If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   Still no cure for ... Wait, what's that? Well, what are we gonna do now, guys?   (independent.co.uk) divider line 51
    More: Cool, prison cells, stem cells, T-cell, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Science Translational Medicine, gene therapy, blood transfusions, white blood cells  
•       •       •

7737 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Mar 2013 at 3:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-22 02:20:10 PM  
Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.
 
2013-03-22 03:00:36 PM  

MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.


But these are genetically modified cells...and that means MONSANTO!!! So we should only use all natural cells from Whole Foods instead. Because you never know what kind of damage these franken-cells may do. You could turn into some brain eating zombie and what good would that be? Yeah you wouldn't have cancer but you'd be the living dead and eating your family and co-workers...
 
2013-03-22 03:22:48 PM  

MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.


I have some health issues and everytime the doc has bothered to ask I did not hesitate to say "Hellz ya I wanna be your lab rat".
 
2013-03-22 03:24:09 PM  

MaxxLarge: But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER?


An eternal recursion of nipples growing on nipples.
 
2013-03-22 03:27:12 PM  
Fark it, all I care about is dying after my parents and before my kids.

/not sure if relevant...
 
2013-03-22 03:28:50 PM  

MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.


You're looking at it from the perspective of a cancer patient/loved one.  What could be worse than caner?  Probably not a lot, depending on the type.

But look at it from the perspective of a super rich, multi-billion dollar corporation.  What's worse - you getting sued/having your stock drop or sick people dying?  So yeah - CYA.  It's not just drug companies, at pretty much every level in the medical industry
 
2013-03-22 03:28:57 PM  

Counter_Intelligent: MaxxLarge: But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER?

An eternal recursion of nipples growing on nipples.


AIDS of the Cancer?
 
2013-03-22 03:28:59 PM  

Counter_Intelligent: MaxxLarge: But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER?

An eternal recursion of nipples growing on nipples.


Pictures 'Hoff.
 
2013-03-22 03:29:32 PM  

Odd Bird: Fark it, all I care about is dying after my parents and before my kids.

/not sure if relevant...


Murder-suicide may be the answer for you.
 
2013-03-22 03:33:31 PM  
MaxxLarge:Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER?

Super cancer?
 
2013-03-22 03:44:53 PM  

MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.



DNRTFA, but the trials aren't just about finding complications; they're about finding out whether the treatment works at all. It's important enough that they're doing sham surgeries in clincial studies because that's the only way to rule out the placebo effect in some cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sham_surgery
 
2013-03-22 03:46:38 PM  
I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

If I could somehow re-create the visual I got from that and post it to youtube, It would have a million hits before tomorrow.
 
2013-03-22 03:51:35 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: MaxxLarge:Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER?

Super cancer?


How about:

death

The risk of the cancer returning with a god damn vengeance

Ending up brain dead but cured to cancer

Or cured of cancer but unable to move and communicate. (Tvtropes.com has an article called "I have to scream" that sums this up)

Ending up with MS (the disease, not the company)


I can think of many reasons clinical trials and research should be done. The Fen-phen disaster comes to mind.
 
2013-03-22 03:52:40 PM  
Fine, wheres my damned Mr Fusion?
 
2013-03-22 03:53:41 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.

You're looking at it from the perspective of a cancer patient/loved one.  What could be worse than caner?  Probably not a lot, depending on the type.

But look at it from the perspective of a super rich, multi-billion dollar corporation.  What's worse - you getting sued/having your stock drop or sick people dying?  So yeah - CYA.  It's not just drug companies, at pretty much every level in the medical industry


The perspective/interests of the pharma company is practically irrelevant.  The fact is that the FDA won't approve a drug without years of clinical trials and loads of safety and efficacy data.

Pharmas couldn't just release a promising drug willy-nilly even if they thought it was great and could save lives and weren't the least bit concerned about liability.  They have to satisfy the FDA.
 
2013-03-22 03:55:58 PM  

MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."


And 20-30 years before your insurance company decides it's no longer considered "experimental".
 
2013-03-22 03:59:17 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: But look at it from the perspective of a super rich, multi-billion dollar corporation.  What's worse - you getting sued/having your stock drop or sick people dying?


