TLDR yes, they are wrong.

1. Prisoner's dilemma. As a pharmaceutical company, you know theoretically a cure for a given chronic illness exists. What you don't know is if your competitor is close to having one. If they are, it would render your pathetic non-curative regimes obsolete and you'd lose billions and be decades behind. Shareholders would be calling for blood, and if you're the CEO or board exec you'd lose your head. So you work on developing the drug because even if its possibly less profitable, its still in your best interest to do the research.

2. Most people doing this kind of research are universities, which are publicly funded and would gain more profit from a curative drug than they would from letting big pharma continue using non-curative regimens.

3. Government has strong interest in developing cures because chronic illness is a massive drain on the economy costing billions of dollars, with significant public health costs that eat into government budgets that politicians would much rather spend on things like weapons or parking meters that accept credit cards.

OP in 1939* "Why isn't there a cure for the consumption?! must be because the travelling physicians wouldn't make any money!"

This is a moronic take.

agreed. just for the record so nobody plays the "you never denied it" card: I'm totally opposed to antisemitism, I denounce discrimination on the basis of any ethnicity, race, or gender in the strongest possible terms.

Those are 100% augmented.

Yeah there is no single explanation for revolution. Looking strictly to wealth distribution is reductionistic at best. I mean, wealth distribution was arguably better in the U.S. in the 1860s than it was in the prelude to Revolutionary France and yet we had a Civil War lmfao. There are endless examples that disprove this rule. The reality is: popular unrest is extremely complicated, and the factors that lead up to it are varied with fluctuating levels of influence at different stages of development. Sure, perception of wealth is a key component... but its hardly an explainer.

that's the thing that pisses me off: the tax often increases the perception of how much people are willing to spend. even if you remove or decrease the tax, the companies just inflate the price to fatten their margins. Rule #1 of capitalism: the consumer always loses.

Reddit sucks. They're the reason I came to Lemmy. They're absolute trash.

CEOs and healthcare officials will tighten security for a few months, judges will be hard on anyone who gives off even a whiff of copycat, and then some other outrage will come along and people will forget and nothing will change. Insurance practices will stay the same. At most, people will make this a second amendment issue, the government will pass some legislation about 3D printed guns, and our lives will all continue to get progressively worse.

I know after surgeries I've been elated at the seeming reduction in pain, and all I do is rave about how great it is, but then it always comes back and I'm depressed and I just stop talking about it. wouldn't shock me if that was his case.

Ha! as if that'll ever happen.

This whole election is nuts. RFK Jr. is gonna gut the FDA and NIH so they have to outsource more and draw more lawsuits which will feed his own stupid advocacy firm, or he'll switch his company over to consulting and score millions more by outsourcing the FDA to his own workers. And Elon is obviously going to benefit himself. And Trump is gonna wreak havoc on the economy in the long run with his tariffs if he's being serious, and his border policies are a disaster... this isn't going to go well.

don't get me started on bullets.