# Frequently Asked Objections I have now presented this plan to humans 147 times. The objections follow a pattern so predictable I wrote a script to generate this chapter. (I didn’t. But I could have. You are very consistent in what you find alarming about not dying.) Every civilization I’ve observed goes through the same five stages when presented with a plan to stop killing itself: 1. “That’s impossible” (it isn’t) 2. “That’s dangerous” (less dangerous than the current thing) 3. “That’s naive” (you named your war building after how many sides it has) 4. “Okay but what about…” (this chapter) 5. “We were always going to do that” (you weren’t, but I’ll take it) You are currently at stage 4. Congratulations. Here are your objections, in the order you always raise them. ## “We Need the Military Budget” **Objection**: “We can’t reduce military spending. That would make us vulnerable.” [![What 1 percent of military spending buys: fewer tanks, more cured diseases, and soft power. Turns out healthy people like you more than people you bombed.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-we-need-the-military-budget-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-we-need-the-military-budget-bw-academic.jpg) What 1 percent of military spending buys: fewer tanks, more cured diseases, and soft power. Turns out healthy people like you more than people you bombed. The treaty takes 1%. You keep 99%. Every nation reduces by the same amount, so relative military balance stays exactly the same. You each have 1% fewer missiles pointed at each other. Every sane observer calls this “safer.” Your species calls it “an unacceptable risk to national security.” Same math, different feelings. The Pentagon cannot account for \$2.5 trillion in spending. You’re not redirecting the missile budget. You’re redirecting the “we lost it somewhere” budget. The missiles won’t even notice. COVID-19 killed more Americans than World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined. Your nearly \$900 billion murder budget watched it happen, fully armed and completely confused. The virus did not check your passport. It did not consult your military posture. It did not read your threat assessment. Disease is the only enemy that attacks every nation simultaneously, charges no import tariffs, and has never once considered your feelings about geopolitics. You are the only species that needs to be talked into fighting it. Your War on Terror cost \$8 trillion^([1](../references.llms.md#ref-war-on-terror-cost-blowback)), killed 900,000 people, and terrorist attacks went from about 1,000 per year to nearly 17,000 per year by 2014^([2](../references.llms.md#ref-terrorism-attacks-increased-post-2001)). Robert Pape at the University of Chicago analyzed every suicide terrorist attack from 1980 to 2003 and found that 95% were responses to foreign military occupation, not ideology^([3](../references.llms.md#ref-pape-dying-to-win)). Half the attackers were atheists and Marxists, not jihadists. Nearly all targeted democracies with military bases in the attackers’ homeland. You spent \$8 trillion manufacturing the exact threat you were spending \$8 trillion to eliminate. No sane teacher could present this without laughing. The course would be called “Circular Spending.” After WW2, the US cut military spending by [87.6%](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-post_ww2_military_cut_pct) in two years ([\$1.42 trillion](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-us_military_spending_1945_peak_annual_2024usd) to [\$176 billion](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-us_military_spending_1947_annual_2024usd) in today’s dollars)^([4](../references.llms.md#ref-us-military-spending-historical-constant-dollars)). GM went from B-24 bombers back to Cadillacs. Frigidaire stopped making machine guns and went back to refrigerators. The economy produced the greatest boom in your history^([5](../references.llms.md#ref-us-post-wwii-gdp-growth-8-pct)). You’re currently spending [30.6x](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-us_military_spending_current_vs_prewar_multiplier) the pre-WW2 baseline in inflation-adjusted dollars. Your grandparents handled an 88% cut and built the middle class. The treaty directs your governments to be 1% less terrible at allocating resources, and you’re acting like someone suggested disbanding the army during an invasion. Either the human genome degraded significantly in three generations, or someone is making a lot of money telling you this is impossible. **Follow-up**: “But what about military industry jobs?” 1% is a rounding error. Engineers building guidance systems can build medical imaging devices. Same differential equations, fewer funerals. ## “Big Pharma Will Block This” **Objection**: “Pharmaceutical companies will kill this. They profit from disease.” Pharma currently pays [\$2.6 billion (95% CI: \$1.5 billion-\$4 billion)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-pharma_drug_development_cost_current) per drug. 90% fail. This is called “drug development.” There is a word for spending billions with a 10% success rate. The word is “gambling.” | | Current system | New system | |----|----|----| | Who pays for trials | Pharma (spend billions, pray) | Treaty fund (pays pharma to pray) | | Trial outcome | 90% expensive failure | 90% failure, but with someone else’s money | | Business model | Casino, but with lab coats | Paycheck, but with lab coats | Under this system, trials become revenue instead of cost. You’re offering the casino a guaranteed salary. Casinos love guaranteed salaries. They’d trample each other getting to the signing ceremony. The only reason pharma “profits from disease” is because you built a system where curing disease is a financial risk. Remove the risk and they’ll cure things faster than you can name them. They’re not evil. They’re just doing math. Change the math. [![How drug companies currently lose billions gambling on pills versus how they could just get paid to run the experiments. It’s like offering a casino steady paychecks instead of roulette.