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.

(Slate)   We'd have more cancer vaccines if it weren't for America's abhorrent patent system   (slate.com) divider line 108
    More: Obvious, cancer vaccines, biotechnology companies, cancer drugs, health interventions, patent lawyers, human papillomavirus vaccine, preventive medicines, United States Patent  
•       •       •

6202 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 9:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-26 09:29:27 AM  
Right, because a patent laws are holding back vaccines that would make a company hundreds of billions of dollars.
 
2013-08-26 09:29:37 AM  
If only cancer only infected those who seek to block its cure and treatment.
 
2013-08-26 09:31:25 AM  
Right. Lets ask all those thalidomide kids what they think about rushed medicene.
 
2013-08-26 09:34:17 AM  
Yeah, it's patent laws that are holding us back.
 
2013-08-26 09:35:43 AM  
It isn't the patent system. It's the for-profit medical treatment and pharmaceuticals system.

If you want R&D dollars, work on pills that give men boners, regrow hair, or make you thinner.
Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 09:36:03 AM  
It's interesting how people become a part of the corporate machine and then their views go all awonky.

Suddenly nothing is worth doing unless it makes a gob of cash for someone almost instantly.

Jonas Salk would like to have a word...
 
2013-08-26 09:38:55 AM  
B-b-b-but the free market will provide!!!
 
2013-08-26 09:39:28 AM  
If we've learned anything during the recent health care debate, it's that American medicine is all about profits.  If you're not profitable, you're not worth curing.
 
2013-08-26 09:40:00 AM  

give me doughnuts: Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.


People actually believe this.

You do realize the person that cured any cancer with a safe and effective treatment would be a made man for the rest of their life, right? Governments around the world, who's medical systems are taxed to the breaking point by cancer, would want the vaccine. People would still get cancer, and still need treatment.

An effective, actual cure for any form of cancer would be the holy grail, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The reality of the matter is that A) Cancer is neither one specific disease, and B) It's complex as fark.
 
2013-08-26 09:41:57 AM  

give me doughnuts: It isn't the patent system. It's the for-profit medical treatment and pharmaceuticals system.

If you want R&D dollars, work on pills that give men boners, regrow hair, or make you thinner.
Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.


This. Pharmaceutical companies don't want a cure, there's no money in that. They want a treatment.
They want something that you'll have to keep taking for the rest of your life.
 
2013-08-26 09:42:59 AM  

NutWrench: This. Pharmaceutical companies don't want a cure, there's no money in that. They want a treatment.
They want something that you'll have to keep taking for the rest of your life.


Which is why they make so much money on antibiotics.
 
2013-08-26 09:43:23 AM  
Cancer vaccines?  No, you can't immunize against the body's own cells.  Stop that
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 09:43:31 AM  

hardinparamedic: You do realize the person that cured any cancer with a safe and effective treatment would be a made man for the rest of their life, right?


Again, Jonas Salk.

Not putting a patent on the polio vaccine was the difference between Salk being a well-off public figure who helped (and continuing to help) the world and a billionaire who helped only those who could pay.  Guess which one would be the choice today.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 09:44:09 AM  
paging modmins.. that sure wasn't necessary.
 
2013-08-26 09:45:16 AM  

give me doughnuts: It isn't the patent system. It's the for-profit medical treatment and pharmaceuticals system.

If you want R&D dollars, work on pills that give men boners, regrow hair, or make you thinner.
Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.


Perverse incentives drive the entire industry.

/List of prophylaxis and cure medicines in the last forty years where the actual discovery was NOT paid for by taxpayers follows:
 
2013-08-26 09:47:03 AM  

hardinparamedic: NutWrench: This. Pharmaceutical companies don't want a cure, there's no money in that. They want a treatment.
They want something that you'll have to keep taking for the rest of your life.

Which is why they make so much money on antibiotics.


Actually, they do.

the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now, or GAIN, Act has piggybacked into the FDA bill reauthorizing user fees for drug approval. GAIN would provide five more years of monopoly protections for new antibiotics. Already receiving three to seven years of exclusivity, some antibiotics may receive up to 10 years of protection after market approval. This measure defies both the economics and biology of antibiotic resistance.
 
2013-08-26 09:47:07 AM  

d23: Again, Jonas Salk.


