Re: Umm No.
"First, it's great that it will help reduce STDs but really, BIG PHARMA has a lot to do with this, they research remedies and temporary relief for all sorts of ailments but never really research the cure like they did with small pox because it's not profitable."
*yawn* Not that tired old trope again.
Anyone who believes this has no clue about medical research. First, "Big Pharma" is not some giant monolithic entity. It's a collection of companies, some large and many small, who compete with one another on a level that makes Oracle v. Google look like a minor tiff at a Boy Scout camp.
Second, there's a lot more money than you think in curing STDs.
Third, trying to get a bunch of academics and researchers to curtail their research for some cynical motivation...are you serious? Most of the folks who go into medical research--and I know quite a few scientists and academics who do this for a living--do it because they genuinely want to help people. You couldn't pay me enough to do their work; they go into debt for advanced graduate-level degrees, then work their asses off doing research for less money than an average MBA makes, all so they can get slagged as being part of some greedy entity that wants to keep people sick.
And last, if you seriously think that these folks would find a cure for something and then suppress it, you're more bonkers than the moon-hoax-conspiracy nutters. They'd all look around each other at the conference table and say "Sure, I promise not to tell anyone we have a cure for AIDS"...and then race each other to the patent office. The person who finds a full-stop cure for that or other common STDs is a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize and all the grant money she could ever want.
Seriously, the conspiracy dingbattery around "Big Pharma" is nuts. If all these conspiracy theories were true, we would not expect to see huge, sprawling, multinational pharmaceutical companies like Bayer making cheap, low-margin, unpatentable products like...err, aspirin.