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

41–50 of 60 posts

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

#41

Post by HarryHirsch »

adevine wrote: post #13
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…

If there's no money in a cure, how are the new hepatitis-c cures being sold for tens of thousands of dollars?

Because the only other cure is a liver transplant, and the market will pay anything up to that price.

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

#42

Post by _ywdj »

ethbro wrote: post #38
_ywdj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wasn't me with the downvote, but just as a friendly comment, you do come off a little "if you knew more, you'd feel as I do" with this comment. Maybe, as another suggests, focus more on information and provide some links?

Thanks for that, I hear what you're saying and appreciate you saying it.

Hopefully my followup comment adds some substance - though not links to one-off studies, as it's to broad a topic for that.

For you or anyone else interested, Lipton's The Biology of Belief explains the principles very well on a cellular biology level. Tanzi's books with Deepak Chopra (Super Brain and Super Genes) are probably more of an affront to credulity given the Chopra connection, but are there for anyone who can get over that.

Yes they are all pitched at the new age self-help market because that's the audience that's into this kind of stuff at the moment.

Hopefully that won't be the case forever, and signs are there that attitudes are starting to change.

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

#43

Post by coldtea »

dogma1138 wrote: post #17
coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already know that cancer is not caused by a virus (at least in the general case), so it can't be fixed in the same way as vaccines. And we've already been looking for cancer drugs for more than half a century to know that the logistics compared to vaccines are different. Let's put it this way: if they knew of a method to make cancer prevention drugs as easy and effective as vaccines, they'd have made them.

Nonsense there are multiple types of vaccines toxiod vaccines for example vaccinate you against toxic compounds such as snake bites. There is quite a bit of research into regressive therapeutic and preventative vaccines against cancer currently. A vaccine is a process which teaches your immune system to combat a certain condition whether it's caused by a bacteria, parasite, a virus or a toxin it doesn't matter. If yo…

>If you can teach your own immune system to combat cancer by either teaching it to attack certain markers, or by disabling the "stealth" mechanisms which many types of cancer use to fly under it's radar you've effectively created a vaccine.

All of that is known, and they've been trying that for half a century with not much success (besides the occasional report for a "cancer vaccine"). What makes you think they don't know the logistics involved already?

>Also vaccination is one of the most logistically complicated processes in medicine they are extremely short lived require very precise refrigeration and proper administration is considerably more critical than most cancer treatments, 80-90% of the cost of vaccination programs in developed and developing countries alike go into logistics.

Not really relevant. Being short lived and requiring "precise refrigeration and proper administration", is not the same kind of problem as the research for cancer vaccines.

The former is actually a solved problem, and something that even all third world countries are able to do just fine anyway...

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

#46

Post by sireat »

_ywdj wrote: post #30
isomorphic wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would love to see some links to that scientific evidence especially about the developing an illness from negative outlook.

It seems almost an accepted wisdom that mental outlook would play some part in recovery process. Think positive and you will recover/improve somewhat faster(this has been in popular press many times in last 20-30 years).

However, I have a hard time finding evidence that negative outlook makes you get a serious illness.

This is something that I see in magazines of dubious nature("The seven all-natural cures to dementia that your doctor is hiding from you!")

Are there publications with peer-review behind that?

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

#47

Post by sokoloff »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #33

Well, preventing Cancer has been a priority for evolution since the first multicellular organisms arose. It's just not that easy. Developing a drug is an economically difficult thing: Spend billions for the chance to win billions. The only alternatives to big pharma in developing these drugs are big government and big charity (Gates' Foundation et al).

Preventing cancer that prevents reproduction or hampers offspring survival is a priority for evolution.

Cancer affecting the old is not strongly de-selected for by evolution.

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

#48

Post by crusso »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #33

Well, preventing Cancer has been a priority for evolution since the first multicellular organisms arose. It's just not that easy. Developing a drug is an economically difficult thing: Spend billions for the chance to win billions. The only alternatives to big pharma in developing these drugs are big government and big charity (Gates' Foundation et al).

Well, preventing Cancer has been a priority for evolution since the first multicellular organisms arose

It's only a "priority for evolution" to prevent cancer before the better years for breeding have passed - and evolution has done a fairly good job with that. After breeding and a little time for rearing young in the higher life forms, evolution has no real use for us.

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

#49

Post by _ywdj »

sireat wrote: post #46
_ywdj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would love to see some links to that scientific evidence especially about the developing an illness from negative outlook. It seems almost an accepted wisdom that mental outlook would play some part in recovery process. Think positive and you will recover/improve somewhat faster(this has been in popular press many times in last 20-30 years). However, I have a hard time finding evidence that negative outlook makes y…

Here's a couple of links:

http://www.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2013/Emotional_Stres...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18190880/

The process of stress leading to disease is fairly well-established and uncontroversial:

1) Any stress puts the body into fight or flight mode

2) When the body is in fight/flight, energy/nutrients are devoted to short-term survival, not long-term needs like immunity, cell-repair, digestion

3) After long enough in this state (chronic fight/flight) infections take over, cells break down, tumors form, etc.

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

#50

Post by liveoneggs »

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…

> or are intrinsic to the human aging process

Exactly. You can still get your cancer without BP.

Post reply on HN