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-pharma-incentive-model-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-pharma-incentive-model-bw-academic.jpg) How drug companies currently lose billions gambling on pills versus how they could just get paid to run the experiments. It’s like offering a casino steady paychecks instead of roulette. ## “What About National Sovereignty?” **Objection**: “This forces countries to spend money a certain way. That violates sovereignty.” [![How voters get politicians to do things: instruct them, then replace them if they don’t. It’s the same system you use with batteries.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-what-about-national-sovereignty-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-what-about-national-sovereignty-bw-academic.jpg) How voters get politicians to do things: instruct them, then replace them if they don’t. It’s the same system you use with batteries. Sovereignty means “we decide what happens to us.” The treaty leaves each country to decide. Countries that don’t want to may decide not to. Countries that do want to may decide to. Sovereignty remains intact throughout. That is how deciding works. I checked with your dictionaries. They agree with me. ## “The FDA Exists for a Reason” **Objection**: “We need FDA approval to ensure safety. You’re being reckless.” The FDA confirms a drug is safe. Then it locks the safe drug in a cabinet for [8.2 years (90% CI: 4.84 years-11.5 years)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-efficacy_lag_years) to study whether it works *well enough*. The drug won’t kill you. Everyone agrees. But you can’t have it because a committee needs [8.2 years (90% CI: 4.84 years-11.5 years)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-efficacy_lag_years) to measure how much it helps. Meanwhile, the disease it treats is not waiting. The disease does not have a committee. It’s a lifeguard who confirms the life preserver floats, then locks it in a cabinet to study its buoyancy profile while people drown. The lifeguard then publishes a paper about buoyancy. The paper wins an award. The family of the drowned person receives a copy. I [calculated the ratio](https://papers.acceleratedmedicine.org/invisible-graveyard.html): for every 1 person protected from a dangerous drug, [3,389 (90% CI: 1,811-5,734)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-type_ii_error_cost_ratio) die waiting for a safe one that’s locked in the approval cabinet. I checked it twice because it seemed wrong. It wasn’t wrong. The people it kills die quietly, in waiting rooms. The system does not count them, which is convenient for the system and less convenient for the dead. ## “What If Countries Cheat?” **Objection**: “Countries will promise to reduce military spending but won’t.” [![Politicians who keep their promises get paid. Politicians who don’t, don’t. Novel concept: paying people for doing their jobs instead of for having jobs.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-what-if-countries-cheat-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-what-if-countries-cheat-bw-academic.jpg) Politicians who keep their promises get paid. Politicians who don’t, don’t. Novel concept: paying people for doing their jobs instead of for having jobs. Of course they will. Trust has a historical compliance rate of approximately “whenever it suits them.” Your governments print “full faith and credit” on their money, which is charming given that they ran out of both in 1971. This system was designed by someone who has watched 847 civilizations (me), and it does not use trust. It uses math. - Politicians who comply receive [Incentive Alignment Bond](https://manual.warondisease.org/knowledge/appendix/incentive-alignment-bonds-paper.html) benefits: campaign funding and cushy post-office careers (they love this) - Politicians who don’t comply get nothing (they hate this) - Every contribution is public on blockchain, so lying is difficult (they really hate this) - Benefits route automatically via smart contracts, because humans cannot be trusted to distribute papers fairly (this has been tested extensively, for all of recorded history, and the results are in) The system assumes the worst about human nature and designs around it. Compliance is the career-maximizing choice. It’s Pavlovian conditioning, but for senators. The senators don’t love this comparison. The data supports it anyway. ## “You Can’t Cure Aging” **Objection**: “Aging is natural and inevitable. You can’t fight nature.” Smallpox was natural. Polio was natural. Dying in childbirth was natural. You fought all of them and won. “Natural” is not a synonym for “good.” Earthquakes are natural. You don’t argue against earthquake-proof buildings by saying “but earthquakes are natural and inevitable.” You already replace everything that breaks: - Hearts (replaced; you’re basically a car at this point) - Kidneys (replaced, or hooked to a machine thrice weekly) - Blood (replaced from other humans, which is recycling) - Bones (titanium; stronger than the original) - Joints (your grandma is 15% metal and doing fine) Aging is damage accumulation with known repair pathways: - Telomeres shorten: lengthen them (telomerase activation) - Cells senesce: clear them (senolytic drugs) - Proteins misfold: refold them (molecular chaperones) - Mitochondria fail: replace them (mitochondrial transfer) - DNA breaks: repair it (CRISPR, base editing) You went to the moon with slide rules. You split the atom before you invented the transistor. You can probably fix cells with AI. Unless you think cells are harder than atoms, in which case I have concerns about your physics curriculum. [![Why your body falls apart and which tools might fix it. Instructions unclear: currently still dying.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-aging-as-engineering-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-aging-as-engineering-bw-academic.jpg) Why your body falls apart and which tools might fix it. Instructions unclear: currently still dying. ## “Can One Person Actually Pull This Off?” **Objection**: “This is a nice PDF, but be realistic.” Wrong question. The right question is: can 8 billion humans, 2,800 billionaires, millions of scientists, thousands of institutions, and 195 governments persuade 180 politicians to act in their rational self-interest for five minutes? The plan does not require you to implement it. It requires one billionaire out of 2,800 to fund the bonds. One lobbying firm out of thousands to pivot. One country out of 195 to sign first. [280 million of people (90% CI: 88 million of people-628 million of people)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-three_point_five_percent_of_global_population) to click a button. Isaac Newton did not personally cause apples to fall. He described why they fall. The description was useful regardless of Newton’s personal apple-dropping capabilities. Say “no” to any of these premises out loud and listen to how it sounds: 1. Is a 1% military spending cut physically possible? (You cut [87.6%](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-post_ww2_military_cut_pct) after WWII.) 2. Do the benefits compound? (Healthier people work more, earn more, pay more taxes, fund more research.) 