Well, if I do THAT...Then I'm assuming the "clinical trial period" is because it takes 5-10 years to figure out how to water down the "miracle cure" so that it's just an "effective treatment."

After all, Big Pharma's not really into cures. They're into therapy medications that they can charge you for the rest of your life. That's how the PfizerGlaxoSmithKlineAstraZenecas of the world make their insane profit$.
 
2013-03-22 04:07:33 PM  

MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.


Because you really don't know for certain that it is cured by the drug, and you sure as hell don't want to have it not get rid of cancer in a bunch of patients _and_ cause a nasty side effect.
 
2013-03-22 04:10:40 PM  
so they cure cancer, then they move on to working out how to remove the onion smell from foreheads....
 
2013-03-22 04:12:20 PM  

surrealbowl: I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.

Because you really don't know for certain that it is cured by the drug, and you sure as hell don't want to have it not get rid of cancer in a bunch of patients _and_ cause a nasty side effect.


Cmon guys. It takes a couple of years to figure out how to make the simplest cure farking ass-raping expensive for everyone.  When it comes to saving a life, they know you'll sell your every worldly good and even your soul. Takes time to get the ducks in a row. They aren't in the business of saving lives. They are in the business of farking you out of every farking penny they can even after you are gone.
 
2013-03-22 04:12:49 PM  

MaxxLarge: Fark_Guy_Rob: But look at it from the perspective of a super rich, multi-billion dollar corporation.  What's worse - you getting sued/having your stock drop or sick people dying?

Well, if I do THAT...Then I'm assuming the "clinical trial period" is because it takes 5-10 years to figure out how to water down the "miracle cure" so that it's just an "effective treatment."

After all, Big Pharma's not really into cures. They're into therapy medications that they can charge you for the rest of your life. That's how the PfizerGlaxoSmithKlineAstraZenecas of the world make their insane profit$.


Wow you guys just went way off the deep end didn't you?  This study isn't at Big Pharma, it's at Sloan Kettering.  The clinical trial period is 5-10 years because you want to make sure you're not making things worse.  It's not available to the public because it has only been tested on 5 people.  Do I really need to explain to you why you can't conclude this is a miracle cure with an n of 5 people?  Clinical trials for cancer are especially long because it takes years before you can conclude the person's cancer went away and stayed away.

MaxxLarge: I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.


It is very rare a clinical trial goes so well that it becomes clear the treatment is indeed a miracle cure.  When that happens, the clinical trial is immediately halted, placebo patients placed on actual treatments and the drug fast tracked for approval.  Usually clinical trials are on the order of "Drug A has a % success rate curing cancer, Drug B has a % success rate curing cancer, let's see if Drug A and B up that % success rate.  If Drug A and B together do not up that success rate, why would you make patients pay more money and suffer more side effects?
 
2013-03-22 04:13:25 PM  

Tellingthem: MONSANTO


exactly.
it's big business.
not medicine.
 
2013-03-22 04:14:29 PM  
lennavan:   why would you make patients pay more money?

Business school.
 
2013-03-22 04:29:45 PM  

MaxxLarge: Fark_Guy_Rob: But look at it from the perspective of a super rich, multi-billion dollar corporation.  What's worse - you getting sued/having your stock drop or sick people dying?

Well, if I do THAT...Then I'm assuming the "clinical trial period" is because it takes 5-10 years to figure out how to water down the "miracle cure" so that it's just an "effective treatment."

After all, Big Pharma's not really into cures. They're into therapy medications that they can charge you for the rest of your life. That's how the PfizerGlaxoSmithKlineAstraZenecas of the world make their insane profit$.


As I wrote above, the clinical trial period is what it is because that's what the FDA requires.

Secondly, they can't charge you for the rest of your life.  Drug patents expire after a finite duration, and the exclusivity period is pretty short.

The main reason for the shortage of "miracle cures" (if and where they are even possible), is that they are likely going to come out of personalized medicine, which is still largely in the future.  Particularly in really complicated diseases like cancers.  Human beings are too diverse, and a drug which may be a miracle cure in one person may turn out to have unacceptably severe side effects in five others.  Good luck getting that drug approved.
 
