this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
675 points (87.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

6037 readers
2265 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zarathustra0@lemmy.world 177 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Or, chronic diseases which have been effectively cured aren't considered chronic diseases anymore?

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago

Stop with your logic on the Internet!

And yes, the vast majority of the apparatus that is capitalism is evil, before anyone wants to think I'm simping for it.

Hell, most chronic disease cures are done by the evil and completely untrustworthy propaganda machine that is the government.

[–] MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Bgugi@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Ahh... The ol' "What do you call alternative medicine that works?"-aroo.

[–] mearce@programming.dev 76 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Capitalism or not the claim would be true, chronic diseases are defined by their lack of effective cure.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Could that be (at least partially) explained by those companies looking at a long-term treatment as the more realistic goal after being burned by proposed cures in the past? Lots of quacks out there offer a quick cure, not as many say up front that their product will need a prolonged period of use. Not saying you and yours fit that label but their bullshit tips the signal-to-noise ratio in an unfavorable direction for both relief-seekers and providers.

I don't know your field, team's reputation or the companies you've been in contact with though so of course it could be the simple greed motivation too.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That’s the lenient interpretation I’d hope.

But we’re not an alternative medicine group or anything. If you look into their shareholder meetings the public info seems to be that they judge whether investments are worth it by potential return on investment, and well a lifelong treatment is always going to be more profitable for them than a cure.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] rhombus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

"In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients," the memo argued.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. They’re not just arguing against curing chronic illnesses, they’re arguing against curing infectious chronic illnesses because it creates less patients to extort in the long run. That is one of the most heinous things I’ve seen put to paper.

[–] Bananigans@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Tiring ass conspiracy theorists.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Just saying, "it's capitalism's fault," is not entirely incorrect, but it is definitely oversimplifying. Chronic diseases are complex, incredibly challenging to solve, and can vary a great degree by individual.

The government gave the NIH a billion dollars to study long COVID and the result ... fuck-all. Literally all they did was loosely define some things that the enormous and growing patient community already knew. No treatments, no diagnostics, nothing.

To be clear, capitalism certainly plays a substantially antagonistic role in solving chronic illness, but just throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it either.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Not to mention, evolution. You can't stop it unless you 100% eradicate the things that could evolve.

Time, money, and patience are required to understand novel pathogens, and those three things are in short supply in a "get rich quick" society.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] T156@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Because chronic diseases are difficult to cure? A solid portion, like diabetes, or cancer, are a whole host of different causes in a costume.

Anything that can be easily cured/trivially managed, or outright prevented isn't considered a chronic disease any more. Beri-beri and Scurvy are non-issues today. Diabetes and AIDS aren't the death sentences they used to be.

Medical research being deliberately gatekept because a cure would be unprofitable is conspiratorial thinking, and isn't really reflective of reality.

A single dose cure for a chronic illness would be huge, and a lot of places would throw money at one if it existed, even if the cost was several orders of magnitude higher. No insurance, public health scheme, nor medical clinic would want a patient to take a constant course of medication, when they could have one, and be done. It'd be better for them, and patient quality of life. Even for the medication companies, they get to be in history books, and can get instant income, where a long term scheme might have patients dropping off for one reason or another.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

And if someone cures it first that's it, they win the whole pot until generics are approved.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 week ago

lots of chronic diseases we have today are either degenerative or genetic, so it requires new fancy tools like gene therapy to rework lots of cellular biology at very low level. small molecule drugs can manage these to some degree, but these were a thing for like 50, 70 years now so that's why these are a thing

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Thank you. You expressed everything I wanted to say.

Gatekeeping cures to illness just isn't true.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago

This is such a lie. This only works if you assume no other people will ever develop one of those illnesses. Even if all acquired illnesses are ever eradicated, big pharma companies will still make bank off hygiene products, makeup, and Aspirin. Pharma companies don't just sell treatments and cures. Duh.

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 30 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If a disease is curable, it isn't chronic, now is it? This is a dumb take.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 3 points 1 week ago

For the record PrEP exists and it is pretty effective in preventing getting HIV (the virus that causes AIDS). Yet another reason the OP is dumb. Also, HIV can be prevented from turning into AIDS now, too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 1 week ago

Making cure when everyone else makes a treatment means that you can undercut everyone and eat their lunch so incentives are there

part of the problem is that developing treatments is easier and can rely on more conservative, safer assumptions while cures require more early stage risky research

besides chronic diseases that do have cures aren't considered chronic anymore. the rest are problems with insurance that doesn't want to cover single expensive cure over cheaper but recurrent treatment that might add up to more

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Of the 10k or so identified chronic diseases, about 95% of them are genetic

Given that we, as humanity, have just barely started ( in research time. From 1987 to 2024, that's almost 40 years of research, and development, basically nothing on one of, if not the toughest field in the world, and we are still doing breakthroughs on it)

In fact this research has been the cause of improving the quality of life for people with these diseases as care for the patients during test reveals more data.

