Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

6232 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 9:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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?
 
2013-08-26 10:38:24 AM  
We need patent reform. Grant a provisional patent for research, with say a 10 year life. If the research pans out, grant a full 20 year patent (or 15 or whatever) so the company can make money. We also need reforms to force patent holders to either create a product for market or the patent becomes public domain. That would help prevent abuse from trolls and corporations who buy up patents for competing technologies and shelve them.
 
2013-08-26 10:41:21 AM  
You mean corporate interests in this country are put above the individuals? Im shocked.
 
2013-08-26 10:41:40 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, on Top Gear, they used Both Viagra and Condoms to survive a crossing of the Andes.
 
2013-08-26 10:42:05 AM  

lilbjorn: B-b-b-but the free market will provide!!!


Free markets invented government enforced patents? Who knew.
 
2013-08-26 10:46:46 AM  
UsikFark:

Boner pills on mount Everest?

Mile High Club, all the way
 
2013-08-26 10:52:48 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.


It's also useful for lower extremity burns.  It doesn't help heal the burns any faster, but it keeps the sheets off your legs at night.
 
2013-08-26 10:53:05 AM  
In other words, they are more concerned about making cash that curing anything, got it.
 
2013-08-26 10:56:18 AM  
But cancer treatment prolongs life.
 
2013-08-26 11:11:38 AM  
If that is true -- and I highly doubt that it is -- the author of that piece did an abysmal job of telling us why.
 
2013-08-26 11:22:59 AM  

Chach: If that is true -- and I highly doubt that it is -- the author of that piece did an abysmal job of telling us why.


The author's argument seemed pretty sound to me. Drugs all get a 20 year patent starting from the time of discovery. However, some drugs take a year or two to test, leaving a long time for the drug to be sold exclusively by the company, while some drugs take much longer to test, meaning they are unprofitable for companies to pursue because the company won't be able to market them exclusively long enough for them to be profitable.

This could be resolved by adjusting patent duration terms for different types of drugs and their respective testing requirements.
 
2013-08-26 11:35:58 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.


Oh, the things I would write about here if our collaborators weren't teaching and could get a paper out the door.  But I like being employed.

What I can say, however, is that we might have more such vaccines if the pharmaceutical industry wasn't as risk averse as it is.  There are lots,  lots, of vaccines/therapeutics out there which could change the industry, but those in pre-clinical stages of development aren't attractive to big companies.  They've had too many drugs fail at PhII/III, so they've become very cautious; investing millions to bring something that's only shown efficacy in animals too risky compared to investing in something that has already cleared PhI/II trials.  This is especially true if the MoA isn't similar to approved products; it's half the reason there are now dozens of cytokine inhibitors, not just the TNF-blockers.

You want more innovative vaccines and therapeutics?  Go invest in startup biotech firms.  Petition the government to spend more money on SBIR grants.  Patent reform might help, but it's certainly not the only factor.
 
2013-08-26 11:40:11 AM  

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


Do you know the story?

Barry Marshall

If that's not simple enough for you I can't wont help you.
 
2013-08-26 11:40:21 AM  

rugmannm: We need patent reform. Grant a provisional patent for research, with say a 10 year life. If the research pans out, grant a full 20 year patent (or 15 or whatever) so the company can make money. We also need reforms to force patent holders to either create a product for market or the patent becomes public domain. That would help prevent abuse from trolls and corporations who buy up patents for competing technologies and shelve them.


As long as no government money is used or public university or public hospital.

And no charity money either.
 
2013-08-26 11:44:55 AM  

stuhayes2010: Okay Slate users papillomavirus vaccine does not vaccinate for cancer. It vaccinates for HPV, you can still get cervical cancer, just reduce the chances.


Not to mention becoming sterile because they didnt bother to test the effects on female reproduction organs.
 
rka
2013-08-26 11:50:21 AM  
So this article talks about America and the American patent system.

What's preventing EVERY OTHER country in the world from curing cancer?
 
