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  
•       •       •

6207 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 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 8 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 »
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