(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.
For every complex problem (like how to make lots of money by treating diseases), there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.
-HL Mencken
What you've proposed is a big roll of the dice. Who's to say your sick cancer patients don't die off instead of patiently allowing you to treat them for their "whole life", allowing you to make more cash in treatment costs?
.