So I've been talkin' with my dad about capitalism.
He said that you can't make much money from cures after a while...
So... People would frame you or kill you to prevent you releasing the cure to the public.

He says it's possible that cures have been found but kept away.

Is there a way to make money from cures in the U.S? Well in any capitalist (maybe socialist) country that doens't care about it's people unlike Jordan, Norway, Denmark, etc.

Not sure if someone would be framed or murdered for inventing a cure. I suppose it altogether possible that if there were more money involved in the treatment of a malady than a cure, and a company possessed ownership of both the treatment and the cure; then they may choose to suppress the cure and promote the treatment.

As with anything, if a need exists, multiple parties will be developing treatments and such. I would think if a cure was invented, such as a drug to cure cancer, then the drug companies would want to cash in while they had proprietary ownership of the formula.

(August 22, 2016 at 2:09 pm)ScienceAf Wrote: So I've been talkin' with my dad about capitalism.
He said that you can't make much money from cures after a while...
So... People would frame you or kill you to prevent you releasing the cure to the public.

He says it's possible that cures have been found but kept away.

Is there a way to make money from cures in the U.S? Well in any capitalist (maybe socialist) country that doens't care about it's people unlike Jordan, Norway, Denmark, etc.

Well your dad wasn't talking about not making any money from a cure.

I think his point is that you can get more money in the very long term by selling gradual treatment rather than selling one individual cure, and if you cure something completely then you will have destroyed your own market for selling.

But I think it's fairly safe to say if an organization found a cure for HIV they would be set up with money for at least their own lifetime?

There's probably lots of ethical questions surrounding stuff like this.

What cures are you talking about?

(August 22, 2016 at 2:21 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Not sure if someone would be framed or murdered for inventing a cure.  I suppose it altogether possible that if there were more money involved in the treatment of a malady than a cure, and a company possessed ownership of both the treatment and the cure; then they may choose to suppress the cure and promote the treatment.  

As with anything, if a need exists, multiple parties will be developing treatments and such.  I would think if a cure was invented, such as a drug to cure cancer, then the drug companies would want to cash in while they had proprietary ownership of the formula.

But why would they cure cancer for a low cost when they could treat it for somones whole life at a high cost and cash of more money from it.

I read the thread title as "Curry and Capitalism."

I guess I'm hungry.

(August 22, 2016 at 2:22 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:09 pm)ScienceAf Wrote: So I've been talkin' with my dad about capitalism.
He said that you can't make much money from cures after a while...
So... People would frame you or kill you to prevent you releasing the cure to the public.

He says it's possible that cures have been found but kept away.

Is there a way to make money from cures in the U.S? Well in any capitalist (maybe socialist) country that doens't care about it's people unlike Jordan, Norway, Denmark, etc.

Well your dad wasn't talking about not making any money from a cure.

I think his point is that you can get more money in the very long term by selling gradual treatment rather than selling one individual cure, and if you cure something completely then you will have destroyed your own market for selling.

But I think it's fairly safe to say if an organization found a cure for HIV they would be set up with money for at least their own lifetime?

There's probably lots of ethical questions surrounding stuff like this.

They would still want to make the money.

If you could make a million a year and life with it and do what ever fine.

But why not make 9 million more easily?

That's what would happen.

(August 22, 2016 at 2:22 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: What cures are you talking about?

Things like CRISPR curing HIV, cancer, zika, making genetically engineered babies.

I don't think anyone is holding off on cures. Conspiracies like that would be very hard to keep under wraps, I think.

(August 22, 2016 at 2:23 pm)ScienceAf Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:21 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Not sure if someone would be framed or murdered for inventing a cure.  I suppose it altogether possible that if there were more money involved in the treatment of a malady than a cure, and a company possessed ownership of both the treatment and the cure; then they may choose to suppress the cure and promote the treatment.  

As with anything, if a need exists, multiple parties will be developing treatments and such.  I would think if a cure was invented, such as a drug to cure cancer, then the drug companies would want to cash in while they had proprietary ownership of the formula.

But why would they cure cancer for a low cost when they could treat it for somones whole life at a high cost and cash of more money from it.

Reasons of empathy, wanting to gain a heroic reputation, nobel prizes and so on.

From how I imagine cancer research works, they probably have a lot of scientific minds on the job, the more people you have the less likely it is that they're all going to be able to keep a secret.

So another question I would ask is do you think it's realistic for large communities of scientists to know the cure for cancer but keep it a secret to earn money, without anyone letting the secret slip say for money, or fame, or the heroic status they will get?

Plus in places like England where I live the treatments they have for cancer do sometimes save people's lives from cancer, so then surely these treatments that save people's lives wouldn't exist if this conspiracy theory were true?

Those are my thoughts anyway.