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

One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

news.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#41

Post by crusso »

Symmetry wrote: post #24
roc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish between potential 'last shots'. And exemptions will invite snake-oil salesmen. It can be frustrating, but the rules weren't created in some blind bureaucratic power-grab. They're responses to actual problems that existed in their absence. They aren't without their downsides, but they remain better than the alternative on balance.

Yet somehow countries that regulate drugs merely by safety tend to produce better health outcomes than countries that regulate for safety and efficacy like the US FDA does. You're just asserting that the upsides outweigh the downsides, but every study I've seen that tries to measure things quantitatively comes to the opposite conclusion. The gullible are already getting snake-oil in the form of herbal remedies and ho…

I'd go further in saying that the gullible are going online where they learn of really shady solutions. From there, they go underground or to other countries to get snake-oil of a particularly strong reptilian flavor.

As with the drug war, we drive people into being basically criminals when they're in reality suffering from a medical condition.

So rather than being allowed to experiment with extremely desperate volunteers who could likely one day provide some real EUREKA therapies, we send those folks to the dark side where they're much more likely to spend a great deal of money and be taken advantage of.

That's a huge practical loss, but an even greater ethical loss. At its very core, we are throwing away people's right to choose what to do with their own bodies. Being okay with that ethical tragedy is like being okay with rape or torture for some poorly proven "greater good".

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#42

Post by ttrreeww »

White blood cell transplant is proven to shrink (cure) cancer. However you won't see it in the USA for the next XX years. Some doctors in China is already doing it though, so if you can travel, that is an option.

See http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/jul2010_Life-Extension-F...

Also, I believe there is an organization that helps cancer victims by arranging travels outside of USA for innovative treatments, LEF can refer you to them.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#43

Post by maxharris »

Retric wrote: post #35
maxharris wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should treat every physician, researcher and patient as guilty, incorrect or foolish until proven innocent, correct or wise? However, there are plenty of cases where highly trained well meaning doctors caused massive suffering without benefit to their direct patents. No one is omniscient. The ideal in medicine can't be something impossible (i.e., medicine that cures all ills and everyone, and never has any risk…

So we should treat ... researcher... as guilty, incorrect or foolish until proven innocent, correct or wise? Yes, that's the point of peer review.

Peer review is just another thing that helps individuals decide scientific matters for themselves.

The implicit idea behind peer review can be summed up like this: "This is what I think about this work. (I have credentials X, Y, and Z, and I've published this stuff you many have heard of.) What I have to say is just another thing for you to consider. Take it or leave it."

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#45

Post by roc »

maxharris wrote: post #37
roc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humanity forward?" Our free society lived with the alternative . And they collectively decided "the right to be defrauded is a false liberty, this is no the way forward, let us try another way." And you know what? We've moved further forward, faster since these regulations were put into place. When people have trust th…

Straw man. I'm not arguing for the "right to be defrauded." (Aside: fraud is a violation of an individual's rights, by definition. Your phrase steals the concept of "rights" - it uses "rights" while simultaneously attempting to deny or undermine the very same concept of "rights.") We need a government, and strong laws to ensure that fraud and other instances of force [including theft, murder, etc.] are identified obj…

Representing that you have a potential cure or treatment when you have, by definition, no scientifically sound reason to believe that's correct isn't fraud? (If they had such a reason, they'd have no trouble getting clearance for human trials. You can argue about whether the current bar for evidence is too high, but that's distinct from arguing there should be no bar at all.)

> "We shouldn't treat anyone - physicians, patients, businesses, etc. - as guilty before they've acted. That's what regulations do"

No, they don't. They regulate activities, not people. They're distinct from laws only inasmuch as we recognize that while not just everyone should be allowed to do a thing (say, drive on public roads) some people should be allowed to do those things. So we don't outlaw those activities, we regulate who is and is not allowed to do those things.

Do you believe a law against murder is equivalent to treating everyone as a murderer before they've acted? How is a regulation over who can publicly make medical claims so different? If the law simply said "no-one can make medical claims", the way no-one can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, would that be pre-judging?