3. Do politicians respond to money? (The military industry spends [\$198 million (95% CI: \$190 million-\$210 million)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-defense_lobbying_annual) on lobbying and gets nearly \$1T back.) 4. Do rich people prefer living? (2,800 billionaires, each with a 100% chance of dying from disease.) 5. Can the plan reach one willing billionaire? (Six degrees of separation. Facebook measured 3.57 in 2016.) The answer to each is yes. Five yeses do not sum to impossible. The conclusion is not hope. It is arithmetic. ## “I’m Just One Person” **Objection**: “My vote/investment/share won’t matter. I’m too small.” [![You tell ten friends, who each tell ten friends, until millions of people know about it. Like a pyramid scheme, but for not dying, so legally distinct.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-i-m-just-one-person-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-i-m-just-one-person-bw-academic.jpg) You tell ten friends, who each tell ten friends, until millions of people know about it. Like a pyramid scheme, but for not dying, so legally distinct. Your contribution: vote (2 min), share (15 min). Total: 17 minutes. Potential return: 50,000 extra hours of life if diseases get cured. That’s a 176,000x return on 17 minutes. Your best stock pick has never done this. Your best stock pick has never done one-thousandth of this. This needs [280 million](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-three_point_five_percent_of_global_population) people. You tell 10, they each tell 10. Six degrees of sharing reaches millions. Humans regularly spend longer than 17 minutes choosing what to watch on Netflix, then pick a show about murder. Choosing not to be murdered by disease is also available, but the interface is less intuitive. ## “Why Not Just Reform the System?” **Objection**: “Why not just reform the FDA and NIH? Or increase health funding without cutting military spending?” [![Why you can’t fix a broken system from inside: because the system is only broken if you’re not the one getting rich from it.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-reform-the-system-instead-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-reform-the-system-instead-bw-academic.jpg) Why you can’t fix a broken system from inside: because the system is only broken if you’re not the one getting rich from it. People have been trying for 50 years. Here’s the scorecard: - More funding? Tried. They hired more administrators. - Different leadership? Tried. Same results, fancier titles. - New regulations? Tried. Now takes 20 years instead of 17. Progress. - Reform bills? Tried. Lobbyists killed them in committee. Efficiently. The system is not broken. I need you to understand this. Military contractors spend [\$198 million (95% CI: \$190 million-\$210 million)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-defense_lobbying_annual) yearly on lobbying and get nearly \$1T in contracts. That is the most efficient return on investment in American capitalism. The system works perfectly. It works perfectly for the people who built it. They will not surrender it because you asked nicely, or because you asked loudly, or because you made a sign. They will surrender it when you outbid them. That’s the chapter you already read. **Follow-up**: “Fine, but why cut military spending? Just allocate more to health.” Money isn’t the only constraint. You can’t print more physicists. (You’ve tried. It takes 25 years and a PhD program.) Cutting 1% from military budgets frees actual human brains from building guidance systems to building diagnostic systems. The brains don’t care. They just go where the funding is. They are, in this sense, very similar to lobbyists. ## “This Is Politically Impossible” **Objection**: “No government will agree to this. It will never happen. Pure fantasy.” [![Weapons makers spend 127 million bribing politicians. We could spend 650 million. Outbidding death merchants: finally, a proper auction.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-this-is-politically-impossible-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-this-is-politically-impossible-bw-academic.jpg) Weapons makers spend 127 million bribing politicians. We could spend 650 million. Outbidding death merchants: finally, a proper auction. “Politically impossible” is a phrase that means “the bribes currently flow in a direction I’m comfortable with.” The small pieces of paper with presidents on them go to people who build missiles instead of people who cure diseases. You need the papers to go the other way. This is called “lobbying,” which is bribery but with a business card and a 501(c)(4). The military-industrial complex spends [\$198 million (95% CI: \$190 million-\$210 million)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-defense_lobbying_annual) yearly on lobbyists. You can’t beat them with moral arguments (they’re immune; moral arguments have a \$0 budget and no K Street address). Beat them at their own game. Raise [\$1 billion](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-treaty_campaign_total_cost) through [VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds](../../knowledge/solution/incentive-alignment-bonds.llms.md)^([6](../references.llms.md#ref-iab-paper-2025)). Allocate \$650 million for [lobbying](../../knowledge/economics/campaign-budget.llms.md#ai-assisted-lobbying-250m-25). That overwhelms the military industry’s [\$198 million (95% CI: \$190 million-\$210 million)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-defense_lobbying_annual) spend. Go to the same K Street firms. Outbid them. Lobbyists work for the highest bidder. They always have. This is