Capitalism prioritises investment based on profit, not based on good

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.

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.

are they wrong though?

if you're a person who mostly cares about profits which one do you accept

research 1: we're on our way to cure [rare illness]! we just need funding to find and develop the proper formula, we need x million for the budget, and the drug itself is not likely to be expensive and will be one time use/short therapy

research 2: we're going to tackle [not really common but not quite rare illness], we need x million for the budget, we probably won't cure it but a weekly dose of the drug will help those affected

now think like the only thing that matters is your profits, research 1 will cure people, and sure you could make the cheap drug cost $100000 but the researches could turn against you and release their research to the public losing you profit. and even if they don't you'll need to balance the price to turn in some profit in as short amount of time as possible. if the illness is rare that means there isn't many people who are affected, and those people are not likely to be rich - why bother

research 2 on the other hand is an easy investment, people will need that drug forever so you can set the price low enough for most to be able to barely afford and get your sweet sweet money back with profits fast

remember you don't become a billionaire being charitable, you become a billionaire by cutting corners and milking as much money out of those below you as possible

Yeah, this is a common truism that angry people confuse with actual criticism.

It would, in fact, be extremely profitable to develop a cure for something chronic. If you could make and sell one pill that cures AIDS, for instance, then you would become very rich (not to mention famous).

That's not a defense of capitalism. For-profit healthcare is a dystopian nightmare. When you consider that the AIDS cure would be too expensive for most people to buy, and only poor people would suffer from the disease, you should remember that that's how it is now! Poor people cannot afford cures available to rich people, cures for preventable diseases, cures for treatable and manageable diseases, cures for addiction and obesity. Poor people cannot afford to stop working long enough to seek treatment for basic aliments.

So no, scientists and doctors aren't conspiring to avoid working on cures in favor of treatment for chronic conditions. They're just going where the money is. They absolutely would cure any disease if it were possible, they just wouldn't share it with the world.

Most of the answers to why a specific drug works are "we dunno but we tried it, compared it to people who didn't get the drug and these guys got better". Medicine is crawling right now and I would love to see it run.

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.

Viagra doesn't treat a lack of libido, it treats a lack of blood flow to the relevant anatomy. And it was discovered by accident - a drug meant to treat high blood pressure and angina that was more effective at doing something else to blood flow. In other words it's not that men use viagra to have the desire, but rather to get the equipment to play along. Lack of libido in men is often a symptom of low testosterone, so they check for that and prescribe testosterone if that's the issue but that's really the entire toolbox on that front.

Lack of libido in women is a much harder problem to solve, and the first attempt at it that ever made it to market barely worked, had to be taken daily, and went horribly wrong if you consume any alcohol at all. There's a second that hit market a few years later that's supposedly more effective and isn't a daily regimen but is also an injection, has significant potential side effects and can't be mixed with naltrexone (a drug used to treat opioid addiction) because it will cause naltrexone not to work.

Compare to contraception, where there are tons of options available to women and basically all insurance is legally required to cover at least one brand of each type, including barrier methods, with a prescription. The options available to men are condoms or being surgically sterilized, and there's no requirement to cover either at all.

It's harder to get contraceptives for men approved because it doesn't prevent a medical condition for the user and so the bar for what is acceptable as a side effect is really low. You may have seen news stories about a male pill and men chickening out over the side effects (what wimps!) but the problem wasn't men backing out of the study, but that the acceptable side effects for a treatment that prevents a different person from developing a condition are so restrictive that they killed the study because it was already never going to be approved.

There is another male contraceptive that's been in development in India since the 80s, and as of 2022 has still not been approved - RISUG. Phase 3 clinical trials for RISUG were published more than twenty years ago. There's a variation of RISUG that's in development in the US called Vasalgel, and it's been in development here for over a decade. RISUG and Vasalgel are long term reversible contraceptives - think like an IUD - that consist of an injection in each of the vas deferens and lasts up to a decade, but can be removed earlier if needed by another set of injections in the vas deferens. Should it get approved in the US, there's no legal requirement that any insurance cover it, let alone without copay because the ACA specifically only requires coverage for contraceptive options for women.

What is this disinformation on Lemmy? There are so many counterexamples to this:

• If a patient doesn't find a cure, they'll go to a different doctor and sometimes leave their country to seek help (like when Americans go down to Mexico for treatment). Wouldn't it make more sense for them to fix you so you return when something else happens? Who ever goes to the doctor to stay sick?
• People will always be sick of one thing or another because not all illnesses are transmittable diseases so there's no shortage of customers if you cure them. Delivering babies and cosmetic surgeries don't even require you to be sick for the doctors to turn a good profit. Sometimes people fall and break a bone. Do you really think your doctor will keep your bone broken for profit? When has that ever happened without repercussions for the doctors?
• Most illnesses are self-limiting, meaning you will cure yourself over time and your doctor knows this and will be frank with you if you ask and they'll say "Yeah, but you can take this to alleviate your pain" and you can simply refuse. But thank god you went in anyway because now you know your stomach pain was food poisoning and not appendicitis which may need surgery because the symptoms overlap as is the case with many diseases.
• You can sue your doctor for malpractice and win because they're accountable to a board of ethics. They can lose their license and face jail time for making you suffer by knowing the cure and withholding it from you.
• Evolution will always find something to break, like new mutations to ancient viruses that led to covid/aids and inherited diseases like sickle cell disease. New diseases will always emerge because our world is always changing.
• There is no shortage of new people being born. It's a numbers game: Your case won't be any more profitable when they have 10 other people coming in that same day with whatever illness you have. They need to get people out the door to accommodate more people.
• Not all diseases can be cured, like cancer. And even if cancer is cured, you can't stop it from happening at the molecular level so you always have more customers needing treatment. (And no, sharks aren't immune to cancer, and yes research has made many cancers curable when detected early, and experimental cures are actively offered to the moribund.)
• There are plenty of examples of cures and total eradication, like smallpox and polio. Are doctors making less money because they're gone? Absolutely not.
• Most people who go into medicine are thoughtful, smart, compassionate individuals who want to help people and gladly take the Hippocratic Oath voluntarily. Don't confuse business practices by big corporations with your poor doctor who's just trying to get through the day.

And the list goes on. The image makes no sense.

It' a meme in the same way that anti-vax is a meme.

Can you post something that's being actually available? A day old video that claims diabetes is now curable doesn't really mean much

Are you trying to be Devil's Advocate for an imaginary scenario? WTF

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?