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

Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

columbiaspectator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#71

Post by yummyfajitas »

dpik wrote: post #66
rsheridan6 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of pharmaceutical startups. And, yeah, drug development is high risk. In other news, the sky is still blue. Type 1 diabetes is still a pretty big market even if you had a one shot cure. There are hundreds of thousands of type 1 diabetics. If they pay a thousand dollars each (a steal at that price), that's hundreds of millions of dollars. For comparison, there are a few thousand people with CML, but tha…

A steal at a thousand dollars ? I have Type 1 and would consider an actual cure a great deal even if it cost everything I own plus my entire earnings for 10 years.

You might feel that way, but lots of politicians and commentators would decry that as "evil, greedy drug companies making a profit off sick people".

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#72

Post by grandalf »

crocowhile wrote: post #19
dennisgorelik wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a classic example of an area where government can NOT do better than business, because government sucks at innovation. There are plenty of companies that are not selling insulin, so they would be interested to be able to sell diabetes cure. Assuming the chances of developing the cure are reasonably good.

Government sucks at innovation? What are you talking about? Pretty much everything that is basic science is paid by government in every nation. It is govt that gave us the internet, the bomb, and the man on the moon. Virtually every nobel prize in history has been given to people who worked for public universities.

See my other reply:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1465601

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#73

Post by [deleted] »

anamax wrote: post #68
detst wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I can't really disagree with you, I don't think it's crazy to think that there are many influential people and organizations that have a strong interest in seeing that we avoid potential cures for common diseases. As such, I don't think this type of reaction is necessarily based largely in ignorance. Then again, I'm largely ignorant on this subject so I'm certainly not making any accusations in this case.

> I don't think it's crazy to think that there are many influential people and organizations that have a strong interest in seeing that we avoid potential cures for common diseases. I do. How about some evidence show that this has happened more than a handful of times in the last 20 years? Note a company refusing to fund a competitor is NOT evidence of "avoid potential cure". Heck - a company refusing to fund somethi…

[deleted]

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#74

Post by Vivtek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #53
LaGrange wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have "no presence at all" then you either have no money, in which case you can't really afford entering it (in this case, anyway), or you have the money, but then the above rules still apply. Effectively it would be better to market your mediocre product to physicians than to kill the cash-cow. Also, large risks are actually typical for this type of research. It's expensive and risky, so it has to give really…

Google had no presence at all in the spreadsheet market in 2005. I guess they really couldn't afford to enter the spreadsheet market. Too bad, because if google had money, and the above rules didn't apply, then google might create a free spreadsheet web service that competes with MS Excel even at the risk of destroying a gigantic cash cow owned by somebody else.

Software doesn't require clinical trials before it is approved for use. So this argument really doesn't convince me; the capital bar to new products in the medical field is truly staggering.

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#75

Post by detst »

anamax wrote: post #68
detst wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I can't really disagree with you, I don't think it's crazy to think that there are many influential people and organizations that have a strong interest in seeing that we avoid potential cures for common diseases. As such, I don't think this type of reaction is necessarily based largely in ignorance. Then again, I'm largely ignorant on this subject so I'm certainly not making any accusations in this case.

> I don't think it's crazy to think that there are many influential people and organizations that have a strong interest in seeing that we avoid potential cures for common diseases. I do. How about some evidence show that this has happened more than a handful of times in the last 20 years? Note a company refusing to fund a competitor is NOT evidence of "avoid potential cure". Heck - a company refusing to fund somethi…

I was simply making a point that there are people that have a strong financial interest that a cure would compromise. That's simply a fact. I didn't go any further than that because I'm sure I'm less qualified to do that than many others here.

My cynical side might think that there are people that would go a long way to protect their financial interests.

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#76

Post by Vivtek »

ahoyhere wrote: post #16
_delirium wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow it seems that the profit motive in pharmaceuticals motivates good science, but targeted at relatively strange things. "Lifestyle" drugs are huge: everyone wants the next Viagra, basically. Perhaps not surprising, because recreational drugs have always been popular, and the "fluff" end of legal pharmaceutical development is the part that sort of bleeds into recreational, since it tends to target something clos…

Yes, exactly: if pharma is good business, and not philanthropy, then they have to focus on the people who will pay the most, the most readily, and the most often. End of story. Case in point: I'm an American who lives in Vienna, Austria, and I have recurring upper-respiratory/immune system problems. Here, I am treated with a so-cheap-it's-almost-free immune system booster called Broncho Vaxom. It's nothing but dead b…

Coral snake antivenom is a similar thing - the last manufacturer left a supply of a few years that is now running out, but the process for approving a new manufacturer for the same drug is so expensive that the market won't support it.

So first responders in Florida have a problem. No coral snake antivenom.

A similar market situation applies to flu shots.

The current system favors "maintenance pharmaceuticals", not cures. Who wouldn't prefer to have a cash cow that costs the customer a few hundred dollars every month for the rest of their life, in comparison with something that actually cured them? A cure isn't very lucrative at all.

