508
Looks like a treatment, not a cure, that will require ongoing supplies of medication. This is a pharma wet dream. We can’t cure your cancer, but we can keep it from growing for just $2000 per pill that cost us $1 to make.
Do you really think that pill cost 1$? A single approved therapy takes years to develop and over a billion dollars. But hey if you're view of an entire industry is shaped through Facebook comments I don't blame you.
Further, maintenance therapy already exists in many cancers. This is not a new concept for literally anyone in the field of medicine.
You speak like someone whose never had to buy insulin before.
Which is cheap or free in literally everywhere except the country of free. It’s US problem, not industry.
I'm from a country in western Europe, and our pharmacies are running low. My dad was told several times over the last months that they're out of stock and he should come back next week. Sure, the price here might be okay, but Pharma seems to prefer selling it more expensively elsewhere.
I live in the US, my wife couldn't find test strips for over a week.
They're probably creating artificial scarcity to increase the prices elsewhere on account of "supply and demand". There's a special place in hell for them.
You are doing exactly the thing the person you are replying to is calling someone out for, so if anything you are underlining the point. Pharmaceuticals is a vast industry, and the matter they work with is not homogenous.
You cannot infer from the cost of insulin to inhabitants of uncivilized western countries what the actual cost of providing a still in-development medicine will be. More specifically, you cannot expand from being ripped off in one country for one medicine and the myopic view that provides to pharmaceuticals as a whole.
As a counterpoint in your case, I pay nothing for my insulin, as its included the base medical insurance everyone has to have. As are a vast amount of other pharmaceuticals.
I gave an example of a treatment style pharmaceutical that has been used consistently to boost corporate profits rather than serve the greater good. Would you like to talk about the cost of epipens next? How about the opioid industry?
A pill that treats solid tumours would be an enormous boon to humanity. You're letting really tired cynicism get in the way of basic logic. This argument would mean that insulin wasn't a breakthrough, because it didn't cure diabetes.
For profit pharmaceuticals is indeed a huge issue, but it's one that is entirely separate from whether or not a given medical treatment is good or not.
grumble grumble Look at this big pharma scheme that allows people to live longer! grrrr I'd rather die from cancer than let big pharma take my hard-earned dollars!
Are you saying insulin has not served the greater good? This whole "treatments are a conspiracy to enrich corporate profits" BS is crazy. That it can happen, and sometimes does happen, does not mean it always happens or never happens.
The world is complicated. Simplified "pharma bad" arguments are pure fantasy.
Not only that, it's also important to consider just how vast pharmaceuticals as a branch of industry and research and medicine is, overall.
Sure, some exec at the top might be a money-grubbing arsehole who couldn't care any less if 8 billion people died so long as they made 2% more profits.
But there's a giant apparatus of often very serious and very altruistic researchers, doctors, nurses, workers and helpers underneath that, too. Lots of bad apples, lots of shining examples. Just like, well, any other industry.
And sure, one can easily argue "but you're playing with people's lives here, it's not okay for it to be like this". And of course I agree. But it's utopian to think we can fix this with reductive, as you say, "pharma bad"-arguments. And it's not like the transport industry, the power industry, the the military-industrial complex (intentionally) or the tourism industry don't habiutally play with people's lives. We just tend to not notice it as directly.
And sure, I get that for americans in particular this is a sore topic of particular import because they're so vulnerable to exploitation due to a lack of social support structure and regulated and standardized insurances.
But anything can be reduced to a simple "is bad" if we want it to. It's important to not think in such simplistic us-vs-them terms, otherwise nothing can ever be improved.
Insulin is worse though because it’s not like it’s a drug that had to be developed and has a billion dollars or more to develop. The case with insulin is blatant price gouging.
This pill, this doesn’t mean it should be as cheap as insulin as the two drugs aren’t equals. It can be priced fairly and still be expensive, we don’t know the economics behind it. Being cheap =/= fair pricing all the time. Like buying a better product that took more to make.
