Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development

#21

Post by frisco »

dogma1138 wrote: post #19
salgernon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Various strains of HPV, which spread through sexual contact, cause most cases of cervical cancer. Two cervical cancer vaccines have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in the U.S. — Gardasil, for girls and boys, and Cervarix, for girls only." http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/sexual-health/in-depth/cervical-cancer-vaccine/art-20047292

Those aren't vaccines against cancer, those are vaccines against the papilloma virus. Vaccines against HPV are quite commonly administered in Europe, Asia and many middle eastern countries but it's not a wide anti cancer vaccine. And if it was you do realize that you are only proving my point right?

Where do you think cancer comes from? Hint: all kinds of things, but some are caused by viruses. No one really cares about HPV other than the fact that it tends to cause cervical cancer, so I don't think it's cheating to call that a "cancer vaccine".

Re: Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development

#22

Post by dogma1138 »

frisco wrote: post #21
dogma1138 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren't vaccines against cancer, those are vaccines against the papilloma virus. Vaccines against HPV are quite commonly administered in Europe, Asia and many middle eastern countries but it's not a wide anti cancer vaccine. And if it was you do realize that you are only proving my point right?

Where do you think cancer comes from? Hint: all kinds of things, but some are caused by viruses. No one really cares about HPV other than the fact that it tends to cause cervical cancer, so I don't think it's cheating to call that a "cancer vaccine".

I think you are missing the point read the entire thread I commented to to guy who said that vaccines have a completely different (and cheaper) logistical process which isn't correct.

I know there are many causes for cancer, but there are also potential anti cancer (note anti cancer not cancer causes) vaccines as your body does develop cancer specific antigens.

The problem is that your immune system is too slow to react that that tumors have specific mechanisms that are intended to evade it (colloquially known as tumor escape mechanisms), there are quite a few generic therapeutic cancer vaccines in development like Stimuvax and Imucin both targeting various antigen mechanisms like MUC1[0].

But again this is "proving my point" as the OP claimed there cancer treatment and vaccination isn't comparable, as there are no wide spread vaccines on the market atm but they are a very promising area of study it's not the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUC1

Re: Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development

#24

Post by isomorphic »

Gatsky wrote: post #9

This isn't a great representation of the issue. Everyone loves to hate the drug companies. First of all, the basic science is lacking. The vast majority of animal models in no way resemble the normal process by which humans develop cancer. The models are designed to grow aggressive cancers extremely fast so you can test drugs rapidly, publish your paper and get the next grant. Even more than that, what actually takes…

I could run eight miles a day with full pack, eat only protein and vegetables, have the mental outlook of the Buddha--and yet still get cancer because BP poured nearly two million gallons of Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico, creating unexpected toxins in the fish I ate. If the drug companies were to provide a pill to mitigate my hypothetical cancer, I would take it.

As you wrote, cancer risk probably involves effects from many factors. However, I'm not sure how redirecting "billions" to, e.g., "psychological 'sciences'" serves to reduce the incidence of cancers that are essentially environmental in origin. Healthy lifestyle only goes so far; I suspect the vast bulk of cancers are due to environmental factors or are intrinsic to the human aging process.

Re: Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development

#25

Post by copperx »

ars wrote: post #16
themartorana wrote: post #3

"There’s more money to be made investing in drugs that will extend cancer patients’ lives by a few months than in drugs that would prevent cancer in the first place. That’s one of the findings from the work of Heidi Williams, an M.I.T. economics professor and recent MacArthur Foundation “genius” grant winner, who studied the problem along with Eric Budish, a University of Chicago economics professor, and Ben Roin, as…

> there's no money in a cure I hope no one actually believes that, because it's really quite a stupid thing to say. There are TONS of industries that rely on selling things just once to consumers, and yet they have a huge market. How often do you buy a new toilet for example? Yet there are tons of models with lots of competition. There's plenty of money in a cure.

Not only that, but it makes the stupid assumption that a cure will be just one or a few doses. The cure could very well mean taking a pill for the rest of your life.

Hell, if you told cancer patients "we can control it, but it involves taking a pill once a day for the rest of your life. The cancer will not shrink, but it will never metastasize to other sites and you will not die from it as long as you take the pill." -- they will KILL to get ahold of it.

That would be the way for an evil company to extract maximum profit. And that's assuming there's a monopoly or a collusion between pharma companies (in reality, there is big competition).

Until that becomes a reality (if ever), people should shut up about cancer conspiracy theories.

Re: Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development

#26

Post by paul_milovanov »

If there is in fact such a problem with incentives, what entity do you think might have the power to create proper incentives, and what are the odds of it happening?

Or perhaps let's shelf this discussion at least until we figure out how to incentivize sustainable development of new antibiotics.

In fact, one extremely effective way to reduce cancer-related mortality would be to keep ignoring the problem with antibiotics. We may not exactly like the way that plays out though.

