4 ms·

the pharmocracy will allow a cure for cancer?

by mieses 2y ago

viraptor 2y ago
We've got a number of working cures and preventions for cancers, just not most types and many are not 100% reliable. I'm happy to complain about pharma and we've still got a long way to go, but this is a bad take. Yes, they've "allowed" it for years. (Did you get your HPV vaccine already?)
- asah 2y ago
  +1 - cancer prognosis used to be treated as a death sentence for most forms of cancer and "stage 4" was almost immediately referred to hospice. Amazing progress in our lifetimes, and an impressive roadmap ahead.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  As I understand about the HPV vaccine: It only prevents new infections. It does not cure existing infections. And you need to get it very young to reduce chances of infection before vaccine.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    Correct. That one falls under preventions. But that one also protects your partners.
ithkuil 2y ago
Why not? Isn't it in "their interest" to keep people alive longer and longer?
- jojobas 2y ago
  A cured customer is a lost customer. Indefinite remission while taking a daily dose is plausible, or maybe $2.5M per head as Zolgensma.
  - ithkuil 2y ago
    How many people simply wouldn't be able to afford that and thus die? Wouldn't it be better to have them cured and live longer and just spend their money on curing other illnesses we're all going to have anyway? There is something about this cynic explanation that just doesn't sound right to me
    - namaria 2y ago
      Anyone who claims that there's a 'cure for cancer' somewhere that some company is sitting on for profit betrays their complete lack of understanding of oncology.
      - ithkuil 2y ago
        And also a complete lack of misunderstanding of profit
        ithkuil 2y ago
        EDIT: lack of understanding
  - takinola 2y ago
    Other than cynicism, what is the basis for this argument? The economic and social interests of the pharmaceutical companies are to find a cure. If a company came up with a single dose pill that cures colon cancer, they could charge up to the cost of a full course of chemo for that pill and insurance companies would line up to cover it. Go see what has happened with Hep-C and DAAs. Also, the industry and brand cred that would accrue from being the company that cured cancer would be immense. Think about what that would do for recruiting, influence and access. Ask yourself if Novo-Nordisk is in a worse position today for pretty much curing obesity.
    - anticensor 2y ago
      But that profit margin would only exist initially. The cure would be much much cheaper than the ongoing treatment once the research pays off, making future margins for smaller yet simultaneously encourage ongoing research to discover a cure to the next disease.

the pharmocracy will allow a cure for cancer?

by mieses 2y ago

the pharmocracy will allow a cure for cancer?

We've got a number of working cures and preventions for cancers, just not most types and many are not 100% reliable. I'm happy to complain about pharma and we've still got a long way to go, but this is a bad take. Yes, they've "allowed" it for years. (Did you get your HPV vaccine already?)

asah 2y ago
+1 - cancer prognosis used to be treated as a death sentence for most forms of cancer and "stage 4" was almost immediately referred to hospice. Amazing progress in our lifetimes, and an impressive roadmap ahead.
throwaway2037 2y ago
As I understand about the HPV vaccine: It only prevents new infections. It does not cure existing infections. And you need to get it very young to reduce chances of infection before vaccine.
- viraptor 2y ago
  Correct. That one falls under preventions. But that one also protects your partners.

ithkuil 2y ago

Why not? Isn't it in "their interest" to keep people alive longer and longer?

jojobas 2y ago
A cured customer is a lost customer. Indefinite remission while taking a daily dose is plausible, or maybe $2.5M per head as Zolgensma.
- ithkuil 2y ago
  How many people simply wouldn't be able to afford that and thus die? Wouldn't it be better to have them cured and live longer and just spend their money on curing other illnesses we're all going to have anyway? There is something about this cynic explanation that just doesn't sound right to me
  - namaria 2y ago
    Anyone who claims that there's a 'cure for cancer' somewhere that some company is sitting on for profit betrays their complete lack of understanding of oncology.
    - ithkuil 2y ago
      And also a complete lack of misunderstanding of profit
      - ithkuil 2y ago
        EDIT: lack of understanding
- takinola 2y ago
  Other than cynicism, what is the basis for this argument? The economic and social interests of the pharmaceutical companies are to find a cure. If a company came up with a single dose pill that cures colon cancer, they could charge up to the cost of a full course of chemo for that pill and insurance companies would line up to cover it. Go see what has happened with Hep-C and DAAs. Also, the industry and brand cred that would accrue from being the company that cured cancer would be immense. Think about what that would do for recruiting, influence and access. Ask yourself if Novo-Nordisk is in a worse position today for pretty much curing obesity.
  - anticensor 2y ago
    But that profit margin would only exist initially. The cure would be much much cheaper than the ongoing treatment once the research pays off, making future margins for smaller yet simultaneously encourage ongoing research to discover a cure to the next disease.