2013-08-26 11:57:31 AM  

MyRandomName: lilbjorn: B-b-b-but the free market will provide!!!

Free markets invented government enforced patents? Who knew.


The problem is that the patent runs out. Not having patents at all would cause a worse version of the exact same problem.
 
2013-08-26 12:12:21 PM  

rka: So this article talks about America and the American patent system.

What's preventing EVERY OTHER country in the world from curing cancer?


The Bilderbergers, in cahoots with the Patels and the Li-Rothschilds.
 
2013-08-26 12:30:50 PM  

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?


Explains why all the sherpas are so nervous.
 
2013-08-26 12:43:02 PM  
I did like the comment about the potential for people to promptly find ways to screw with any new system put in place.

Tighten up the patent system and over night there will be scores of lawyers dedicating themselves to find ways around it by analyzing every word and phrase to see if they can come up with a double meaning. Even before the lawyers, the lobbyists will pour into congress, pockets stuffed with gifts, bribes and promises, in order to get them to reword various sections of the bill to favor their backers.

Actually, I have no solution to current patent laws. I depend on folks much smarter than I am to work that out. I'm just at the consumer end, and don't like paying enormous prices for assorted drugs I need to live a reasonably normal life. I understand but don't like the usual production-profit phase for medications and I'm aware of the potential for major abuse within the system.

The last several decades have taught me that if there is a way to make a profit on something, someone will find a way to do it, even if it screws things up for everyone else.
 
2013-08-26 12:48:18 PM  

flynn80: stuhayes2010: Okay Slate users papillomavirus vaccine does not vaccinate for cancer. It vaccinates for HPV, you can still get cervical cancer, just reduce the chances.

Not to mention becoming sterile because they didnt bother to test the effects on female reproduction organs.


Stop reading conspiracy and/or anti-vax sites. They rarely tell the truth, and in those rare instances where they do, it is never the full truth.

There's no evidence of infertility due to the vaccine. There is evidence of infertility due to the actual virus. Reports of pain, numbness, infertility, and death associated with the HPV vaccine are low in number and inconsistent with each other. That is to say, none of them (in the same category) have similar causes nor similar specific effects. Because of that, we cannot conclude that these effects are due to the vaccine. If they were, we would see a similar mechanism and similar effects.

The reason we see symptoms like these associated with vaccines and any drug, really) is due to the reporting system. Every potential side effect is reported when the drug is taken, regardless of the real association with the drug. This means that while there can be (and usually are) several side effects with any given drug, listed and reported side effects may not be actually associated with the drug whatsoever. Our reporting system of side effects is based on a "better safe than sorry" policy.
 
2013-08-26 12:52:53 PM  

mgshamster: flynn80: stuhayes2010: Okay Slate users papillomavirus vaccine does not vaccinate for cancer. It vaccinates for HPV, you can still get cervical cancer, just reduce the chances.

Not to mention becoming sterile because they didnt bother to test the effects on female reproduction organs.

Stop reading conspiracy and/or anti-vax sites. They rarely tell the truth, and in those rare instances where they do, it is never the full truth.

There's no evidence of infertility due to the vaccine. There is evidence of infertility due to the actual virus. Reports of pain, numbness, infertility, and death associated with the HPV vaccine are low in number and inconsistent with each other. That is to say, none of them (in the same category) have similar causes nor similar specific effects. Because of that, we cannot conclude that these effects are due to the vaccine. If they were, we would see a similar mechanism and similar effects.

The reason we see symptoms like these associated with vaccines and any drug, really) is due to the reporting system. Every potential side effect is reported when the drug is taken, regardless of the real association with the drug. This means that while there can be (and usually are) several side effects with any given drug, listed and reported side effects may not be actually associated with the drug whatsoever. Our reporting system of side effects is based on a "better safe than sorry" policy.


I coughed while reading your post. Your posts cause coughing. You now have to list that as a potential risk at the top of all of your posts.
 
2013-08-26 12:55:12 PM  

rka: So this article talks about America and the American patent system.

