←back to thread

249 points randycupertino | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
tptacek ◴[] No.45949908[source]
We get threads about this on HN a couple times a year, and I feel like people have never thought this through. The company that cures T1D or MS will make approximately eleventy jillion dollars. The mustache-twirlers engineering MS into a chronic manageable disease rather than curing it would simply be outcompeted and put out of business by the straight-mustached cure owners. If you believe the mustache-twirlers are capable of suppressing knowledge of a viable cure, I'm going to have fun selling you on a lot of more-plausible conspiracy theories; for instance, the faked moon landing, which would have required less collusion and been less impactful to the world.

In a strict sense, curing a single disease isn't a long term "sustainable business", because you'll eventually push the population of affected patients below a threshold of profitability. The premise of a major pharma company is that they keep finding other treatments.

replies(2): >>45950010 #>>45950660 #
1. beeflet ◴[] No.45950660[source]
I don't buy that the moon landing is easier to fake than the existence of a cure.
replies(1): >>45950690 #
2. tptacek ◴[] No.45950690[source]
Scientists are routinely independently re-discovering each others discoveries. The effort to discover cures to important disease is intense. The conspiracy to suppress a cure would have to be vast.
replies(1): >>45952502 #
3. beeflet ◴[] No.45952502[source]
You don't have to suppress a cure, you can just choose not to release information that reveal one or spend research money in directions that lead to a cure.

Also, not that vast if you consider the amount of people who have the information needed to realize what is going on.

replies(1): >>45953665 #
4. tptacek ◴[] No.45953665{3}[source]
This only makes sense if you believe that the science leading to a disease cure occurs in exclusively one lab controlled by a giant pharma company, and not instead in dozens of labs in university biomedical programs around the country.
replies(1): >>45954293 #
5. ninetyninenine ◴[] No.45954293{4}[source]
If it happened in dozens of labs… how the fuck does big pharma hold patents on certain drugs? The existence of a patent means the drug was developed and patented by one entity.

If a molecule, synthesis path, or mechanism has already been disclosed in the literature by multiple labs, then that is public prior art and it cannot be patented.

Therefore, If there were dozens of other researchers coming up with the same drug the patent is legally invalid.

So it seems you’re the one not making sense.

replies(1): >>45954314 #
6. tptacek ◴[] No.45954314{5}[source]
I'm not sure you understand how patents work.
replies(1): >>45954421 #
7. tptacek ◴[] No.45954458{7}[source]
You completely rewrote your comment after I replied to it. We're done.
replies(1): >>45955203 #
8. ◴[] No.45955498{9}[source]