Frequently Asked Objections
war-on-disease, 1-percent-treaty, medical-research, public-health, peace-dividend, decentralized-trials, dfda, dih, victory-bonds, health-economics, cost-benefit-analysis, clinical-trials, drug-development, regulatory-reform, military-spending, peace-economics, decentralized-governance, wishocracy, blockchain-governance, impact-investing
“This Is Too Ambitious”
Objection: “Nice idea, but it’ll never actually happen.”
Response: The Oxford RECOVERY trial tested 7 treatments in 6 months, saved 1 million lives, and cost $500 per patient. The FDA’s equivalent costs $48,000 per patient, which is approximately the price of a luxury car per question about whether aspirin works.
The trial used existing hospital systems. Hospitals, it turns out, already contain sick people.
We’re just scaling what already succeeded. Netflix convinced billions of humans to pay monthly subscriptions to watch strangers pretend to have problems. Medical trials should be comparatively straightforward.
Follow-up: “But globally?”
Response: The internet scaled globally. So did smartphones. So did that dance where everyone pretended to be a cowboy. If humanity can coordinate on the Macarena, clinical trials seem achievable.
“We Need the Military Budget”
Objection: “We can’t reduce military spending. That would make us vulnerable.”
Response: The treaty takes 1%. You keep 99%.
Current US military budget: $999B. After 1% reduction: $989B. The Pentagon loses this much in accounting errors quarterly.
Since every nation reduces by 1%, relative military balance stays identical. It’s like everyone agreeing to dial down the volume simultaneously. Your enemies have 1% fewer weapons pointed at you, which, even by strict military logic, counts as “better.”
Think of it as upgrading your security system. The greatest threats today aren’t tanks rolling over borders; they’re microscopic things rolling through airports. A pandemic can kill more people than our entire nuclear arsenal (all 13,000 warheads) without firing a shot or violating any airspace treaties.
Also, strong nations don’t get invaded. And what makes a nation strong? Healthy, productive people. A country drowning in preventable disease is weak, broke, and cranky. Broke, cranky countries start wars. Curing disease is preventative defense.
Finally, consider soft power. You can spend a trillion dollars on “hard power” to make other countries fear you. Or you can spend a fraction of that curing their citizens’ diseases and have them love you. Who has more real power: the world’s scary policeman, or the world’s beloved doctor?
Follow-up: “But what if enemies don’t reduce?”
Response: That’s the point of a treaty. Everyone signs simultaneously. Anyone who doesn’t gets international pressure and has to explain why they prefer global disease. This is politically challenging to message.
“Big Pharma Will Block This”
Objection: “Pharmaceutical companies will kill this. They profit from disease.”
Response: Pharma makes more money under this model.
Current system: Pharma pays $2.6B per drug. 90% fail. Only blockbusters turn profit. Net result: often bankruptcy.
New system: The treaty fund pays pharma to run trials. Trials become revenue centers instead of cost centers. Every drug becomes profitable, even the weird ones. Guaranteed revenue.
Pharma will lobby FOR this harder than they’ve lobbied for anything. It’s getting paid to do what they already do, except profitable.
“You Can’t Trust 8 Billion People”
Objection: “Letting everyone decide is mob rule. We need experts.”
Response: We trust 8 billion people to drive cars, use the internet, and vote for people with nuclear codes. But we can’t trust them to click “yes” on “should we cure disease”?
Polls consistently show people prefer their money fund medical trials rather than warfare. We’re not fighting public opinion; we’re unleashing it.
Follow-up: “But they’re not qualified!”
Response: The qualified experts (a 200-person NIH committee) haven’t cured any disease in 50 years. They have, however, become extremely qualified at explaining why they haven’t. Perhaps qualification isn’t the limiting factor.
“What About National Sovereignty?”
Objection: “This forces countries to spend money a certain way. That violates sovereignty.”
Response: No force involved. Countries voluntarily sign a treaty. Don’t want to sign? Don’t sign. Citizens demand it? Sign. This is how democracy works.