2013-03-22 04:33:48 PM  
It would be a miracle to be able to just treat people without the horrible side effects of chemo even if the cure rate was the same.
 
2013-03-22 04:34:10 PM  

MaxxLarge: I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead.


which can also happen when playing Halo or Unreal.
 
2013-03-22 04:39:34 PM  

MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.


We're talking about injecting people with genetically modified lab products.  If "what if we create zombies that lead to the complete zombification of Raccoon City, and then the world" hasn't occurred to you, I'm pretty sure your Fark street cred gets revoked.
 
2013-03-22 04:41:46 PM  

Emposter: We're talking about injecting people with genetically modified lab products.  If "what if we create zombies that lead to the complete zombification of Raccoon City, and then the world" hasn't occurred to you, I'm pretty sure your Fark street cred gets revoked.


Considered it? Hell, I think on some level, aren't we all sort of HOPING for that?
 
2013-03-22 04:45:33 PM  

vudukungfu: Cmon guys. It takes a couple of years to figure out how to make the simplest cure farking ass-raping expensive for everyone.  When it comes to saving a life, they know you'll sell your every worldly good and even your soul. Takes time to get the ducks in a row. They aren't in the business of saving lives. They are in the business of farking you out of every farking penny they can even after you are gone.


Do you have any idea how expensive it is to develop a new medicine, conduct clinical trials, and get it approved?  Estimates range from around $800 million to $2 billion per drug.  And that's just the cost for drugs that reach the market - for every one of those, there are four others that failed clinical trials, and hundreds of drug candidates that never even made it out of R&D.  Those are huge sunk costs that must be recouped somehow if the company is going to remain in existence and continue developing medicines.  That doesn't make them evil, that's just reality.  If the company tried to operate like a charity and give the drug away for peanuts, it would cease to exist very quickly, it would no longer develop new medicines, and that wouldn't be good for anyone in the long run.

I'm a research scientist at a mid-sized pharmaceutical company.  I can tell you that pretty much all the scientists here went into science because they wanted to help people, and they came to this industry because, unlike academia, you can use science to make things here that have a direct and immediate impact on people's lives.  Nobody is interested in screwing anybody over.  Drugs can be expensive to buy because they are wickedly expensive to develop.  If those facts result in pricing that is unaffordable for some, then perhaps the government should do more to help them afford it.
 
2013-03-22 04:46:03 PM  

MaxxLarge: Emposter: We're talking about injecting people with genetically modified lab products.  If "what if we create zombies that lead to the complete zombification of Raccoon City, and then the world" hasn't occurred to you, I'm pretty sure your Fark street cred gets revoked.

Considered it? Hell, I think on some level, aren't we all sort of HOPING for that?


Well, we wouldn't be worrying about cancer anymore...on the other hand, my apartment has too many windows to block with the bookshelves I have on hand.
 
2013-03-22 05:00:35 PM  
This news is so 2005

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-22 05:08:56 PM  
I read about this a month or so ago.  The technique has so far worked on all the patients they've tested it on.  But it does not sound pleasant, the patient goes through what they call a cytokine storm, which can be fatal.  The big problem is they KNOW there are long term side effects, specifically immune disorders and the patients will likely need regular infusions of immunoglobulins.  They've essentially trained their immune system to destroy part of itself, meaning a lifelong deficiency of a particular type of lymphocyte.  Not the end of the world, but a hell of a lot better than dying of blood cancer.

/lymphoma survivor
 
2013-03-22 05:57:10 PM  
Scientists at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York developed a form of targeted immunotherapy based on inserting an additional gene into the patients' white blood cells that enabled these cells to identify and destroy any cancerous cells circulating in the bloodstream.

I'll let some of the rest of you all can rave about the conspiracy of Da Man.   I think it's farking cool as phark.  The patients and their loved ones probably do as well.
 
2013-03-22 06:19:11 PM  

waterrockets: This news is so 2005

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x287]


What does Independence Day have to do with this?
 
2013-03-22 06:22:12 PM  

Doc Daneeka: vudukungfu: Cmon guys. It takes a couple of years to figure out how to make the simplest cure farking ass-raping expensive for everyone.  When it comes to saving a life, they know you'll sell your every worldly good and even your soul. Takes time to get the ducks in a row. They aren't in the business of saving lives. They are in the business of farking you out of every farking penny they can even after you are gone.

