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

We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

cshl.nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 142 posts

Re: We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

#81

Post by arcticbull »

Alex3917 wrote: post #77
arcticbull wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're unintentionally proving my point. Dietary supplements largely don't work, at all, and some of them are outright harmful. They basically do nothing, at best. So 75% of America probably, er, shouldn't. This is something a medical professional might tell you if you asked them. This visualization should help you understand the magnitude of just how little dietary supplements do -- it came up here on HN a w…

> I think you're unintentionally proving my point. My point was that the majority of American adults practice their own medicine, which is factually correct.

Again, in context, what I said was that there's a big difference between first aid and supplementation and a diagnostics and treatment. Nobody is arguing people don't take supplements and that probably technically counts as medicine, however it's clear in context that's not the kind of medicine I was referring to. Also, people are by and large bad at it, and shouldn't.

Re: We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

#82

Post by twunde »

trynewideas wrote: post #5

From a science and pharmaceutical perspective, maybe. As the partner of someone in the US dealing with stage 4 cancer in their 40s, who has two hospitals fighting with each other over whether to keep using a chemo drug that's sent them into anaphylactic shock twice in two rounds of chemo because it's _more convenient_ for the infusion clinic to administer, and all of that currently held up by pre-approval from a rela…

About the 40k bills, I would suggest not paying them immediately and talking to your insurance company regularly (yes, it's exhausting and a PITA). Because of their slower systems, they're probably doing billing calculations on a monthly cycle so if you got multiple bills within a time period, their systems haven't realized that you've hit your out of pocket max (in engineering terms you've got multiple concurrent processes running, but they're all using a cached version of your total billed). Also most billing departments take 60-90 days to bill you so your providers are optimized for billing quickly.

Also, if you call in about your bill you can usually get discounts for paying promptly or at least get put on a payment plan.

Re: We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

#83

Post by seebetter »

trynewideas wrote: post #5

From a science and pharmaceutical perspective, maybe. As the partner of someone in the US dealing with stage 4 cancer in their 40s, who has two hospitals fighting with each other over whether to keep using a chemo drug that's sent them into anaphylactic shock twice in two rounds of chemo because it's _more convenient_ for the infusion clinic to administer, and all of that currently held up by pre-approval from a rela…

I asked my oncologists and urologists the same question, and they all gave me the same scripted answer. No one knew if vitamins could help my cancer. No one knew if I could affect my IGF1 levels by diet ("I don't know but I doubt that.").

After this, I worked closely with several surgeons and realized how non-curious most doctors/surgeons are.

We create systems and then train individuals to operate within those systemically flawed organizations. The medical industry is incredibly complicated due to each link in the chain collecting their often exorbitant fees.

Re: We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

#84

Post by Jabbles »

seebetter wrote: post #83
trynewideas wrote: post #5

From a science and pharmaceutical perspective, maybe. As the partner of someone in the US dealing with stage 4 cancer in their 40s, who has two hospitals fighting with each other over whether to keep using a chemo drug that's sent them into anaphylactic shock twice in two rounds of chemo because it's _more convenient_ for the infusion clinic to administer, and all of that currently held up by pre-approval from a rela…

I asked my oncologists and urologists the same question, and they all gave me the same scripted answer. No one knew if vitamins could help my cancer. No one knew if I could affect my IGF1 levels by diet ("I don't know but I doubt that."). After this, I worked closely with several surgeons and realized how non-curious most doctors/surgeons are. We create systems and then train individuals to operate within those syste…

It's probably because there is no known or proposed potential mechanism for how "vitamins could help [your] cancer". I bet most doctors try to keep up to date on scientific studies that show promise.

Rather than say "no", they say "there's no evidence". Probably because of the litigious nature of the job.

What do you expect them to do, if there isn't any evidence?

Re: We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

#85

Post by simonebrunozzi »

trynewideas wrote: post #5

From a science and pharmaceutical perspective, maybe. As the partner of someone in the US dealing with stage 4 cancer in their 40s, who has two hospitals fighting with each other over whether to keep using a chemo drug that's sent them into anaphylactic shock twice in two rounds of chemo because it's _more convenient_ for the infusion clinic to administer, and all of that currently held up by pre-approval from a rela…

I am sorry for what you and your partner must be going through.