Follow-up: “What if our government doesn’t want to?”
Response: Vote them out. This is also how democracy works.
“The FDA Exists for a Reason”
Objection: “We need FDA approval to ensure safety. You’re being reckless.”
Response: The FDA’s caution kills more than it saves.
- FDA delays (1962-present): 4-10 million American deaths from drug lag
- FDA-prevented disasters: Maybe thalidomide (1,000 deaths)
- Net: FDA has killed 4,000-10,000 people for every person it saved
Under the decentralized framework for drug assessment, patients see real data on risks and benefits, then decide. Adults making informed choices about their own bodies.
“What If Countries Cheat?”
Objection: “Countries will promise to reduce military spending but won’t.”
Response: Blockchain verification, backed by satellites that can read serial numbers on tanks from orbit, plus traditional on-site inspections.
- Every contribution is public
- Smart contracts enforce allocation automatically
- Anyone can audit in real-time
- Cheating is immediately visible globally
The diplomatic fallout for the country that decides it prefers global disease is considerable. Unlike traditional treaties based on trust, this one is based on code and paranoia.
“You’re Being Unfair to the NIH”
Objection: “The NIH does good work! You’re being too negative.”
Response: The NIH has:
- $67.5B annual budget (more than many countries’ GDP)
- 50 years of operation
- Thousands of very smart researchers
- Zero diseases eradicated
Meanwhile, smallpox was eradicated through:
- Global coordination
- Decentralized implementation
- Direct patient access (the revolutionary concept of treating sick people)
- 10-year timeline
The NIH model produces papers. The smallpox model produced results. This plan uses the one that worked.
“This Sounds Like a Scam”
Objection: “272% returns? Curing disease? Too good to be true.”
Response:
The returns are high because the system captures value from a $109T disease burden. Economic benefits work out to over $7.5 million per person globally over 50 years. That’s 10% of $27.2B yearly inflows divided among bondholders. Math checks out.
The cures are achievable because Oxford proved the model works, we’re removing the FDA bottleneck, trials cost 82× less, and the timeline matches historical eradication efforts.
It sounds too good because we’ve been failing for so long, we forgot what success looks like.
“You Can’t Cure Aging”
Objection: “Aging is natural and inevitable. You can’t fight nature.”
Response: Dying from infected teeth was “natural” until dentistry. Dying in childbirth was “natural” until medicine. Everything is natural until someone fixes it.
We already replace everything that breaks:
- Hearts: We replace them (you’re basically a car at this point)
- Kidneys: We replace them (or hook you to a machine thrice weekly)
- Blood: We replace it (vampire economics, but medical)
- Bones: We replace them (titanium is better anyway)
- Joints: We replace them (your grandma is 15% metal)
Aging is damage accumulation:
- Telomeres shorten: We can lengthen them (telomerase activation)
- Cells senesce: We can clear them (senolytic drugs)
- Proteins misfold: We can refold them (molecular chaperones)
- Mitochondria fail: We can replace them (mitochondrial transfer)
- DNA breaks: We can repair it (CRISPR, base editing)
We went to the moon with slide rules. We can fix cells with AI.
Your body is a machine. Machines can be repaired. Aging is just harder engineering, not magic.
“I’m Just One Person”
Objection: “My vote/investment/share won’t matter. I’m too small.”
Response:
Every movement started with individuals. Civil rights started with Rosa Parks. Women’s suffrage started with individual women. The end of slavery started with individuals opposing it.
This needs 280 million people. You’re 1/280,000,000 of that.
But if you share with 10 people, you’re effectively 1/28,000,000. If they share with 10, you’re 1/2,800,000. Six degrees of sharing, you’ve reached millions.
You’re not too small. You’re the beginning.
“Politicians Will Steal the Money”
Objection: “Create a $27.2B fund, politicians will redirect it.”
Response: They can’t. Smart contracts.
Traditional budget: Congress allocates, bureaucrats decide, lobbying influences, money disappears.