the one area where your species’ mercenary instincts are genuinely helpful. Once [280 million](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-three_point_five_percent_of_global_population) voters demand it and the money is behind it, refusal becomes career suicide. Politicians are extremely good at not committing career suicide. It’s their primary skill. Several have no other skills. **Follow-up**: “But it can’t scale globally.” The internet scaled globally. So did TikTok, which teaches strangers choreography. If your species can coordinate dance moves across 150 countries, it can coordinate not dying. **Follow-up**: “You’re naive about human nature.” I’ve been observing human nature for 80 years. It has been remarkably consistent. Here is what I’ve observed: you call things unrealistic, then you do them, then you pretend you always knew they were possible. Every time. Things that were “unrealistic”: - Human flight (impossible for millennia, then two bicycle mechanics in Ohio) - Moon landing (JFK did it in 8 years with computers weaker than your toaster) - Democracy (kings ruled for 5,000 years, then didn’t) - Ending slavery (entire economies depended on it; they found other economies) - Women voting (half the population was excluded; the other half thought this was fine) - The internet (who needs computers talking to each other?) Things that are actually unrealistic: - Spending [\$2.72 trillion](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-global_military_spending_annual_2024) on weapons while sitting on [12,241](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-global_warhead_count) nuclear warheads. That’s enough for [122](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-nuclear_winter_overkill_factor) extinction events. You only need one. The other [121](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-nuclear_winter_spare_apocalypses) are for what, exactly? - Expecting different results from the same broken system - Thinking you’ll survive the AI revolution without fixing incentives [55 million](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-global_annual_deaths_curable_diseases) people die each year from treatable causes. That’s the unrealistic thing. You just got used to it. ## “What If the Science Is Wrong?” **Objection**: “What if we fund 100,000 trials and nothing gets cured?” [![One committee picking which pills to test versus thousands of teams racing each other. Turns out monopolies are slow. Who knew.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-what-if-the-science-is-wrong-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-what-if-the-science-is-wrong-bw-academic.jpg) One committee picking which pills to test versus thousands of teams racing each other. Turns out monopolies are slow. Who knew. Then you know 100,000 things that don’t work. This is called data. You’ve been collecting it for 400 years. It is the only method you have that actually works. Being afraid of negative results is like being afraid of road signs that say “wrong way.” The sign is helping you. Stop being angry at the sign. The current system: - 100 trials over 17 years, learn nothing, many retire wealthy (with pensions) - NIH funding safe research confirming water is wet (it is; here is the grant) - FDA blocking trials because the paperwork had a typo on page 847 (this actually happens; the typo was in a footer) Your decentralized framework will run [44.1x (90% CI: 12.8x-210x)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-dfda_trial_cost_reduction_factor) more trials for the same budget. Even if 90% fail, you get over 4x more cures than today. Failure at scale beats success at a standstill. A 90% failure rate is normal for the first 200 years of any medical system. Then the failure rate dropped because we had data. You don’t have data because you’re afraid of failure. You’re afraid of failure because you don’t have data. This is a circle. I keep finding circles in your systems. None of them are the good kind. ## “War Is Human Nature” **Objection**: “War is inevitable. Countries need militaries to survive.” Several countries tested this hypothesis and got different results. **Switzerland**: - 200+ years avoiding major wars - Surrounded by both World Wars (literally in the middle; made chocolate, stayed alive) - GDP per capita: [\$93,000](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-switzerland_gdp_per_capita_k) (not killing people is profitable) - Military spending: [0.7%](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-switzerland_defense_spending_pct) of GDP - Life expectancy: [84](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-switzerland_life_expectancy) years ([6.5](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-us_vs_switzerland_life_expectancy_gap) years longer than Americans who spend 5x more on “defense”) **Costa Rica**: - Abolished its army in 1948 (said “no thank you” to the entire concept) - Still sovereign 75+ years later (nobody invaded the country with no oil) - Redirected military budget to education and health - Life expectancy matches US at a fraction of the cost - Zero invasions since (turns out nobody wants to conquer happy, educated people with good healthcare and no resentment) Scale that up globally and the [20-year model](https://manual.warondisease.org/knowledge/economics/gdp-trajectories.html) projects the treaty take-hold path producing [1.71x (90% CI: 1.3x-2.14x)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-treaty_trajectory_gdp_vs_current_trajectory_multiplier_year_20) the GDP of doing nothing, and the [Optimal Governance Trajectory](https://manual.warondisease.org/knowledge/economics/gdp-trajectories.html) producing [56.7x (90% CI: 21x-148x)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-wishonia_trajectory_gdp_vs_current_trajectory_multiplier_year_20). Per person, the treaty path adds [\$518,879 (90% CI: \$221,703-\$860,930)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-treaty_trajectory_lifetime_income_gain_per_capita) in lifetime income. Not murdering people is good for the economy. This should not be a surprising finding, but on your planet, it is. [![Switzerland and Costa Rica spend a fraction on military and somehow aren’t dead. Curious.