Also remember, low understanding of the technology, particularly AI which is extremely helpful in these types of researches and past eugenics fears have marred the general zeitgeist for years, which may also cause early adoption to be difficult.

I mean come on, people are still scared about genetically modified food.

And also, another one thing to remember is that a lot, like 80% of these diseases, have an inherent risk for the life of the patient, which slows the research as this limits the amount of data you can get.

So, we are not yet at the point of cracking the genetic makeup of a disease, chugging it into a bioreactor, and whipping billions of potential enhanced cures adapted for the specific body chemical makeup, but we are getting there.

So yeah there is no conspiracy.

Billions of dollars have been spent only on cancer research, imagine for the rest of diseases. If a government had cancer cure done for X type of cancer, they'd deploy that shit like Doritos locos at the mall and ensure themselves indefinite reelections forever.

It's just really, really, RIDICULOUSLY difficult.

But, we are humans, difficult for us, is an old friend

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

This.

Yes, yes, there are conspiracies here and there, but these days we can't have any reason anymore, everything must have an evil genius behind it.

This is just another case of "it's not that easy"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

This is wrong.

It's applying a good observation incorrectly.

There's enough awful greedy shit to keep us busy. No inventing more of it.

[–] Custodian1623@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

citation needed

[–] ChildeHarold@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago

OP in 1939* "Why isn't there a cure for the consumption?! must be because the travelling physicians wouldn't make any money!"

This is a moronic take.

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So, it's like if you lose the ability to walk, a wheelchair is the treatment, while spinal reconstruction would be the cure?

That just shows we’re nowhere near the technological advancement needed to develop actual cures—we’re still at the wheelchair stage for most illnesses.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aksamit@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Or they're illnesses and conditions primarily affecting women.

Chronic fatigue has only since covid (when men started reporting constant excessive tiredness) been started to be treated like a real thing by doctors. And it's still barely considered by most doctors.

Endometriosis is another 'chronic' womens condition that has only very recently started being researched properly and taken seriously. And again, it's still incredibly hard to get taken seriously and helped if you suffer from it.

See also the massive discrepancy between autism and adhd diagnosis in men and women, and with bpd diagnosis between women and men.

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.

There's a lot more but I'm too tired to keep writing this.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That is not how modern capitalism works. Modern capitalism works in 5 years. CEO have figured out that they don't need to work for the shareholders but make it seem like they do. CEO wants to get their bonus and they get their bonus if the shareholders are happy and usually the shareholders have short term interests too. So for a CEO, it is more profitable to take actions that generate more profit in short terms.

Which is why there are mass hiring and firings. Those things are a huge waste of resources but it look good on you if you can sell it right to the shareholders. You are willing and able to react quickly.

So a cure for cancer would be sold as soon as possible because whoever has the patent, would make billions (short term). Remember biotech and their COVID vaccine?

The problem becomes finding a cure and a CEO doesn't have any interest to heavily invest in finding a cure if the cure is not "around" the corner anyway, as that wouldn't be very short term minded of them. But as this problem exists for any illness, the ones most likely to be treatable through publicly funded Research will get the funding to make the medicine and put a patent on it.

Edit: they don't kill you for profit. They don't heal you for profit. For their profit, they act. You just happen to be acted on.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] spacesatan@leminal.space 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, Twitter X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

It's just a catchier name than microblog posts.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cymbal_king@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

There's a lot of work/investment into curative cell and gene therapies that are very promising! Some have already received FDA approval with high success rates of curing some childhood cancers and sickle cell disease

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

The original “this doesn’t need to be a subscription”

[–] Antiproton@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Idiotic conspiracy theories are idiotic

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 3 points 1 week ago

It's also why so many really good TV shows and series get canceled.

The money is not being invested to create an art project.

It's being invested in hopes of a gigantic return, and the instant it seems like there will not be a gigantic return the money goes away.

That's why you do not often see several hundred million dollar productions of original material unless it's a passion project for a specific director or studio.

That's why we've had, what is it, 10 Spider-Man movies in the last 25 years?

I get you can't just throw money away but I feel like there should at the very least be some sort of clause and a contract that says that if your show gets canceled then you will be provided the timing and funding to either finish up the season that you are in and provide a finale or two at the very least provide a finale.

load more comments
view more: next ›