Shank6ter t1_j9w1i3v wrote

Yeah I mean they did introduce Gatling gun but it didn’t have nearly as big an impact as the ironclads and the artillery. To be fair the trenches towards the end were likely a last ditch effort to hold ground. By late 1864 it was obvious who was wining that war


Shank6ter t1_j9uogia wrote

This was taught but it really wasn’t. Most European powers were not impressed by American battle tactics. I think the only two things of note were the first use of ironclad warships and the extent of artillery used by both sides was abnormal for the time


Shank6ter t1_irdh9mv wrote

Prove there isn’t 🤷‍♂️

See how easy it is to say shit like that? You made an argument that big pharma would indeed fund a cure, and I debunked every single one of the examples you used. Hell one of them doesn’t even have a normal treatment.


Shank6ter t1_irdf6cu wrote

There is no cure for any of the things you listed. All are treated either with anti-biotics or penicillin, which are repetitive treatments that make lots of money, or in the case of rabies there is no cure. There is a vaccine that is painful and only a one time treatment, and are only administered after someone has been possibly exposed because of how not only expensive it is, but painful as well.

All you did was prove my point. Big pharma isn’t going to invest into a one time cure all because it doesn’t make them as much money as prolonged treatments like chemo and anti-biotics do.


Shank6ter t1_irchr4d wrote

Except it’s not. Chemo can and usually is a treatment required multiple times. And it costs thousands of dollars. If the cure existed it would kill recurring customers (not literally). There have been feasible treatments for cancer for decades but big pharmaceutical companies do what they can to prevent its exposure to the public.