This could still be outrageously priced obviously, but comparing it to insulin is apples to oranges.
it doesn't look very advanced or hard to make honestly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOH1996
What is the indicator in the article that the compound is trivial to produce?
its structure, it's like 4 steps from widely available building blocks, all routine things (amide couplings, one palladium coupling or SNAr)
source: me, i'm an organic chemist
depending on how you count, even less than 4 steps all starting materials are commercially available and probably pretty cheap
i'm not gonna talk down a molecule that's easy to make, but there may be room for modifications, should it be discovered that these are beneficial. this may or may not make synthesis a little bit harder or more expensive but at any rate not impossible
Ty
No I don’t think it will cost a dollar. That was hyperbole.
That's what it is, a subscription based cure.
"as long as you buy our medicine you will live!"
I sure hope it isn't like this. Medicine just enough to stave the progress of the illness but also not enough to cure it.
I find it a bit reductive to call palliative care a moneymaking scheme overall. Especially cruel to workers in the field, which is one of the toughest one as far as mental health goes.
Yeah I do understand what you are saying. And I may have gone too overboard with my pessimism. This being cancer and all.
It's just that too many bad actors have taken advantage of regular folks and their situations. It's hard not to react in a pessimistic view when there's hardly any good news to come by, or any good development that gets twisted into a nightmare of a tool just to take advantage of people's hope for better care.
I know what you're saying, but cancer being a chronic condition is great.
I agree. Would I rather have no cancer? Absolutely. But if my body is going to crank up some cancer cells anyway, I’d rather have chronic (but managed) cancer and keep living than just cancer that will kill me.
At the moment, it doesn’t look like anything, since it’s just now in phase 1 trials, so nobody knows.
But if it does what it says, then yes, it might actually be part of a cure.
And I don’t know if you’re aware of it, as of now we don’t have a cure for cancer: https://xkcd.com/931/
You can look up the average treatment cost today, it’s something like $150000, good for your that you already know the price of this pill and that it’s big pharma‘s wet dream.
"Why don't they just cure cancer!"
🙄
It's being developed for the last 20 years. These pharma companies have spent millions developing it.
Where are you getting this information? Every other form of chemotherapy is a limited course, and I've seen no evidence that this one is any different.
yet another tool in oncologist toolbox, and looks like a pretty capable one. looks like it also has an effect of sensitizing cancer cells to other chemotherapy drugs
more technical writeup https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-mode-cancer-treatment
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A "cancer-killing pill" has appeared to "annihilate" solid tumours in early research - leaving healthy cells unaffected.
Professor Linda Malkas, who has been developing the drug, explained: "PCNA is like a major airline terminal hub containing multiple plane gates.
"Our cancer-killing pill is like a snowstorm that closes a key airline hub, shutting down all flights in and out only in planes carrying cancer cells."
While initial results are promising, the research so far has only concluded that AOH1996 can suppress tumour growth in cell and animal models - with the first phase of a clinical trial in humans now under way.
The pill has been shown to be effective in treating cells derived from breast, prostate, brain, ovarian, cervical, skin and lung cancers.
PCNA had previously been labelled as "undruggable" - and it is hoped the breakthrough could lead to more personalised, targeted medicines for cancer in the future.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Heard about this on the radio yesterday, and looked into it further as we hear about “cancer curing pills” all the time and they usually are nothing. This one does seem to have traction however IF it can make it through human trials. So obviously could mean nothing if it doesn’t pass this phase, and it will be there a long time, but this is very promising news.
Joe Brandon filling his campaign promise /s
But it is good to see more treatment options
Maybe conservatives will treat this medical advancement the same as other medical advancements. To be fair, these pills are obviously loaded with 5G tracking chips and are clearly not as effective against cancer as horse dewormer or bleach.
It’s funny how my mom has no issue at all with everything they load her up with for her cancer, but vaccines? That’s a bridge too far.
I'm sorry you have to deal with that. My mom is like that too.
@autotldr@lemmings.world
I just created the summary! You can find it at https://lemmings.world/comment/894209. (I tried to create the link for your instance but I failed miserably, for which I'm very sorry).
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
508 points (100.0% liked)
World News
39023 readers
1835 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS