Catastrophic economic loss with AIDS and Cancer cure?

[Elite Engineer]

I just read an article about how researchers at Temple University managed to remove the HIV-1 genome from a human T-cell...the article went on about how this is a giant leap towards curing AIDS/HIV etc., etc.

 

So, lets suppose this team did find the cure for AIDS/HIV. A couple of years ago, my professor began a small company that ran on research grants for an antibody she's making to help TREAT (not cure) cancer. That company of hers took alot of time, money, and employed about a dozen students/ researchers. If cancer was truly cured, I could see her losing alot of hard, invested time and money, as well as her dozen employees becoming jobless.

 

Now a cure for AIDS and cancer would be incredible! But I can't imagine the amount of financial loss that would follow this. The example of my professor is just a very, very small scenario. Imagine the universities who receive millions of dollars for grants, the PhD's and grads who live off the grants. Imagine billions of dollars in the private and public sector attributed to pharmaceuticals, research and manufacturing coming to a screeching halt. Not to mention the waves of lay-offs at said companies, from top to bottom.

 

All I know is, more jobs aren't being created because we have a cure for polio...just saying....

 

~EE

 

[StringJunky]

This phenomenon is part and parcel of everyday life in the pharmaceutical industry. The stakes are very high .but the rewards are as well. It can take decades to develop a drug then only for it to fail in human testing...cost... billions. A 2014 article:

 

 

A new report published by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) pegs the cost of developing a prescription drug that gains market approval at $2.6 billion, a 145% increase, correcting for inflation, over the estimate the center made in 2003.

 

CSDD’s finding, a bellwether figure in the drug industry, is based on an average out-of-pocket cost of $1.4 billion and an estimate of $1.2 billion in returns that investors forego on that money during the 10-plus years a drug candidate spends in development. The center’s analysis drew from information provided by 10 pharmaceutical companies on 106 randomly selected drugs first tested in humans between 1995 and 2007.

 

The study concludes that another $312 million is spent on postapproval development—studies to test new indications, formulations, and dosage strengths—for a life-cycle cost of $2.9 billion.

 

http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/11/Tufts-Study-Finds-Big-Rise.html

[Elite Engineer]

This phenomenon is part and parcel of everyday life in the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Yes, but I'm willing to guess: #1.) AIDS and/or cancer is in the top 5 highest funded areas of research, and #2.) AIDS and/or cancer research industry provides a large amount of jobs and money. As for it being part of the pharma industry..you can't compare the financial loss faced by pharma companies with a shingles cure, relative to a cancer cure.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Elite Engineer

[Sirona]

This phenomenon is part and parcel of everyday life in the pharmaceutical industry. The stakes are very high .but the rewards are as well. It can take decades to develop a drug then only for it to fail in human testing...cost... billions. A 2014 article:

 

Exactly. Majority of pharmaceutical research is not reproduced.

This is also like saying that if teleporting was invented then your car would lose value. This is just what happens, technology improves and if something is more effective or functions better than that's a good thing.

[StringJunky]

Exactly. Majority of pharmaceutical research is not reproduced.

This is also like saying that if teleporting was invented then your car would lose value. This is just what happens, technology improves and if something is more effective or functions better than that's a good thing.

The other thing is that government research grants is not really being used for such altruistic purposes, as one likes to think. i.e academics toiling away with federal money for the common good... indirectly it does... even then it'll cost the public a bomb. That really pisses me off. As an example:

 

 

Sofosbuvir was developed under the leadership of Prof. Raymond Schinazi, a brilliant professor of biochemistry at Emory University. The U.S. Government heavily funded Prof. Schinazi’s research, with major grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and support from the Veterans Administration. Like many academic researchers, Schinazi has frequently parlayed his government grants into private companies to market his discoveries. He set up Pharmasset Inc. as a Delaware corporation in 2004 as his business to develop sofosbuvir and hold the patents on the new prospective drug.

 

Pharmasset raised around $45 million in a 2007 IPO and used those funds and others to supplement the R&D. According to the company’s SEC filings, the total Pharmasset R&D on sofosbuvir up through 2011 totaled around $62.4 million. In January 2012, with an eye on sofosbuvir, Gilead paid $11.2 billion to purchase Pharmasett.

