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 18
    More: Obvious, cancer vaccines, biotechnology companies, cancer drugs, health interventions, patent lawyers, human papillomavirus vaccine, preventive medicines, United States Patent  
•       •       •

6198 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 9:27 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-26 09:35:43 AM
5 votes:
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.
2013-08-26 09:47:50 AM
2 votes:
So we're defending our patent system now? I hate people.
2013-08-26 09:39:28 AM
2 votes:
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 02:09:18 PM
1 votes:

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 01:28:16 PM
1 votes:

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 01:08:02 PM
1 votes:

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.
rka
2013-08-26 11:50:21 AM
1 votes:
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 11:35:58 AM
1 votes:

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 11:22:59 AM
1 votes:

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 09:58:57 AM
1 votes:

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 09:47:07 AM
1 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 09:43:31 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-26 09:43:23 AM
1 votes:
Cancer vaccines?  No, you can't immunize against the body's own cells.  Stop that
2013-08-26 09:41:57 AM
1 votes:

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 09:40:00 AM
1 votes:

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 09:31:25 AM
1 votes:
Right. Lets ask all those thalidomide kids what they think about rushed medicene.
2013-08-26 09:29:37 AM
1 votes:
If only cancer only infected those who seek to block its cure and treatment.
2013-08-26 09:29:27 AM
1 votes:
Right, because a patent laws are holding back vaccines that would make a company hundreds of billions of dollars.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report