5 ms·

"The ready-made approach could pose a challenge to companies including Juno Therapeutics and Novartis, each of which has spent tens of millions of dollars pione

"The ready-made approach could pose a challenge to companies including Juno Therapeutics and Novartis, each of which has spent tens of millions of dollars pioneering treatments that require collecting a patient’s own blood cells, engineering them, and then re-infusing them." Is author serious with this statement? Two kids lives were saved with a potentially inexpensive technique and the author think's this point is relevant? If 500 companies go bankrupt because cancer is cured, that is a monstrous win.

impish19 10y ago
I don't see it as the author complaining about the danger to the companies but merely stating it. It's not only just OK, but also necessary to throw light on this.
- ryeguy_24 10y ago
  Agreed, but it's still the 3rd of 16 paragraphs. I think it's far the most relevant item.
  - chrischen 10y ago
    Think of it as a warning.
    - Jugurtha 10y ago
      I agree, especially considering that the author also mentions relations to expose potential bias or conflict of interest (italics are mine for emphasis): >Although the cases drew wide media attention in Britain, some researchers said that because the London team also gave the children standard chemotherapy, they failed to show the cell treatment actually cured the kids. “There is a hint of efficacy but no proof,” says Stephan Grupp, director of cancer immunotherapy at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who collaborates with Novartis.
pmiller2 10y ago
I hardly think a treatment costing $4000/dose to manufacture is inexpensive.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  To cure cancer and live? Seems pretty cheap to me.
  - pmiller2 10y ago
    I didn't say it wouldn't be worth it, just that it's expensive. There are certainly access issues to consider here if this comes to market.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    Some people don't have $4000 so it's not a matter of deciding whether parting with that much money is worthwhile. And the status of a lot of people's health insurance is suddenly up in the air.
    - popey456963 10y ago
      First result on Googling the normal cost of cancer treatments > Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. It seems $4,000 is rather a small fee in comparison.
      - awinder 10y ago
        Nitpick: it's $4000 per dose, and you're comparing to the monthly cost
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - mariuolo 10y ago
lisper 10y ago
> Is author serious with this statement? Whether or not this author is serious, there are many people who are deadly serious about this sort of thing. It's one of the main reasons that, for example, marijuana has been kept illegal despite the overwhelming evidence that it is less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes: legalizing pot is bad for established business interests. It's the reason that credit card transactions cost 2-3% when the technology to process payments for an order of magnitude less has existed for years. It's the reason "low fat" became a thing when sugar is actually much worse. It's reason you can't buy an open-source mobile phone. I could go on and on.
- untilHellbanned 10y ago
  Though none of those things are life and death so not sure relevant.
  - lisper 10y ago
    They certainly are matters of life and death. People die from obesity, diabetes, and cancer caused by sugar and cigarettes. And medical marijuana is a matter of life and death for some ALS and cancer patients who can't tolerate chemotherapy otherwise. For example: http://www.chicagonow.com/soapbox-momma/2016/10/illinois-man-with-als-credits-medical-marijuana-with-keeping-him-alive/ http://www.chicagonow.com/soapbox-momma/2016/10/illinois-man...
- earthly10x 10y ago
  Farther back in the history of the demonization of marijuana you'll find it's connected to an argument used by fundamental Christians, Evangelical Christians, related to demons, spirits and the spirit world. Now combine that with fundamental republican right.
  - mustacheemperor 10y ago
    Prohibition may have been pushed using a Christian narrative but only because it made it an appealing message for the wider population that wasn't going to just take "look, we can sell way more paper and cigarettes now" as justification.
mikeash 10y ago
I read that as a caution that these companies could try to fight this technique, or that it could face problems getting to market, not saying that it was somehow sad that these companies would face trouble.
apathy 10y ago
Yes, the author is serious that investors worry about losing billions of dollars. If your house or savings became worthless overnight, I suspect you'd be worried too. It's a statement of fact. If UCARTs come to prominence on the market, Kite & Juno no longer appear to be the only game in town (or even the only CAR-T game in town!). Toss in some grade IV/V events in their clinical trials, and an investor in these companies might have reason to worry. Individuals and societies can have conflicting priorities. Sometimes the same individual may be conflicted (plenty of oncologist friends invest in various companies, and are distressed if a competing company's drug blows their holdings' product out of the water, even as they consider switching patients to the more effective drug). Put differently, you can own a Tesla and hold Exxon stock ... and that does not make you a bad person. Infant leukemia is (thankfully) rather rare. Nobody who's ever seen a cold, gray infant in a morgue drawer would ever say that those lives are worth less than some company's profits. But they might regret investing in the company!
djsumdog 10y ago
> Two kids lives were saved with a potentially inexpensive technique Potentially saved. They did get traditional therapy first. This type of conclusion is really premature. Don't get me wrong, this is super exciting. But the reason we have standardized clinical trials is to ensure treatments work reliably and consistently across as many humans as possible.

