>search for a cure for a non-meme related illness that isn't hyped up by """research charities""" or the """media"""
>"there are no known cures available or it is not profitable for mass production"
Why is this allowed?
>search for a cure for a non-meme related illness that isn't hyped up by """research charities""" or the """media"""
>"there are no known cures available or it is not profitable for mass production"
Why is this allowed?
Because ethics do not matter
Simple business. If there are only 100 people in the world with a certain disease it would be unprofitable to make truly effective medicine, let alone a cure for it. Not saying that it's a big conspiracy to keep people ill but it just so happens to work out that way.
...
Right. So if it was your mother who had a rare illness you would just tell her
>"sorry ma, but the free market doesn't deem you profitable enough to produce a cure for you :^)
Sadly, I had a daughter in this situation. I've recovered from it now, but I can't escape the feeling that if more people had her disease she would have recovered.
My mother actually has a rare illness and for a few years now she's completely unresponsive so telling her that would do nothing. Autism aside, it's just the way it is. Do you have a plan? A plan to change the entire pharmaceutical industry? Would you actually DO anything? No, of course not. Free market capitalism is a part of our lives just as much as rare illnesses or your shitty posts are.
Biology is hard.
how much is a single life worth? 100k? 1 million? most people would say yes. 100 million? well everyone will die eventually anyways.
en.wikipedia.org
let's say you have a limited budget and have to choose between investing on the cure for a rare disease or investing on medicine that eases hypertension which affects hundreds of millions of people. What do you choose to do?
Resources are finite and no economic system can escape that fact.