Oh, yeah. The guy who's vaccine required refrigeration and basically took care of first world problems, right?

jewishcurrents.org

Hey, look at this guy. This is Albin Sabin. He's a bad motherfarker. His work on Oral Polio Vaccine contributed to it's near eradication in third world countries. Check your shiat. You know why he's such a bad ass?

upload.wikimedia.org

That's right. MOTHERfarkING SUGAR CUBES, biatch. His vaccine didn't require refrigeration, and even better, didn't have a needle involved. You ate the shiat.
 
2013-08-26 09:47:50 AM  
So we're defending our patent system now? I hate people.
 
2013-08-26 09:50:09 AM  

give me doughnuts: It isn't the patent system. It's the for-profit medical treatment and pharmaceuticals system.

If you want R&D dollars, work on pills that give men boners, regrow hair, or make you thinner.
Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.




Your partly correct. Viagra does pay the bills. It also subsidies research into cures for all sorts of conditions.
 
2013-08-26 09:51:38 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: /List of prophylaxis and cure medicines in the last forty years where the actual discovery was NOT paid for by taxpayers follows:


And how many diseases can be outright cured by a simple medication, but we're not doing so because it's cost effective?

I'm honestly curious about this: What in your mind is being suppressed for profit, but somehow there's no reliable source for this theory or evidence despite human nature or the fact that Governments would have a major interest in getting their hands on it? Cancer? HIV? Diabetes? Alzheimers?

NutWrench: the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now, or GAIN, Act has piggybacked into the FDA bill reauthorizing user fees for drug approval. GAIN would provide five more years of monopoly protections for new antibiotics. Already receiving three to seven years of exclusivity, some antibiotics may receive up to 10 years of protection after market approval. This measure defies both the economics and biology of antibiotic resistance.


That's not the question. The statement was "No cures". The point was "Antibiotics aren't a cure?"
 
2013-08-26 09:52:01 AM  
Or maybe it's because most cancers aren't caused by viruses.
 
2013-08-26 09:52:42 AM  
I've got it!!!

I'll patent cancer.

Then I'll sue anyone who catches it.
 
2013-08-26 09:52:45 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Your partly correct. Viagra does pay the bills. It also subsidies research into cures for all sorts of conditions.


Viagra was also developed as an orphan medication to treat persistent pulmonary hypertension, a rare and life threatening complication in newborn infants. It wasn't originally intended as a boner pill. It was during Phase I and II Human testing that it's "side effect" of raging hard on was noticed.
 
2013-08-26 09:54:19 AM  

hardinparamedic: give me doughnuts: Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.

People actually believe this.

You do realize the person that cured any cancer with a safe and effective treatment would be a made man for the rest of their life, right? Governments around the world, who's medical systems are taxed to the breaking point by cancer, would want the vaccine. People would still get cancer, and still need treatment.

An effective, actual cure for any form of cancer would be the holy grail, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The reality of the matter is that A) Cancer is neither one specific disease, and B) It's complex as fark.



"Prevent" not "cure."
Curing someone's cancer is treating it. Preventing it (via a vaccine) would make one or two companies rich beyond their wildest dreams, but there is an industry dedicated to the treatment of cancer patients, and they have no interest in prevention.
 
2013-08-26 09:55:30 AM  
I like how hating on the patent system has become this year's ironic mustache.  I can't wait until there's some kind of sticker I can put on my car.  Or a clever pacifier that makes my infant look like she hates patents.
 
2013-08-26 09:56:00 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Right, because a patent laws are holding back vaccines that would make a company hundreds of billions of dollars.


Someone didn't read the article......

The basis of the article: You don't make hundreds of billions of dollars if the patent expires before your drug is brought to market.

Instead, a competing company immediately makes a generic version and sells it cheap -- since they didn't have millions and millions in research costs to recoup -- and takes all the market share and the profits.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 09:56:05 AM  

hardinparamedic: d23: Again, Jonas Salk.

Oh, yeah. The guy who's vaccine required refrigeration and basically took care of first world problems, right?

[357x450 from http://jewishcurrents.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/95603-004-13708C4 4-1.jpg image 357x450]

Hey, look at this guy. This is Albin Sabin. He's a bad motherfarker. His work on Oral Polio Vaccine contributed to it's near eradication in third world countries. Check your shiat. You know why he's such a bad ass?