Treaty fund: Smart contract holds money, code executes automatically, no human can redirect, no committees.
The code doesn’t just guard the money; it routes funding to trials with highest probability of success, based on data, not politics. Just math finding cures.
If politicians could steal it, we wouldn’t use this system.
“Reform the System Instead”
Objection: “Why not just reform the FDA and NIH?”
Response: People have been trying for 50 years. It’s like teaching a fish to climb a tree. The fish isn’t broken. It’s just a fish.
- More funding? Tried. They bought more paperwork.
- Different leadership? Tried. Same results, fancier titles.
- New regulations? Tried. Now takes 20 years instead of 17.
- Reform bills? Tried. Lobbyists killed them in committee.
The system can’t be fixed because it IS working perfectly. Just not for you.
Defense contractors spend $300M annually on lobbying and get nearly $1T in contracts. That’s not a broken system; that’s the best ROI on Earth. They won’t surrender it because you asked nicely.
The system won’t reform itself. Build around it instead.
“This Is Politically Impossible”
Objection: “No government will agree to this. Pure fantasy.”
Response: Politicians follow the path of least resistance and most money. Make this the easiest, most profitable decision of their careers.
The military-industrial complex spends $127M yearly on lobbyists. You can’t beat them with moral arguments. Beat them at their own game.
Raise $1.0B through VICTORY Bonds, allocate $250M for lobbying. That’s enough to overwhelm the defense industry’s $127M spend. Go to the same K-Street firms defense contractors use. Outbid them for their top talent.
Hire their best mercenaries to work for you.
Lobbyists work for the highest bidder. Become the highest bidder. Politicians suddenly hear more about votes from curing cancer, less about threats from countries they can’t locate on maps.
This isn’t fantasy. It’s a hostile takeover of the political influence market. Once 280 million voters demand it, refusal becomes politically impossible.
“I Don’t Trust Blockchain”
Objection: “Blockchain is a scam. I don’t want my money in crypto.”
Response:
Two things:
- You don’t need crypto. Bonds can be traditional financial instruments.
- Blockchain is just a public database. Like the internet, it’s a neutral tool. Criminals use it, but so do hospitals.
This system uses blockchain for one reason: it’s incorruptible.
- Transparency: Everyone sees where every dollar goes
- Automation: Smart contracts execute rules without human interference
- Incorruptibility: No politician can access the funds
You don’t have to like blockchain. You just have to like that it makes theft impossible.
“What If the Science Is Wrong?”
Objection: “What if we fund 100,000 trials and nothing gets cured?”
Response:
Worst case: We learn, with absolute certainty, 100,000 things that don’t work. This data is more valuable than anything the NIH has produced in decades. Edison found 10,000 ways not to make a lightbulb. We’ll find 100,000 ways not to cure cancer. That’s called science.
Still better than:
- Current system: 100 trials over 17 years, learn nothing, everyone retires wealthy
- NIH: Fund safe research confirming water is wet
- FDA: Block trials because paperwork had typos
Science works through experimentation. The decentralized framework lets us experiment 82× faster and cheaper.
Even if 90% fail, we still get 10× more cures than today.
“I’ll Wait and See”
Objection: “I’ll support it once I see results.”
Response:
Problem: It can’t work without you.
- Need 280M votes to pass treaty
- Need $1B bonds to fund campaign
- Need sharing to reach critical mass
If everyone waits for everyone else, nothing happens.
Classic collective action problem. A burning building where everyone waits for someone else to call the fire department.
Your choices:
- Participate now → might succeed
- Wait → definitely fails
While you wait, 150,000 people die today.
“I Don’t Have Time”
Objection: “I’m too busy.”
Response:
Time required: - Vote: 2 minutes - Buy bonds: 10 minutes - Share: 15 minutes - Total: 27 minutes
Time you’ll save if diseases are cured: - No doctor visits: hundreds of hours - No sick days: hundreds of hours - Extra years of life: tens of thousands of hours
ROI: 27 minutes for potentially 50,000 extra hours of life.