What's preventing EVERY OTHER country in the world from curing cancer?


Pharma corporations have bought out all the other countries in the world. They've also bought out every biotech company, every start up company, every nonprofit research organization, every university scientist, every government regulation committee and department, every physician, etc.

The only people they haven't bought out yet are the naturopaths, the homeopaths, the chiropractors, the aculincurists, and the brave maverick doctors who know The Truth.

That's why you can only trust the alt med practitioners and authors of books that tell you about medical advice They not want you to know.

Didn't you know?
 
2013-08-26 12:56:39 PM  
Acupuncturists*

/Damn it.
 
2013-08-26 12:57:49 PM  

Yes please: mgshamster: flynn80: stuhayes2010: Okay Slate users papillomavirus vaccine does not vaccinate for cancer. It vaccinates for HPV, you can still get cervical cancer, just reduce the chances.

Not to mention becoming sterile because they didnt bother to test the effects on female reproduction organs.

Stop reading conspiracy and/or anti-vax sites. They rarely tell the truth, and in those rare instances where they do, it is never the full truth.

There's no evidence of infertility due to the vaccine. There is evidence of infertility due to the actual virus. Reports of pain, numbness, infertility, and death associated with the HPV vaccine are low in number and inconsistent with each other. That is to say, none of them (in the same category) have similar causes nor similar specific effects. Because of that, we cannot conclude that these effects are due to the vaccine. If they were, we would see a similar mechanism and similar effects.

The reason we see symptoms like these associated with vaccines and any drug, really) is due to the reporting system. Every potential side effect is reported when the drug is taken, regardless of the real association with the drug. This means that while there can be (and usually are) several side effects with any given drug, listed and reported side effects may not be actually associated with the drug whatsoever. Our reporting system of side effects is based on a "better safe than sorry" policy.

I coughed while reading your post. Your posts cause coughing. You now have to list that as a potential risk at the top of all of your posts.


Sorry.

/This post may cause coughing
 
2013-08-26 01:05:05 PM  
Okay, here is the problem with the "ZOMG PHARMACUTICAL CONSPIRACY HIDING CURES THAT'S WHY WE DON'T HAVE ANY":

MOST PHARMACUTICAL R&D ISN'T FUNDED BY COMPANIES ANYWAYS.

Most really experimental R&D, in *ANY* field, is funded via government grants, becuase (in today's short-sighted, profit-first world), putting R&D money into experimental research is.. well, it can't guarantee returns (if we knew the result, it'd be called 'Engineering').

So, again. A *lot* of initial R&D in drugs and other treatments *comes from universities*. You really think, if they discovered a cure for cancer, that the grad students (likely idealistic, because... .. well, they've chosen to be grad students. You generally don't choose to be a grad student in a science unless you are *really passionate* about your field), would keep quiet about it?

fark, they could probably make more money just revealing it to the world and writing a book, even if they didn't get any proceeds from the drug, *BECAUSE THEY ARE GRAD STUDENTS*.

Now, could R&D in this country, in many forms, be better? Yes. Fark yes. Hell we may have been the country to discover the Higgs (we were building a really impressive supercollider that, i think(?), would have gone online before the HADRON) if we hadn't decided "fark SCIENCE FUNDING".
 
2013-08-26 01:08:02 PM  

nosferatublue: Chach: If that is true -- and I highly doubt that it is -- the author of that piece did an abysmal job of telling us why.

The author's argument seemed pretty sound to me. Drugs all get a 20 year patent starting from the time of discovery. However, some drugs take a year or two to test, leaving a long time for the drug to be sold exclusively by the company, while some drugs take much longer to test, meaning they are unprofitable for companies to pursue because the company won't be able to market them exclusively long enough for them to be profitable.

This could be resolved by adjusting patent duration terms for different types of drugs and their respective testing requirements.


