I love all the dikk measuring you tried there. First you tried to falsely claim I didn't know science, then you got a whole string of obvious shyt straight wrong, but tried to cover it with "credentials."
"Credentials" mean nothing on the internet when you're visibly getting known facts wrong.
Nonsense deflection that has nothing to do with my point that pharma companies are barely putting any effort into tuberculosis. Cancer drugs are hard as fukk and they put a TON of effort into that. So "it's tough" is not an excuse.
And historically, your claim is stupid. The first effective antiviral wasn't made until nearly fifty years after the first modern antibacterial. Even now, antivirals have limited effectiveness unless used super early (for acute infections) or for extremely long time periods (for chronic infections). Effective anti-bacterials are far more numerous and more easily effective for most diseases.
Now, in recent history, your statement is "slightly" accurate because viruses have such a simple genetic structure and so it's easier to "design" genetic therapies against them. But this is relatively new, and has nothing to do with my point about the decades of neglect towards TB treatments by pharmaceutical companies.
Not only did you get the science wrong, you either completely misread what was actually talked about, or just ignored it. Do you believe that the average pharmaceutical company devotes large research effort to the development of new treatments and vaccines for tuberculosis, or not?
Da fukk are you talking about? What in that statement do you think I had to "google"? I've mentioned several times in the past that Paul Farmer is a personal hero of mine, I didn't need to google anything to link his book.
Such a stupid statement. I'm going to link Farmer again, because the EXACT answers for your stupidity are in here:
www.ucpress.edu
www.ucpress.edu
My competence in science was never in doubt. I left science solely because I cared that much about the Black community, and I realized that so long as I stayed in research science, I was mostly going to just be feeding my own ego and pocketbook while making my employer happy but only making the most marginal overall difference in the world. So long as the systems were set up to serve the wealthy, then my participation in those systems would only perpetuate the inequality that existed. If I wanted to make a difference, then I had to stop working in the "healthy" systems and instead purposely choose to take on roles in places where systems were not working, where I could do something positive to change that. Or, alternatively, I had to be an activist that would fight to change the priorities of the structures entirely. So I'm trying my best to do both.
"Credentials" mean nothing on the internet when you're visibly getting known facts wrong.
Nonsense deflection that has nothing to do with my point that pharma companies are barely putting any effort into tuberculosis. Cancer drugs are hard as fukk and they put a TON of effort into that. So "it's tough" is not an excuse.
And historically, your claim is stupid. The first effective antiviral wasn't made until nearly fifty years after the first modern antibacterial. Even now, antivirals have limited effectiveness unless used super early (for acute infections) or for extremely long time periods (for chronic infections). Effective anti-bacterials are far more numerous and more easily effective for most diseases.
Now, in recent history, your statement is "slightly" accurate because viruses have such a simple genetic structure and so it's easier to "design" genetic therapies against them. But this is relatively new, and has nothing to do with my point about the decades of neglect towards TB treatments by pharmaceutical companies.
Not only did you get the science wrong, you either completely misread what was actually talked about, or just ignored it. Do you believe that the average pharmaceutical company devotes large research effort to the development of new treatments and vaccines for tuberculosis, or not?
Da fukk are you talking about? What in that statement do you think I had to "google"? I've mentioned several times in the past that Paul Farmer is a personal hero of mine, I didn't need to google anything to link his book.
You were so successful in science that you had become an activist.
Those who can't do...teach...
Such a stupid statement. I'm going to link Farmer again, because the EXACT answers for your stupidity are in here:
University of California Press
Scholarship is a powerful tool for changing how people think, plan, and govern. By giving voice to bright minds and bold ideas, we seek to foster understanding and drive progressive change.
www.ucpress.edu
University of California Press
Scholarship is a powerful tool for changing how people think, plan, and govern. By giving voice to bright minds and bold ideas, we seek to foster understanding and drive progressive change.
www.ucpress.edu
My competence in science was never in doubt. I left science solely because I cared that much about the Black community, and I realized that so long as I stayed in research science, I was mostly going to just be feeding my own ego and pocketbook while making my employer happy but only making the most marginal overall difference in the world. So long as the systems were set up to serve the wealthy, then my participation in those systems would only perpetuate the inequality that existed. If I wanted to make a difference, then I had to stop working in the "healthy" systems and instead purposely choose to take on roles in places where systems were not working, where I could do something positive to change that. Or, alternatively, I had to be an activist that would fight to change the priorities of the structures entirely. So I'm trying my best to do both.