There might be other nations where this is less the case. My Italian father in law has lung cancer, and I am able to observe some of the healthcare system in Italy, in relation to cancer patients. My very anecdotal observation is that it seems far better than anything in the US (I live in SF, I assume you live in the US given your comments about in-network medical bills, etc).

This is just to say that your rage might be directed at one specific healthcare system (US), while other parts of the world might be doing better than that.

Re: We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

#86

Post by kiba »

ghufran_syed wrote: post #57
sacred_numbers wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentive for all parties (except the patients) is to increase revenue, rather than decrease costs. Insurance companies may want to reduce costs on a case by case basis, but on a macro level they want to spend more, since they are required to spend 80% of premiums received on treatment. More treatment means higher premiums, which means the 20% not spent on treatment is higher. Hospitals have similar incentives, s…

It's worth noting that Kaiser is a nonprofit that is both "payer" (insurance company) and "provider" (hospitals and clinics) in the US - so I would argue that they have exactly the right incentives that you outline - maximize patient outcomes for minimal cost. So I don't think you necessarily need the government involved.

My experience with Kaiser is that they from time to time have a clusterfuck system for online payment, and they still charging me high fees for various tests that costs hundred of dollars.

Re: We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

#87

Post by dstick »

gumby wrote: post #6
dstick wrote: post #3

So if I summarize correctly they re-evaluated already “FDA passed” but abandoned substances for anti-cancer workings using new techniques (CRISPR) and got 50 hits. That’s amazing! Would this work in other fields as well?

There’s a specific regulatory pathway for this process, section 505(b)(2). It allows you to use the safety data for the approved treatments which can save you a lot of time and money (I have used this route for a drug myself T one of my companies). You still have to prove that your formulation is safe,of course, and prove efficacy for the situation you intend to market it for.

Gotcha, and that makes sense. Seems like a big time saver regardless. Are we talking months or years, that are shaved off?

Re: We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

#88

Post by namenotrequired »

xenospn wrote: post #69
bserge wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a cancer that had been misdiagnosed as an infection, an iron deficiency, and a benign tumor for four months prior It's absolutely maddening that this is not even uncommon. Doctors think they know best, definitely better than you , and will stand by their sometimes quite obviously idiotic conclusions, leaving you helpless. And in some countries with universal healthcare, it's a lot harder to just go find a better do…

What do you mean? I'm from a country with universal healthcare, and you can just go see another doctor.

He said some

Re: We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

#89

Post by copperx »

xenospn wrote: post #9
trynewideas wrote: post #5

From a science and pharmaceutical perspective, maybe. As the partner of someone in the US dealing with stage 4 cancer in their 40s, who has two hospitals fighting with each other over whether to keep using a chemo drug that's sent them into anaphylactic shock twice in two rounds of chemo because it's _more convenient_ for the infusion clinic to administer, and all of that currently held up by pre-approval from a rela…

Just to add to your point - I think almost everyone reading this will have a story like this that they have either experienced firsthand, or had a relative/friend go through. I know I sure do.

Of course. 1/3 of the population will get cancer. It affects every person during their lifetime, directly or indirectly.

Re: We’re a Lot Better at Fighting Cancer Than We Realized

#90

Post by pyuser583 »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #85
trynewideas wrote: post #5

From a science and pharmaceutical perspective, maybe. As the partner of someone in the US dealing with stage 4 cancer in their 40s, who has two hospitals fighting with each other over whether to keep using a chemo drug that's sent them into anaphylactic shock twice in two rounds of chemo because it's _more convenient_ for the infusion clinic to administer, and all of that currently held up by pre-approval from a rela…

I am sorry for what you and your partner must be going through. There might be other nations where this is less the case. My Italian father in law has lung cancer, and I am able to observe some of the healthcare system in Italy, in relation to cancer patients. My very anecdotal observation is that it seems far better than anything in the US (I live in SF, I assume you live in the US given your comments about in-netwo…

The SF medical system is unusually terrible.

Source: I have a chronic condition, and have lived in quite a few places, including SF.

Post reply on HN