Let’s imagine that company X finds a cure for cancer (1 type or more types of cancer).
That may be obtained with the help of robots, AI and supercomputers.
By making that cure accessible they win money in the first part, but they might lose money on the long run.
They help there image with this move (if they issue new shares to get capital, people might buy, because they saw how good they are at doing research).
From economic point of view, It’s best to have more clients for years than to have the client only once and that are cured after let’s say 2-3 months.
If the cure is too expansive, almost nobody buys it.
Governments and private insurances companies will pay for the cure it it’s not too expansive, because paying for treatments that only stops or lower the speed of evolution of the disease makes for them higher expenses on the long run.
But after that the disease will stop existing, they must research cures for other diseases.
So probably from economic point of view, for companies is best to sell the cure only to the rich and very important people because they gain something from them.
From the very rich people they gain money and from very important people they gain influence.
For example an important politician that is saved from cancer will promote that company interests, indirectly if not directly, so the connection to not be made to him.
For example a journalist from a very important newspaper will be cured and in exchange he will sustain there interests.
If they are not cured they might get top quality medicines that stops diseases evolution, so they can want more and more treatment and in exchange them to do something that is in the interest of that company.
Making cures and top quality treatments for diseases with access for rich and important people