 

Schinazi pocketed an estimated $440 million for his shares in Pharmasett.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/the-drug-that-is-bankrupt_b_6692340.html

 

The seminal but as-yet unmarketable work for many drug breakthroughs are often funded in university labs with public money, only to be milked by private speculators when it is commercially viable. With no cost savings to the health systems or tax payer.

Edited March 25, 2016 by StringJunky

[Sirona]

Nice, Junky.

Also, saying that they've made a giant breakthrough isn't saying much either. There have been many drugs that have had promising results on animal studies but have failed in human studies. It may be years before it is approved (if it ever is).

[StringJunky]

Nice, Junky.

 

Also, saying that they've made a giant breakthrough isn't saying much either. There have been many drugs that have had promising results on animal studies but have failed in human studies. It may be years before it is approved (if it ever is).

Indeed. I've been browsing Fierce Pharma news site nearly everyday for the last few months and it's just a different world in Big Pharma. They talk in telephone numbers when it comes to money gained and lost. Executive staff shuffle between companies more than football managers.

 

With respect to the OP, all's fair in business nowadays. The way I look at is: would the losers care about winners if the situation was reversed? I think not.

[Strange]

All I know is, more jobs aren't being created because we have a cure for polio...just saying....

 

On the other hand, people who worked (or would be working now) on a cure for polio or smallpox are not unemployed. They are working on other things. If all cancers were treatable, then there would be money to be had by providing those treatments and for researching better treatments.

 

If cancer were totally eliminated then there would be massive cost savings to society and that money could be invested in research into other important problems.

[Phi for All]

Yes, but I'm willing to guess: #1.) AIDS and/or cancer is in the top 5 highest funded areas of research, and #2.) AIDS and/or cancer research industry provides a large amount of jobs and money. As for it being part of the pharma industry..you can't compare the financial loss faced by pharma companies with a shingles cure, relative to a cancer cure.

 

I don't think that's EVER the way to look at it. Dyson forced giants like Hoover to abandon most of their product lines when he popularized the bagless vacuum cleaner. Iirc, selling people disposable bags was a US$3B industry, turned on its head practically overnight.

 

Sure, some jobs shifted, but Hoover is still around, Dyson has moved on to electric cars I'm told, and the world is a better place for all that, at least when it comes to extra bags in the landfills.

 

As far as the business of medicine, it's really a poor industry to apply business models to. We want care and maintenance to grow, but not diseases and pharmaceuticals. It really bothers me to think some of these folks have money as the priority, rather than helping people treat or avoid disease in a high-density society.

[MigL]

I remember spending over $500 on a Sony Betamax video tape machine.

It lost the battle with VHS, then DVDs came along and now I mostly stream/download.

Wasn't that a lot of wasted money ?

 

Change happens.

Either you adapt, or go the way of the Dodo.

[Phi for All]

I remember spending over $500 on a Sony Betamax video tape machine.

It lost the battle with VHS, then DVDs came along and now I mostly stream/download.

Wasn't that a lot of wasted money ?

 

But for a while, you had the better machine. While it was supported, the tapes were smaller, you had four heads vs VHS two heads, the quality was better, and you had justified bragging rights.

 

By the time I could afford a VCR, VHS had won. But I have a buddy just like you, and he always argued that buying state-of-the-art was expensive, but you had technology nobody else would get for at least a year. You got to enjoy it while everyone else was waiting for the price to come down. He loved that, and I can see the appeal.

 

Bringing this back to medicine, we need pioneering research and products. I look at this sort of like immigration. It's necessary if you want your population to grow. Holding on to the old because it would cost jobs isn't very progressive. Look at how long we've held on to fossil fuels for many of the same reasons. Electric cars won't kill oil, but maybe it will promote more responsible use of it. Similarly, medicine will benefit from cures, and since something else always seems to crop up, it will make room for more research to end the new maladies.

[John Cuthber]

Since "cancer" isn't one disease, but hundreds, it's unlikely that any breakthrough will "cure cancer".

And every successful drug signals the end or at least a serious reduction) of research inits on field.

[Xalatan]

Hmm... Big pharma may not necessarily experience catastrophic loss from inventing a cure; it may have to diversify. If there was a cure for cancer or AIDS, then humans may live longer and develop other chronic or lifestyle diseases such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. If these are cured and the life expectancy of humans are raised further, then degenerative diseases may supersede. It could be that there may always be something to treat, just like there was tuberculosis in the 19th century, AIDS and cancer in the 20th.