Or we could abandon the patent model altogether because it places more emphasis on making money than advancing humanity, which in itself is morally reprehensible. 20 years is a ridiculous amount of time considering technology is advancing at an exponential rate. It's going to be a near certainty if it isn't already that people will be suffering/dying because companies can't bring drugs to the market due to other companies contentiously hanging on to patents for financial reasons.
 
2013-08-26 01:11:36 PM  

mgshamster: flynn80: stuhayes2010: Okay Slate users papillomavirus vaccine does not vaccinate for cancer. It vaccinates for HPV, you can still get cervical cancer, just reduce the chances.

Not to mention becoming sterile because they didnt bother to test the effects on female reproduction organs.

Stop reading conspiracy and/or anti-vax sites. They rarely tell the truth, and in those rare instances where they do, it is never the full truth.

There's no evidence of infertility due to the vaccine. There is evidence of infertility due to the actual virus. Reports of pain, numbness, infertility, and death associated with the HPV vaccine are low in number and inconsistent with each other. That is to say, none of them (in the same category) have similar causes nor similar specific effects. Because of that, we cannot conclude that these effects are due to the vaccine. If they were, we would see a similar mechanism and similar effects.

The reason we see symptoms like these associated with vaccines and any drug, really) is due to the reporting system. Every potential side effect is reported when the drug is taken, regardless of the real association with the drug. This means that while there can be (and usually are) several side effects with any given drug, listed and reported side effects may not be actually associated with the drug whatsoever. Our reporting system of side effects is based on a "better safe than sorry" policy.


This is also why a lot of drugs for old people list 'death' as a possible side effect. Not necessarily because the drug actually did kill the person, but one of the old people died during the drug trial, *because they are old*.
 
2013-08-26 01:12:58 PM  
Theres no money in a cure for Cancer.  However, theres lots to be made in treatment for Cancer.
 
2013-08-26 01:14:27 PM  

rka: So this article talks about America and the American patent system.

What's preventing EVERY OTHER country in the world from curing cancer?


Yeah, it's good to know that the broken patent and medical system in the United States prevents *anyone else on the planet* from doing research

I am not defending the flaws in our system - far from it - but it seems like people tend to forget that just because things are done a certain way *here* does not prevent people *elsewhere*, under different systems/motivations/incentives, from taking a shot at things.

I find it... questionable that changes to the patent system will unlock some wellhead of innovation. Or to be specific, for every one new drug that is researched due to such changes, 100 others would stay un-genericized for decades - which would allow medical companies to coast on that profit rather than being encouraged to look for new sources of revenue.

Net result, admittedly with no evidence but common sense: *less* innovation, not more
 
2013-08-26 01:15:11 PM  

MayoSlather: nosferatublue: Chach: If that is true -- and I highly doubt that it is -- the author of that piece did an abysmal job of telling us why.

The author's argument seemed pretty sound to me. Drugs all get a 20 year patent starting from the time of discovery. However, some drugs take a year or two to test, leaving a long time for the drug to be sold exclusively by the company, while some drugs take much longer to test, meaning they are unprofitable for companies to pursue because the company won't be able to market them exclusively long enough for them to be profitable.

This could be resolved by adjusting patent duration terms for different types of drugs and their respective testing requirements.

Or we could abandon the patent model altogether because it places more emphasis on making money than advancing humanity, which in itself is morally reprehensible. 20 years is a ridiculous amount of time considering technology is advancing at an exponential rate. It's going to be a near certainty if it isn't already that people will be suffering/dying because companies can't bring drugs to the market due to other companies contentiously hanging on to patents for financial reasons.


Oh wait, you're serious.


Hahahahahahhahhhahahahaha
 
2013-08-26 01:24:10 PM  

Felgraf: mgshamster: flynn80: stuhayes2010: Okay Slate users papillomavirus vaccine does not vaccinate for cancer. It vaccinates for HPV, you can still get cervical cancer, just reduce the chances.

Not to mention becoming sterile because they didnt bother to test the effects on female reproduction organs.

Stop reading conspiracy and/or anti-vax sites. They rarely tell the truth, and in those rare instances where they do, it is never the full truth.

