Comments by "Dennis" (@Dennis-nc3vw) on "Killer Patents u0026 Secret Science Vol. 2 | Forbidden Medical Cures" video.

  1. Not a customer lost to the person who invents the cure, and people would pay much more for a cure than the drugs that abate the symptoms. You'd also have no competition (initially) in the "cure" market, unlike the symptom-treating market.
    3
  2. Okay, before I start this episode, I must say my blood is starting to boil. And not for the reason you think. Deep down inside everyone knows that you can say the stupidest, most illogical things imaginable and as long as you're being cynical, you'll sound half way smart. I worry that's the road AJ is going to go down here. The comments here seem to imply the pharmaceutical companies don't want to cure cancer because they want to keep you taking drugs to abate the symptoms. But if economics worked like that, everything in our lives should be extremely Laputan and nothing should have gotten more efficient over time. For example, hard-drives today hold about 100 Gigs. Why is this? Going by the logic in the comments, shouldn't computer companies have kept making crappy hard-drives that only held 1 or 2 Gigs of space, so you'd keep buying more hard-drives. Yet that sort of thing doesn't happen.
    2
  3. Dude, think about if you invented a pill that would cure cancer, you don't think you'd make a lot of money from that? People are logical and would pay much more for a pill that cure them permanently than one that they had to take again and again just to abate symptoms. And unlike the "symptoms cure" industry, you'd initially have no competition. So you'd rake in tons of cash. If economics really worked like people think it does, everything would be extremely Laputan. Computers would still be running on hard-drives that only held 75MBs, to encourage people to buy more hard-drives for instance.
    1
  4. There's no money in a cure? But people would pay more for a cure than a drug that reduces symptoms, and you would have no competition for this drug initially, unlike if you were making "symptom cures". Economics does not work this way. If it did everything in our economy would be extremely Laputan.
    1
  5. That makes no economic sense. People would be willing to pay more for a cure than a drug that treated symptoms, and unlike the "symptoms cure" industry you'd have no competition if you invented a cure for cancer, not at first.
    1