5 ms·

It seems like the PR engine is on overdrive for this drug. And it looks the BBC are spewing it out without giving it any thought at all. Or perhaps the reported

by feelix 10y ago

It seems like the PR engine is on overdrive for this drug. And it looks the BBC are spewing it out without giving it any thought at all. Or perhaps the reported was paid? I'm not saying it has no value, I'm saying that their PR is wildly out of control and it's reflecting on the poor state of journalism more than the efficacy of the drug. Here is a scathing review of it and the PR engine behind it from the NYT just a month ago, ironically: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/opinion/cancer-drug-ads-vs-cancer-drug-reality.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/opinion/cancer-drug-ads-vs... OPDIVO is another name for nivolumab. No one should call a cancer treatment drug a 'game changer' unless it literally cures cancer in something like 90% of cases. Otherwise it's spreading false hope and it is actually immoral - if you consider that nearly everybody has been affected by cancer either directly or indirectly.

danieltillett 10y ago
Actually any drug that cures people with cancer even a small percentage is a game changer. A drug that cured 5% of all cancers would be fantastic given most drugs just delay progression with very bad side effects. Our metrics are really skewed - we reward companies that develop drugs that increase average life expectancy by a few months in a large percentage of the target population and which cure nobody, not those that cure even if it is only a small percentage of the target populations. The really bad thing is we are doing almost nothing to develop treatments that prevent cancer in the first place (well nothing gets to the clinic). The three really big advances in cancer treatment in the last 100 years have been the HPV vaccine, Hep B vaccine / anit-Hep C drugs, and antibiotic treatment of Helicobacter (stomach cancer). All of these are preventive treatments that have “cured" millions of cancers.
- feelix 10y ago
  How would you consider a drug that cures 5% of cancers a "game changer"? Do you know what a game changer is? Hint: It means the game changes. In this case it would mean that cancer is at least 50% obviated.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    The reason it is a game changer in we are now trying to cure not just increase survival. Once you have a method that can cure people with advanced cancers that all other treatments types fail on you have a game changer.
    - feelix 10y ago
      I'd certainly like to think that's the case, although unfortunately it does not seem to be. If you read the article I posted in my initial comment, for example, it seems like this involves value combined with PR BS. If you think that's not the case and it truly is a game changer please do share why
      - danieltillett 10y ago
        The immunological drugs really are game changers. Up until now we have had three basic ways of treating cancer: cut, irradiate or poison. These basically never work on advanced cancers, or cancers that come back after initial treatment. The immunological drugs turn the immune system against the cancer and this approach can cure cancers that are untreatable using other methods. It is still really early days, but the immunological drugs are able to take patients that are weeks from death, and for which everything else has failed, and cure them. What we really need to know if why it does not work for everyone, but it provides a crack into which we can hammer a wedge.
        feelix 10y ago
        Indeed the class of immunological drugs look like they could be a game changer at some point in the future. However the question is around the use of the term for this specific drug right now.
        danieltillett 10y ago
        Well this drug is curing people with terminal cancers - something we have not ever been able to do before. Game changer does not have to mean we have perfection, just the previous approach is no longer valid and we are tackling the problem in a new way. In the field, immunological drugs have given investigators hope that we know that cancer is able to be cured and we now just have to figure out the best way to do it - in the past we really didn’t have an approach that had a chance of making cancer a curable disease. Sure there were some approaches that might work on some cancers or some approaches that would hold the cancer at bay for a time, but nothing that gave hope of general cure. To put it more succinctly, terminal is no longer terminal.

by feelix 10y ago

danieltillett 10y ago

Actually any drug that cures people with cancer even a small percentage is a game changer. A drug that cured 5% of all cancers would be fantastic given most drugs just delay progression with very bad side effects. Our metrics are really skewed - we reward companies that develop drugs that increase average life expectancy by a few months in a large percentage of the target population and which cure nobody, not those that cure even if it is only a small percentage of the target populations. The really bad thing is we are doing almost nothing to develop treatments that prevent cancer in the first place (well nothing gets to the clinic). The three really big advances in cancer treatment in the last 100 years have been the HPV vaccine, Hep B vaccine / anit-Hep C drugs, and antibiotic treatment of Helicobacter (stomach cancer). All of these are preventive treatments that have “cured" millions of cancers.

feelix 10y ago
How would you consider a drug that cures 5% of cancers a "game changer"? Do you know what a game changer is? Hint: It means the game changes. In this case it would mean that cancer is at least 50% obviated.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  The reason it is a game changer in we are now trying to cure not just increase survival. Once you have a method that can cure people with advanced cancers that all other treatments types fail on you have a game changer.
  - feelix 10y ago
    I'd certainly like to think that's the case, although unfortunately it does not seem to be. If you read the article I posted in my initial comment, for example, it seems like this involves value combined with PR BS. If you think that's not the case and it truly is a game changer please do share why
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      The immunological drugs really are game changers. Up until now we have had three basic ways of treating cancer: cut, irradiate or poison. These basically never work on advanced cancers, or cancers that come back after initial treatment. The immunological drugs turn the immune system against the cancer and this approach can cure cancers that are untreatable using other methods. It is still really early days, but the immunological drugs are able to take patients that are weeks from death, and for which everything else has failed, and cure them. What we really need to know if why it does not work for everyone, but it provides a crack into which we can hammer a wedge.
      - feelix 10y ago
        Indeed the class of immunological drugs look like they could be a game changer at some point in the future. However the question is around the use of the term for this specific drug right now.
        danieltillett 10y ago
        Well this drug is curing people with terminal cancers - something we have not ever been able to do before. Game changer does not have to mean we have perfection, just the previous approach is no longer valid and we are tackling the problem in a new way. In the field, immunological drugs have given investigators hope that we know that cancer is able to be cured and we now just have to figure out the best way to do it - in the past we really didn’t have an approach that had a chance of making cancer a curable disease. Sure there were some approaches that might work on some cancers or some approaches that would hold the cancer at bay for a time, but nothing that gave hope of general cure. To put it more succinctly, terminal is no longer terminal.