Response to Shock Doctrine

I personally am a fan of Milton Friedman's, so reading the opening remarks of Klein's book was difficult to do from an unbiased standpoint; I perhaps have misconstrued her arguments as the result of my discontent with her views, but my response should lose no effect as a consequence.

To address a major point of the introduction, I don't believe that Friedman was the inventor of "shock therapy" in the sense of economics and politics, rather, I propose that he was simply the first man to pinpoint it as a successful method of profit. There are many instances throughout history (slave trade, the Chicago Fire) in which a select few were able to profit off of the afflicted- obviously slave traders in the 1800s and pillagers in the Chicago Fire of 1871. Of course, there is a marked boom in these profitable disasters (as one might call them) following Friedman's definition. Now comes the question of whether or not it was a mistake to assign meaning to the phenomena. Of course there is Klein's answer which states that following in Friedman's wake were the many reforms of economic and political entities which lead to the development of techniques to capitalize on disasters; in short, yes. But the other answer considers root cause analysis:

1. Determine what happened.
2. Determine why it happened.
3. Figure out what to do to reduce the likelihood that it will happen again.  

In this respect, the definition becomes necessary to solve the ever-present problem of those who find gain at the loss of others. So then two final, yet-to-be-answered questions arise: how many disasters will occur until the problem is rectified and will it be worth it to have brought the definition (Friedman's regarding profit from disaster) to the public?