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

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

#71

Post by mdtancsa » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 1:23 PM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #61

mdtancsa wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you google "Avastin breakthrough" (remember, we lay people have far more time with Dr. google), its still touted as this miracle drug, and is even being pushed as a treatment for non colon cancers of which there is little evidence it does anything... And remember, there are oncologists / doctors who lend their name to the company PRs... Its so sad to think someone would spend $20k on a useless drug, when $20k towards supportive treatments would go such a long, long way for quality of life :( I know there are genuine big steps forward. The cancer that killed Terry Fox for example is so treatable now. And there are good and effective drugs out there, and some that are bullshit. But from the perspective out here, its difficult, sometimes very difficult to tell the real breakthroughs from marketing hype.

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

#72

Post by ars » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

datashovel wrote: post #68

ars wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> is not because of supply and demand. It's because of competition in the market

Competition is a form of supply and demand, so your sentence is contradictory.

It's still wrong, there are lots of patented medications on the market every year, many for treating fatal diseases, and they don't charge outrageous amounts.

I posted this earlier, maybe you didn't see, but this drug is a monoclonal antibody. That is by FAR the most expensive type of drug we have ever invented. That's the reason for the cost, not the patent. It will still be expensive even off patent.

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

#73

Post by datashovel » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 7:35 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #72

datashovel wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> is not because of supply and demand. It's because of competition in the market Competition is a form of supply and demand, so your sentence is contradictory. It's still wrong, there are lots of patented medications on the market every year, many for treating fatal diseases, and they don't charge outrageous amounts. I posted this earlier, maybe you didn't see, but this drug is a monoclonal antibody. That is by FAR t…

I found this excerpt that might be helpful to our discussion:

  The law of demand states that, if all other factors
  remain equal, the higher the price of a good, the less
  people will demand that good. In other words, the higher
  the price, the lower the quantity demanded.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3....

So let's consider a scenario. The drug is available on the market for $100. Will I buy it? Yes. For $1000? Yes. For $10000? Yes. For $100000? Yes. For $1000000? Yes. etc.. For $10000000000? Yes, but I can't afford it. Notice I never said no. The pharmaceutical company, the hospital, and the insurance company said no. I don't see where the "law of demand" enters into the equation.

I can't see how it is possible to shim "supply and demand" into a market where the only decision you make when purchasing is "If I don't purchase it, I will die".

On the other hand, simply through adding a competitor into the mix suddenly both parties need to figure out how to keep costs low so the consumer will pick them over their competitor. The fact that there's competition in the market place is orthogonal to the "law of demand".

In other words, no matter how many competitors exist in the marketplace there will always be the same number of people saying "yes" to the purchase. Exactly the same number of potential customers no matter how many competitors exist in the market. All of whom will purchase it if they can afford it.

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

#74

Post by summerdown2 » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 7:40 PM UTC

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #41

>after it's gone, after it's cured once and for all, this bane of human existence, this No. 2 Cause of Death, we will have extended human life a grand total of (drum roll, please) 3.3 years http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/02/taeubers-paradox-and-...

I get your point, and it's a very dramatic and low statistic. But still, just taking the US, if all 320 Million people live for an extra 3.3 years, that's 1 billion total years of life given to people. A lot of books could be written, science done, or life shared with loved ones in that time. Not to mention all the misery and pain removed.