3 ms·
I'm not sure how "he has a rare disease" became a reason to do more to solve it; it should be more like "it was a freak accident," in the sense that the rarer t
by byrneseyeview 17y ago
I'm not sure how "he has a rare disease" became a reason to do more to solve it; it should be more like "it was a freak accident," in the sense that the rarer the disease, the less it makes sense to fix it.
And you could easily recast your marginal benefit theory to go in the opposite direction: how many people devote all their time to thinking about curing Leukemia, compared to the number who are similarly obsessed with curing Chordoma? Large groups of smart, committed, well-funded people have economies of scale.
Chordoma clearly sucks, but this plea is just empty.
- chasingsparks 17y agoYou should not have been down-voted for this comment. My argument against that is you don't even need smart people to be obsessed with Chordoma. Simple things that are routinely done for other diseases that are done by technicians could yield major benefits. E.G. matched normal tissue sequencing, having a tissue bank (people how want to research Chordoma have a hell of a time getting some), etc. This is mostly an issue of money. It would be like if somehow streph infections never appeared until last year but penicillin was still found long ago. A average mind might be able to deduce that anti-biotics are a good call. Actually, i should probably add this to my argument on the page.