There's no evidence of infertility due to the vaccine. There is evidence of infertility due to the actual virus. Reports of pain, numbness, infertility, and death associated with the HPV vaccine are low in number and inconsistent with each other. That is to say, none of them (in the same category) have similar causes nor similar specific effects. Because of that, we cannot conclude that these effects are due to the vaccine. If they were, we would see a similar mechanism and similar effects.

The reason we see symptoms like these associated with vaccines and any drug, really) is due to the reporting system. Every potential side effect is reported when the drug is taken, regardless of the real association with the drug. This means that while there can be (and usually are) several side effects with any given drug, listed and reported side effects may not be actually associated with the drug whatsoever. Our reporting system of side effects is based on a "better safe than sorry" policy.

This is also why a lot of drugs for old people list 'death' as a possible side effect. Not necessarily because the drug actually did kill the person, but one of the old people died during the drug trial, *because they are old*.


Check out what antipsychotics do to someone with dementia.
 
2013-08-26 01:26:56 PM  

Litterbox: Theres no money in a cure for Cancer.  However, theres lots to be made in treatment for Cancer.


There is plenty of money. People go bananas about donating for breast cancer.
 
2013-08-26 01:28:16 PM  

Litterbox: Theres no money in a cure for Cancer.  However, theres lots to be made in treatment for Cancer.


@#%@# No. This is.. arrrgggggghhh.

OKay. Look. Cancer is not like polio or smallpox. If we come up with a perfect cure/vaccination for cancer, we won't (for the forseable future) get to the point where "Look! We no longer need a vaccination for these things, because we've eliminated Cancer in the wild!"

Because cancer is bits of your *own body* going on a hulk-like asshole rampage. Do you comprehend this? Cancer is *your own cells* farking up their programming and going nuts.

So *EVEN IF* we come up with a perfect 'cure' for cancer, PEOPLE WILL STILL GET CANCER FOR THE FORSEABLE FUTURE. A cure for cancer would be a friggen *GOLDMINE*.

Of course, that's ignoring the fact that talking about a 'cure for cancer' makes about as much sense as talking about/biatching about the lack of a 'cure for virus'.
 
2013-08-26 01:29:01 PM  

UsikFark: Check out what antipsychotics do to someone with dementia.


I actually have no idea where I would go to look that up.
 
2013-08-26 01:33:26 PM  
"cancer vaccines"

While genetic mutations might be viral-caused once a virus infects your cells, the majority of cancer is from bad genes or working in a crap environment with poor controls, thanks to a crap work environment.

Vaccinating against cancer is a foolish way to go. Deal with the DNA or STFU.

/research director
 
2013-08-26 01:35:25 PM  

khyberkitsune: "cancer vaccines"

While genetic mutations might be viral-caused once a virus infects your cells, the majority of cancer is from bad genes or working in a crap environment with poor controls, thanks to a crap work environment.

Vaccinating against cancer is a foolish way to go. Deal with the DNA or STFU.

/research director


CLEARLY YOU ARE JUST PART OF THE CONSPIRACY.

Man I'm not even INVOLVED in pharmaceutical research and the whole "LOL THEY'RE HIDING THE CURE" argument frustrates me.
Maybe because it seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how things like cancer work, sort of like how Deepak Chopra promotes a fundamental misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics.
 
2013-08-26 01:35:50 PM  

Felgraf: UsikFark: Check out what antipsychotics do to someone with dementia.

I actually have no idea where I would go to look that up.


http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentI D=548

/On a mobile device, so I can't hyperlink
//Don't forget to remove the fark inserted spaces.
 
2013-08-26 01:35:55 PM  

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


This!

While there are things I wish they could rush, putting chemicals in your body that specifically kill cells sounds like a bad thing to rush. We aren't talking about processed hamburger vs steak here, we're talking about drugs specifically designed to kill part of you or inhibit something your body wants to do.

