"Our cancer-killing pill is like a snowstorm that closes a key airline hub, shutting down all flights in and out only in planes carrying cancer cells," says the professor who has been developing the new drug over the past 20 years.
Looks like a treatment, not a cure, that will require ongoing supplies of medication. This is a pharma wet dream. We can’t cure your cancer, but we can keep it from growing for just $2000 per pill that cost us $1 to make.
Do you really think that pill cost 1$? A single approved therapy takes years to develop and over a billion dollars. But hey if you’re view of an entire industry is shaped through Facebook comments I don’t blame you.
Further, maintenance therapy already exists in many cancers. This is not a new concept for literally anyone in the field of medicine.
I’m from a country in western Europe, and our pharmacies are running low. My dad was told several times over the last months that they’re out of stock and he should come back next week. Sure, the price here might be okay, but Pharma seems to prefer selling it more expensively elsewhere.
They’re probably creating artificial scarcity to increase the prices elsewhere on account of “supply and demand”. There’s a special place in hell for them.
You are doing exactly the thing the person you are replying to is calling someone out for, so if anything you are underlining the point. Pharmaceuticals is a vast industry, and the matter they work with is not homogenous.
You cannot infer from the cost of insulin to inhabitants of uncivilized western countries what the actual cost of providing a still in-development medicine will be. More specifically, you cannot expand from being ripped off in one country for one medicine and the myopic view that provides to pharmaceuticals as a whole.
As a counterpoint in your case, I pay nothing for my insulin, as its included the base medical insurance everyone has to have. As are a vast amount of other pharmaceuticals.
I gave an example of a treatment style pharmaceutical that has been used consistently to boost corporate profits rather than serve the greater good. Would you like to talk about the cost of epipens next? How about the opioid industry?
A pill that treats solid tumours would be an enormous boon to humanity. You’re letting really tired cynicism get in the way of basic logic. This argument would mean that insulin wasn’t a breakthrough, because it didn’t cure diabetes.
For profit pharmaceuticals is indeed a huge issue, but it’s one that is entirely separate from whether or not a given medical treatment is good or not.
grumble grumble Look at this big pharma scheme that allows people to live longer! grrrr I’d rather die from cancer than let big pharma take my hard-earned dollars!
Are you saying insulin has not served the greater good? This whole “treatments are a conspiracy to enrich corporate profits” BS is crazy. That it can happen, and sometimes does happen, does not mean it always happens or never happens.
The world is complicated. Simplified “pharma bad” arguments are pure fantasy.
Not only that, it’s also important to consider just how vast pharmaceuticals as a branch of industry and research and medicine is, overall.
Sure, some exec at the top might be a money-grubbing arsehole who couldn’t care any less if 8 billion people died so long as they made 2% more profits.
But there’s a giant apparatus of often very serious and very altruistic researchers, doctors, nurses, workers and helpers underneath that, too. Lots of bad apples, lots of shining examples. Just like, well, any other industry.
And sure, one can easily argue “but you’re playing with people’s lives here, it’s not okay for it to be like this”. And of course I agree. But it’s utopian to think we can fix this with reductive, as you say, “pharma bad”-arguments. And it’s not like the transport industry, the power industry, the the military-industrial complex (intentionally) or the tourism industry don’t habiutally play with people’s lives. We just tend to not notice it as directly.
And sure, I get that for americans in particular this is a sore topic of particular import because they’re so vulnerable to exploitation due to a lack of social support structure and regulated and standardized insurances.
But anything can be reduced to a simple “is bad” if we want it to. It’s important to not think in such simplistic us-vs-them terms, otherwise nothing can ever be improved.
Insulin is worse though because it’s not like it’s a drug that had to be developed and has a billion dollars or more to develop. The case with insulin is blatant price gouging.
This pill, this doesn’t mean it should be as cheap as insulin as the two drugs aren’t equals. It can be priced fairly and still be expensive, we don’t know the economics behind it. Being cheap =/= fair pricing all the time. Like buying a better product that took more to make.
This could still be outrageously priced obviously, but comparing it to insulin is apples to oranges.
depending on how you count, even less than 4 steps
all starting materials are commercially available and probably pretty cheap
i’m not gonna talk down a molecule that’s easy to make, but there may be room for modifications, should it be discovered that these are beneficial. this may or may not make synthesis a little bit harder or more expensive but at any rate not impossible
I find it a bit reductive to call palliative care a moneymaking scheme overall. Especially cruel to workers in the field, which is one of the toughest one as far as mental health goes.
Yeah I do understand what you are saying. And I may have gone too overboard with my pessimism. This being cancer and all.
It’s just that too many bad actors have taken advantage of regular folks and their situations. It’s hard not to react in a pessimistic view when there’s hardly any good news to come by, or any good development that gets twisted into a nightmare of a tool just to take advantage of people’s hope for better care.
I agree. Would I rather have no cancer? Absolutely. But if my body is going to crank up some cancer cells anyway, I’d rather have chronic (but managed) cancer and keep living than just cancer that will kill me.
At the moment, it doesn’t look like anything, since it’s just now in phase 1 trials, so nobody knows.
But if it does what it says, then yes, it might actually be part of a cure.
And I don’t know if you’re aware of it, as of now we don’t have a cure for cancer: https://xkcd.com/931/
You can look up the average treatment cost today, it’s something like $150000, good for your that you already know the price of this pill and that it’s big pharma‘s wet dream.
Looks like a treatment, not a cure, that will require ongoing supplies of medication. This is a pharma wet dream. We can’t cure your cancer, but we can keep it from growing for just $2000 per pill that cost us $1 to make.
Do you really think that pill cost 1$? A single approved therapy takes years to develop and over a billion dollars. But hey if you’re view of an entire industry is shaped through Facebook comments I don’t blame you.
