Ah yes that's why incredibly breakthroughs in medical science have completely stopped happening!
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
672 points (87.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
6024 readers
1585 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Or, chronic diseases which have been effectively cured aren't considered chronic diseases anymore?
Stop with your logic on the Internet!
And yes, the vast majority of the apparatus that is capitalism is evil, before anyone wants to think I'm simping for it.
Hell, most chronic disease cures are done by the evil and completely untrustworthy propaganda machine that is the government.
Yeah, we've cured a ton of previously chronic diseases. I don't know what planet these people live on. We've even effectively cured certain cancers in our lifetimes, and more will come. It's also just much harder to cure something than treat something.
I'm really struggling to think of any, most coming to mind are bacterial or viral, though I'm certain there are thousands of chronic human pathologies we've cured, some we probably don't even remember curing because the terminology is so outdated (though sadly dropsy is still a thing, and frustratingly consumption isn't eradicated yet ....but it could be!)
Can you give me a starting point if you've got one on your tongue? I'd like to journey down the Wikipedia rabbit hole tonight!
hidradenitis suppurativa
edit: i read wrong, that's uncured, i could imagine that along with what you mentioned, a lot are likely nutrition-based, treatments have gotten better for a lot of things, outlooks and lifespans for certain genetic conditions, but off the top of my head i can't think of anything that has a "cure" that's not viral or environmental
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Ahh... The ol' "What do you call alternative medicine that works?"-aroo.
Capitalism or not the claim would be true, chronic diseases are defined by their lack of effective cure.
Completely true. But there would be fewer of them.
It’s crazy that when my research team comes up with a therapeutic target we believe might lead to curing a disease, we get crickets from drug companies. But when we present therapeutic targets for long term treatment, we get lots of interest.
Could that be (at least partially) explained by those companies looking at a long-term treatment as the more realistic goal after being burned by proposed cures in the past? Lots of quacks out there offer a quick cure, not as many say up front that their product will need a prolonged period of use. Not saying you and yours fit that label but their bullshit tips the signal-to-noise ratio in an unfavorable direction for both relief-seekers and providers.
I don't know your field, team's reputation or the companies you've been in contact with though so of course it could be the simple greed motivation too.
That’s the lenient interpretation I’d hope.
But we’re not an alternative medicine group or anything. If you look into their shareholder meetings the public info seems to be that they judge whether investments are worth it by potential return on investment, and well a lifelong treatment is always going to be more profitable for them than a cure.
To be fair, and it's still bullshit, we also look at number of patients per week per cost. Crispr for example, could be used for a huge variety of issues, but curing 100 people globally for $100M in clinical development is just not going to work.
Crispr is the exception:
- it’s massively expensive
- it can cure multiple illnesses and perform loads of other functions
Most proposals for cures are a fairly simple (and cheap) therapeutic target that will only work for one condition or even just a subset of cases within that condition.
Just saying, "it's capitalism's fault," is not entirely incorrect, but it is definitely oversimplifying. Chronic diseases are complex, incredibly challenging to solve, and can vary a great degree by individual.
The government gave the NIH a billion dollars to study long COVID and the result ... fuck-all. Literally all they did was loosely define some things that the enormous and growing patient community already knew. No treatments, no diagnostics, nothing.
To be clear, capitalism certainly plays a substantially antagonistic role in solving chronic illness, but just throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it either.
Not to mention, evolution. You can't stop it unless you 100% eradicate the things that could evolve.
Time, money, and patience are required to understand novel pathogens, and those three things are in short supply in a "get rich quick" society.
I'm not disagreeing with most of what you said but throwing money at a problem would have significantly higher return on investment if that money wasn't being slurped up by the capitalist machine.
It also might work a bit better if the country as a whole hadn't been institutionalising profit driven medical sciences for the last 100 years.
Or to use an analogy.
It's like pointing out that "just throwing oil" at a car engine that hasn't been serviced in 150k is a failure of oil to fix the problem.
I mean, yes, technically you have a problem, you put oil in and the problem didn't go away, but is the problem really the oil ?
In this analogy capitalism is the oil thieves, draining your oil out of the bottom of the engine while you fill it up.
Making cure when everyone else makes a treatment means that you can undercut everyone and eat their lunch so incentives are there
part of the problem is that developing treatments is easier and can rely on more conservative, safer assumptions while cures require more early stage risky research
besides chronic diseases that do have cures aren't considered chronic anymore. the rest are problems with insurance that doesn't want to cover single expensive cure over cheaper but recurrent treatment that might add up to more
Or they're illnesses and conditions primarily affecting women.
Chronic fatigue has only since covid (when men started reporting constant excessive tiredness) been started to be treated like a real thing by doctors. And it's still barely considered by most doctors.
Endometriosis is another 'chronic' womens condition that has only very recently started being researched properly and taken seriously. And again, it's still incredibly hard to get taken seriously and helped if you suffer from it.
See also the massive discrepancy between autism and adhd diagnosis in men and women, and with bpd diagnosis between women and men.
On a somewhat less severe side of things, lack of libido in women is still considered a jokey non-issue by most doctors but viagra has been on the market for decades for men.