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to develop a new medicine, conduct clinical trials, and get it approved?  Estimates range from around $800 million to $2 billion per drug.  And that's just the cost for drugs that reach the market - for every one of those, there are four others that failed clinical trials, and hundreds of drug candidates that never even made it out of R&D.  Those are huge sunk costs that must be recouped somehow if the company is going to remain in existence and continue developing medicines.  That doesn't make them evil, that's just reality.  If the company tried to operate like a charity and give the drug away for peanuts, it would cease to exist very quickly, it would no longer develop new medicines, and that wouldn't be good for anyone in the long run.

I'm a research scientist at a mid-sized pharmaceutical company.  I can tell you that pretty much all the scientists here went into science because they wanted to help people, and they came to this industry because, unlike academia, you can use science to make things here that have a direct and immediate impact on people's lives.  Nobody is interested in screwing anybody over.  Drugs can be expensive to buy because they are wickedly expensive to develop.  If those facts result in pricing that is unaffordable for some, then perhaps the government should do more to help them afford it.


Thank you for explaining all that. I was halfway through a long post/rant about this and figured, "Screw it, it's Fark. Farkers'll never learn." Then I hit refresh and saw that you'd already done it, and much better than I could have.

Chris Rock is a funny guy, but he's no expert on the pharmaceuticals industry. (YouTube, NSFW language)

Anyway, to end this shorter rant on a higher note, there's this, this and the Fark thread about them. It's kinda cool to think that some of the money I raised for and/or donated to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society might have ended up funding Dr. June's research.
 
2013-03-22 06:22:42 PM  
There will never be a total cure for cancer.  Seriously people, cancer research/treatment has advanced about as much in the past few decades much like technology.  Hell, most healthcare has done the same.  No, it's never fast enough for the sufferers, but isn't it better that we've gotten away from things like thalidomide, and Tuskeegee?  Look at the insane progress on HIV/AIDS we've made, what was once a new disease and horrific death sentence of a few years is now something that you can live with for an indeterminate amount of time.  Cancer on the other hand isn't a general disease, it's more specific to the individual, much harder to pin down.

/This finding is great though
 
2013-03-22 06:55:23 PM  

Oldiron_79: Fine, wheres my damned Mr Fusion?


It's right here, but the US Navy doesn't think you can handle it responsibly.  Interesting side-note, there were regular, periodic updates about the progress on these devices until last summer, when things suddenly got awfully quiet.
 
2013-03-22 07:10:42 PM  

MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.


The idea behind it is that desperate cancer patients aren't in the correct frame of mind to make the decision, and could become the victims of some quack doctor using some unsubstantiated or, even worse, dangerous medicine.  The regulations that are in place are to prevent desperate people from being taken advantage of.

However, your point is not lost.  In fact, there has been a push at the NIH to start doing exactly what you propose; allowing patients to opt to take experimental drugs, but after evaluation and under the control of the NIH.
 
2013-03-22 07:42:14 PM  

MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.


You could turn into a giant teratoma, or a Brundlefly.
 
2013-03-22 07:57:33 PM  
I've seen this movie before, and it was not at all encouraging.
 
2013-03-22 09:05:08 PM  

MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.


Thalidomide
 
2013-03-22 09:45:58 PM  

sammyk: MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.

I have some health issues and everytime the doc has bothered to ask I did not hesitate to say "Hellz ya I wanna be your lab rat".


It sounds good in theory, but when I was dealing with UC, I asked for every experimental treatment available, often on top of each other. End result? My immune system tanked and I nearly died of some kind of drug-induced AIDS-equivalent. So yeah, there are downsides.
 
2013-03-22 11:14:31 PM  
Bad news, everybody! (If you read that in professor farnsworth's voice, bless you)

There have been other cancers treated with gene therapy, with some modicum of success. The problem is, after the initial regression of the tumors, the malfunctioning gene often mutates and starts over again, but resistant to the gene therapy medications/treatments.

Best example off the top of my head is a type of melanoma, metastic melanoma.