impish19 10y ago

I don't see it as the author complaining about the danger to the companies but merely stating it. It's not only just OK, but also necessary to throw light on this.

ryeguy_24 10y ago
Agreed, but it's still the 3rd of 16 paragraphs. I think it's far the most relevant item.
- chrischen 10y ago
  Think of it as a warning.
  - Jugurtha 10y ago
    I agree, especially considering that the author also mentions relations to expose potential bias or conflict of interest (italics are mine for emphasis): >Although the cases drew wide media attention in Britain, some researchers said that because the London team also gave the children standard chemotherapy, they failed to show the cell treatment actually cured the kids. “There is a hint of efficacy but no proof,” says Stephan Grupp, director of cancer immunotherapy at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who collaborates with Novartis.

pmiller2 10y ago

I hardly think a treatment costing $4000/dose to manufacture is inexpensive.

muninn_ 10y ago
To cure cancer and live? Seems pretty cheap to me.
- pmiller2 10y ago
  I didn't say it wouldn't be worth it, just that it's expensive. There are certainly access issues to consider here if this comes to market.
- gdulli 10y ago
  Some people don't have $4000 so it's not a matter of deciding whether parting with that much money is worthwhile. And the status of a lot of people's health insurance is suddenly up in the air.
  - popey456963 10y ago
    First result on Googling the normal cost of cancer treatments > Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. It seems $4,000 is rather a small fee in comparison.
    - awinder 10y ago
      Nitpick: it's $4000 per dose, and you're comparing to the monthly cost
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mariuolo 10y ago

lisper 10y ago

> Is author serious with this statement? Whether or not this author is serious, there are many people who are deadly serious about this sort of thing. It's one of the main reasons that, for example, marijuana has been kept illegal despite the overwhelming evidence that it is less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes: legalizing pot is bad for established business interests. It's the reason that credit card transactions cost 2-3% when the technology to process payments for an order of magnitude less has existed for years. It's the reason "low fat" became a thing when sugar is actually much worse. It's reason you can't buy an open-source mobile phone. I could go on and on.

untilHellbanned 10y ago
Though none of those things are life and death so not sure relevant.
- lisper 10y ago
  They certainly are matters of life and death. People die from obesity, diabetes, and cancer caused by sugar and cigarettes. And medical marijuana is a matter of life and death for some ALS and cancer patients who can't tolerate chemotherapy otherwise. For example: http://www.chicagonow.com/soapbox-momma/2016/10/illinois-man-with-als-credits-medical-marijuana-with-keeping-him-alive/ http://www.chicagonow.com/soapbox-momma/2016/10/illinois-man...
earthly10x 10y ago
Farther back in the history of the demonization of marijuana you'll find it's connected to an argument used by fundamental Christians, Evangelical Christians, related to demons, spirits and the spirit world. Now combine that with fundamental republican right.
- mustacheemperor 10y ago
  Prohibition may have been pushed using a Christian narrative but only because it made it an appealing message for the wider population that wasn't going to just take "look, we can sell way more paper and cigarettes now" as justification.

mikeash 10y ago

I read that as a caution that these companies could try to fight this technique, or that it could face problems getting to market, not saying that it was somehow sad that these companies would face trouble.

apathy 10y ago

Yes, the author is serious that investors worry about losing billions of dollars. If your house or savings became worthless overnight, I suspect you'd be worried too. It's a statement of fact. If UCARTs come to prominence on the market, Kite & Juno no longer appear to be the only game in town (or even the only CAR-T game in town!). Toss in some grade IV/V events in their clinical trials, and an investor in these companies might have reason to worry. Individuals and societies can have conflicting priorities. Sometimes the same individual may be conflicted (plenty of oncologist friends invest in various companies, and are distressed if a competing company's drug blows their holdings' product out of the water, even as they consider switching patients to the more effective drug). Put differently, you can own a Tesla and hold Exxon stock ... and that does not make you a bad person. Infant leukemia is (thankfully) rather rare. Nobody who's ever seen a cold, gray infant in a morgue drawer would ever say that those lives are worth less than some company's profits. But they might regret investing in the company!

djsumdog 10y ago

> Two kids lives were saved with a potentially inexpensive technique Potentially saved. They did get traditional therapy first. This type of conclusion is really premature. Don't get me wrong, this is super exciting. But the reason we have standardized clinical trials is to ensure treatments work reliably and consistently across as many humans as possible.