And BTW the boner pills they are making ensure that a company is profitable enough to keep research on

And while our patent system might be able to use some reform as any program needs after time, it's not as if we're the only country in the world that's doing research on the dread dieases of life. So we get the benefit of other systems designed more like what the article wants and it's not like those are just burning up the charts.
 
2013-08-26 01:42:06 PM  

MayoSlather: Or we could abandon the patent model altogether because it places more emphasis on making money than advancing humanity, which in itself is morally reprehensible.


The patent model makes it profitable to advance humanity. If you want to advance humanity for free, you're more than welcome to.


MayoSlather: It's going to be a near certainty if it isn't already that people will be suffering/dying because companies can't bring drugs to the market due to other companies contentiously hanging on to patents for financial reasons.


Why would they hang onto the patent for financial reason? Once the 20 year clock runs out, anyone can manufacture the drug they patented. Patents encourage a company to try to wring as much profit as they can out of a product as quickly as they can.
 
2013-08-26 01:45:33 PM  

Felgraf: UsikFark: Check out what antipsychotics do to someone with dementia.

I actually have no idea where I would go to look that up.


Then what the hell do you know about side effects or pharmaceuticals?
 
2013-08-26 01:47:19 PM  

UsikFark: Felgraf: UsikFark: Check out what antipsychotics do to someone with dementia.

I actually have no idea where I would go to look that up.

Then what the hell do you know about side effects or pharmaceuticals?


... I know that any apparent effect suffered by someone in a drug trial has to be listed as a side effect, because I was *IN* a drug trial. (Straterra)

I'm not saying drugs *CAN'T* kill you. I'm saying that not *all* drugs that have 'death' listed as a side effect are necessarily the *cause* of the death.

mgshamster: Felgraf: UsikFark: Check out what antipsychotics do to someone with dementia.

I actually have no idea where I would go to look that up.

http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?document I D=548

/On a mobile device, so I can't hyperlink
//Don't forget to remove the fark inserted spaces.


Thanks.
 
2013-08-26 01:53:03 PM  

d23: I guess you're not involved with software patents then.


As I tell you software johnny-come-latelys, welcome to the party.  Overpatenting and trolling and abuse has been going on for decades in a lot of fields of technology and design, it's just accelerating.

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


Someone could get an article called "bleeding is bad for you" greenlit and people here would post "Fark that, I'm bleeding right now, it keeps my blood pressure down", "Whoever wrote that article hates women, it's not like we can stop menstruating on demand", "have they ever heard of a little thing called SURGERY?  ZOmg stoopid!"
 
2013-08-26 02:07:23 PM  

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



Cannabis cures cancer.
 
2013-08-26 02:09:18 PM  

rugmannm: We need patent reform. Grant a provisional patent for research, with say a 10 year life. If the research pans out, grant a full 20 year patent (or 15 or whatever) so the company can make money. We also need reforms to force patent holders to either create a product for market or the patent becomes public domain. That would help prevent abuse from trolls and corporations who buy up patents for competing technologies and shelve them.


That's because the article's author is a retard and doesn't understand anything in patent law, which explicitly states:

(2) TERM.-Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under,, or of this title, from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.


It's 20 years from the US Effective Filing Date.  They can hold off on filing it until whenever they want, as long as they keep it a trade secret until filing.

Or, they could just file an identical (but new) provisional application every year until the research pans out and then file a non-provisional off the most recent provisional up to a year old.

Either way, that's the way the patent system is supposed to work.  If you don't know enough about your drug that you can't get FDA approval, then why should you be entitled to make money from your patent?
 
2013-08-26 02:17:11 PM  

WeenerGord: Cannabis cures cancer.


All types of cancer, everywhere, 100%?

Seriously?

/Hint: Saying something "Cures cancer" is like saying something 'cures virus.'
 
2013-08-26 02:20:58 PM  

I_C_Weener: I've got it!!!

I'll patent cancer.

Then I'll sue anyone who catches it.


Brilliant!
 
2013-08-26 02:30:01 PM  

NutWrench: 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.


No. If a company had a cure for cancer, they would make sure that they let everyone know they were the first to have a cure for cancer.

