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

81–90 of 126 posts

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

#81

Post by ahoyhere »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #46
ahoyhere wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't rant about it because it solves a truly-no-sex scenario, but because it's essentially a recreational drug for the majority of users. I think the ability to have sex is at least as important as the ability to not piss yourself (e.g. incontinence medication) if not more, but still, its profit center comes from its recreational use. That's why the drug companies love it.

Why do you believe most Viagra sales are primarily recreational?

Because there is no reason to believe that the % of men who have true ED matches up with the amounts of Viagra sold; because I've known many young men who talk about getting drunk or high and taking it, and because their companions agreed or in the least were not surprised; because the market for it online seems to be mostly young, healthy men who want to have greater stamina, not who have anything dysfunctional to begin with...

Etc.

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

#82

Post by rsheridan6 »

ahoyhere wrote: post #80
rsheridan6 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I wouldn't declare victory against MS just yet. Here's a skeptic: http://medicalmyths.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/kuwait-wastes-m...

And some patients report that it didn't help. http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-12463.html

The jury is still out, at best.

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

#83

Post by mkramlich »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #5
mkramlich wrote: post #3

The article touches on one of the risks to the health care industry today, at least here in the US: In many cases, the pharmaceutical companies are making billions by selling drugs which merely reduce undesired symptoms. But do not CURE the underlying problem. And the symptom reduction only lasts while the user continues to buy and consume the drug. Therefore, in many cases, these companies have a strong financial in…

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.

man on the moon: government

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

#84

Post by mkramlich »

bedris wrote: post #37
mkramlich wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Individuals (scientists, doctors, lab technicians, inventors) can do the innovating, can do the research. They just need to be paid and given space and tools and time to do it in. Enter government. Government does not need to innovate, just write checks. The problem with the alternative, like a large private corporation, can be that it may not be in their best interests profit wise to pursue a certain line…

Individuals (scientists, doctors, lab technicians, inventors) can do the innovating, can do the research. They just need to be paid and given space and tools and time to do it in. Enter government. Government does not need to innovate, just write checks. In principal, you are correct, but you are neglecting one very important point: the government is not a nebulous entity with an endless supply of money. Therefore, t…

a business would have to do the same thing. so i'd argue this factor is net neutral

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

#85

Post by rsheridan6 »

todayiamme wrote: post #78
rsheridan6 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

Imatinib. It was developed as a cure for CML, a disease which only affects a few thousand people in the US. That's just the most notable. From wikipedia's article about orphan drugs,

"In the USA, from January 1983 to June 2004, a total of 1,129 different orphan drug designations have been granted by the Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD) and 249 orphan drugs have received marketing authorization."

>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?

The fact that pharmaceutical startups exist (google pharmaceutical startup or something like that and you'll find plenty of them) show that VCs, or whoever it is who invests in them, have different ideas about risk than you do.

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

#86

Post by detst »

grandalf wrote: post #72
crocowhile wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not really fair. The government funds more than "development of military technology".

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

#87

Post by dennisgorelik »

donw wrote: post #21
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.

Wow, massive strawman. The government sucks at innovation? Who do you think funded and developed ARPANet? You know, the network we're using to communicate right now. Upon which countless businesses have been built. Nuclear power? Government. First electronic computer? Government. Furthermore, when it comes to drug discovery, that 'evil government' has one advantage over businesses, because they have no profit motive.…

Could anyone please point me to government scientific or technology accomplishments in the last 30 years? Something that noticeably improved our quality of life. Something on par with achievements by IBM (Business PC), Microsoft (OS, Office, and other software), Google (search), Apple (smartphones, music, ...), Intel (microprocessors), Pfizer (drugs).

It was surprising to see down-voting just on the basis that you disagree with the idea. Welcome to groupthink.

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

#88

Post by mkramlich »

carbocation wrote: post #45

Hacker News reminds me of my first year of med school. Everyone is smart and fundamentally clueless about human pathophysiology. It's a wonderful thing, learning about the fruits of devilishly challenging science. But it's also a conspiratorial time. I suspect the reason is that first year med students suddenly feel empowered by the small amounts of knowledge that they have gained. HNers probably feel empowered for a…

Suspicion or expectation of conspiracy can also be due to past exposure to evidence of actual conspiracy. Men colluding against others has been going on for thousands of years if history is to be believed. And yes one common motive to conspire is to gain large amounts of money to the detriment of another group, often involving lies and force. Are all imagined conspiracies real? Probably not. Do some exist? Of course.

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

#89

Post by todayiamme »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #85
todayiamme wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. Imatinib. It was developed as a cure for CML, a disease which only affects a few thousand people in the US. That's just the most notable. From wikipedia's article about orphan drugs, "In the USA, from January 1983 to June 2004, a total of 1,129 different orp…

>"In the USA, from January 1983 to June 2004, a total of 1,129 different orphan drug designations have been granted by the Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD) and 249 orphan drugs have received marketing authorization."

Thanks. I realize my mistake now. I meant it as in how many new companies try something as risky as making an orphan drug? I shouldn't have leaped in with a bad example without checking it more thoroughly first.

Sorry.

>The fact that pharmaceutical startups exist (google pharmaceutical startup or something like that and you'll find plenty of them) show that VCs, or whoever it is who invests in them, have different ideas about risk than you do.

My point over here was that they fund them, but they might not fund something as risky as stem cell therapy. As far as orphan drugs and StartUps go; is there an data freely available online on the composition of companies that market orphan drugs?

Perhaps that would be more revealing?

(I found this site from the wiki article http://www.urchpublishing.com/publications/discovery__rd/orp... , but it's paid)

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

#90

Post by dennisgorelik »

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.

1) Please show me "pretty much everything" that government developed in the last 30 years. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1465878 2) "Man on the moon" is pretty much useless for us. 3) Government didn't give us Internet as we know it now. Not even close. Government contributed may be ~1% into Internet (if even that). Considering how much that contribution costs to taxpayers every year -- government performance looks pretty bleak.
Post reply on HN