3 ms·

> Molecular targets are getting harder to find. Is this because we've already harvested the low-hanging fruit? Are there any new paradigms on the horizon that

by ci5er 11y ago

> Molecular targets are getting harder to find. Is this because we've already harvested the low-hanging fruit? Are there any new paradigms on the horizon that could change this? > If you want more cancer cures, make it easier to become very rich by selling them. It's an odd thing about Americans, though. They really don't seem to mind if Jobs or Zuckerberg get insanely rich (although there was some grumbling about Gates back in the day), but they loose their collective fecal matter if an evil capitalist with a cure for cancer even tried to recoup the capital invested in its development. "People are dying because it is not free!", they would screech. And the (US) government would cap the price because by that time they will be the sole domestic channel for any new therapy's delivery and done and done. Big pharma knows this, and if they don't, their investors do. Better off improving female viagra or something.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's mostly a combination of low hanging fruit all being plucked, and also the fact that it's harder to measure smaller deltas in efficacy. I.e., if there is already a drug that cures 75% of cancers and a new drug cures 85%, a clinical trial to detect that 10% difference will require a lot more people (and cost a lot more money). Additionally cost-efficiency is not a valid reason to allow a new drug (according to the FDA), you've got to be better than the last one.
- ci5er 11y ago
  > if there is already a drug that cures 75% of cancers and a new drug cures 85%, a clinical trial to detect that 10% difference will require a lot more people (and cost a lot more money). That makes sense. Thank you. > Additionally cost-efficiency is not a valid reason to allow a new drug (according to the FDA), you've got to be better than the last one. Really? I did not know that. On the face of it, that seems absurd. If Treatment A cures at a 75% rate and costs $1M and Treatment B cures at a 72% rate (worse) and costs $10, it seems as if it would still be valuable to the market, no? Or am I mis-reading you?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    You are correctly reading me.

by ci5er 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

It's mostly a combination of low hanging fruit all being plucked, and also the fact that it's harder to measure smaller deltas in efficacy. I.e., if there is already a drug that cures 75% of cancers and a new drug cures 85%, a clinical trial to detect that 10% difference will require a lot more people (and cost a lot more money). Additionally cost-efficiency is not a valid reason to allow a new drug (according to the FDA), you've got to be better than the last one.

ci5er 11y ago
> if there is already a drug that cures 75% of cancers and a new drug cures 85%, a clinical trial to detect that 10% difference will require a lot more people (and cost a lot more money). That makes sense. Thank you. > Additionally cost-efficiency is not a valid reason to allow a new drug (according to the FDA), you've got to be better than the last one. Really? I did not know that. On the face of it, that seems absurd. If Treatment A cures at a 75% rate and costs $1M and Treatment B cures at a 72% rate (worse) and costs $10, it seems as if it would still be valuable to the market, no? Or am I mis-reading you?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  You are correctly reading me.