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

Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

europe.newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

#51

Post by jvvlimme »

fasteo wrote: post #42
coldtea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Drug R+D plus approval processes are very expensive both in time (>10 years) and money (>2 American billions) [1] [1] http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/pr_tufts_csdd_2014...

Don't believe everything they say. Tufts is financed by the pharmaceutical industry AND is based on data provided by the industry.

Re: Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

#52

Post by datashovel »

ars wrote: post #47
datashovel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My hunch is, the more greedy the patent holders are, the more likely, and the faster replacement cures will come to market. And if that day comes, I certainly hope one of those replacement cures puts the greedy ones out of business. On a darker note, I think your second comment speaks volumes about the kind of human being you are. I hope one day, years from now, you will take the time to come back to this comment and…

It's not really about greed, this drug really and truly is extremely expensive to make.

I agree, but with one caveat. It's only about greed if the patent / stake-holders make it about greed.

The parent comment I was replying to seems to imply it would be a good / welcome idea for patent / stake-holders to be greedy and make billions in profits.

Re: Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

#53

Post by datashovel »

fasteo wrote: post #42
coldtea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Drug R+D plus approval processes are very expensive both in time (>10 years) and money (>2 American billions) [1] [1] http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/pr_tufts_csdd_2014...

In today's world it's hard to believe there are approval processes built to take > 10 years and > $2 billion.

I would bet if these processes were carried out "transparently" we would find alot of waste and inefficiencies.

I get the feeling things will change once Silicon Valley finally decides to get more invested in the pharmaceutical industry.

Re: Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

#54

Post by moe »

ars wrote: post #46
coldtea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I cannot imagine a chemical process to create those drugs that justifies the prices mentioned. It's a Monoclonal antibody, they are currently by far the most expensive drugs ever made. They are very difficult to make, and almost impossible to make in bulk. It's not a chemical process, it's a biological one. Unfortunately monoclonal antibodies are also some of the most promising drugs currently available. They can d…

Could you give a brief explanation (in layman's terms) of why they are so difficult/expensive to make?

Wikipedia[1] is full of jargon, but one caption says "Monoclonal antibodies can be grown in unlimited quantities in the bottles shown in this picture". So the process at least looks scalable. What materials/constraints can possibly cost $25k per dose?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody#Production

Re: Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

#55

Post by lianwing »

dnautics wrote: post #38
coldtea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Actual c cost to produce is probably in the 50k range (still a huge markup). Its a biologic - There is lots of batch to batch variation and some batches have to be chucked if they don't meet QC.

Wouldn't insulin be considered a biologic? Would we ever see these drug prices come down to the price of insulin?

Re: Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

#56

Post by calinet6 »

moe wrote: post #54
ars wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I cannot imagine a chemical process to create those drugs that justifies the prices mentioned. It's a Monoclonal antibody, they are currently by far the most expensive drugs ever made. They are very difficult to make, and almost impossible to make in bulk. It's not a chemical process, it's a biological one. Unfortunately monoclonal antibodies are also some of the most promising drugs currently available. They can d…

Could you give a brief explanation (in layman's terms) of why they are so difficult/expensive to make? Wikipedia[1] is full of jargon, but one caption says "Monoclonal antibodies can be grown in unlimited quantities in the bottles shown in this picture". So the process at least looks scalable. What materials/constraints can possibly cost $25k per dose? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody#Production

The images are full of fluff. The bottles are only one step in the process described in the section after that, which includes a dozen or so complex steps, each of which must be executed perfectly. Doesn't look simple.

Re: Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

#57

Post by pinaceae »

datashovel wrote: post #52
ars wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really about greed, this drug really and truly is extremely expensive to make.

I agree, but with one caveat. It's only about greed if the patent / stake-holders make it about greed. The parent comment I was replying to seems to imply it would be a good / welcome idea for patent / stake-holders to be greedy and make billions in profits.

so billions for FB/Instagram/CocaCola/Tesla - all justified.

same for something that is a product that takes billions to develop and get approved, plus saves actual lives? how DARE I!?

resources in a capitalist society get allocated by rewards on efforts. i want the best resources working this, hence the incentives need to be spectacular. competing against HFT and other hot areas here.

Re: Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

#58

Post by mdtancsa »

Gatsky wrote: post #21
msie wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dear Downvoter, Am I wrong?

Your tone is misplaced. I'm an oncologist, and with no conflicts of interest I can assure you these drugs are a bona fide breakthrough.

As a lay person, its hard not to see the word "breakthrough" as essentially meaningless as its so overused. Insulin, and the polio vaccine I can see in that category... But there have been so many drugs like Avastin (which sadly I had personal experience with through my wife's cancer, which were supposed to be breakthroughs.. miracles etc... Yet, when the dust settled and more data beyond the initial company reported data came to light, it extended life expectancy by very little time.... Our oncologist was pretty good about holding expectations in check. But if we went by the company's claims, we would have been sadly disappointed through false hope, as well as the VAST majority of people who took Avastin. Or Erbitux was another. It was offered to my wife as an option... The pharma gloss used all sorts of superlatives, yet for her cancer, it would have given her an extra few weeks based on some of the studies we were able to dig up. For the kind of money spent for (in some cases) really shitty quality of life, $100k might be better spent on improved hospice care and pain control for the person.

Re: Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

#59

Post by datashovel »

pinaceae wrote: post #57
datashovel wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but with one caveat. It's only about greed if the patent / stake-holders make it about greed. The parent comment I was replying to seems to imply it would be a good / welcome idea for patent / stake-holders to be greedy and make billions in profits.

so billions for FB/Instagram/CocaCola/Tesla - all justified. same for something that is a product that takes billions to develop and get approved, plus saves actual lives? how DARE I!? resources in a capitalist society get allocated by rewards on efforts. i want the best resources working this, hence the incentives need to be spectacular. competing against HFT and other hot areas here.

For someone to see a human being tortured by cancer, and for that person to turn around and say "one day I'm gonna make billions by inventing and patenting a cure" is evil to his core.

If I am so blessed to be in a position that I have invented a cure for cancer, I am giving it away. At the most I want to break even. If I make a single penny from the invention I'm donating it to charity.

If you're motivated by profit, you should not be in the business of saving lives.

Re: Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough

#60

Post by philjohn »

Gatsky wrote: post #20

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…

A distant family friend has been on Ipillimumab for about 8 years, and is still going strong.

Amazing stuff.

Post reply on HN