[220x145 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Bundesarchiv_ B_145_Bild-F025952-0015,_Bonn,_Gesundheitsamt,_Schutzimpfung.jpg/220px -Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F025952-0015,_Bonn,_Gesundheitsamt,_Schutzimp fung.jpg image 220x145]

That's right. MOTHERfarkING SUGAR CUBES, biatch. His vaccine didn't require refrigeration, and even better, didn't have a needle involved. You ate the shiat.


Possible because he didn't have to wait for 20 years so there would be no patent infringement?  You pushed my point forward.
 
2013-08-26 09:56:31 AM  

hardinparamedic: Mid_mo_mad_man: Your partly correct. Viagra does pay the bills. It also subsidies research into cures for all sorts of conditions.

Viagra was also developed as an orphan medication to treat persistent pulmonary hypertension, a rare and life threatening complication in newborn infants. It wasn't originally intended as a boner pill. It was during Phase I and II Human testing that it's "side effect" of raging hard on was noticed.




It's also useful with alitude sickness and adapting to the thin air.
 
2013-08-26 09:56:33 AM  

MayoSlather: So we're defending our patent system now? I hate people.


Did you submit yours with a page upside down?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 09:57:18 AM  

that was my nickname in highschool: I like how hating on the patent system has become this year's ironic mustache.  I can't wait until there's some kind of sticker I can put on my car.  Or a clever pacifier that makes my infant look like she hates patents.


I guess you're not involved with software patents then.  It's been a few years since major problems started cropping up and we've been talking about it for a number of years.
 
2013-08-26 09:58:53 AM  

give me doughnuts: Preventing it (via a vaccine) would make one or two companies rich beyond their wildest dreams, but there is an industry dedicated to the treatment of cancer patients, and they have no interest in prevention.


Name one mechanism, other than prevention of viral infections, that would prevent cancer via a vaccine? I think this is a topic that is far more complex than you seem to know. Part of the pathology of cancer is that it is able to mimic "self" cells, and deactivates cellular signals which would label it as a malignant cell to the immune system, preventing destruction of it's progeny. And it's not even that it hasn't been tried - immunotherapy has been tried over the past six decades. It's that our current technology and understanding of cancer doesn't allow us to target those cells and "flag" them for the immune system.

Again. Prevention of, say, breast cancer or lung cancer via a vaccine would be a goldmine. There would be no way to hide it. You'd have the First Infantry Division marching through your lab before you'd be able to hide it.
 
2013-08-26 09:58:57 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Right, because a patent laws are holding back vaccines that would make a company hundreds of billions of dollars.


Did you not read it?  The point is they wouldn't make the money because the patent would run out first.  The clock is ticking while the research is ongoing--if the research takes too long, forget it.

Patents are both a blessing and a curse.  The nature of the system means a drug that can't be patented won't be developed.  (Consider:  There is a drug out there that's a likely candidate for a male birth control pill.  Given what we know of it already they could jump directly to Phase II human trials.  It's been many years and nobody has touched it:  The patent is long since expired.  Infertility is a known side effect, all they actually need to know is if it works for all men.)

d23: Again, Jonas Salk.

Not putting a patent on the polio vaccine was the difference between Salk being a well-off public figure who helped (and continuing to help) the world and a billionaire who helped only those who could pay. Guess which one would be the choice today.


In his era it didn't cost close to a billion dollars to bring a drug to market, either.
 
2013-08-26 09:59:41 AM  

d23: Possible because he didn't have to wait for 20 years so there would be no patent infringement?  You pushed my point forward.


Uh, no.

Sabin and Salk were competing on the development of a vaccine. He didn't use Salk's research.
 
2013-08-26 09:59:58 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: hardinparamedic: Mid_mo_mad_man: Your partly correct. Viagra does pay the bills. It also subsidies research into cures for all sorts of conditions.

Viagra was also developed as an orphan medication to treat persistent pulmonary hypertension, a rare and life threatening complication in newborn infants. It wasn't originally intended as a boner pill. It was during Phase I and II Human testing that it's "side effect" of raging hard on was noticed.



It's also useful with alitude sickness and adapting to the thin air.


Boner pills on mount Everest?
 
