This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
October 15, 2000
October 15, 2020—“We’re not opposed to the progress of technology,” announced Phil Rex, spokesman for the Medical Doctor’s Association of America (MDAA). “We’re bringing charges against Viral Exchange because practicing medicine without a license, as they’re doing, is harmful to the public as well as to physicians.”
Ben De Mores of Viral Exchange countered, “We provide merely a genetic code categorization and search service. We are not responsible if our users trade information on gene alteration among themselves. In fact, we’re proud that people can share cures through our distributed technology for conditions ranging from sunburns to chronic diseases.”
According to biological law expert Ginger Lee, the MDAA-sponsored case treads a narrow boundary in the field recently dubbed “infirmation technology.” While unwilling to predict the outcome of the case, Lee discussed the larger context with the warning, “No ruling is going to halt the popularity of the new home cures.” She pointed out the growing epidemics of serious disease caused by environmental degradation and pollution. “Large companies want to continue getting rich off treatments for diseases that were rare just a generation ago,” she said. “Yet Viral Exchange should be viewed not just as a protest against these developments, but as an important new player in the emerging field of community medical research. We cannot simply dismiss a system that led to a successful, free cure for AIDS.”
Neither side is commenting heavily, because prominent participants in previous “infirmation technology” cases have often succumbed to mysterious diseases. However, the MDAA was recently embarrassed by a survey showing that 80% of its members had consulted Viral Exchange for help concerning their own patients during the past three months.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.