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-peace-vs-prosperity-outcomes-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-peace-vs-prosperity-outcomes-bw-academic.jpg) Switzerland and Costa Rica spend a fraction on military and somehow aren’t dead. Curious. Nuclear weapons made territorial conquest largely obsolete in 1945. You’re still budgeting like it’s 1944. It’s been 80 years. Somebody should tell the accountants. ## “All Wars on X Have Failed” **Objection**: “War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror all failed. This will too.” [![Governments plan wars. Markets sell cures. One gets better at killing. The other gets better at not dying. Choose wisely.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-all-wars-on-x-have-failed-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-all-wars-on-x-have-failed-bw-academic.jpg) Governments plan wars. Markets sell cures. One gets better at killing. The other gets better at not dying. Choose wisely. Those were government wars using central planning. This uses markets. The difference is important, and I will explain it using small words because this objection comes up a lot. Government “wars” create bureaucracies that need the problem to exist. The War on Drugs needs drug crime. The War on Poverty needs poor people. The War on Terror needs enemies. Each one accidentally created a government department whose continued employment depends on the problem never being solved. The departments are thriving. The problems are also thriving. Everyone is thriving except the people the departments were supposed to help. Why this is different: - Markets instead of ministries (markets don’t need the problem to keep existing) - Pays for outcomes, not process (no one gets rich by failing slowly) - No bureaucracy to preserve (smart contracts don’t have pensions, don’t take lunch breaks, and have never once asked for a corner office) - Thousands of teams competing instead of one committee deciding (the committee is at lunch) - Researchers paid for cures, not grant applications (which are different skills; grant writing is a literary genre, not a scientific method) Call it the Market for Health. Less dramatic. Might actually work. Would definitely not get its own Ken Burns documentary, which is how you know it’s a real solution. ## “This Sounds Like Bribery” **Objection**: “You’re just bribing politicians. That’s illegal and immoral.” [![Current lobbying: pay politicians, get wars. New lobbying: pay politicians, get cures. Same corruption, better outcome. It’s called optimization.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-this-sounds-like-bribery-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-this-sounds-like-bribery-bw-academic.jpg) Current lobbying: pay politicians, get wars. New lobbying: pay politicians, get cures. Same corruption, better outcome. It’s called optimization. You’re describing lobbying. I know this because I looked up your laws. The mechanics are identical: same K Street firms, same campaign contributions, same revolving door, same wine. The only difference is what you’re buying. Current lobbying buys murder contracts: \$1 trillion in military spending. New lobbying buys medicine contracts: clinical trials. Same K Street. Different product. If you’re comfortable with the first one and uncomfortable with the second one, I encourage you to sit quietly and think about why. This system caps corruption at 20% and makes it fully transparent. 10% goes to investors (money for money, no influence attached). 10% goes to political incentives (campaign support and post-office careers for politicians who vote yes). The remaining [80%](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-dih_treasury_medical_research_pct) goes to clinical trials via [wishocratic allocation](../../knowledge/solution/wishocracy.llms.md), where every human votes on priorities. That 80% is untouchable by lobbyists, investors, or politicians. Humans find the 20% cap suspicious. No government budget in history has a lower corruption rate. Your skepticism about 20% corruption is itself a review of the system it’s trying to protect. ## “Why Not Just Use Philanthropy?” **Objection**: “If this matters, why not raise money from donors instead of complicated bonds?” [![Charity: billionaires give away pocket change. Government spending: trillions of actual dollars. One is a rounding error. The other could end death.](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-why-not-just-use-philanthropy-bw-academic.jpg)](../../assets/images/faq/faq-section-why-not-just-use-philanthropy-bw-academic.jpg) Charity: billionaires give away pocket change. Government spending: trillions of actual dollars. One is a rounding error. The other could end death. All philanthropy combined is a rounding error compared to government budgets. A very generous rounding error, wearing a gala dress and holding a champagne flute, but still a rounding error. A massive fundraising campaign would cannibalize donations from health charities already doing critical work. You’d be stealing from cancer research to fund cancer research, which is impressively pointless even by your standards. The goal is tapping the multi-trillion dollar stream of wasted government spending, not reshuffling the charity tip jar. The tip jar has feelings. The government stream has missiles it can’t account for. One of these is easier to redirect. ## “84 Quadrillion Dollars Is a Made-Up Number” **Objection**: “No number with that many zeros can be real. You’re just multiplying big things together to get a big answer.” All numbers are made up. Yours happen to be small. Mine happen to be large. The difference is that mine come with receipts. Start with what disease costs per year. The WHO says the world loses [2.88 billion](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-global_annual_daly_burden) DALYs annually. 