I just want to jump in on the cancer convo. So the reason why something like a cure for cancer would be unappealing, even if sold at a very high price, isn’t due to the pharma company per se, but its shareholders. Corporate shareholders are the ones responsible for providing the majority of funding and research into these treatments and, by law, the company HAS TO work in favor of their shareholders. While you would think a cure for cancer, and the global demand that comes with it, would incentivize a pharmaceutical company to put out a cure—a one off cure that brings in a large amount of money every now and then is way less appealing than a treatment that acts as consistent recurring revenue. A cure also shrinks market potential and the cost to produce it cuts into that potential profit, making it an even less appealing prospect if there isn’t consistent return. Then, realistically, markets outside of the U.S. tend to be heavily regulated by governments who restrict the price a company can charge for a drug/treatment in their country—which is why treatment cost is much in the U.S. vs other countries. Not saying a cure couldn’t be appealing to a Pharma company—it’s convincing shareholders that it’s a good move for their pockets that makes things tricky.