/worked in the Pharma industry
 
2013-08-26 02:34:05 PM  

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


www.phdcomics.com
 
2013-08-26 02:36:44 PM  

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

[450x1073 from http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd042009s.gif image 450x1073]


Goddamnit that comic always makes me tear up.

I really hope the stuff I'm working on has medical applications down the line.

/fark yeah nanoscience.
 
2013-08-26 03:06:59 PM  

Cyrus the Mediocre: Cancer vaccines?  No, you can't immunize against the body's own cells.  Stop that


You're right!  There is no way to do that.  And besides, Big Pharma only wants to come up with a treatment, not a cure.  Makes more money that way.

Oh, wait a sec...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6SzI2ZfPd4
 
2013-08-26 03:28:37 PM  

khyberkitsune: "cancer vaccines"

While genetic mutations might be viral-caused once a virus infects your cells, the majority of cancer is from bad genes or working in a crap environment with poor controls, thanks to a crap work environment.

Vaccinating against cancer is a foolish way to go. Deal with the DNA or STFU.

/research director


ok "research director"

When DNA is altered, can it affect proteins? (yes)
What do antibodies from your immune system recognize? (proteins)

It's simple.  Your immune system functions by recognizing things different from human tissue (ideally).  Obviously cancer cells are similar to human tissue, but they are fundamentally different.  If you can turn that "difference" into an antigen, then you get a vaccine.  There's no fundamental flaw in using pursuing a vaccine.
 
2013-08-26 03:57:14 PM  
hardinparamedic:

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?

 img.fark.net

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.

Yeah, I tried some of his so-called "vaccine" back in the 90's.  Didn't get polio, but I woke up three days later in a dumpster outside a Phish concert.  farking quack.
 
2013-08-26 04:17:18 PM  

lilbjorn: B-b-b-but the free market will provide!!!


Yeah, because the federal patent system that gives artificial monopolies to large players is a free market institution...
 
2013-08-26 04:20:17 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: NutWrench: 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.

No. If a company had a cure for cancer, they would make sure that they let everyone know they were the first to have a cure for cancer.

/worked in the Pharma industry


Exactly.

But leave it to the people who demonize economics like creationists demonize evolution to make faulty economic arguments as to why profit is a bad thing.
 
2013-08-26 07:12:58 PM  
How about these socialized countries with their socialized medicine step up to the plate and invent something of their own for a change, instead of expecting us to do it with our evil money.
 
2013-08-26 07:41:13 PM  

Dwindle: How about these socialized countries with their socialized medicine step up to the plate and invent something of their own for a change, instead of expecting us to do it with our evil money.


Right. Because no other country has a pharmaceutical company or research institution.
 
2013-08-26 08:13:08 PM  

nosferatublue: Chach: If that is true -- and I highly doubt that it is -- the author of that piece did an abysmal job of telling us why.

The author's argument seemed pretty sound to me. Drugs all get a 20 year patent starting from the time of discovery. However, some drugs take a year or two to test, leaving a long time for the drug to be sold exclusively by the company, while some drugs take much longer to test, meaning they are unprofitable for companies to pursue because the company won't be able to market them exclusively long enough for them to be profitable.

This could be resolved by adjusting patent duration terms for different types of drugs and their respective testing requirements.


Yes - there should be something like that:  http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/smallbusinessassi s tance/ucm069959.htm

Maybe you can make the case that 5 years isn't enough, but there is a system.
 
2013-08-26 09:57:02 PM  

rka: So this article talks about America and the American patent system.

What's preventing EVERY OTHER country in the world from curing cancer?


Came in here to say the same thing. The USA is always on the forefront of medical discovery, but we are always being told our system isn't as good as every other country. Is there another country on Earth that has a higher rate of medical advancement than the US? The rest of the world sits back and gets the benefit from our lead in medicine without the cost associated with being on the leading edge. Is it any wonder healthcare costs more here?
 
Displayed 108 of 108 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report