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

Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

columbiaspectator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#11

Post by ahoyhere »

stretchwithme wrote: post #8
mkramlich wrote: post #3

The article touches on one of the risks to the health care industry today, at least here in the US: In many cases, the pharmaceutical companies are making billions by selling drugs which merely reduce undesired symptoms. But do not CURE the underlying problem. And the symptom reduction only lasts while the user continues to buy and consume the drug. Therefore, in many cases, these companies have a strong financial in…

a lot of truth to that. I also think that if consumers were actually paying the full direct cost of treatments, they would be a lot less willing to pay for a chronic drug habit instead of a cure. Selling cures can be profitable too. Consumers are perfectly able to see and pay for the benefits of a one time solution as opposed to a cheaper chronic solution. That's why they buy cars and houses instead of renting them.…

The best health advances of all time were developed by passionate, and sometimes uneducated, volunteers -- people who were not working for a profit motive, but for a good-of-all motive. Case in point: the discoverer of penicillin, and the inventor of the vaccine, the inventor of the public blood bank, and on, and on, and on.

Inventing then was (arguably) less costly and technical than it is now, because those were low-hanging fruit. A lot of the low-hanging fruit has probably been discovered by now, though we can't be sure, meaning that future research aims at higher-hanging fruit and so, metaphorically, the would-be inventors need ladders.

These people need help, not profit, because profit isn't what motivates them anyway.

EDIT: Let's not forget public health reform can save more lives than just about anything else (thank you Oliver Wendel Holmes/Ignaz Semmelweis http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/hand_background.ph..., Sara Josephine Baker, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Josephine_Baker and their present day equivalent, Atul Gawande).

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#13

Post by _delirium »

ahoyhere wrote: post #11
stretchwithme wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a lot of truth to that. I also think that if consumers were actually paying the full direct cost of treatments, they would be a lot less willing to pay for a chronic drug habit instead of a cure. Selling cures can be profitable too. Consumers are perfectly able to see and pay for the benefits of a one time solution as opposed to a cheaper chronic solution. That's why they buy cars and houses instead of renting them.…

The best health advances of all time were developed by passionate, and sometimes uneducated, volunteers -- people who were not working for a profit motive, but for a good-of-all motive. Case in point: the discoverer of penicillin, and the inventor of the vaccine, the inventor of the public blood bank, and on, and on, and on. Inventing then was (arguably) less costly and technical than it is now, because those were lo…

Somehow it seems that the profit motive in pharmaceuticals motivates good science, but targeted at relatively strange things. "Lifestyle" drugs are huge: everyone wants the next Viagra, basically. Perhaps not surprising, because recreational drugs have always been popular, and the "fluff" end of legal pharmaceutical development is the part that sort of bleeds into recreational, since it tends to target something closer to "enhancing" the lives of already fairly healthy people with money, rather than "treating" the ill.

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#14

Post by dmpayton »

corruption wrote: post #12

He should put the project on kickstarter and let the people speak :) I'd throw in some money, as would every type-1 I know.

As the husband of a Type I, I would gladly donate a portion of my income if it would go directly to finding a cure.

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#15

Post by idiopathic »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #5
mkramlich wrote: post #3

The article touches on one of the risks to the health care industry today, at least here in the US: In many cases, the pharmaceutical companies are making billions by selling drugs which merely reduce undesired symptoms. But do not CURE the underlying problem. And the symptom reduction only lasts while the user continues to buy and consume the drug. Therefore, in many cases, these companies have a strong financial in…

That's a classic example of an area where government can NOT do better than business, because government sucks at innovation. There are plenty of companies that are not selling insulin, so they would be interested to be able to sell diabetes cure. Assuming the chances of developing the cure are reasonably good.

You might be right that government can not do better than business, but this particular story is an example of where they can.

If there really "are plenty of companies that are not selling insulin, so they would be interested to be able to sell diabetes cure", none of them has come forward. This might be because the chances of developing are not good enough, but it sounds to me like you are starting from an assumption ("private sector would jump on this is if it was a good idea") and working your way backwards ("therefore this cannot have been a good idea").

Personally, my belief is that the best funding approach is multi-polar. In other words, there should be some government funding, some private sector, and some non-profit foundation funding. Each of these funders has blind spots, and is frightened by some research while others embrace it. The combination allows the entrepreneurial scientist to push their research forward at each stage.

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#16

Post by ahoyhere »

_delirium wrote: post #13
ahoyhere wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best health advances of all time were developed by passionate, and sometimes uneducated, volunteers -- people who were not working for a profit motive, but for a good-of-all motive. Case in point: the discoverer of penicillin, and the inventor of the vaccine, the inventor of the public blood bank, and on, and on, and on. Inventing then was (arguably) less costly and technical than it is now, because those were lo…

Somehow it seems that the profit motive in pharmaceuticals motivates good science, but targeted at relatively strange things. "Lifestyle" drugs are huge: everyone wants the next Viagra, basically. Perhaps not surprising, because recreational drugs have always been popular, and the "fluff" end of legal pharmaceutical development is the part that sort of bleeds into recreational, since it tends to target something clos…

Yes, exactly: if pharma is good business, and not philanthropy, then they have to focus on the people who will pay the most, the most readily, and the most often. End of story.

