• CromulantCrow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    It’s too bad that curing patients is not a sustainable business model. Even if this did work we would only ever see it developed if you had to take it twice a month for the rest of your life in order to survive.

    Edit: sorry, I just noticed this is in Uplifting News. So, let’s be optimistic. Maybe global capitalism will collapse and governments will start trying to take care of people.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      4 days ago

      You’re thinking too small. If we cure cancer, everyone can start smoking again. Asbestos is back in business. There are hundreds of industries that would take off immediately. W

      The company that would truly suffer is the one that makes those little stickers in California.

    • derek@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      Even if so… If this is as effective and safe as it seems then it will get leaked to the public or reversed engineered and then made public. The original paper’s abstract says “this active exopolysaccharide is ubiquitous among the genus Spongiibacter” which means it’s accessible.

      The repression of such a boon could not last long. History has proven the human spirit is nothing if not irrepressible. There are plenty of people capable and motivated enough to run what little information we already have all the way to a consistent home manufacturing solution. Its publication and distribution is another game entirely but I’d bet on the public there as well.

      Take a look at the Four Thieves Vinegar Collective for some tangible encouragement. Knowledge is power. Together we can be powerful enough to create what we need to survive. Government buy-in encouraged but optional.

      • CromulantCrow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Let me explain. Our health care industry is part of our (mostly) global capitalist economy. That means investors demand the maximum profit the industry can produce. Imagine that this industry had the choice of providing an inexpensive one-time cure for cancer, or a long-term expensive treatment. Which option would generate the most profit for the industry? It doesn’t matter if there are people in the industry who would like to find a simple inexpensive cure. The board of directors is elected by the shareholders, which really means the largest and most ruthless capital owners. If the CEO or any officers approve research on an inexpensive cure that will threaten the profits of the corporation they will be ousted and replaced with someone who “sees the wisdom of using existing proven treatments”. So the built-in conflict of interest of a for-profit medical system means we will always be stuck with a system that extracts as much cash as possible from its patients.

        Are there alternatives to this approach? Of course, but they depart from a pure capitalist system, and so, at least in the US, we will never see them as long as we accept our current economic structure.

        • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Two things wrong with this:

          1. There’s more than one pharmaceutical company. Providing a better cure than your competitors allows you to take their customers. Hence increasing your market share and your profit.
          2. People would be willing to pay more for the one time cure than for the long term therapy. And since the cure is so cheap to make, presumably cheaper than the traditional therapy, the cheap cure can be sold at an even greater profit than the traditional therapy.

          You need to remember that the global capitalist economy is not one team.