> Why you would defend them I don't defend "them". There is no "them". Conflating price gouging with lack of agency is, a different issue, outside of research.

> Why you would defend them I don't defend "them". There is no "them". Conflating price gouging with lack of agency is, a different issue, outside of research. Patents count as output. Regulation hinders progress in the interest of safety and accountability. There are tradeoffs, granted. The idea that funds want to fund partial cures, rather than more comprehensive ones, is partially true. Comprehensive would be better for everyone, if it wasn't so damned difficult in western nations. PHDs are predicated on thesis papers to prove something novel, which largely have no impact on society. This is a consequence of knowledge availability (and consequently utility), not maliciousness. Medicine is not special, in this regard. The survival bias applies here. It's hard to know the diseases that are cured or have new treatments, because those cease to be issues at the forefront. Onchocerciasis? Nobody in the 1st world cares that was cured. Peptic ulcer disease? That was handled. What about medical procedures? Even incremental improvements to drugs, allow for more effective treatments or old treatments to have significant efficacy increases. GL with whatever.