> Cancer is a for-profit business model where the owners of capital benefit from sickness.
Sure, I'm with you here.
> Curing cancer was never the goal.
You're starting to lose me. Your statement might be correct for the most actuarial-brained monsters at the top of the executive foodchain but I think the research scientists and doctors would disagree with you.
> Finding out how to give people cancer and treat it was.
And here I think you've veered from legitimate criticism of the for-profit healtcare system into some serious whack conspiracy territory.
It also assumes the most-actuarial-brained monsters aren't worried about any competition from other monsters that can take their patients away with a better cure.
While that's possible--ensuring competition is an ongoing issue in the American economy--it's still one more bad-star that has to align to get a real disaster*.
*Yes, I know there's etymological repetition there and I like it.
You really need to learn about the burden of proof, since you'd (hopefully) be able to figure out that in this case, the burden of proof is on you to prove what you're saying is accurate. HN isn't a place for hand waving arguments where your only supporting proof is "logic".
The truth of the premises do not require empirical evidence as you seem to require, they require the premises be true.
- Oncology is a for-profit business
- Curing customers reduces profits
- Treating customers increases profits
- Curing cancer is bad for business
Do you understand how logic works or is your brain fried by "where's the study bro..." Give me a break, man. Do you have any interest in sincerity or is your job at stake otherwise?
No one has the ability to make logical deductions about the world in the manner you've done in this thread.
Cancer is just a tough nut to crack. While a blanket cure remains a pipe dream, there is lots of promising research and life expectencies keep going up.
I'm curious, what do you think the difference is between a "cure" and a "treatment"? I imagine when you think cure you think about a pill that you take once and it uncancers you instantly. But wouldn't that also be a treatment? I get that you're criticizing the medical industry for financially draining patients, but what would stop someone from charging any exorbitant price for a pill that instantly cures your cancer?
A cure is something that solves a health condition 100% of the time. A treatment is a prolonged procedure with only a chance of success. One is a profit generating machine, the other loses customers.
You know, a cure - like what they pretended the vaccine was that somehow was forced through the almost impossible system of medical approvals that has stalled real cancer research for decades.
It's rather sick isn't it? Especially when curing cancer as a business benefits from an increase in technology which in turn is a producing of endless chemicals that end up in our drinking water and food and air.