There's a lot more but I'm too tired to keep writing this.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The original “this doesn’t need to be a subscription”
There's a lot of work/investment into curative cell and gene therapies that are very promising! Some have already received FDA approval with high success rates of curing some childhood cancers and sickle cell disease
It's also why so many really good TV shows and series get canceled.
The money is not being invested to create an art project.
It's being invested in hopes of a gigantic return, and the instant it seems like there will not be a gigantic return the money goes away.
That's why you do not often see several hundred million dollar productions of original material unless it's a passion project for a specific director or studio.
That's why we've had, what is it, 10 Spider-Man movies in the last 25 years?
I get you can't just throw money away but I feel like there should at the very least be some sort of clause and a contract that says that if your show gets canceled then you will be provided the timing and funding to either finish up the season that you are in and provide a finale or two at the very least provide a finale.
There is a film from 1995 which is literally about companies trying to prevent a cure from getting out since it would interfere with their ongoing treatments.
Tap for spoiler (the name of the film)
The film was Johnny Mnemonic .
It's an entirely efficient way to allocate resources if the goal is "shareholder enrichment".
You get what you pay for, in a sense. How would the public respond to a one-time cure being sold for more than the total lifetime cost of treatment? Not well, but the thing is that responding like that is effectively expressing a preference for the lifelong treatment.
Are you trying to be Devil's Advocate for an imaginary scenario? WTF
Why not?
It's not an imaginary scenario. For example, look at Sovaldi, the $84,000 hepatitis C cure. That's less than the total cost of long-term treatment but it didn't exactly make Gilead popular.
But does it ACTUALLY cost that much or do they charge that much because they can, like insulin?
It costs enough that it was featured at DEFCON this past year.
Four Thieves Vinegar Collective did a presentation where they made their own hep-c medication for a few hundred bucks + equipment.
Here is their website for those interested Link. But be warned, these guys very much have crossed a line in regards to IP law and general medical saftey practices. Governments do not care if your trying to make insulin or meth, they just see a mad scientist making drugs, and these nerds intend to make it a fight.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
the other big thing is that for most with chronic illnesses, the public isn't looking, nor do they care, if i had the money, i would try anything, but i hardly leave my house and i can't afford to work, so i'll take whatever my insurance covers even if that ininofitself decreases my lifespan and causes me pain, hey actually, you just reminded me of a cure that "the public" doesn't talk much about, when will euthanasia be legal? oh but that also is an abrupt end to a condition that could still be squeezed for profit, do you know your audience?
when will euthanasia be legal?
It may not be legal, but when self-administered it's not like you can be punished for it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Would that be called profitalism?
Why be redundant? It's still capitalism.
Ok, Sherlock.
Now let me preface this by saying "I hate Trump"
One of the few things that I have hope for with the proposed cuts to the FDA is that is wont cost as much money to research possible treatments/drugs/cures so the lower profitability drugs and treatments might actually get a look in. Not saying the drugs companies arent predatory AF but spending hundreds of millions to make tens of millions is just bad business.
A cure for a chronic illness could be plenty profitable if we had a free market.
Like, people can make money actually repairing cars. Even though a car that leaks oil could be a constant revenue center for someone selling oil, someone else can actually make a profit fixing oil leaks.
The fact that selling a continuous stream of oil to someone with a leaky engine does not automatically imply that fixing the leak isn’t profitable.
This sort of “X is more profitable so Y doesn’t happen” thing only actually causes Y to not happen when the market isn’t free.
If one company — via government-enforced monopoly — controls motor oil sales and oil leak fixing, then that one company can nix the permanent repair market in order to maximize profits from selling motor oil. But that’s not a free market.
It’s the fact our medical market is so tightly, centrally controlled that makes less-profitable things like preventing diabetes impossible. That kind of niche elimination is a property of a centrally-controlled market, not a property of an actually free market.
We have a free market for clothes. That means: (a) anyone who can sew cloth together can sell clothes, (b) anyone who can acquire clothes for cheap and sell them slightly higher can sell clothes, (c) anyone with money can buy clothes at any time from anyone. I can buy clothes from my neighbor if I want. I can donate old clothes to Goodwill and others can buy them cheaper than new. I can own 500 pairs of jeans if I feel like it, or wear nothing but sweatpants simply because I feel like it.
Imagine if you needed a prescription from a clothing consultant before you could buy a jacket, or a shirt. That’s not capitalism. That’s not a free market.
Just because money is exchanged for healthcare in the USA does not mean we have a free market for healthcare. We do have a market in healthcare; we do not have a free market in healthcare.
If we had a free market for healthcare, I’d be able to buy chemistry equipment and make whatever anti-cancer drugs people need and undercut other manufacturers. I’d be able to just go pay a hundred bucks to use an MRI machine or an x-ray machine, without needing to pay money to see a doctor first and get their okay for the scan. I’d be able to just go buy wellbutrin for $15 instead of paying my psychiatrist $100 every two weeks to check in and see if it’s still working.
We do not have anything even remotely resembling a free market for healthcare. We really, really need one though.