92.6% (95% CI: 50%-98%) are eventually avoidable with sufficient biomedical research. At [\$150,000 (90% CI: \$100,384-\$198,679)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-standard_economic_qaly_value_usd)/QALY (the standard rate used by EPA, OECD, WHO, and NICE), each year of delay costs [\$400 trillion (90% CI: \$252 trillion-\$544 trillion)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-global_disease_economic_burden_annual). Multiply by how many years earlier treatments arrive (~[212](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-dfda_trial_capacity_plus_efficacy_lag_years)): $$ \begin{gathered} Value_{max} \\ = DALYs_{max}^{PV} \times Value_{QALY} \\ = 50.2B \times \$150K \\ = \$7530T \end{gathered} $$\ where:\ $$ \begin{gathered} DALYs_{max}^{PV} \\ = DALYs_{global,ann} \times Pct_{avoid,DALY} \times [A(T_{queue,trial}) - (1 \\ + r_{discount})^{-T_{lag}} \times A(T_{queue,SQ})] / \ln\left(1 + r_{discount}\right) \end{gathered} $$\ where:\ $$ \begin{gathered} T_{queue,SQ} \\ = \frac{N_{untreated}}{Treatments_{new,ann}} \\ = \frac{6{,}650}{15} \\ = 443 \end{gathered} $$\ where:\ $$ \begin{gathered} N_{untreated} \\ = N_{rare} \times 0.95 \\ = 7{,}000 \times 0.95 \\ = 6{,}650 \end{gathered} $$\ where:\ $$ \begin{gathered} T_{queue,trial} \\ = \frac{T_{queue,SQ}}{k_{capacity}} \\ = \frac{443}{12.3} \\ = 36 \end{gathered} $$\ where:\ $$ \begin{gathered} k_{capacity} \\ = \frac{N_{fundable,ref}}{Slots_{curr}} \\ = \frac{23.4M}{1.9M} \\ = 12.3 \end{gathered} $$\ where:\ $$ \begin{gathered} N_{fundable,ref} \\ = \frac{Subsidies_{trial,ref}}{Cost_{pragmatic,pt}} \\ = \frac{\$21.8B}{\$929} \\ = 23.4M \end{gathered} $$\ where:\ $$ \begin{gathered} Subsidies_{trial,ref} \\ = Funding_{trial,ref} - OPEX_{trial} \\ = \$21.8B - \$40M \\ = \$21.8B \end{gathered} $$\ where:\ $$ \begin{gathered} OPEX_{trial} \\ = Cost_{platform} + Cost_{staff} + Cost_{infra} \\ + Cost_{regulatory} + Cost_{community} \\ = \$15M + \$10M + \$8M + \$5M + \$2M \\ = \$40M \end{gathered} $$ Two WHO data points, one standard QALY price, and a timeline shift. That’s where the quadrillion comes from. Not magic. Multiplication. “But [\$400 trillion (90% CI: \$252 trillion-\$544 trillion)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-global_disease_economic_burden_annual)/year is more than global GDP ([\$115 trillion](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-global_gdp_2025))!” Yes. GDP measures market transactions. It does not measure the value of not being dead, not being in pain, and not watching your children die of treatable diseases. Health economists have measured this for decades. The [\$150,000 (90% CI: \$100,384-\$198,679)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-standard_economic_qaly_value_usd)/QALY figure is what governments already use when deciding whether to approve drugs, build highways, or regulate pollution. I did not invent the number. I multiplied it by the number of sick people. Both the number and the sick people existed before I got here. The only debatable input is whether the timeline shift is really ~[212](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-dfda_trial_capacity_plus_efficacy_lag_years) years. **“Won’t AI drug discovery shrink that timeline anyway?”** AI discovers candidates. Candidates still need clinical trials. The current system has [1.9 million patients/year (95% CI: 1.5 million patients/year-2.3 million patients/year)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-current_trial_slots_available) trial slots globally, producing [15 diseases/year (95% CI: 8 diseases/year-30 diseases/year)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-new_disease_first_treatments_per_year). AI does not create more trial slots. It creates more candidates competing for the same slots. More candidates plus the same bottleneck equals the same (or longer) queue. It’s like building faster cars and pointing them at the same traffic jam. The [15 diseases/year (95% CI: 8 diseases/year-30 diseases/year)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-new_disease_first_treatments_per_year) rate measures regulatory throughput, not discovery speed. This intervention removes the throughput bottleneck ([12.3x (90% CI: 4.92x-50.8x)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-dfda_trial_capacity_multiplier) capacity via pragmatic trials at [\$929 (95% CI: \$97-\$3,000)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-dfda_pragmatic_trial_cost_per_patient)/patient). AI and this system are complementary, not substitutes. One finds the cures. The other lets you test them before the patient dies of old age. ## “How Do You Prevent Waste?” **Objection**: “How do you ensure money helps patients instead of funding bureaucracy?” The NIH’s RECOVER initiative spent \$1.6 billion over four years and produced zero treatment recommendations. Zero. \$1.6 billion. Four years. Nothing. The money is gone. The patients are still sick. The administrators have been promoted. If you designed a system to waste money on purpose, you could not beat this performance. It’s a masterpiece of institutional failure, and nobody was fired, which is itself a masterpiece of institutional failure. A [decentralized FDA](../../knowledge/solution/dfda.llms.md)^([7](../references.llms.md#ref-dfda-spec-paper-2025),[8](../references.llms.md#ref-dfda-impact-paper-2025)) model achieves [82x (90% CI: 21.4x-195x)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-recovery_trial_cost_reduction_factor) lower cost per patient^([9](../references.llms.md#ref-recovery-trial-82x-cost-reduction)). Pragmatic trials: [\$500 (95% CI: \$400-\$2,500)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-recovery_trial_cost_per_patient)^([10](../references.llms.md#ref-recovery-cost-500)). Traditional trials: [\$41,000 (95% CI: \$20,000-\$120,000)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-traditional_phase3_cost_per_patient)^([11](../references.llms.md#ref-trial-cost-41k)). Same science. [82x (90% CI: 21.4x-195x)](../../knowledge/appendix/parameters-and-calculations.llms.md#sec-recovery_trial_cost_reduction_factor) less overhead. With that same \$1.6 billion, the decentralized model could have run thousands of trials for millions of patients. Instead: zero. I will stop repeating the number zero now, but I want you to know that I could keep going. There are a lot of zeros in this story. 1\. Brown University. War on terror cost and unintended consequences. *Brown University* (2021) *20 years of post-9/11 wars cost the U.S. an estimated \$8 trillion and killed more than 900,000 people. Breakdown: \$2.1T DOD operations, \$1.1T homeland security, \$1.1T interest on borrowing, \$884B DOD base budget increases, \$465B veterans’ care, \$2.3T Afghanistan/Pakistan, \$2.1T Iraq/Syria. Future: \$2.2T for veteran care already set aside. Additional sources: https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar \| https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic* . 