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

A million-dollar drug

newsinteractives.cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 215 posts

Re: A million-dollar drug

#201

Post by DoctorOetker »

anon2775 wrote: post #182
iamleppert wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, and I didn’t have any noticeable immune response. Literally no side effects to speak of, it was all very easy, just a simple injection and overnight stay in the hospital for monitoring. They tested me before for immunity to the virus family they engineered, to make sure I didn’t already have immunity. Other than that they are monitoring my liver closely but there hasn’t been any elevation in blood tests or stru…

The hell with bioethics hand-wringers... we should be mending and improving people's genes whenever and wherever we can add net good.

not all "bioetchics hand-wringers" are against gene therapy ( in fact you too are taking a bioethical stance).

bio-ethicists aren't only interested in the net good of the patient of the therapy, but also in any harms onto others: perhaps child victims of organ trade (for example sourcing fibroblast stem cells from unnecessary circumcision of infants), perhaps harvesting organs from political, cultural or criminal prisoners, or from refugees, and yes, some of them are worried about viruses ...

Re: A million-dollar drug

#202

Post by rasz »

chimeracoder wrote: post #185
rasz wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not nobody, just purely for profit rent seekers.

> Not nobody, just purely for profit rent seekers. This is not an example of "rent-seeking behavior", which is a technical term with a specific meaning. It's not merely a synonym for "profit-maximizing behavior which I don't like".

I was thinking of situations like EpiPen, text book rent seeking.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#203

Post by tptacek »

platz wrote: post #190
tptacek wrote: post #35

People are fixated on the price for this drug, but the article itself is pretty clear on the rationale for the price tag: current alternative therapies have a price tag of up to $300k/yr, indefinitely. This drug is a one-time therapy. Presumably, any health system would jump at the chance to replace a $300k/yr recurring charge with a 1-time $1MM fee. But they don't. Health systems in Europe apparently refuse to pay f…

> alternative therapies have a price tag of up to $300k/yr So prices should all float to the maximum of the most inferior product, so that consumers do not have a choice? How would you like that if it happened in your favorite consumer category? That's like saying computer memory should never get cheaper (there is alternative memory priced at much higher rates!), or that electric vehicles should always be priced at t…

What are you talking about? The premise of this product was that it cost a fraction of what existing treatments cost, and was far better. That's the opposite of the dynamic you just described.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#204

Post by tptacek »

ineedasername wrote: post #146
ctdonath wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thing is worth what another will pay for it.

And no one was willing to pay this much for the drug, but the inexplicably decided no revenue was better than lowering the price.

It's not "inexplicable". uniQure is a going concern with treatments in the pipeline for Huntingtons, hemophilia, and congestive heart failure. They have a finite amount of resources and are allocating them to projects that they're more optimistic about than this one. Glybera is of questionable efficacy and is very expensive to administer (they're on the hook for long-term monitoring for everyone they dose).

It's not at all hard to see why they'd stop production.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#205

Post by obmelvin »

ineedasername wrote: post #146
ctdonath wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thing is worth what another will pay for it.

And no one was willing to pay this much for the drug, but the inexplicably decided no revenue was better than lowering the price.

Yeah, but the drug also has weak efficacy. Who cares if it is "only" 100k instead of 1M if it do what it claims?

Re: A million-dollar drug

#206

Post by platz »

tptacek wrote: post #203
platz wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> alternative therapies have a price tag of up to $300k/yr So prices should all float to the maximum of the most inferior product, so that consumers do not have a choice? How would you like that if it happened in your favorite consumer category? That's like saying computer memory should never get cheaper (there is alternative memory priced at much higher rates!), or that electric vehicles should always be priced at t…

What are you talking about? The premise of this product was that it cost a fraction of what existing treatments cost, and was far better. That's the opposite of the dynamic you just described.

Even most of the folks described in the article did not have an initial reaction of "It only costs a fraction of existing methods!" Instead, their reaction was that the price was set by forces that had nothing to do with the R&D of the drug, and by that measure, it costs far much more that it otherwise could be. When the patent expires, a generic alternative will likely be made for far cheaper.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#207

Post by philangist »

iamleppert wrote: post #195
philangist wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was the recovery process? Did you feel better immediately or was it in small amounts and over several weeks?

There was no recovery process to speak of in a traditional sense. Since this is a chronic condition, I’ve just simply gotten used to the aches and pains over the years. I really didn’t start to feel any different until a few weeks ago, when I realized I had forgotten to take my pain and arthritis mediciation, but I wasn’t having any pain that day. I went off it and I haven’t had to go back on it. My joints all feel n…

That's awesome to hear. I'm so very happy for you. Looking forward to a world where these gene therapy solutions are available to more and more people for a wider range of illnesses.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#208

Post by tptacek »

platz wrote: post #206
tptacek wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? The premise of this product was that it cost a fraction of what existing treatments cost, and was far better. That's the opposite of the dynamic you just described.

Even most of the folks described in the article did not have an initial reaction of "It only costs a fraction of existing methods!" Instead, their reaction was that the price was set by forces that had nothing to do with the R&D of the drug, and by that measure, it costs far much more that it otherwise could be. When the patent expires, a generic alternative will likely be made for far cheaper.

What patent are you referring to? Are you sure it's still under patent? Did you read anything about Glybera other than this story? Want some spoilers?

Re: A million-dollar drug

#209

Post by platz »

tptacek wrote: post #208
platz wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even most of the folks described in the article did not have an initial reaction of "It only costs a fraction of existing methods!" Instead, their reaction was that the price was set by forces that had nothing to do with the R&D of the drug, and by that measure, it costs far much more that it otherwise could be. When the patent expires, a generic alternative will likely be made for far cheaper.

What patent are you referring to? Are you sure it's still under patent? Did you read anything about Glybera other than this story? Want some spoilers?

I've only read this story on it.

I assumed the patent information based on other commenters, perhaps those were incorrect.

I never watch the trailers before I go to watch a movie.

Re: A million-dollar drug

#210

Post by mistermann »

irq11 wrote: post #97
mistermann wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they make it in a lab to develop it initially? How is that possible, but it isn't possible to make small batches on demand?

They had a staff of skilled people who had been working on the project for years, most likely in an (expensive) laboratory that was purpose-built for the task of producing a transgenic virus destined for humans. It’s not cheap to produce at any scale, and it’s typically more expensive to do small-scale production. A million dollars can barely fund a startup for a year; it’s insane to think you can maintain a drug pro…

But if making a small batch costs $1M, how do they afford to do the research for years in an academic setting?

> It’s not cheap to produce at any scale, and it’s typically more expensive to do small-scale production.

This is correct, but we're not speaking in relative terms, we're speaking in absolute terms. How can they afford to produce it in a lab (unless each research project has many, many millions to play with each year)? It doesn't seem logical to me.

Post reply on HN