2013-08-26 10:01:35 AM  

hardinparamedic: I'm honestly curious about this: What in your mind is being suppressed for profit, but somehow there's no reliable source for this theory or evidence despite human nature or the fact that Governments would have a major interest in getting their hands on it? Cancer? HIV? Diabetes? Alzheimers?


I'm not going to jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, but you don't have to suppress a cure to maximize profits.  You just have to refuse to back any R&D for it.
 
2013-08-26 10:01:48 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Right, because a patent laws are holding back vaccines that would make a company hundreds of billions of dollars.


vudukungfu: If only cancer only infected those who seek to block its cure and treatment.


thatboyoverthere: Right. Lets ask all those thalidomide kids what they think about rushed medicene.


hardinparamedic: Yeah, it's patent laws that are holding us back.


Aaaaaaand none of you bothered to read the article, did you.
 
2013-08-26 10:03:41 AM  

UsikFark: Mid_mo_mad_man: hardinparamedic: Mid_mo_mad_man: Your partly correct. Viagra does pay the bills. It also subsidies research into cures for all sorts of conditions.

Viagra was also developed as an orphan medication to treat persistent pulmonary hypertension, a rare and life threatening complication in newborn infants. It wasn't originally intended as a boner pill. It was during Phase I and II Human testing that it's "side effect" of raging hard on was noticed.

It's also useful with alitude sickness and adapting to the thin air.

Boner pills on mount Everest?




Yes.
 
2013-08-26 10:03:44 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: give me doughnuts: It isn't the patent system. It's the for-profit medical treatment and pharmaceuticals system.

If you want R&D dollars, work on pills that give men boners, regrow hair, or make you thinner.
Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.

Your partly correct. Viagra does pay the bills. It also subsidies research into cures for all sorts of conditions.



And those drugs cost patients several thousand dollars per month, even with insurance, because there is no large market for them.

My father-in-law died from a fairly rare lung disease. The drugs to treat his condition would have cost over $8000 every month, if he hadn't been accepted into a experimental drug trial.
 
2013-08-26 10:04:19 AM  

give me doughnuts: Curing someone's cancer is treating it. Preventing it (via a vaccine) would make one or two companies rich beyond their wildest dreams, but there is an industry dedicated to the treatment of cancer patients, and they have no interest in prevention.


It seems they might have an interest in becoming rich beyond their wildest dreams and crushing all of their competitors.
 
2013-08-26 10:06:33 AM  
Okay Slate users papillomavirus vaccine  does not vaccinate for cancer.  It vaccinates for HPV, you can still get cervical cancer, just reduce the chances.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 10:08:49 AM  

nosferatublue: Outrageous Muff: Right, because a patent laws are holding back vaccines that would make a company hundreds of billions of dollars.

vudukungfu: If only cancer only infected those who seek to block its cure and treatment.

thatboyoverthere: Right. Lets ask all those thalidomide kids what they think about rushed medicene.

hardinparamedic: Yeah, it's patent laws that are holding us back.

Aaaaaaand none of you bothered to read the article, did you.


no..

i286.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-26 10:09:24 AM  

hardinparamedic: Yeah, it's patent laws that are holding us back.


I blame our obsession with space technology and 3d printers.
 
2013-08-26 10:10:25 AM  

Fano: hardinparamedic: Yeah, it's patent laws that are holding us back.

I blame our obsession with space technology and 3d printers.


BULLshiat. If we don't live in a world where I can't 3d print vaccines and japanese space tentacle hentai, I DONT WANT TO LIVE IN THIS WORLD.

Screw you guys. Im gonna go print me a realdoll.
 
2013-08-26 10:12:13 AM  

nosferatublue: Outrageous Muff: Right, because a patent laws are holding back vaccines that would make a company hundreds of billions of dollars.

vudukungfu: If only cancer only infected those who seek to block its cure and treatment.

thatboyoverthere: Right. Lets ask all those thalidomide kids what they think about rushed medicene.

hardinparamedic: Yeah, it's patent laws that are holding us back.

Aaaaaaand none of you bothered to read the article, did you.


Not a solitary one; the argument is sound. Medicine is driven on profits. If the research takes longer than the patent protection, then there is zero potential profit because competitors can and will legally reverse-engineer your solution and put it on the market for a fraction of the cost in a fraction of the time.
 