Case in point: I'm an American who lives in Vienna, Austria, and I have recurring upper-respiratory/immune system problems.

Here, I am treated with a so-cheap-it's-almost-free immune system booster called Broncho Vaxom. It's nothing but dead bacteria, but it's extremely effective (essentially an oral vaccine).

It's used to save lives of children in the poorest of nations -- but it's not available in the US, because it's not profitable, whereas continuous rounds of antibiotics are.

http://www.google.com/search?q=broncho%20vaxom

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#17

Post by ai09 »

I submit that there's more to this story than "pharmaceutical companies weren’t interested in developing the therapy".

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation http://www.jdrf.org/ funded $100 million dollars of research last year alone into research for juvenile diabetes (type I). Link: http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&p... Funding is predominantly from individuals and families searching for a cure for diabetes. That includes people like myself and my family. We could care less what mechanism or what business model cures diabetes.

Of that research, there is significant research into stem cell therapies and cures Link: http://onlineapps.jdfcure.org/AbstractSearchEngine.cfm Select "stem cell therapy" from the drop down.

Lastly, the head of JDRF is a tech star. http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=113971 He founded Citysearch and Overture (the originator of keyword marketing. Bought by Yahoo).

I'm a big JDRF supporter since my sister has Type 1 diabetes. For any of you that are passionate about curing Type 1 diabetes, look into JDRF. Link: http://www.jdrf.org/

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#18

Post by prodigal_erik »

_delirium wrote: post #13
ahoyhere wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best health advances of all time were developed by passionate, and sometimes uneducated, volunteers -- people who were not working for a profit motive, but for a good-of-all motive. Case in point: the discoverer of penicillin, and the inventor of the vaccine, the inventor of the public blood bank, and on, and on, and on. Inventing then was (arguably) less costly and technical than it is now, because those were lo…

Somehow it seems that the profit motive in pharmaceuticals motivates good science, but targeted at relatively strange things. "Lifestyle" drugs are huge: everyone wants the next Viagra, basically. Perhaps not surprising, because recreational drugs have always been popular, and the "fluff" end of legal pharmaceutical development is the part that sort of bleeds into recreational, since it tends to target something clos…

Viagra was discovered by accident (it was a heart medicine that didn't work out). And I've never understood why it's sneered at. Are there really that many people out there who could face no sex again ever and shrug it off? I think that would be utterly soul-crushing, worse than most of the diseases they have charity walks and telethons for.

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#19

Post by crocowhile »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #5
mkramlich wrote: post #3

The article touches on one of the risks to the health care industry today, at least here in the US: In many cases, the pharmaceutical companies are making billions by selling drugs which merely reduce undesired symptoms. But do not CURE the underlying problem. And the symptom reduction only lasts while the user continues to buy and consume the drug. Therefore, in many cases, these companies have a strong financial in…

That's a classic example of an area where government can NOT do better than business, because government sucks at innovation. There are plenty of companies that are not selling insulin, so they would be interested to be able to sell diabetes cure. Assuming the chances of developing the cure are reasonably good.

Government sucks at innovation? What are you talking about? Pretty much everything that is basic science is paid by government in every nation. It is govt that gave us the internet, the bomb, and the man on the moon. Virtually every nobel prize in history has been given to people who worked for public universities.

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#20

Post by hnote »

A very similar story can be told about Denise Faustman's ongoing research into the cure.

She has also cured Type I in mice, although using other means.

And she also got her share of first-class controversy. Cf. http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2005/05/01/4126/why-did-t... and the preceding New York Times article "I BEG TO DIFFER; A Diabetes Researcher Forges Her Own Path to a Cure" http://bit.ly/bzUkWs . The JDRF doens't look good in this case at all.

More information about her approach at http://www.faustmanlab.org/

A good overview of other immune-based therapeutic approaches from 2006 can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868847/

It's interesting to follow the scientific debate. The 2006 review sponsored by JDRF claims that the methods used by Faustman offer little promise, and can even be harmful. She offers a completely opposite view, claiming in a 2008 paper

  Because our findings showing potential benefits of TNF 
  or TNF agonism for treating AI, it seems paradoxical 
  that anti-TNF therapies are a major therapeutic class 
  of drugs currently marketed for AI. TNF antagonists 
  have provided clinical benefit to about half of AI   patients,
  those with rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease. Yet an 
  expanding body of research in animal models on spontaneous 
  autoimmunity suggests the opposite strategy may be 
  warranted. Furthermore, in humans, several clinical 
  observations deserve mention. First, many Crohn's and 
  rheumatoid arthritis patients never respond to TNF 
  antagonists. Second, long-term treatment with anti-TNF drugs 
  can be accompanied by onset of new or aggravated forms of 
  autoimmunity, sometimes new autoantibodies, suggesting that, 
  for some AIs, anti-TNF therapy may not be the drug of choice .
(http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13644.full)

To me, the JDRF arguments sound more fishy than hers. It's a tricky business of solving puzzles like that, especially as an outsider. But it's fun to see how far one can go following the debate.

Post reply on HN