Generally, free marketeers protest that this isn't true, in the face of all evidence I can see, but look at the business logic; it's inescapable.

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#77

Post by yummyfajitas »

LaGrange wrote: post #70
yummyfajitas wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google had no presence at all in the spreadsheet market in 2005. I guess they really couldn't afford to enter the spreadsheet market. Too bad, because if google had money, and the above rules didn't apply, then google might create a free spreadsheet web service that competes with MS Excel even at the risk of destroying a gigantic cash cow owned by somebody else.

Spreadsheets are not drugs. Mostly. Developing and deploying a spreadsheet is cheaper and less risky than developing and deploying a completely new drug.

It's not significantly cheaper or less risky than developing and deploying a completely new type of car or space ship. So Tesla and SpaceX should not exist.

Developing a drug is also not cheaper than developing a new type of computer chip for use in tablet computers aimed at disrupting the PC market (all attempts thus far have been failures). So by your logic, Apples A4 chip should not exist.

Amazon received about $100 million at their IPO, and considerable pre-IPO money in the hopes of disrupting retail. Also a very risky proposition, which by your logic should never have occurred.

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#78

Post by todayiamme »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #60
detst wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I can't really disagree with you, I don't think it's crazy to think that there are many influential people and organizations that have a strong interest in seeing that we avoid potential cures for common diseases. As such, I don't think this type of reaction is necessarily based largely in ignorance. Then again, I'm largely ignorant on this subject so I'm certainly not making any accusations in this case.

I'm sure the shareholders of Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and others would like to squelch a cure for diabetes to protect their markets, just like any established company would like to squelch disruptive technologies. So what? What are they going to do about it if some startup cures diabetes? That's all you really need to know about any story about big, evil companies supposedly suppressing new technology.

You seem to have assumed something over here. That,

a) A Start-Up has that type of money b) They'll be willing to invest in something so risky.

As others have pointed out there are StartUps with the money, but somehow we still don't hear about orphan drugs with potential to make it burst onto the scene. Why not? I think that the second factor is more at play over here. Ultimately it comes down to the cost vs. benefit analysis.

Imagine this you are a VC with a $100 mil. to burn will you support a long and twisted development process of something that might not even work at the end?

You might argue that the benefit is that you might become the up and coming Google of pharma, but try telling that to any smart VC.

This is why we need something more than a profit based industry for something that forms the basis of our society. On one hand people talk about freedom, and especially how it's related to the freedom of the markets, and on the other you trap them with the very failings of their bodies.

Perhaps, I am wrong, but this is something that we all need to think about. What do we value more as a species money or wealth? I wish I knew the answer.

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#79

Post by ahoyhere »

Vivtek wrote: post #76
ahoyhere wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly: if pharma is good business, and not philanthropy, then they have to focus on the people who will pay the most, the most readily, and the most often. End of story. Case in point: I'm an American who lives in Vienna, Austria, and I have recurring upper-respiratory/immune system problems. Here, I am treated with a so-cheap-it's-almost-free immune system booster called Broncho Vaxom. It's nothing but dead b…

Coral snake antivenom is a similar thing - the last manufacturer left a supply of a few years that is now running out, but the process for approving a new manufacturer for the same drug is so expensive that the market won't support it. So first responders in Florida have a problem. No coral snake antivenom. A similar market situation applies to flu shots. The current system favors "maintenance pharmaceuticals", not c…

Excellent examples.

A free marketeer, as you say, would say that the reason nobody is making more antivenin is because the "process for applying" is so expensive - but of course, there has to be quality control, and more importantly, there's every reason to believe that the manufacture would be more expensive than the applying.

Govt regulation is used as a scapegoat. The market for creating this product is just not desirable, because snake bites are extremely rare compared to just about every other medical malady. There was a reason the original manufacturer willingly gave it up in the face of no competition.

Public health is a public concern, and should be funded with public money. It is cheaper in the long run because of increasing working years/tax dollars, and reducing bankruptcies, and reducing the number of orphans, etc.

Even Mr Invisible Hand, Enlightened Self-Interest himself wrote that the whole edifice of his economic philosophy had to rest on the foundation of respect for human life -- and compassion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments

Re: Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

#80

Post by ahoyhere »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #62
grandalf wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think his research will result in type I diabetes being cured in humans in our lifetimes?

For some reason I can't reply to carbocation, but in reply to his objection that stem cells wouldn't help due to the autoimmune issue, there's a lab that claims to have solved that problem in mice. Apparently, when you get rid of the autoimmune cells, the insulin-producing beta cells grow back. The lab claims to have had a successful phase I (human) trial. If they're right, stem cells are irrelevant. I don't know eno…

It seems like we can also forget about MS being an autoimmune disease - but rather a mechanical issue caused by iron deposits in the blood vessels leading to the brain:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/researchers-lab...

http://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis/news/20031022/multip...

Post reply on HN