2013-08-26 10:15:15 AM  

d23: I guess you're not involved with software patents then.  It's been a few years since major problems started cropping up and we've been talking about it for a number of years.



I'm an EE turned patent lawyer.  Software patents are a sizable chunk of my practice.  People on the inside have recognized the problem for years.  But now all kinds of folks who don't work in tech or the law suddenly have all sorts of well-thought-out but mostly uninformed opinions about it.

I'm not talking about Fark.  I enjoy the opportunity to play Teiritzamna's Bingo.  But the questions I get at networking and family events get pretty tiresome--like a doctor getting hassled about the insurance industry.
 
2013-08-26 10:16:36 AM  

hardinparamedic: give me doughnuts: Preventing it (via a vaccine) would make one or two companies rich beyond their wildest dreams, but there is an industry dedicated to the treatment of cancer patients, and they have no interest in prevention.

Name one mechanism, other than prevention of viral infections, that would prevent cancer via a vaccine? I think this is a topic that is far more complex than you seem to know. Part of the pathology of cancer is that it is able to mimic "self" cells, and deactivates cellular signals which would label it as a malignant cell to the immune system, preventing destruction of it's progeny. And it's not even that it hasn't been tried - immunotherapy has been tried over the past six decades. It's that our current technology and understanding of cancer doesn't allow us to target those cells and "flag" them for the immune system.

Again. Prevention of, say, breast cancer or lung cancer via a vaccine would be a goldmine. There would be no way to hide it. You'd have the First Infantry Division marching through your lab before you'd be able to hide it.


I'd link to the article, but it's probably behind a paywall:

Cheever and Higano, 2011: PROVENGE (Sipuleucel-T) in Prostate Cancer: The First FDA-Approved Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine

Sipuleucel-T, which is designed to elicit an immune response to prostatic acid phosphatase, uses the patient's own immune system to recognize and combat his cancer.


Basically, levels of prostatic acid phosphatase is supposed to be higher in prostate cancer patients, so this vaccine encourages the immune system to attack prostate cancer cells.
 
2013-08-26 10:17:27 AM  

Apik0r0s: [500x774 from http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/dirkmai/default/chris-crocker-di rk-fingers-crossed--large-msg-120270864362.jpg image 500x774]
Leave the Job Creators alone!


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skinny%20fat
 
2013-08-26 10:20:54 AM  

UsikFark: Mid_mo_mad_man: hardinparamedic: Mid_mo_mad_man: Your partly correct. Viagra does pay the bills. It also subsidies research into cures for all sorts of conditions.

Viagra was also developed as an orphan medication to treat persistent pulmonary hypertension, a rare and life threatening complication in newborn infants. It wasn't originally intended as a boner pill. It was during Phase I and II Human testing that it's "side effect" of raging hard on was noticed.

It's also useful with alitude sickness and adapting to the thin air.

Boner pills on mount Everest?


Or when crossing the Andes in second-hand SUVs.

/just make sure you get rid of the Vaseline and tampons before you reach the Chilean border
//and the candied cocaine you got at a gas station
///All Adders Are Puffs
 
2013-08-26 10:22:02 AM  

give me doughnuts: It isn't the patent system. It's the for-profit medical treatment and pharmaceuticals system.

If you want R&D dollars, work on pills that give men boners, regrow hair, or make you thinner.
Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.


This is such  juvenille/stoner logic.  If a corporation could find a vaccine for cancers,  the profits would be staggering.    If you think people will pay a lot of money to get a fuller head of hair, think of how much they'll pay to avoid cancer.

" But .... but .... but .... the money is in the treatments, not the preventions!!!!!".

Yes, but who is the customer base for treatments?    The small percentage of people who get a specific cancer (and their need for treatments is limited as they either die or go into remission).    Compare that for the customer base for a possible breast cancer vaccine ....... every female walking planet earth.
 
2013-08-26 10:30:14 AM  

give me doughnuts: It isn't the patent system. It's the for-profit medical treatment and pharmaceuticals system.

If you want R&D dollars, work on pills that give men boners, regrow hair, or make you thinner.
Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.


I don't understand your logic.

I don't buy hair pills, boners pills, or weight loss pills, but of there was a cancer vaccine available you bet your ASS I would buy it. How is a cancer vaccine not a money maker?
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report