Further, maintenance therapy already exists in many cancers. This is not a new concept for literally anyone in the field of medicine.
You speak like someone whose never had to buy insulin before.
Which is cheap or free in literally everywhere except the country of free. It’s US problem, not industry.
I’m from a country in western Europe, and our pharmacies are running low. My dad was told several times over the last months that they’re out of stock and he should come back next week. Sure, the price here might be okay, but Pharma seems to prefer selling it more expensively elsewhere.
I live in the US, my wife couldn’t find test strips for over a week.
They’re probably creating artificial scarcity to increase the prices elsewhere on account of “supply and demand”. There’s a special place in hell for them.
You are doing exactly the thing the person you are replying to is calling someone out for, so if anything you are underlining the point. Pharmaceuticals is a vast industry, and the matter they work with is not homogenous.
You cannot infer from the cost of insulin to inhabitants of uncivilized western countries what the actual cost of providing a still in-development medicine will be. More specifically, you cannot expand from being ripped off in one country for one medicine and the myopic view that provides to pharmaceuticals as a whole.
As a counterpoint in your case, I pay nothing for my insulin, as its included the base medical insurance everyone has to have. As are a vast amount of other pharmaceuticals.
I gave an example of a treatment style pharmaceutical that has been used consistently to boost corporate profits rather than serve the greater good. Would you like to talk about the cost of epipens next? How about the opioid industry?
A pill that treats solid tumours would be an enormous boon to humanity. You’re letting really tired cynicism get in the way of basic logic. This argument would mean that insulin wasn’t a breakthrough, because it didn’t cure diabetes.
For profit pharmaceuticals is indeed a huge issue, but it’s one that is entirely separate from whether or not a given medical treatment is good or not.
grumble grumble Look at this big pharma scheme that allows people to live longer! grrrr I’d rather die from cancer than let big pharma take my hard-earned dollars!
Are you saying insulin has not served the greater good? This whole “treatments are a conspiracy to enrich corporate profits” BS is crazy. That it can happen, and sometimes does happen, does not mean it always happens or never happens.
The world is complicated. Simplified “pharma bad” arguments are pure fantasy.
Not only that, it’s also important to consider just how vast pharmaceuticals as a branch of industry and research and medicine is, overall.
Sure, some exec at the top might be a money-grubbing arsehole who couldn’t care any less if 8 billion people died so long as they made 2% more profits.
But there’s a giant apparatus of often very serious and very altruistic researchers, doctors, nurses, workers and helpers underneath that, too. Lots of bad apples, lots of shining examples. Just like, well, any other industry.
And sure, one can easily argue “but you’re playing with people’s lives here, it’s not okay for it to be like this”. And of course I agree. But it’s utopian to think we can fix this with reductive, as you say, “pharma bad”-arguments. And it’s not like the transport industry, the power industry, the the military-industrial complex (intentionally) or the tourism industry don’t habiutally play with people’s lives. We just tend to not notice it as directly.
And sure, I get that for americans in particular this is a sore topic of particular import because they’re so vulnerable to exploitation due to a lack of social support structure and regulated and standardized insurances.
But anything can be reduced to a simple “is bad” if we want it to. It’s important to not think in such simplistic us-vs-them terms, otherwise nothing can ever be improved.
Insulin is worse though because it’s not like it’s a drug that had to be developed and has a billion dollars or more to develop. The case with insulin is blatant price gouging.
This pill, this doesn’t mean it should be as cheap as insulin as the two drugs aren’t equals. It can be priced fairly and still be expensive, we don’t know the economics behind it. Being cheap =/= fair pricing all the time. Like buying a better product that took more to make.
This could still be outrageously priced obviously, but comparing it to insulin is apples to oranges.
it doesn’t look very advanced or hard to make honestly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOH1996
What is the indicator in the article that the compound is trivial to produce?
its structure, it’s like 4 steps from widely available building blocks, all routine things (amide couplings, one palladium coupling or SNAr)
source: me, i’m an organic chemist
depending on how you count, even less than 4 steps all starting materials are commercially available and probably pretty cheap
i’m not gonna talk down a molecule that’s easy to make, but there may be room for modifications, should it be discovered that these are beneficial. this may or may not make synthesis a little bit harder or more expensive but at any rate not impossible
Ty
No I don’t think it will cost a dollar. That was hyperbole.
That’s what it is, a subscription based cure.
“as long as you buy our medicine you will live!”
I sure hope it isn’t like this. Medicine just enough to stave the progress of the illness but also not enough to cure it.
I find it a bit reductive to call palliative care a moneymaking scheme overall. Especially cruel to workers in the field, which is one of the toughest one as far as mental health goes.
Yeah I do understand what you are saying. And I may have gone too overboard with my pessimism. This being cancer and all.
It’s just that too many bad actors have taken advantage of regular folks and their situations. It’s hard not to react in a pessimistic view when there’s hardly any good news to come by, or any good development that gets twisted into a nightmare of a tool just to take advantage of people’s hope for better care.
I know what you’re saying, but cancer being a chronic condition is great.
I agree. Would I rather have no cancer? Absolutely. But if my body is going to crank up some cancer cells anyway, I’d rather have chronic (but managed) cancer and keep living than just cancer that will kill me.
At the moment, it doesn’t look like anything, since it’s just now in phase 1 trials, so nobody knows.
But if it does what it says, then yes, it might actually be part of a cure.
And I don’t know if you’re aware of it, as of now we don’t have a cure for cancer: https://xkcd.com/931/
You can look up the average treatment cost today, it’s something like $150000, good for your that you already know the price of this pill and that it’s big pharma‘s wet dream.
“Why don’t they just cure cancer!”
🙄
deleted by creator
deleted by creator