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

Developing a cancer drug without Big Pharma: this hospital shows it can be done

ftm.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 159 posts

Re: Developing a cancer drug without Big Pharma: this hospital shows it can be done

#81

Post by ckemere »

nradov wrote: post #74
ramraj07 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, and if you recall, even YC tried to get in on this idea. Except they did the same mistake anyone who comes up with this disruption plan commits (including Google with Calico, or Zuck with CZI) - they recruit existing academics to do the disruption. Unfortunately this just fails miserably because they’re culturally corrupted to think of standard dogmas (like there can never be a single cure for cancer). I…

Is there any plausible biological reason to think that there could ever be a single cure for cancer?

Perhaps immune-based therapies like CAR-T are based on the premise that there are many cancerous cells in your body all the time, but your immune system deals with them, and it’s only when it fails to do so that you end up in the pathological state. So the “single cure” is the normally-functioning immune system?

Re: Developing a cancer drug without Big Pharma: this hospital shows it can be done

#82

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #19
ALittleLight wrote: post #3

That's interesting. I was just reading about how high dose IV vitamin c can induce cell death in a wide variety of cancers, but somehow, despite this being known for decades, nobody has done rigorous research on it. https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/news-eve... From what I can tell there are several things like this - that have promising anti cancer effects, that just don't really get that much atte…

It’s pretty unlikely that this is true for a few reasons: - Doctors want the best outcomes for their patients. They’ll use whatever treatment is most effective - Doctors want the best outcomes for themselves. If they’ve found an effective treatment that others are overlooking then they’ll seek to publish - Patients want the best outcomes for themselves. If there is an overlooked treatment then they’ll communicate it…

Very wrong on all 3. It's an extremely naive world view.

Re: Developing a cancer drug without Big Pharma: this hospital shows it can be done

#83

Post by jorvi »

DrScientist wrote: post #50
prox wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a market that can be disrupted? It sounds if you know how to save a few billion and introduce more science based drugs, it’s ripe for an overtake.

In the same way Uber disrupted licensed taxis - or the big internet firms disrupted ad supported media. ie totally ignoring existing regulations, pretending they don't apply to you and just hoping you can push through. In a lot of the 'problems' are the regulations ( which are double edged and tricky to get right ) - and pharma companies are just following the rules. I think governments might be less lax in letting t…

Uber disrupted taxis because taxis were a sleazy experience, with dirty old cars, “broken” meters and rude drivers that tried to get you to pay extortionate prices if they knew you were in a pinch.

Stop trying to venerate the taxi industry, they’re horrible.

Re: Developing a cancer drug without Big Pharma: this hospital shows it can be done

#84

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

ALittleLight wrote: post #3

That's interesting. I was just reading about how high dose IV vitamin c can induce cell death in a wide variety of cancers, but somehow, despite this being known for decades, nobody has done rigorous research on it. https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/news-eve... From what I can tell there are several things like this - that have promising anti cancer effects, that just don't really get that much atte…

>That's interesting. I was just reading about how high dose IV vitamin c can induce cell death in a wide variety of cancers, but somehow, despite this being known for decades, nobody has done rigorous research on it

Linus Pauling (of the Nobel Laureate fame) working along with some physicians did do 'rigorous' research on it, and I think had published a book on it. You should be able to check the Linus Pauling Institute and find literature on it. I probably did it over a decade back. Predictably he was ridiculed (IMO wrongfully) for it by people who did a very shoddy job of looking into the nuances.

The last I checked in the US the Riordan clinic offers Vit C for Cancer. There are probably several other practitioners who will not publicize that they treat patients for cancer (and several other chronic conditions) for obvious reasons.

Re: Developing a cancer drug without Big Pharma: this hospital shows it can be done

#85

Post by DrScientist »

datavirtue wrote: post #76
DrScientist wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prove that it’s better than what currently exists. So how do you do that ethically? How do you justify taking off something that you know works to some extent and try something completely new or worse placebo? ie don't you have to construct the trial in the context of existing treatments etc? These are the kind of challenges that makes drug development slow - in the end you don't do one trial, but a series of trial…

[flagged]

Purdue Pharma, fentanyl and doctors abrogating responsibility for patient safety is an example of 'go wild'.

On your second point - I'd agree that a lot of animal experiments are not that informative - but lets be clear 'clinical trials' are simply experiments on people.

I'm not sure I'd want to give Musk, Zuckerberg or Bezos free reign to experiment on desperate people in the medical space.

Depends on whether you treat people as just grist to your money making mill - or perhaps you think the ends justify the means?

Re: Developing a cancer drug without Big Pharma: this hospital shows it can be done

#86

Post by triceratops »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #82
shepherdjerred wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty unlikely that this is true for a few reasons: - Doctors want the best outcomes for their patients. They’ll use whatever treatment is most effective - Doctors want the best outcomes for themselves. If they’ve found an effective treatment that others are overlooking then they’ll seek to publish - Patients want the best outcomes for themselves. If there is an overlooked treatment then they’ll communicate it…

Very wrong on all 3. It's an extremely naive world view.

Please explain to us all why glory and survival aren't more effective motivators than the money to be made from patenting something.

Re: Developing a cancer drug without Big Pharma: this hospital shows it can be done

#88

Post by InDubioProRubio »

wesselbindt wrote: post #62
InDubioProRubio wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? There is a billion people on this planet without adequate medical system - whose health is not considered worth investing into. If they get auto-diagnosed by app (zero-cost), they could volunteer for a free chemical trial (delivery of package), a application of said package (local nurse - not free) and a series of follow up scans + analysis. The office behemoths involved are optional. Whats missing is tools…

> whose health is not considered worth investing into. If they get auto-diagnosed by app (zero-cost), they could volunteer for a free chemical trial What a profoundly ineffective and broken system we have that this could be uttered as anything other than satire.

PS: Yes, its a deeply broken system- and its also on the point where the well-off blue blooded caste starts to blame the lower-classes for the misery inflicted upon them again- aka, if you are of low blood, you are obviously lazy because you spend so much time in bed being sick. Ideology can be a very effective tool to deactivate compassion.

Re: Developing a cancer drug without Big Pharma: this hospital shows it can be done

#89

Post by InDubioProRubio »

wesselbindt wrote: post #66
InDubioProRubio wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the perfect nothing is allowed to block the imperfect something, because we wait for humans to transcend to angelic beeings?

Yeah, not doing human testing on poor folks without a choice is really "angelic" and "perfect". Very high bar to set, how could we possibly achieve such high standards of morality?

They have a choice. To use the medicine or not. The choice is gone in the other case- where you can die of cancer for "ethical" comission reasons.

Re: Developing a cancer drug without Big Pharma: this hospital shows it can be done

#90

Post by rflrob »

DrScientist wrote: post #59
llamaimperative wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing the finger at regulation is misleading IMO. The regulations for bringing a drug to market are essentially quite simple: prove that it’s better than what currently exists. What makes it difficult is the word “ prove ” It turns out it’s obscenely hard to make a drug that’s good, and even harder to prove that it’s good.

> prove that it’s better than what currently exists. So how do you do that ethically? How do you justify taking off something that you know works to some extent and try something completely new or worse placebo? ie don't you have to construct the trial in the context of existing treatments etc? These are the kind of challenges that makes drug development slow - in the end you don't do one trial, but a series of trial…

> or worse placebo

Just to be clear, most drug trials for anything where we have an effective treatment are not “new drug vs placebo”, but instead “new drug vs standard of care”. Thus the goal being to prove it’s better than what already exists.

Post reply on HN