One of the main takeaways of the Covid era was I learned how little the medical fraternity understand about the immune system. I mean the detail. Triggering an immune response we have understood since Edward Jenner's cowpox experiments. But understanding the detail, not so much.
One of the main takeaways of the Covid era was I learned how little the medical fraternity understand about the immune system. I mean the detail. Triggering an immune response we have understood since Edward Jenner's cowpox experiments. But understanding the detail, not so much.
The medical fraternity doesn't know that much at all.
The science/research industry is structured in a way that promotes scientists chasing endlessly fruitless endeavors. Why? Because that's where the money is.
You only get paid once for what you do discover, but you'll be paid forever for what you "might" discover. And most scientific research is not well understood by those who control the flow of money. What an easy grift.
As a result, there are few scientists that are truly looking for answers. That is why in physics, little has changed since the 70s.
*** We are today making more investments into the foundations of physics than ever before. And yet nothing is coming out of it. That’s a problem and it’s a problem we should talk about. ***
The medical scientific industry is no different. I'm sure you've heard this a million times, and most people consider it a conspiracy theory, but nobody is looking for a "cure" because that stops the money. But this is actually true. How many diseases have been "cured" compared to how many have "treatments" -- that are lifelong?
It doesn't require some evil mastermind commanding people to do this or that, it just requires a system that rewards failure. Kind of like the scientific systems we have now!
The "big money" is on the production side (of medicines) -- but the big money for scientists is on the research side. Scientists are endlessly looking for a cure (for whatever) but instead continually come up with new treatments?
Don't believe me. Take a look at the number of prescription drugs for depression. Why the hell are there so many prescription drugs for depression? Did any of the prior drugs ever really work? If so, why do they need to keep coming up with new ones? The argument then becomes about patient tolerance. It's a shell game.
Totally agree. But regulation has played its part. the FDA used to only have the authority to remove drugs from the market. Then they changed the rules where you have to prove efficacy to them, the FDA, not the patients. That plays its part.
Government regulation nearly always results in much less than ideal outcomes. Regulations are the worst because they set the minimum threshold, where competition, and advancement almost always results in better outcomes.
One of the main takeaways of the Covid era was I learned how little the medical fraternity understand about the immune system. I mean the detail. Triggering an immune response we have understood since Edward Jenner's cowpox experiments. But understanding the detail, not so much.
That was a revelation to me.
The medical fraternity doesn't know that much at all.
The science/research industry is structured in a way that promotes scientists chasing endlessly fruitless endeavors. Why? Because that's where the money is.
You only get paid once for what you do discover, but you'll be paid forever for what you "might" discover. And most scientific research is not well understood by those who control the flow of money. What an easy grift.
As a result, there are few scientists that are truly looking for answers. That is why in physics, little has changed since the 70s.
*** We are today making more investments into the foundations of physics than ever before. And yet nothing is coming out of it. That’s a problem and it’s a problem we should talk about. ***
The medical scientific industry is no different. I'm sure you've heard this a million times, and most people consider it a conspiracy theory, but nobody is looking for a "cure" because that stops the money. But this is actually true. How many diseases have been "cured" compared to how many have "treatments" -- that are lifelong?
It doesn't require some evil mastermind commanding people to do this or that, it just requires a system that rewards failure. Kind of like the scientific systems we have now!
The "big money" is on the production side (of medicines) -- but the big money for scientists is on the research side. Scientists are endlessly looking for a cure (for whatever) but instead continually come up with new treatments?
Don't believe me. Take a look at the number of prescription drugs for depression. Why the hell are there so many prescription drugs for depression? Did any of the prior drugs ever really work? If so, why do they need to keep coming up with new ones? The argument then becomes about patient tolerance. It's a shell game.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-present-phase-of-stagnation-in.html
Totally agree. But regulation has played its part. the FDA used to only have the authority to remove drugs from the market. Then they changed the rules where you have to prove efficacy to them, the FDA, not the patients. That plays its part.
Government regulation nearly always results in much less than ideal outcomes. Regulations are the worst because they set the minimum threshold, where competition, and advancement almost always results in better outcomes.