31–40 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ipilimumab, *-umab; hUman Monoclonal Ab (antibody) These aren't cheap to mass produce. Edit: Not the best source I could find, but this cites costs (not at scale) : http://www.immunochemistry.com/services/antibody-development
>These aren't cheap to mass produce. Even still, $25k/pill seems steep. That's roughly 10x the cost of pure plutonium.
:P
as someone who lost a friend last year to skin cancer and has a work colleague with end-stage breast cancer that has spread to her bones - bring it on. as someone working in life sciences - years off, even with FDA fast track. the incentive to reap billions is justified, this is far more important than a fucking social sharing app - it better be more profitable. the best minds should work on a cure for cancer not bul…
as someone who lost a friend last year to skin cancer and has a work colleague with end-stage breast cancer that has spread to her bones - bring it on. as someone working in life sciences - years off, even with FDA fast track. the incentive to reap billions is justified, this is far more important than a fucking social sharing app - it better be more profitable. the best minds should work on a cure for cancer not bul…
In principle I agree with you, however I doubt it was a scrappy startup team of 3-10 scientists who will be reaping the billions, and I bet it will be incumbent pharmaceutical gargantuans who will earn the bulk of profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well worth the $100k I would say.
Pretty sure that I speak for most humans when I say that a $100k medical treatment might as well be a $100m treatment. There's some quote like "any quantitative value is qualitative at sufficient scale". $10,000 is the most expensive thing I've ever purchased--and I'm still paying it off.
Of course we all want the best treatment Right Now, and sadly some people will die who cannot afford a certain medical procedure or medication, but this still seems like a discovery and advance worth thinking positively about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure that I speak for most humans when I say that a $100k medical treatment might as well be a $100m treatment. There's some quote like "any quantitative value is qualitative at sufficient scale". $10,000 is the most expensive thing I've ever purchased--and I'm still paying it off.
I am no expert, but I am guessing like with most things the newest medical technology starts of at it's most expensive point, then decreases over time (as economy of scale or improvements in production efficiency kicks in). So if this treatment is 100k now, but 10k in 5 years and 1k in 10 years (just postulating) it makes it very affordable for people 10 years down the track. Once governments add the treatment to the…
And, "true costs", of course, had little to do with it. Our economic priorities are heartbreaking. Little wonder, as our most important economic entities (corporations) are granted personhood, but would essentially be classified as psychopaths if they were actually human.
Some context. One of the drugs in the combination Ipillimumab has been used for a while now, and seems to produce long term survival in about 10% of patients with incurable melanoma. Some of these patients seem effectively cured, having survived 7 years or more without any other treatment. It seems likely that combination therapy will produce a better rate of effective cure. This is a pretty big deal, because advance…
My mother, after an involved but seemingly victorious war with breast cancer, was then found to have stage-4 cancer on her spine. But as you said, modern medical science is pretty amazing. What might have been a death sentence 10 years ago is now just a chronic ailment kept in check by an expensive pill and occasional radiation therapy.
as someone who lost a friend last year to skin cancer and has a work colleague with end-stage breast cancer that has spread to her bones - bring it on. as someone working in life sciences - years off, even with FDA fast track. the incentive to reap billions is justified, this is far more important than a fucking social sharing app - it better be more profitable. the best minds should work on a cure for cancer not bul…
In principle I agree with you, however I doubt it was a scrappy startup team of 3-10 scientists who will be reaping the billions, and I bet it will be incumbent pharmaceutical gargantuans who will earn the bulk of profits.
biotech is the other big startup area of the modern economy. full of VCs, unicorns and abysmal failures. but, their blockbuster products actually help people. :)
Some context. One of the drugs in the combination Ipillimumab has been used for a while now, and seems to produce long term survival in about 10% of patients with incurable melanoma. Some of these patients seem effectively cured, having survived 7 years or more without any other treatment. It seems likely that combination therapy will produce a better rate of effective cure. This is a pretty big deal, because advance…
> Cost effectiveness... well ipillimumab costs 100k a year for 4 doses, and nivolumab is probably going to cost another 100k at least on top of that, and is generally continued indefinitely, and the medication to turn off overly vigorous immune responses can also be expensive... I cannot imagine a chemical process to create those drugs that justifies the prices mentioned. Is the price at least subsidising the costs o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well worth the $100k I would say.
Pretty sure that I speak for most humans when I say that a $100k medical treatment might as well be a $100m treatment. There's some quote like "any quantitative value is qualitative at sufficient scale". $10,000 is the most expensive thing I've ever purchased--and I'm still paying it off.
So it does seem expensive but from my experience it's cheaper than what we have now.
I'm presuming the 2 drugs themselves are patented? Otherwise I have a hard time believing 4 doses would cost 100k?