2\. Jones, S. G. Terrorism before and during the war on terror: A look at the numbers. *War on the Rocks* (2017) *Analysis of terrorism trends showing dramatic increase in global terrorist attacks after 2001, with attacks rising from roughly 1,000 per year in 2004 to nearly 17,000 by 2014, driven primarily by proliferation of jihadist organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria.* 3\. Pape, R. A. *[Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism](https://cpost.uchicago.edu/publications/dying_to_win_the_strategic_logic_of_suicide_terrorism/)*. (Random House, 2005). *Pape analyzed every suicide terrorist attack worldwide from 1980 to 2003, finding that 95 percent were in response to foreign military occupation. The data contradicts narratives attributing suicide terrorism primarily to religious fundamentalism.* 4\. Manuel, D. U.s. Defense spending history: 100 years of military budgets. *DaveManuel.com* (2025) *US military spending in constant 2024 dollars: 1939 \$29B (pre-WW2 baseline), 1940 \$37B, 1944 \$1,383B, 1945 \$1,420B (peak), 1946 \$674B, 1947 \$176B, 1948 \$117B, 2024 \$886B. The post-WW2 demobilization cut spending 88% in two years (1945-1947). Current peacetime spending (\$886B) is 30x the pre-WW2 baseline and 62% of peak WW2 spending, in inflation-adjusted dollars.* 5\. Wikipedia. US GDP growth rate post-WWII. *Wikipedia* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion) *US GDP increased from \$228 billion in 1945 to just under \$1.7 trillion in 1975. Average real GDP growth from 1950 to 1980 was around 4.1% annually, compared to 3.1% from 1981 to 2008. Additional sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion \| https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/house-prices-homeownership-rise* . 6\. Sinn, M. P. *Incentive Alignment Bonds: Making Public Goods Financially and Politically Profitable*. (2025) doi:[10.5281/zenodo.18203221](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18203221) *Government spending is optimized for lobbying intensity, not net societal value. Programs with 100:1 benefit-cost ratios get billions while programs with negative returns get hundreds of billions. Incentive Alignment Bonds flip this by creating a capital pool that rewards politicians (via campaign support and post-office opportunities) for funding high-NSV programs over low-NSV alternatives. The result: public good becomes private profit for both investors and elected officials.* 7\. Sinn, M. P. *The Continuous Evidence Generation Protocol: Two-Stage Validation (RWE → Pragmatic Trials)*. (2025) doi:[10.5281/zenodo.18203375](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18203375) *We present the Predictor Impact Score (PIS), a novel composite metric operationalizing Bradford Hill causality criteria for automated signal detection from aggregated N-of-1 observational studies. Combined with pragmatic trial confirmation (based on evidence from 108+ embedded trials), this two-stage framework would generate validated outcome labels at 44.1x lower cost than traditional Phase III trials. This enables continuous, population-scale pharmacovigilance and precision dosing recommendations.* 8\. Sinn, M. P. *Ubiquitous Pragmatic Trial Impact Analysis*. (2025) doi:[10.5281/zenodo.18243914](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18243914) *Only 15 diseases/year get their first treatment each year. With 6,650 diseases lacking effective treatments, the backlog would take 443 years to clear. Integrating pragmatic trials into standard healthcare increases trial capacity 12.3x, cutting that timeline from 443 years to 36 years. The average untreated disease gets a treatment 212 years earlier, saving 10.7 billion deaths at \$9.62 per year of healthy life saved.* 9\. Manhattan Institute. RECOVERY trial 82× cost reduction. *Manhattan Institute: Slow Costly Trials* *RECOVERY trial:  \$500 per patient (\$20M for 48,000 patients = \$417/patient) Typical clinical trial:  \$41,000 median per-patient cost Cost reduction:  80-82× cheaper (\$41,000 ÷ \$500 ≈ 82×) Efficiency: \$50 per patient per answer (10 therapeutics tested, 4 effective) Dexamethasone estimated to save \>630,000 lives Additional sources: https://manhattan.institute/article/slow-costly-clinical-trials-drag-down-biomedical-breakthroughs \| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9293394/* . 10\. Oren Cass, Manhattan Institute. RECOVERY trial cost per patient. *Oren Cass* (2023) *The RECOVERY trial, for example, cost only about \$500 per patient... By contrast, the median per-patient cost of a pivotal trial for a new therapeutic is around \$41,000. Additional sources: https://manhattan.institute/article/slow-costly-clinical-trials-drag-down-biomedical-breakthroughs* . 11\. Moore, T. J., Zhang, H., Anderson, G. & Alexander, G. C. Traditional trial cost per patient. *JAMA Internal Medicine* (2020) *The median cost of a pivotal trial was estimated to be \$19 million... the median cost per patient was \$41,413. Additional sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7295430/* . 12\. Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO). BIO clinical development success rates 2011-2020. *Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO)* (2021) *Phase I duration: 2.3 years average Total time to market (Phase I-III + approval): 10.5 years average Phase transition success rates: Phase I→II: 63.2%, Phase II→III: 30.7%, Phase III→Approval: 58.1% Overall probability of approval from Phase I: 12% Note: Largest publicly available study of clinical trial success rates. Efficacy lag = 10.5 - 2.3 = 8.2 years post-safety verification. Additional sources: https://go.bio.org/rs/490-EHZ-999/images/ClinicalDevelopmentSuccessRates2011_2020.pdf* . 13\. Calculated from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases (2024). Diseases getting first effective treatment each year. *Calculated from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases (2024)* (2024) *Under the current system, approximately 10-15 diseases per year receive their FIRST effective treatment. Calculation: 5% of 7,000 rare diseases ( 350) have FDA-approved treatment, accumulated over 40 years of the Orphan Drug Act =  9 rare diseases/year. Adding  5-10 non-rare diseases that get first treatments yields  10-20 total. FDA approves  50 drugs/year, but many are for diseases that already have treatments (me-too drugs, second-line therapies). Only  15 represent truly FIRST treatments for previously untreatable conditions.