21–30 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference between a good and not-good reason to not go to market?
A lot of potential treatments are too easily available and can't be patented. If a big pharma company can't make massive profit from it, they won't bother bringing it to market. Consider that a not-good reason. Other treatments may eventually prove to have too many serious negative side effects. That's a good reason to abandon them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The catch is that there are thousands of promising therapies in animal models/pre-human testing. A very very tiny fraction of them will ever make it to market for a variety of both good and not-good reasons.
What's the difference between a good and not-good reason to not go to market?
Existing quality of treatments - if there are already efficacious drugs on the market - how sure are you that this new therapy will be best in class? Only being as good as the status quo is not an ideal competitive position. Conversely, if there is an unmet need because a disease is so lethal/debilitating, regulatory agencies can give latitude in approvals.
Likelihood patient compliance - if it is the most effective drug in the world, but requires intravenous infusion six times a day - nobody is going to adhere to that. GLP drugs are effective, but there is a needle-phobia that is preventing patients getting on board with the idea. Which is why there is an arms race for the first company to develop an oral version.
Toxicity - all chemicals are poisonous. Yet some have a lower therapeutic window than others. If you drug does what it should, but if you take 2x as much and it gives you a heart arrhythmia that is going to be a tough approval for anything but the most deadly conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference between a good and not-good reason to not go to market?
A lot of potential treatments are too easily available and can't be patented. If a big pharma company can't make massive profit from it, they won't bother bringing it to market. Consider that a not-good reason. Other treatments may eventually prove to have too many serious negative side effects. That's a good reason to abandon them.
[flagged]
Unlikely. The leading hypothesis is that mitochondria are a part of the apoptosis cycle, so cells need to disable them to become cancerous. This is called the Warburg effect.
There are several drugs that target this mechanism, inhibiting the anaerobic metabolism. They are effective initially, but cancers always find ways to work around them.
Just FYI, this study was done in mice.
[flagged]
I know hearing this gets old, however, please review sources outside of LLMs for accuracy. LLMs take a whole bunch off stuff from all over the internet and distill it down to something you can consume. Those sources include everything from reddit to a certain de-wormer that folks still think treats COVID (side note: I've a few long COVID victims in a support group I am in, and they are not happy about the disinfo tha…
I don't see how they contribute anything to a discussion. Even a speculative comment organically produced is more worthwhile than feeding a slop machine back into itself. I don't go out for coffee to discuss LLM summaries with friends, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that here.
Earlier today I asked Gemini Pro to find information on a person's death that was turning up nothing for me otherwise, and it just imagined finding verbatim Obituary quotes in every source, cobbled together vaguely related names, plausible bits and pieces from wherever, almost like it was 2023 again.
It ain't search, and it ain't worthwhile; I'd much rather someone ask an llm the question and then post a question out of curiosity based on it, but without the summary itself
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of potential treatments are too easily available and can't be patented. If a big pharma company can't make massive profit from it, they won't bother bringing it to market. Consider that a not-good reason. Other treatments may eventually prove to have too many serious negative side effects. That's a good reason to abandon them.
Wonder if some form of FOSS approach would work as an alternative development model for pharma?
IIRC it was more about production methods than developing new treatments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know hearing this gets old, however, please review sources outside of LLMs for accuracy. LLMs take a whole bunch off stuff from all over the internet and distill it down to something you can consume. Those sources include everything from reddit to a certain de-wormer that folks still think treats COVID (side note: I've a few long COVID victims in a support group I am in, and they are not happy about the disinfo tha…
> I'm not against AI summaries being on HN, however, users should verify and cite sources so others can verify. I don't see how they contribute anything to a discussion. Even a speculative comment organically produced is more worthwhile than feeding a slop machine back into itself. I don't go out for coffee to discuss LLM summaries with friends, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that here. Earlier today…
It does well at filtering information for you.
Going to primary sources is required to verify what it says but it can reduce the leg work rather a lot.
Now I can't wait for the conspiracy theory types to say this proves reptilian people theories. Lizard people just giving to help us accept them type of stuff, and maybe prove how the ape descendants need the lizard people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference between a good and not-good reason to not go to market?
Prevalence of the disease - if it only impacts 1/100 million, going to be hard to ever find sufficient patient population to test and recoup your investment. Existing quality of treatments - if there are already efficacious drugs on the market - how sure are you that this new therapy will be best in class? Only being as good as the status quo is not an ideal competitive position. Conversely, if there is an unmet need…