You have time. You just haven’t prioritized not dying. You spent more time today watching videos of cats doing unusual things.
“This Is Unrealistic”
Objection: “This will never happen. You’re naive about human nature.”
Response: Everything was unrealistic until it happened.
Things that were “unrealistic”:
- Human flight (impossible for millennia, then Wright Brothers)
- Moon landing (JFK made it happen in 9 years)
- Democracy (kings ruled for 5,000 years, then didn’t)
- Ending slavery (entire economies depended on it)
- Women voting (half the population was excluded)
- The internet (who needs computers talking?)
What’s actually unrealistic:
- Spending $2.7T on weapons while sitting on 13,000 nuclear warheads (enough for 130 extinction events)
- Expecting different results from the same broken system
- Thinking we can survive the AI revolution without fixing incentives
Reality check: 55 million people die unnecessarily each year from treatable causes. That’s what’s truly unrealistic to accept.
“War Is Human Nature”
Objection: “War is inevitable. Countries need militaries to survive.”
Response: Several countries prove otherwise.
Switzerland: - 200+ years avoiding major wars - Surrounded by both World Wars (literally in the middle of apocalypse, made chocolate) - GDP per capita: $93,000 (not killing people is profitable) - Defense spending: 0.7% of GDP - Life expectancy: 84 years (5 years longer than Americans who spend 5× more on “defense”) - Being boring is an excellent defense strategy
Costa Rica: - Abolished army in 1948 (said “nah, we’re good”) - Still sovereign 75+ years later (nobody invaded the country with no oil) - Redirected military budget to education and health - Life expectancy matches US at fraction of cost - Zero invasions since abolishing military (nobody wants to conquer a country of happy, educated people)
The pattern: Countries choosing peace get richer. Countries choosing war get poorer. Countries drained by disease are unstable and start fights. Countries investing in their people become too prosperous to bother with war.
The real world: Nuclear weapons made territorial conquest obsolete. We’re still acting like it’s 1945.
“All Wars on X Have Failed”
Objection: “War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror all failed. This will too.”
Response: Those were government wars using central planning. This uses markets.
Why government “wars” fail: They create bureaucracies that need the problem to exist. War on Drugs needs drug crime. War on Poverty needs poor people. War on Terror needs enemies. Central planning can’t solve complex problems.
The only war humanity won was World War 2, and that was against other humans. When you declare war on abstract concepts, the concepts always win.
Why the War on Disease is different: - Uses markets, not ministries - Pays for outcomes, not process - No bureaucracy to preserve (smart contracts) - Competition between solutions - Researchers paid for cures, not grants
The War on Disease is really the Market for Health.
You’re not declaring war. You’re declaring peace with biology and letting capitalism optimize.
“This Sounds Like Bribery”
Objection: “You’re just bribing politicians. That’s illegal and immoral.”
Response: Current “legal” lobbying IS bribery. It’s slow, inefficient, and produces war, disease, and existential risk. We’re applying market realities transparently to save lives. The consequentialist math is clear: the status quo produces preventable death. The goal is making healing more profitable than killing.
“This Isn’t a Real Movement”
Objection: “A global referendum is just online slacktivism, not real politics.”
Response: A cryptographically secure, on-chain list of 280 million verified supporters would be the largest, most powerful political mandate in human history. It’s a direct threat to captured political parties. Clicks on screens are the new boots on the ground when those clicks represent a voting bloc that can swing any election.
“It’s Unenforceable”
Objection: “Government promises to pay are unenforceable fantasy.”
Response: This doesn’t rely on courts. The system funds campaigns against leaders who break promises to their citizens. Enforcement is direct political and financial consequences for individual leaders who defy their mandate.
“You Can’t Verify 280M People”
Objection: “Impossible to verify 280 million people online without fraud.”