The therapy can, however, depending on when it is administered in the progression of the cancer, add up to 2 years of quality living. That means no chemo needed and no illness from treatments.
 
2013-03-23 01:14:18 AM  

Doc Daneeka: vudukungfu: Cmon guys. It takes a couple of years to figure out how to make the simplest cure farking ass-raping expensive for everyone.  When it comes to saving a life, they know you'll sell your every worldly good and even your soul. Takes time to get the ducks in a row. They aren't in the business of saving lives. They are in the business of farking you out of every farking penny they can even after you are gone.

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to develop a new medicine, conduct clinical trials, and get it approved?  Estimates range from around $800 million to $2 billion per drug.  And that's just the cost for drugs that reach the market - for every one of those, there are four others that failed clinical trials, and hundreds of drug candidates that never even made it out of R&D.  Those are huge sunk costs that must be recouped somehow if the company is going to remain in existence and continue developing medicines.  That doesn't make them evil, that's just reality.  If the company tried to operate like a charity and give the drug away for peanuts, it would cease to exist very quickly, it would no longer develop new medicines, and that wouldn't be good for anyone in the long run.

I'm a research scientist at a mid-sized pharmaceutical company.  I can tell you that pretty much all the scientists here went into science because they wanted to help people, and they came to this industry because, unlike academia, you can use science to make things here that have a direct and immediate impact on people's lives.  Nobody is interested in screwing anybody over.  Drugs can be expensive to buy because they are wickedly expensive to develop.  If those facts result in pricing that is unaffordable for some, then perhaps the government should do more to help them afford it.


WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!! Rationality and straight presentation of facts on Fark? What kind of an oddball nut are you, anyway?

Seriously, it's totally obvious that Big Pharma execs are just out to screw the Poor and Brown People. Just the other day, in fact, I read an article about how some Big Pharma executive's kid died of cancer, and you know what? The executive didn't even care! He was grateful that the company had held back the cure for what his own kid died from because he got a bigger bonus!! True Story! I swear! Seriously, everyone believes me, right?
 
2013-03-23 07:16:26 PM  

sammyk: MaxxLarge: Y'know what always bugs me about this kind o' $#!+? How the articles tend to close with, "Clinical trials are slated to begin in the next 18 months, and viable treatments could be up to 5-10 years away."

Screw that. Look, I get that we have to test things for possible side effects. But honestly, what "side effect" could be worse than GODDAMNED CANCER? I don't care if whatever's in the petri dish makes me sprout a pair of giant, pendulous balls on my forehead. As long as it kills the cancer, I'll just invest in a staggering array of stylish hats. Hell, people with head nuts would probably even be seen as survivors with visibly swingin' badges of honor for all the world to congratulate them on.

I know it's more complicated than that. But, "A lifesaving cancer treatment could only be a few years away" is pretty cold comfort to a person who isn't gonna have that long, and couldn't care less about anything but getting rid of whatever's killing them.

I have some health issues and everytime the doc has bothered to ask I did not hesitate to say "Hellz ya I wanna be your lab rat".


Damn straight. Being a lab rat is the only reason I'm still alive.
 
2013-03-24 09:06:01 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Thank you for explaining all that. I was halfway through a long post/rant about this and figured, "Screw it, it's Fark. Farkers'll never learn." Then I hit refresh and saw that you'd already done it, and much better than I could have.

Chris Rock is a funny guy, but he's no expert on the pharmaceuticals industry. (YouTube, NSFW language)

Anyway, to end this shorter rant on a higher note, there's this, this and the Fark thread about them. It's kinda cool to think that some of the money I raised for and/or donated to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society might have ended up funding Dr. June's research.


They've already fixed AIDS.  Just look at Magic Johnson.  In the history of the planet, there has never been anybody who has lived with AIDS longer.

South Park was right.  All you have to do is shred up thousands of dollars into a syringe and inject it.  They will never "cure" AIDS, only sell drugs that you'll have to pay through the nose for.
 
2013-03-24 12:17:43 PM  

blue_2501: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Thank you for explaining all that. I was halfway through a long post/rant about this and figured, "Screw it, it's Fark. Farkers'll never learn." Then I hit refresh and saw that you'd already done it, and much better than I could have.

