Cure for cancer one step closer after 'spectacular' breakthrough • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by Gatsky » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

mdtancsa wrote: post #58

Gatsky wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with you that the word is overused. Avastin is most certainly not a breakthrough, I don't know any oncologist that considers it as such.

I think the word is justified in this context however because the rationale behind immunotherapy is very sound, and it seems able to cure a non-negligible proportion of patients with otherwise incurable disease.

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

#62

Post by dnautics » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 6:23 PM UTC

lianwing wrote: post #55

dnautics wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes it is, and insulin is hard, but antibodies are even harder, mostly to do with the manufacturing platform "CHO". Also insulin is still more expensive than it should be due to patent ever greening.

We would see prices of antibodies go down if the manufacturing could be switched to something "not CHO" but the IP landscape is locked up by a company! They will expire in 10 years or so.

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

#63

Post by pinaceae » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

datashovel wrote: post #59

pinaceae wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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're completely clueless about what it takes to bring modern medicine to market. you argue from a moral high horse that has no bearing in reality.

developing a cure for cancer costs real fucking money, gobs and gobs of it. you think clinical trials and FDA approvals come for free? ramping up a supply chain around it?

ever developed any product? ever?

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

#64

Post by ars » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:56 PM UTC

datashovel wrote: post #59

pinaceae wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If I make a single penny from the invention I'm donating it to charity.

How about use the money to invent the next cure?

Once you go that far you realize you can do a lot of good by having a business that helps people. Unlike a charity it's self sustaining.

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

#65

Post by datashovel » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 1:02 AM UTC

pinaceae wrote: post #63

datashovel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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're completely clueless about what it takes to bring modern medicine to market. you argue from a moral high horse that has no bearing in reality. developing a cure for cancer costs real fucking money, gobs and gobs of it. you think clinical trials and FDA approvals come for free? ramping up a supply chain around it? ever developed any product? ever?

I'm not saying it's free to manufacture and distribute a product. So of course money has to be charged for a product on some level. I'm not saying "go bankrupt in order to manufacture and distribute the cure for cancer to the world".

But the place where I draw the line is when mega corp decides to hold the cure for cancer hostage until their profit demands are met.

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

#66

Post by datashovel » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 1:28 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #64

datashovel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If I make a single penny from the invention I'm donating it to charity. How about use the money to invent the next cure? Once you go that far you realize you can do a lot of good by having a business that helps people. Unlike a charity it's self sustaining.

I'm not anti free-market capitalism by any stretch. But I would argue that when it comes to life-saving medicine there's no real "market".

If I'm diagnosed with a fatal disease, and I'm told someone has the cure, I don't say "hmm, I'd love to buy it, but that sounds too expensive". Instead I say "where do I sign, I don't care how much it costs, take everything".

Cures to fatal diseases are not products that can be given a real market value based on supply and demand since everyone who is ever told about the product who needs it is willing to give up all of their earthly possessions to obtain it.

From that perspective for someone to say "Hmm, yeah I'd love to give it to you but I'm gonna need more. You see my stockholders aren't gonna be happy if I only take all you own. It's clearly worth more than that." seems a little out of touch. In my mind profit is not the right motivation for developing cures for fatal diseases.

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

#67

Post by ars » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 2:38 AM UTC

datashovel wrote: post #66

ars wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I make a single penny from the invention I'm donating it to charity. How about use the money to invent the next cure? Once you go that far you realize you can do a lot of good by having a business that helps people. Unlike a charity it's self sustaining.

I'm not anti free-market capitalism by any stretch. But I would argue that when it comes to life-saving medicine there's no real "market". If I'm diagnosed with a fatal disease, and I'm told someone has the cure, I don't say "hmm, I'd love to buy it, but that sounds too expensive". Instead I say "where do I sign, I don't care how much it costs, take everything". Cures to fatal diseases are not products that can be gi…

> Cures to fatal diseases are not products that can be given a real market value based on supply and demand

That argument doesn't work. Antibiotics can cure many fatal diseases, yet they don't cost all that much.

The reason is supply and demand, the exact thing you say can't be done.

The supply is that it's easy to make them.

The demand is that people can pick other drugs.

Other things that work into the equation is how much effort it took to invent it, and how many people get sick and need the particular medication.

Or in other words, market economics works just fine even for that type of treatment.

And elderly people refuse treatment all the time in order not to waste resources they want to pass on to their kids.

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

#68

Post by datashovel » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 3:25 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #67

datashovel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not anti free-market capitalism by any stretch. But I would argue that when it comes to life-saving medicine there's no real "market". If I'm diagnosed with a fatal disease, and I'm told someone has the cure, I don't say "hmm, I'd love to buy it, but that sounds too expensive". Instead I say "where do I sign, I don't care how much it costs, take everything". Cures to fatal diseases are not products that can be gi…

> Cures to fatal diseases are not products that can be given a real market value based on supply and demand That argument doesn't work. Antibiotics can cure many fatal diseases, yet they don't cost all that much. The reason is supply and demand, the exact thing you say can't be done. The supply is that it's easy to make them. The demand is that people can pick other drugs. Other things that work into the equation is…

I would argue that the reason antibiotics is inexpensive is not because of supply and demand. It's because of competition in the market. If a single entity owned the intellectual property for all antibiotics, my hunch is they would be quite a bit more expensive.

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

#69

Post by pinaceae » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 3:44 AM UTC

datashovel wrote: post #65

pinaceae wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're completely clueless about what it takes to bring modern medicine to market. you argue from a moral high horse that has no bearing in reality. developing a cure for cancer costs real fucking money, gobs and gobs of it. you think clinical trials and FDA approvals come for free? ramping up a supply chain around it? ever developed any product? ever?

I'm not saying it's free to manufacture and distribute a product. So of course money has to be charged for a product on some level. I'm not saying "go bankrupt in order to manufacture and distribute the cure for cancer to the world". But the place where I draw the line is when mega corp decides to hold the cure for cancer hostage until their profit demands are met.

which is a scenario that is not happening, anywhere. wtf are you babbling about?

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

#70

Post by datashovel » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 5:47 AM UTC

pinaceae wrote: post #69

datashovel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it's free to manufacture and distribute a product. So of course money has to be charged for a product on some level. I'm not saying "go bankrupt in order to manufacture and distribute the cure for cancer to the world". But the place where I draw the line is when mega corp decides to hold the cure for cancer hostage until their profit demands are met.

which is a scenario that is not happening, anywhere. wtf are you babbling about?

As far as I'm concerned, this whole back and forth is not about actual events happening in the world. This is a moral / ethical argument.

My point is that: for anyone, either implicitly or explicitly, to say it's ok to look another human being, with terminal cancer, in the eyes and say "I have a cure for you, but you can't have it unless you help me fulfill the wishes of my stockholders (aka profits)" is evil.