5 ms·
All of that money and work just so people can say "yep, I might die in a few years because I have X". Wouldn't it be better to put $200mil into curing the illne
by jbob2000 9y ago
All of that money and work just so people can say "yep, I might die in a few years because I have X". Wouldn't it be better to put $200mil into curing the illnesses rather than putting a product on the market to scare people into treatment they may or may not need?
- dforrestwilson 9y agoWell planning appropriately for genetic issues would seem to have some value attached wouldn't it? Unexpected medical costs can have a huge impact on a person's finances.
- david-cako 9y agoThis sounds like it runs contrary to the commonly held belief that it would be much cheaper on a macro level for people to consume more expensive, less shitty (i.e., all starch, salt, and sugar) food than for us to exist in our current global heart disease and diabetes epidemic. Preventative measures are supposed to be the way to go, from what I've heard. Spending money on telling people how to eat correctly obviously goes against corporate interest, so it doesn't usually happen.
- tvural 9y ago$200M usually isn't enough for even one drug - $500M is on the low end, and not all drug development works out. So it's plausible that the money is better allocated here than in treatments. But also, from the article: "Based on some of 23andMe’s newer hires, we wouldn’t be shocked to see the company dive into drug development, either."
- jdale27 9y agoThe real goal is to build a database of genotypic and phenotypic data and use that to identify drug targets. In other words, curing the illnesses.
- TuringNYC 9y agoPrevention, or early intervention, is often less expensive and less painful than curing. Cures are also not always 100% and can be in the form of recurring treatments. Simple example is heart disease -- the cost of prevention is far lower than the cost of treatment.