And HPV

Doesn't HPV have already a (kind of expensive) vaccine?

Some (girl)friends of mine have taken it at their own cost, of around usd$1000 (in Europe).

Yes there are, but it's only for the high risk sexually transmitted ones. There are some 100 strains of HPV, and there's no vaccine for the "common warts" you can get on hands, feet, knees. Although what's interesting is the getting a shot of a vaccine for STD HPV types can in some cases help body clear existing infection of common warts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31369771/

Why would a corporation risk loosing customers by eradicating a disease? What would shareholders say? Is it even legal?

"chronic condition" sounds like a guaranteed profit for many years. Curing/preventing disease is a bad business.

We need to stop tolerating these kind of tinfoil conspiration theories. It does not even make economical sense.

If you are the first to come up with a cure for that disease you will make huge profit compare to the rest of the industry. Especially if the cure involves coming up with a vaccine or a personalized treatment. Thats like the sustainable subscription wet dream of software companies.

Yeah, let's ignore facts. Let's ignore bankruptcies due to medical bills. Let's ignore $600 EpiPen -- never happened. Let's ignore that it may be cheaper to fly to another country for medical treatment, etc. It is all tinfoil conspiracy theories.

Facts? What does a shitty US health care system have to do with "corporations not developing cure for HIV to avoid losing profit" kind of theories.

Here's a reminder: I was answering this: "they've made HIV a chronic condition rather than a deadly disease, but I'd still like to see it eradicated with a vaccine." note: HIV, no cancer.

There is an incentive to sell drugs for chronic conditions. Curing these conditions would cut into the profits for selling drugs for chronic conditions -- I hope it should be hard to misunderstood -- it is just a simple math (lifetime customer for chronic condition vs. a single purchase for the cure).

That's like monopolies, right? The ultra right argument is that they are harmless, because it's easy to disrupt them.

In practice that hardly works, due to nasty business practices and lobbying.

On the other hand this argument works better for scientific progress. Yes, company selling like insulin shots might not invest into curing diabetes. That does not mean that there is not plenty of researchers looking into that issue, potentially disrupting the market.

I just hate that this gets framed in a way that is just a step from conspiracy theories.