty business practices and lobbying. On the other hand this argument works better for scientific progress. Yes, company selling like insulin shots might not invest into curing diabetes. That does not mean that there is not plenty of researchers looking into that issue, potentially disrupting the market. I just hate that this gets framed in a way that is just a step from conspiracy theories.