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

Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 188 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#171

Post by xnx »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #163
socalgal2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ~public~ transit is not a good business model. ~public~ transit can be a good business model if it's setup correctly. The majority of Japan's 100 train companies are setup such that they own both trains and complementary interests. Office buildings, shopping centers, super markets, apartments. The better their trains are the better their other businesses do by delivering people to them. The better their other busin…

You're both kind of arguing the same thing. If the transit companies also own the places the people are traveling to, they are capturing the value of second order effects.

Eh, without that alignment of interests public transit agencies in the US only care about increasing their budgets. They are at best indifferent if the service is safe, fast, convenient, clean, efficient, etc.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#172

Post by s0rce »

robocat wrote: post #140
s0rce wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know too much about the bacteria stuff. Regarding enamel, the native structure is very intricate and contributes to the properties. Most of the acellular chemical reminalization just deposits disorganized minerals on the teeth. It might be improved vs. doing nothing (I'm not sure but I do use fluoride reminalization from the dentist) but its not regenerating your enamel. Imagine just slapping some concrete or…

Did you see this article which claims "New gel restores dental enamel" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45826995

Yes, I knew a few of the authors from my time in grad school. Certainly much closer to mimicking the enamel structure but not a commercial therapy yet.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#173

Post by tsoukase »

Off course curing patients is viable. I am a doctor and I live off from it well enough. Now, if GS means "searching for potential methods to cure patients", then the answer is it depends. Is searching for new oil fields worthless? Or for a new battery technology? The low, even medium, hanging fruits have long been chopped. We have to climb ladders to reach the high hanging ones. This is called investment and is getting more and more expensive.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#174

Post by ninetyninenine »

mike_hearn wrote: post #168
ninetyninenine wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Do. the. math. and. think. OK then, where's your math? tptacek is right, this whole discussion is silly because it revolves around what exactly "bad" means which is subjective. But if you want to really do calculations about this, you'd need to price out total expected revenue over your time preference window for each scenario. It's not at all obvious which one would win because it depends on at least these variabl…

[flagged]

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#175

Post by philipkglass »

com2kid wrote: post #129
sebmellen wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite like this concept. Did you come up with it?

No, it is a common trope in futurism circles. Because death is not technically a disease, right now if a company came up with a literal immortality pill they wouldn't be able to get it patented or get FDA approval for it.

It's a common trope but also wrong.

If you invent a pill that gives old people the mental and physical vigor of 25 year olds, you don't need to patent or trial it as an immortality pill. Just pick one of the many medical conditions associated with advancing age, like osteoporosis or male pattern baldness, and prove that it safely and effectively treats that condition. If the pill cures baldness and also gives patients improved muscle tone and working memory as a side effect, the FDA won't complain about those beneficial side effects.

Once the drug is approved for treating baldness it can be prescribed off-label for other conditions and/or the manufacturer can progressively run trials for treating additional conditions, similar to how GLP-1 drugs originally developed for diabetes treatment have now been tested and approved for treating obesity.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#176

Post by tptacek »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #174
mike_hearn wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do. the. math. and. think. OK then, where's your math? tptacek is right, this whole discussion is silly because it revolves around what exactly "bad" means which is subjective. But if you want to really do calculations about this, you'd need to price out total expected revenue over your time preference window for each scenario. It's not at all obvious which one would win because it depends on at least these variabl…

[flagged]

Can you not paste LLM output here? Thanks.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#177

Post by itake »

casey2 wrote: post #145
itake wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government says that people can stop contributing to society when they reach 67. Some governments completely block you from continuing working. Some governments recognize that the longer people life, the more pensions / social security / healthcare resources need to be paid to that person. its much cheaper for governments for people to just die when they retire, tax their wealth at 40% and then free up resources…

No, again because of secondary effects, which of course the government keeps track of both implicitly and explicitly.

Can you elaborate on the secondary effects?

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#178

Post by loeg »

Loughla wrote: post #97
loeg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which governments in particular; how much funding; and what outcomes have they actually achieved? (In general the US actually subsidizes pharma for the rest of the world.)

>In general the US actually subsidizes pharma for the rest of the world. I've never understood this argument. Our companies make money off of people in other countries. I understand that our costs are higher in the US, but I don't get how we're subsidizing the rest of the world when they pay for the drugs as well. It just seems like our funding scheme for healthcare is broken. What am I missing?

https://reason.org/commentary/how-america-subsidizes-medicin...

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#179

Post by ninetyninenine »

tptacek wrote: post #176
ninetyninenine wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Can you not paste LLM output here? Thanks.

It’s not. Can you not go around making up fucking shit and baselessly accusing people of posting LLM output? Thanks.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#180

Post by tptacek »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #179
tptacek wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you not paste LLM output here? Thanks.

It’s not. Can you not go around making up fucking shit and baselessly accusing people of posting LLM output? Thanks.

It very obviously is. You went from using normal-person quotation marks to fitted quotes in the span of one message, you have a Unicode multiplication dot, and things like

    Again, this is not “subjective.” It’s what actually happens

    This isn’t a subjective opinion. It’s just how discounted cashflow works.

    You can argue about the ethics if you want. But the financial comparison isn’t ambiguous.
Your paste doesn't even use a normal keyboard minus sign:

    |nue) ... cost. S|
Another tell is how much of the quote isn't responsive to the whole thread context, just Hearn's immediate message. I'll add that it doesn't even manage to rebut Hearn!

(Feel free to compare this to your own writing style to get some clarity for what to fix up next time before pasting LLM output).

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Later

In case you were typing while I updated this, the first version of this comment didn't notice your minus sign, but it stuck out to me and when I checked it was so funny you used an en-dash I couldn't not include it.

Post reply on HN