Chris Rock is a funny guy, but he's no expert on the pharmaceuticals industry. (YouTube, NSFW language)

Anyway, to end this shorter rant on a higher note, there's this, this and the Fark thread about them. It's kinda cool to think that some of the money I raised for and/or donated to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society might have ended up funding Dr. June's research.

They've already fixed AIDS.  Just look at Magic Johnson.  In the history of the planet, there has never been anybody who has lived with AIDS longer.

South Park was right.  All you have to do is shred up thousands of dollars into a syringe and inject it.  They will never "cure" AIDS, only sell drugs that you'll have to pay through the nose for.


If you honestly think drug companies do not want to cure fatal diseases, and are only interested in creating treatments that prolong life to line their pockets, you'd better be pro-single payer healthcare. While people can control their exposure to HIV, cancer is a whole different ballgame. And even the most successful treatments can cost close to $100,000/year.
 
2013-03-24 08:15:28 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: If you honestly think drug companies do not want to cure fatal diseases, and are only interested in creating treatments that prolong life to line their pockets, you'd better be pro-single payer healthcare. While people can control their exposure to HIV, cancer is a whole different ballgame. And even the most successful treatments can cost close to $100,000/year.


Damn right I am.  Healthcare is a right, not a privilege for the rich.  If you have to face millions of dollars in medical costs for a rare condition that cripples you, the public at large should subsidize that.  I'm also a believer that we shouldn't be using for-profit companies to control people in life and death situations.

There's a lot of farked up shiat in the medical-industrial complex.
 
2013-03-25 01:06:15 AM  

blue_2501: There's a lot of farked up shiat in the medical-industrial complex.


I agree, but with the possible exception of streamlining the FDA approval process and increasing publicly funded research, I can't think of a way to accelerate and bring down the cost of developing cures. But, I'm no expert on the matter. I just listen to the researchers who give talks at Team in Training events.
 
2013-03-25 02:59:44 PM  

Doc Daneeka: vudukungfu: Cmon guys. It takes a couple of years to figure out how to make the simplest cure farking ass-raping expensive for everyone.  When it comes to saving a life, they know you'll sell your every worldly good and even your soul. Takes time to get the ducks in a row. They aren't in the business of saving lives. They are in the business of farking you out of every farking penny they can even after you are gone.

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to develop a new medicine, conduct clinical trials, and get it approved?  Estimates range from around $800 million to $2 billion per drug.  And that's just the cost for drugs that reach the market - for every one of those, there are four others that failed clinical trials, and hundreds of drug candidates that never even made it out of R&D.  Those are huge sunk costs that must be recouped somehow if the company is going to remain in existence and continue developing medicines.  That doesn't make them evil, that's just reality.  If the company tried to operate like a charity and give the drug away for peanuts, it would cease to exist very quickly, it would no longer develop new medicines, and that wouldn't be good for anyone in the long run.

I'm a research scientist at a mid-sized pharmaceutical company.  I can tell you that pretty much all the scientists here went into science because they wanted to help people, and they came to this industry because, unlike academia, you can use science to make things here that have a direct and immediate impact on people's lives.  Nobody is interested in screwing anybody over.  Drugs can be expensive to buy because they are wickedly expensive to develop.  If those facts result in pricing that is unaffordable for some, then perhaps the government should do more to help them afford it.


Note: I DON'T agree with the "Big Pharma doesn't want to cure stuff" theorists to whom you're responding.

But I do in fact know how expensive pharma R&D is: $50 billion in 2006 (I don't believe this is cherry-picking, feel free to jump in if it is).

On the other hand, the amount the USA alone paid for drugs, over and above what other OECD countries paid, even accounting for us being wealthier than them, was about $98 billion that year. (source)

So pharma R&D is expensive, but we're all paying way more than what would be needed even to subsidize that.

We could even publicly fund as much pharma R&D as exists today, literally give away the resulting drugs, and actually save money (not even counting the positive effects of people having better access to drugs). Or we could double R&D and still lower prices. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit here.

Too bad we as a nation lack the political will to agree that kittens are cute, much less a nationalization of this magnitude...
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report