Response: Solved problem. The system combines proven methods:
- Government IDs: National e-ID systems (Estonia, India, EU)
- Biometrics: Fingerprints and face scans ensure unique individuals
- AI fraud detection: Algorithms spot suspicious patterns
- Mathematical verification: End-to-end verifiable voting with zero-knowledge proofs
These technologies already verify hundreds of millions globally for banking and government services.
“Blockchain Harms the Environment”
Objection: “You can’t save humanity while boiling the oceans with crypto mining.”
Response: That’s old technology. This uses modern, energy-efficient Proof-of-Stake systems, which consume 99.9% less energy than early Proof-of-Work blockchains. Saving global health includes planetary health.
“Billionaires Will Seize Control”
Objection: “A few billionaires could buy all the bonds and control everything.”
Response: The system uses voting mechanisms to prevent this. Quadratic voting makes each additional vote progressively more expensive, making single-entity domination impossible. Plus identity-based voting power based on reputation and participation, not just capital. The goal is governance by active participants, not just the wealthiest.
“Why Not Just Use Philanthropy?”
Objection: “If this matters, why not raise money from donors instead of complicated bonds?”
Response: Philanthropy is zero-sum. A massive campaign for this would cannibalize donations from thousands of vital health charities already doing critical work. The goal isn’t reshuffling a small pot of charitable giving; it’s tapping the multi-trillion dollar stream of wasted government spending. This permanently shifts global capital allocation from destruction to creation.
“How Do You Prevent Waste?”
Objection: “How do you ensure money helps patients instead of funding bureaucracy?”
Response: The decentralized framework for drug assessment model is 80× more efficient. Pragmatic trials cost $500 per patient versus $41,000 in traditional trials.
The NIH’s RECOVER initiative spent $1.6B for zero completed trials in 4 years. With that budget, this model could run 2,800 trials for 2.8 million patients. Evidence is overwhelming.
“Why Not Just Increase Health Funding?”
Objection: “Why cut military spending? Just allocate more money to health research.”
Response: It’s about reallocating finite resources, not printing money. The world’s top scientists, engineers, and manufacturing capacity are limited. A direct, treaty-bound reallocation forces a real shift. Cutting 1% from military budgets doesn’t just move dollars; it frees physicists and data scientists from building weapons to curing Alzheimer’s.
“What About Defense Industry Jobs?”
Objection: “This will destroy millions of defense industry jobs.”
Response: This redirects waste into a new job creation engine. The US contribution is less than 0.5% of trillions the Pentagon can’t account for. That wasted money creates medical jobs instead. Engineers building guidance systems can build next-generation medical imaging devices. This is a net job creator.
“This Disrespects Soldiers”
Objection: “This plan is anti-military and disrespects troops who protect us.”
Response: This supports soldiers by attacking budgetary waste that fails them. When trillions are unaccounted for, that’s money not buying better equipment or support for troops. This redirects a fraction of that waste to protect soldiers and their families from threats far more likely to harm them: pandemics and chronic disease.
“This Violates Election Law”
Objection: “Foreign nationals funding US elections is illegal, and your bonds sound like securities.”
Response: Hire good lawyers. Keep everything separate.
- Separate legal entities in each country with zero coordination on political spending
- Utility token structures with proper exemptions (Reg S, Reg A+)
- No shared systems, staff, or communication between entities involved in political action
Solved legal challenge.
“What If Major Powers Sabotage It?”
Objection: “What stops Russia or China from sabotaging the system?”
Response: Start with friendly nations (US/EU cover 55% of spending). Holdouts like Russia (<10% share) can’t derail the math. The alternative is unchecked geopolitics, risking nuclear winter killing 5+ billion people. Even partial adoption is better.
Conclusion
Every objection has an answer.
Current system: 55 million deaths yearly from treatable causes.
Proposed solution: Works. Requires your participation.
Three premises: - Not dying is good - War makes people die - Clinical trials make people not die
Conclusion: Move money from the “die” column to the “not die” column.
The math is simple. The choice is yours.