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

21–30 of 126 posts

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

#21

Post by donw »

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.

Wow, massive strawman. The government sucks at innovation? Who do you think funded and developed ARPANet? You know, the network we're using to communicate right now. Upon which countless businesses have been built.

Nuclear power? Government. First electronic computer? Government.

Furthermore, when it comes to drug discovery, that 'evil government' has one advantage over businesses, because they have no profit motive. Businesses exist to make money. Period.

No business is going to destroy its market for the sake of the common good. If you're in the business of creating drugs, you aren't going to wipe out a disease with a one-time cure, because drugs are expensive to produce, and palliative treatments are way more profitable.

This is exactly an area where governments do better than businesses, because the reward (improving quality of life) means more votes and support for those in office.

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

#22

Post by jgoewert »

I always read things like this with a hefty grain of salt.

To say that all "pharmaceutical companies" blocked him on this because treatment is more profitable than cure seems rather absurd. You would think that with all the non profits out there already involved in solving this, there would be quite a few with interest in the research.

Also, as most startup people know, a short term large profit is awesome! Any company that truly finds a cure would make buku bucks in the short term and be able to bail from the market when everyone that can be cured is. Think about polio and Salk. The guy became a legend, and though it isn't talked about, decently rich.

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

#23

Post by ahoyhere »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #18
_delirium wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They don't rant about it because it solves a truly-no-sex scenario, but because it's essentially a recreational drug for the majority of users.

I think the ability to have sex is at least as important as the ability to not piss yourself (e.g. incontinence medication) if not more, but still, its profit center comes from its recreational use. That's why the drug companies love it.

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

#24

Post by stretchwithme »

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…

what people need is the freedom to act and create. government, especially when it takes by force from some to give to others for whatever purpose, distorts the decisions people make

and, as its activities destroy capital, government delays innovation. its easy to point to the things governments have achieved. what the people would have achieved had they been freer is not so easily pointed out.

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

#25

Post by tome »

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.…

I agree with a large extent to what you're saying, but I don't like the way you've used it as a platform to presnt an anti-government opinion.

In the UK we have a government body http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICE which oversees which treatments the NHS can provide. This is another way of avoiding paying for treatments rather than cures.

I suspect both a market-based approach, and a single-buyer approach can work. In the US you have a weird government supported insurance industry driven approach with leads to the worst of both worlds.

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

#27

Post by Ripster »

I have type I diabetes.

"Weissman implied that the pharmaceutical companies had put profit over principle, preferring to keep diabetes sufferers dependent on costly insulin than to cure them once and for all."

This is not fun.

I wonder when are we going to agree that you cant make business out of anything.

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

#29

Post by stretchwithme »

tome wrote: post #25
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.…

I agree with a large extent to what you're saying, but I don't like the way you've used it as a platform to presnt an anti-government opinion. In the UK we have a government body http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICE which oversees which treatments the NHS can provide. This is another way of avoiding paying for treatments rather than cures. I suspect both a market-based approach, and a single-buyer approach can work. In…

government is coercion, the use of force against peaceful people. I can't imagine why that would do anything but destroy. People look at what escapes destruction as if government created it.

yes, we have a weird government supported insurance industry driven approach that is quite distortive and destructive. I am fully in favor of ending it and letting peaceful people make their own choices.

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

#30

Post by tome »

stretchwithme wrote: post #29
tome wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with a large extent to what you're saying, but I don't like the way you've used it as a platform to presnt an anti-government opinion. In the UK we have a government body http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICE which oversees which treatments the NHS can provide. This is another way of avoiding paying for treatments rather than cures. I suspect both a market-based approach, and a single-buyer approach can work. In…

government is coercion, the use of force against peaceful people. I can't imagine why that would do anything but destroy. People look at what escapes destruction as if government created it. yes, we have a weird government supported insurance industry driven approach that is quite distortive and destructive. I am fully in favor of ending it and letting peaceful people make their own choices.

Sorry I don't buy this. When it comes down to it, society in itself is coercion. If you don't like that you can go and live on the moon, but whilst you live with and near other people, coercion will exist.

The problem is to accept coercion and discover its most beneficent form, not eliminate it.

Post reply on HN