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

FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 228 posts

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#131

Post by ajross »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #121
ajross wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the collective probability of rare, but expensive health issues is basically 100% Not really, no. Most people will die of something expensive, but not $2M expensive. A quick google says that per-capita lifetime health care expediture is ~$300k.

If you are referencing this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/ That data is from the late 1990s, before the Affordable Care Act greatly expanded access to healthcare, and many new treatment options have become available since then. What I meant, though, is that across a big population’s entire lifetime, there will be a ton of high healthcare cost events. And with technological progress, new treatme…

> What I meant, though, is that across a big population’s entire lifetime, there will be a ton of high healthcare cost events. And with technological progress, new treatments will always be coming out. Which is a great thing, just not what is typically thought of as an “insurable risk”.

Sorry, how does that follow? Insurance works any time you have a function with predictable average but high variance. Is the total health care expenditure across a relevant subscriber base in 2023 very close to 2022? Then you can make insurance work. It's just math.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#132

Post by evrimoztamur »

MiddleEndian wrote: post #13

Lots of AI content recently (and I am working on AI-adjacent stuff myself lol), but I am most excited for upcoming medical changes. Cure every disease, then let people have designer bodies if they like.

You might enjoy Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future if that idea is appealing to you. Very curious execution of a disease-free bio-tech (organ-ic-tech?) future.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#133

Post by dragonwriter »

codedokode wrote: post #130
dragonwriter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to Wikipedia, sickle cell disease is a genetic disease meaning that it is caused by mistakes in DNA. If parents did DNA testing and were warned that they are carriers of invalid DNA and decided not to have children, maybe there would be no need to do costly research and expensive treatment. The sickle cell allele is also a malaria resistance allele. Heterozygous = malaria resistance. Homozygous = sickle c…

There are other DNA mutations that give no advantage. For example, a mutation that causes nerves to die gradually.

> There are other DNA mutations that give no advantage

Yes, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#134

Post by foco_tubi »

evrimoztamur wrote: post #132
MiddleEndian wrote: post #13

Lots of AI content recently (and I am working on AI-adjacent stuff myself lol), but I am most excited for upcoming medical changes. Cure every disease, then let people have designer bodies if they like.

You might enjoy Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future if that idea is appealing to you. Very curious execution of a disease-free bio-tech (organ-ic-tech?) future.

I just wanna be able to digest plastic

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#135

Post by lotsofpulp »

ajross wrote: post #131
lotsofpulp wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are referencing this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/ That data is from the late 1990s, before the Affordable Care Act greatly expanded access to healthcare, and many new treatment options have become available since then. What I meant, though, is that across a big population’s entire lifetime, there will be a ton of high healthcare cost events. And with technological progress, new treatme…

> What I meant, though, is that across a big population’s entire lifetime, there will be a ton of high healthcare cost events. And with technological progress, new treatments will always be coming out. Which is a great thing, just not what is typically thought of as an “insurable risk”. Sorry, how does that follow? Insurance works any time you have a function with predictable average but high variance. Is the total h…

Insurable risk as in charging someone an appropriate premium that is based on their specific expected loss. Property and casualty, term life, etc.

Non insurable risk as in charging someone a premium unrelated to their specific expected loss (which is what health “insurance” is).

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#136

Post by matteoraso »

marcusverus wrote: post #126
1letterunixname wrote: post #47

And US patients won't be able to get it because they're going to be overcharged and drowned in debt to the point of bankruptcy.

Compared to similarly developed countries, Americans are actually in great shape when it comes to debt. See the OECD Data: https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm

Don't be facetious. Parent was obviously referring to medical debt, which most first worlders never have to think about.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#137

Post by eszed »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #98
soulbadguy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it was just that (in the US), then there would be non need to prevent insurers from pricing based on health of the insured. Or legislating a 3x cap on premiums between highest and lowest premium. Or legislating out of pocket maximums. I do not follow the point you are making here. The regulation and legislation around health insurance do not change the nature of it. I think you are assuming that insurers have pe…

Sorry, I don’t really know how else I can explain it. The age rating factor itself is pretty self explanatory. Instead of charging a sicker or older person $10,000 per month and healthier or younger people $100 per month because that is close to the expected loss in the calendar year for the insurer, they are mandated to charge younger/healthier people $1,000 per month so the older person can only be charged $3,000 p…

Yes, if you strictly view it from a short time horizon. If you think of it as an individual's risk over their whole lifetime, then it looks a lot better. A young person is "paying it forward" now, in exchange for having their own expensive treatments covered once they are old. This is the bargain that any social security or old-age pension system strikes.

The trouble is, as social cohesion breaks down, and demographic cliffs approach, people lose faith that long-term programs will still be there for them as they age. Perceptual time horizons shrink, and the arguments that you have made begin to resonate.

I don't have a good answer for either of those problems. Immigration solves the demographic cliff, but appears to threaten social cohesion. We can get into tedious and repetitious arguments about why that is, but let's please not?

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#138

Post by liamwire »

hedora wrote: post #124
pastor_bob wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and another which results in reduced glucose and fructose content in the potato, That's pretty amazing. Imagine if we can change apples to produce Aspartame instead of sugars!

Unless you are diabetic, aspartame is much worse for you than sugar. It causes metabolic issues, such as reduced metabolism (leading to more weight gain than a subjectively equivalent amount of sugar), migraines in some people, interacts with drugs, is bad for your digestive tract, and probably has other side effects. Even if you are diabetic, you can already eat apples. They have a low glycemic index.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you back any of this up, or provide a reason I should believe what you’re saying? Because it directly contradicts decades of research on what is perhaps the most scrutinised and studied dietary supplement in the world.

Aspartame is safe, and very well tolerated.

You’re spreading misinformation.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#139

Post by gen220 »

graphe wrote: post #120
mritchie712 wrote: post #25

Ohalo (the company Dave Friedberg is now CEO of) recently got approval for a potato edited by CRISPR: > Ohalo had two RSRs under consideration this year for its potato, one which focuses on higher concentrations of beta carotene – enhancing the overall health and nutrition value of the potato – and another which results in reduced glucose and fructose content in the potato, which, according to Ohalo, will reduce the…

I would have bred them for more potato protein. It's a very close meat protein substitute by essential amino acids. Might be why it tastes so good. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6245118/ >Of the ten plant-based proteins included in the current analysis, potato protein is the only protein source containing the WHO/FAO/UNU requirements for all essential amino acids. Thus, when consuming potato protein as…

I supplement protein, filtered for vegan because my body doesn't like whey, and Pea protein is pretty solid. It's a "complete" protein and doesn't require any complicated processing steps, just drying, pulverizing, and a centrifuge step to spin out the fiber.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#140

Post by maxerickson »

iwontberude wrote: post #116
pastor_bob wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and another which results in reduced glucose and fructose content in the potato, That's pretty amazing. Imagine if we can change apples to produce Aspartame instead of sugars!

I don’t see how a plant is supposed to metabolize the aspartame for energy?

It would only be a successful reproductive strategy if some external actor decided to propagate the plants that were putting something not useful to the seeds into the fruit.
Post reply on HN