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

Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 137 posts

Re: Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

#91

Post by roberte3 »

jackweirdy wrote: post #3

> Although the cases drew wide media attention in Britain, some researchers said that because the London team also gave the children standard chemotherapy, they failed to show the cell treatment actually cured the kids. Could someone explain what the process for proving it would be in this case? I presume some kind of animal testing? Seems pretty immoral to give someone a wildcard treatment and not back it up with so…

Its not immoral.

Right now I'm in a cancer treatment study. (my particular study is a "shotgun" type of study. They have a drug that they know works on certain types of cancer, but they have a guess that it might work on my weird/rare type.)

The previous studies on this drug I'm on, were done on patients they had exhausted the conventional treatments, chemo, radiation etc. And they were put on this drug as a last chance after the conventional treatments had failed. I'm lucky in that I'm getting this drug as a first line treatment.

In this case, with these kids, it sounds like they were given the traditional chemo, and when that show results, they tried this. As a result, they don't know if the chemo caused the remission or it was the T-Cells, or the combination.

Re: Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

#92

Post by omegaworks »

gozur88 wrote: post #80
omegaworks wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private insurers are too fragmented and small to negotiate a reasonable price for treatment. They lack the leverage that something like a national single-payer system would have.

If by that you mean they can't dictate the price of drugs, sure. But that has more to do with not being an arm of the state than being "fragmented and small".

The CHS and NHS are able to negotiate drug prices even though they can't coerce US companies with force.

Re: Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

#93

Post by omegaworks »

replicatorblog wrote: post #56
omegaworks wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private insurers are too fragmented and small to negotiate a reasonable price for treatment. They lack the leverage that something like a national single-payer system would have.

The largest insurer in the US covers more people than the NHS. The second and third largest insurers rival other continental health services.

Please offer an alternative rationale for why they aren't as effective. I'm trying to understand why US healthcare is so broken.

Re: Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

#94

Post by stonemetal »

mediocrejoker wrote: post #11

> “We estimate the cost to manufacture a dose would be about $4,000,” she says. That’s compared to a cost of around $50,000 to alter a patient’s cells and return them. > Either type of treatment is likely to cost insurers half a million dollars or more if they reach the market. Can someone more familiar with the pharmaceutical industry explain this?

One dose costs $4,000. A full treatment is more than one dose. That sounds like over 100 doses if all you do is pop some pills. If I had to guess it probably isn't 100 doses but you have to do other things like stay in a hospital during the course of treatment, other tests, or something else that adds to the price tag.

AKA the price tag on a service is usually much more than the cost of goods sold.

Re: Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

#95

Post by mhluongo »

sjg007 wrote: post #89
voxic11 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, cancer does not have standardized treatments. The remission rates vary greatly depending on the hospital and even on the doctor.

Huh...? There are standard treatment protocols.

The point still stands in practice- it's an interesting sociology of science topic. There are often unwritten rules and protocols that have a huge impact.

Re: Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

#96

Post by lisper »

mustacheemperor wrote: post #90
earthly10x wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farther back in the history of the demonization of marijuana you'll find it's connected to an argument used by fundamental Christians, Evangelical Christians, related to demons, spirits and the spirit world. Now combine that with fundamental republican right.

Prohibition may have been pushed using a Christian narrative but only because it made it an appealing message for the wider population that wasn't going to just take "look, we can sell way more paper and cigarettes now" as justification.

And that technique continues to be effective. If anything, it has become more viable over the years. I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at the prosperity gospel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology) and not see the blatant cynicism behind it.

Re: Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

#97

Post by DanBC »

jackweirdy wrote: post #3

> Although the cases drew wide media attention in Britain, some researchers said that because the London team also gave the children standard chemotherapy, they failed to show the cell treatment actually cured the kids. Could someone explain what the process for proving it would be in this case? I presume some kind of animal testing? Seems pretty immoral to give someone a wildcard treatment and not back it up with so…

> Could someone explain what the process for proving it would be in this case?

You can have a look at NICE who do the cost:benefit approvals for meds in England.

Here's what they said about Abraxane, a medication for pancreatic cancer. (TL:DR it's not good enough to replace current first treatment, and it has too many side effects to replace current second level treatment. I don't think cost, a bit over £5000 for the average patient, was a factor.)

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta360

If you walk through the complete document you can see what they think is important; what the manufacturers think is important, and what evidence is used.

It's written for a specific audience, and it's a bit medical, but it's (IMO) very readable.

Re: Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

#99

Post by refurb »

omegaworks wrote: post #45
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly profit to pay back the investors for billions of dollars in research and development, and baked in liability insurance. Some of it also goes to pay for the R&D of other drugs that never make it to market.

This is propaganda. Spending on research and development at private pharmaceutical companies is dramatically eclipsed by marketing and sales spend. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...

Yes, but sales and marketing has a positive ROI. If you spend $100M on sales and marketing, you'll get $150M back (for example). Otherwise, why would you do it?

So if pharma companies cut out all of their sales and marketing, they'd have even less revenue than they do today. And that would lower R&D spend.

Re: Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

#100

Post by refurb »

omegaworks wrote: post #93
replicatorblog wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest insurer in the US covers more people than the NHS. The second and third largest insurers rival other continental health services.

Please offer an alternative rationale for why they aren't as effective. I'm trying to understand why US healthcare is so broken.

It's easy. The UK can say "no" to paying for certain drugs. They take some political flak for it, but overall they've been able to keep spending down.

Even mention not paying for something in the US and holy hell happens. Even Medicare and Medicaid can't say no for the most part.

If American's want cheaper healthcare they are going to have to get used to having less of it and not get all the fancy new technology right away.

Post reply on HN