Re: Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development

#27

Post by Ntrails »

isomorphic wrote: post #24
Gatsky wrote: post #9

This isn't a great representation of the issue. Everyone loves to hate the drug companies. First of all, the basic science is lacking. The vast majority of animal models in no way resemble the normal process by which humans develop cancer. The models are designed to grow aggressive cancers extremely fast so you can test drugs rapidly, publish your paper and get the next grant. Even more than that, what actually takes…

I could run eight miles a day with full pack, eat only protein and vegetables, have the mental outlook of the Buddha--and yet still get cancer because BP poured nearly two million gallons of Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico, creating unexpected toxins in the fish I ate. If the drug companies were to provide a pill to mitigate my hypothetical cancer, I would take it. As you wrote, cancer risk probably involves effects…

>I suspect the vast bulk of cancers are due to environmental factors or are intrinsic to the human aging process

Sure. Those generalisations are super easy but don't help a pharma company to design research. Which are which? What factors are meaningful? How do I isolate them and test against them? Is there even a vague chance this research leads to a drug that I can sell for $$$?

(also is there any evidence that a protein and vegetable only diet reduces the risk of cancer in a meaningful fashion?)

Re: Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development

#28

Post by netcan »

paul_milovanov wrote: post #26

If there is in fact such a problem with incentives, what entity do you think might have the power to create proper incentives, and what are the odds of it happening? Or perhaps let's shelf this discussion at least until we figure out how to incentivize sustainable development of new antibiotics. In fact, one extremely effective way to reduce cancer-related mortality would be to keep ignoring the problem with antibiot…

I think that's a question we would benefit greatly from answering, if we could.could markets are a powerful and useful thing. But, the longer we play this game the more gaps emerge where human and economic incentives do not meet eye to eye.

If it were just a question of funding it would be solvable.

Re: Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development

#29

Post by marincounty »

Gatsky wrote: post #9

This isn't a great representation of the issue. Everyone loves to hate the drug companies. First of all, the basic science is lacking. The vast majority of animal models in no way resemble the normal process by which humans develop cancer. The models are designed to grow aggressive cancers extremely fast so you can test drugs rapidly, publish your paper and get the next grant. Even more than that, what actually takes…

I was with you up until this,

"A holistic approach to improving our health and well being would be preferable, at least incorporating nutrition, exercise and psychology."

I'm all for being healthy, getting good sleep,and exercise, but I dont want to go back to blaming cancer on personality types, or a lack of certain vitamins.

Those holistic cancer commercials on t.v. are irritating. Once you have cancer, all that holistic, clean living doesn't matter--unless I've been reading the wrong studies.

I'm getting to the age where my rate of cancer goes up. If I get it, I'll get the stats of my survival rate; then decide if I want to treat it conventionally. Holistic treatments are out for myself.

I used to wonder why Steve Jobs didn't run to conventional medicine the day he was told he had pancreatic cancer. After looking at the survival rates, I kinda understand why he looked for someting else. Pancreatic cancer has a low cure rate. I belive Steve Jobs was trying to invoke the placebo effect with all that eastern/holistic medicine b.s.? I do believe in the Placebo effect. I think every doctor out there would tell their patient, whatever you do--try to belive in its success rate!" I do think conventional medicine is the way to go, but believe you will get better. Don't scour the Internet. Just do the treatments, and believe you will get better. Drown out the talking heads. They don't know why we get this disease in most people, and they don't know exactly why we get better.

I'm not being flipped about cancer. I'm just wondering how I will handle the diagnosis/treatment--if I get it, or anyone close to me does.

Re: Why Preventing Cancer Is Not the Priority in Drug Development

#30

Post by _ywdj »

isomorphic wrote: post #24
Gatsky wrote: post #9

This isn't a great representation of the issue. Everyone loves to hate the drug companies. First of all, the basic science is lacking. The vast majority of animal models in no way resemble the normal process by which humans develop cancer. The models are designed to grow aggressive cancers extremely fast so you can test drugs rapidly, publish your paper and get the next grant. Even more than that, what actually takes…

I could run eight miles a day with full pack, eat only protein and vegetables, have the mental outlook of the Buddha--and yet still get cancer because BP poured nearly two million gallons of Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico, creating unexpected toxins in the fish I ate. If the drug companies were to provide a pill to mitigate my hypothetical cancer, I would take it. As you wrote, cancer risk probably involves effects…

I could run eight miles a day with full pack, eat only protein and vegetables, have the mental outlook of the Buddha--and yet still get cancer because...

Maybe, or maybe not. When you actually have cause to investigate this stuff deeply, as I have, it's surprising to discover how little is known about these kinds of things.

If you could take 100 people of similar age and health and had them all "run eight miles a day with full pack, eat only protein and vegetables, have the mental outlook of the Buddha", and 50 developed cancer and 50 didn't, little is known about why any given person would stay healthy and another would get sick.

As you wrote, cancer risk probably involves effects from many factors. However, I'm not sure how redirecting "billions" to, e.g., "psychological 'sciences'" serves to reduce the incidence of cancers that are essentially environmental in origin.

Having researched this topic in great depth, I'm now persuaded by the medical researchers like Bruce Lipton and Rudi Tanzi who assert, with solid scientific evidence, that psychology - particularly subconscious emotions - are a major factor in determining whether a person will develop or recover from serious illnesses like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, MS, ALS, etc.

Of course these ideas don't get much acceptance or affirmation from the majority of mainstream medical researchers, because, hey, everyone already knows that psychology and physiological health are totally independent, right?

It turns out we don't actually need to be redirecting "billions" to, e.g., "psychological 'sciences'".

It would suffice to let go of some of the unexamined assumptions and prejudices that prevail in the current research landscape, and pay some attention to the more open-minded researchers who are already investigating these things and coming up with promising findings.

Post reply on HN