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#46

Post by wamatt »

roc wrote: post #12
maxharris wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has got to be a way to address this need. Yes, there is. Fight for the right of each individual to follow his best judgement in regard to all matters pertaining to his own life. (If someone doesn't know enough to make the call, he knows enough to choose a physician who can.) Right now, timely experimental treatments are basically outlawed. What good is it to say that there's an FDA procedure to get around the c…

The problem is that lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish between potential 'last shots'. And exemptions will invite snake-oil salesmen. It can be frustrating, but the rules weren't created in some blind bureaucratic power-grab. They're responses to actual problems that existed in their absence. They aren't without their downsides, but they remain better than the alternative on balance.

>"lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish between potential 'last shots'"

I'm sure you mean well, but this type of thinking really bothers me.

For example, many of us here on HN, possess the critical reasoning skills to determine snake oil from a credible research lab. Given that there are almost no practicing oncologists present, we'd all likely qualify as lay people.

However the central issue is a medical doctor is not even qualified enough to choose, due to malpractice liability. On top of that even a specialist can find difficulty prescribing experimental treatment lawfully, unless it's part of an FDA trial. This is in addition to the incentives drug companies push. [1]

I speak from first hand experience dealing with Psoriatic Arthritis and establishment CYA (cover your ass) thinking. After spending $1000+ per month on Anti-TNF blockers [2], I'm doing just fine on lifestyle changes and have seen no disease progression after 3 years of being off meds. I wouldn't bother mentioning it if it weren't for the thousands of credible patient stories that point to fixing what we eat as a means to being healthy. Yet the paradigm for the last 30 years is one of treatment, not prevention.

Guess which makes more money for Pfizer, GSK etc? Hint: it's not vaccines (prevention). Chronic treatment (autoimmune, psych drugs, cvd etc) are dominating the top 10 sales charts. [3]

I would feel incredibly angry and upset if myself or someone close to me, were in a position to try an experimental cancer treatment, but were unable to, because of regulatory snakes and ladders.

I'm not saying the FDA is useless or provides no public benefit, but I would question the wisdom behind entrusting authority of one's life, to a single decision making body.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/payments-to-doctors-by-...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etanercept

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_selling_pharmac...

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#47

Post by guard-of-terra »

Cancer evolve. In this sense it is like a new species (and it can occasionally become one).

That's why fighting it is so difficult. I highly doubt there ever can be one chemical substance that reliably fights all sorts of cancer.

And you can't really cure cancer anyway.

Our only hope at this point is genetic engineering.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#48

Post by Retric »

maxharris wrote: post #43
Retric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should treat ... researcher... as guilty, incorrect or foolish until proven innocent, correct or wise? Yes, that's the point of peer review.

Peer review is just another thing that helps individuals decide scientific matters for themselves. The implicit idea behind peer review can be summed up like this: "This is what I think about this work. (I have credentials X, Y, and Z, and I've published this stuff you many have heard of.) What I have to say is just another thing for you to consider. Take it or leave it."

It's more than that as it's vary possible for things to fail peer review and or be edited and resubmitted. But, also in some ways less as you as a reader don't know who did the peer review.

Re: One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

#50

Post by roc »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #30
roc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humanity forward?" Our free society lived with the alternative . And they collectively decided "the right to be defrauded is a false liberty, this is no the way forward, let us try another way." And you know what? We've moved further forward, faster since these regulations were put into place. When people have trust th…

I do not recognize "the collective's" right to make this decision for me.

And yet by participating in this society you are directly supporting their ability to make such decisions, whether they side with or against you on a given issue.

If you actively pursue one of the many methods available to effect change, you can only do so via the same channels that allowed others to set up the status quo. Even securing a constitutional amendment against such laws would just underscore the right and ability of others to pursue their own amendment to overturn yours.

The only way to secure your victory would be to end representative democracy. And of course no other method of government would deliver a guarantee to respect your freedom to make such decisions free from their meddling.

So all that's left is no government.

Post reply on HN