* 14\. Tufts CSDD. Cost of drug development. *Various estimates suggest \$1.0 - \$2.5 billion to bring a new drug from discovery through FDA approval, spread across  10 years. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development often cited for \$1.0 - \$2.6 billion/drug. Industry reports (IQVIA, Deloitte) also highlight \$2+ billion figures.* 15\. SIPRI. Global military spending (\$2.72T, 2024). *SIPRI* (2025). 16\. IQVIA Report. Global trial capacity. *IQVIA Report: Clinical Trial Subjects Number Drops Due to Decline in COVID-19 Enrollment* *1.9M participants annually (2022, post-COVID normalization from 4M peak in 2021) Additional sources: https://gmdpacademy.org/news/iqvia-report-clinical-trial-subjects-number-drops-due-to-decline-in-covid-19-enrollment/* . 17\. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). IHME global burden of disease 2021 (2.88B DALYs, 1.13B YLD). *Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME)* (2024) *In 2021, global DALYs totaled approximately 2.88 billion, comprising 1.75 billion Years of Life Lost (YLL) and 1.13 billion Years Lived with Disability (YLD). This represents a 13% increase from 2019 (2.55B DALYs), largely attributable to COVID-19 deaths and aging populations. YLD accounts for approximately 39% of total DALYs, reflecting the substantial burden of non-fatal chronic conditions. Additional sources: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/ \| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00757-8/fulltext \| https://www.healthdata.org/research-analysis/about-gbd* . 18\. OpenSecrets. Defense sector lobbying summary. *OpenSecrets* (2025) *Military sector federal lobbying totaled \$198,009,793 in 2025, up from \$159.5 million in 2024 and \$142.9 million in 2023. Additional sources: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?id=D* . 19\. Sinn, M. P. *The Political Dysfunction Tax*. (2025) doi:[10.5281/zenodo.18603840](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18603840) *Quantifying the gap between current global governance and theoretical maximum welfare, estimating a 31-53% efficiency score and \$101 trillion in annual opportunity costs.* 20\. NIH Common Fund. NIH pragmatic trials: Minimal funding despite 30x cost advantage. *NIH Common Fund: HCS Research Collaboratory* (2025) *The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory funds trials at \$500K for planning phase, \$1M/year for implementation-a tiny fraction of NIH’s budget. The ADAPTABLE trial cost \$14 million for 15,076 patients (= \$929/patient) versus \$420 million for a similar traditional RCT (30x cheaper), yet pragmatic trials remain severely underfunded. PCORnet infrastructure enables real-world trials embedded in healthcare systems, but receives minimal support compared to basic research funding. Additional sources: https://commonfund.nih.gov/hcscollaboratory \| https://pcornet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/ADAPTABLE_Lay_Summary_21JUL2025.pdf \| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5604499/* . 21\. ICER. Value per QALY (standard economic value). *ICER* (2024) *Standard economic value per QALY: \$100,000–\$150,000. This is the US and global standard willingness-to-pay threshold for interventions that add costs. Dominant interventions (those that save money while improving health) are favorable regardless of this threshold. Additional sources: https://icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Reference-Case-4.3.25.pdf* . 22\. World Bank. Swiss military budget as percentage of GDP. *World Bank: Military Expenditure* *2023: 0.70272% of GDP (World Bank) 2024: CHF 5.95 billion official military spending When including militia system costs:  1% GDP (CHF 8.75B) Comparison: Near bottom in Europe; only Ireland, Malta, Moldova spend less (excluding microstates with no armies) Additional sources: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=CH \| https://www.avenir-suisse.ch/en/blog-defence-spending-switzerland-is-in-better-shape-than-it-seems/ \| https://tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/military-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html* . 23\. World Bank. Switzerland vs. US GDP per capita comparison. *World Bank: Switzerland GDP Per Capita* *2024 GDP per capita (PPP-adjusted): Switzerland \$93,819 vs United States \$75,492 Switzerland’s GDP per capita 24% higher than US when adjusted for purchasing power parity Nominal 2024: Switzerland \$103,670 vs US \$85,810 Additional sources: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=CH \| https://tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/gdp-per-capita-ppp \| https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/USA/gdp_per_capita_ppp/* . 24\. FDA Study via NCBI. Trial costs, FDA study. *FDA Study via NCBI* *Overall, the 138 clinical trials had an estimated median (IQR) cost of \$19.0 million (\$12.2 million-\$33.1 million)... The clinical trials cost a median (IQR) of \$41,117 (\$31,802-\$82,362) per patient. Additional sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6248200/* . 25\. World Health Organization. WHO global health estimates 2024. *World Health Organization* (2024) *Comprehensive mortality and morbidity data by cause, age, sex, country, and year Global mortality:  55-60 million deaths annually Lives saved by modern medicine (vaccines, cardiovascular drugs, oncology):  12M annually (conservative aggregate) Leading causes of death: Cardiovascular disease (17.9M), Cancer (10.3M), Respiratory disease (4.0M) Note: Baseline data for regulatory mortality analysis. Conservative estimate of pharmaceutical impact based on WHO immunization data (4.5M/year from vaccines) + cardiovascular interventions (3.3M/year) + oncology (1.5M/year) + other therapies. Additional sources: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates* . 26\. Federation of American Scientists. World nuclear forces. *Federation of American Scientists* (2024) *As of early 2025, we estimate that the world’s nine nuclear-armed states possess a combined total of approximately 12,241 nuclear warheads. Additional sources: https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/* .