[CharonY]

The other thing is that government research grants is not really being used for such altruistic purposes, as one likes to think. i.e academics toiling away with federal money for the common good... indirectly it does... even then it'll cost the public a bomb. That really pisses me off. As an example:

 

 

The seminal but as-yet unmarketable work for many drug breakthroughs are often funded in university labs with public money, only to be milked by private speculators when it is commercially viable. With no cost savings to the health systems or tax payer.

 

Well, I kind of disagree with this characterization. It is true that many breakthroughs are done with government funds. Typically, researchers have to make these findings publicly available (this is the case for NIH and NSF grants, for example). However, there is a difference in finding a mechanism/compound with medical application and developing something that has commercial/clinical use. This is why the institutions and the researchers maintain the right to the intellectual property.

 

To commercialize a drug for example, is usually not something that can be easily done within a research group. Instead money has to be raised, which can include federal funding specifically for this purpose (e.g. SBIR/STTR programs) as well as private investors. Whether the resulting product can be offered at a low price is up to the board of the resulting start-up as well as the economic environment. However, the company would also take the risk if it does not work out. Obviously, if they set the goal to have a low-profit margin drug, there would be few investors interested in it, although there have been (few) examples where something like that worked out.

[John Cuthber]

FFS!

While people continue to die,"big pharma" will have a market.

It will have to move from on project to another as it always has; that's all.

A more interesting question is why does "big pharma" spend as much on advertising as it does on research?

[StringJunky]

FFS!

While people continue to die,"big pharma" will have a market.

It will have to move from on project to another as it always has; that's all.

 

A more interesting question is why does "big pharma" spend as much on advertising as it does on research?

Because they're drug pushers.

[Sensei]

The same "issue" is with gangsters/criminals and police and other Department of Justice employers, prosecutors, lawyers etc..

 

Lack of crime and offense (in the case of police officers), renders them jobless..

 

Like in "Demolition Man" with Sylvester Stallone, Sandra Bullock and Wesley Snipes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/

 

Therefor introduction of "crimes" that are not true crimes (how can somebody commit crime, if he/she is "victim". Victim and criminal in the same person. What a nonsense).

 

Because they're drug pushers.

Yeah, they have product that they have to get rid off, and sell as much as they can.. No matter if people need it or not..

The most of ill people around the world could simply use garlic a day, and the most common ills are gone/never appear.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Sensei

[John Cuthber]

 

The most of ill people around the world could simply use garlic a day, and the most common ills are gone/never appear.

Clearly not true.

There are plenty of people who eat garlic every day- most of the population of Italy or France, for example- and yet they still get ill.

Why say daft things like that?

[Sensei]

By the most common ill of the world, quite obviously, I meant common cold.

As typical human being catch it a few times per year.

"On average, children have six to eight colds per year and adults have two to four."

 

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/yes-dear-garlic-vitamin-c-and-zinc-do-treat-common-cold

 

" Efficacy of Garlic For Common Cold Proven

 

From review research from Australia's The University of Western Australia we find a study that gave 146 people either a garlic supplement - standardized to 180 milligrams of allicin - or a placebo for 12 weeks. The research found that the placebo group in total had 65 common cold occurrences while the garlic group only had 24 occurrences. This is less than half the number of colds.

 

Furthermore, when those who were taking the garlic supplement did catch a cold, that cold lasted an average of one day shorter than the colds among the placebo group some 20-25% shorter.

 

Another study, from the University of Florida, tested 120 people by giving half 2.5 grams per day of an aged garlic extract supplement and the other half a placebo. Over a six month period, the garlic group had 61 percent fewer number of days of colds, and 58 percent had few incidences of colds, along with 21 percent fewer cold symptoms when they did catch a cold."

 

This is the original article, the above one is based:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0013804/

 

I have not been ill for over 20 years..

 

There are different methods of preparation of meal with garlic.

It could be fresh raw, cooked, fried on pan, blended or cut in slices.

It does matter, how food source is prepared.

As some valuable compounds could be destroyed, or decreased their quantity in the middle of processing.

 

 

I don't know how French or Italians are processing their garlic (and using garlic for seasoning is completely different story, as it's minute amount of it),

but here it's often eaten blended fresh raw with white curd cheese.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Sensei

[John Cuthber]

There is insufficient clinical trial evidence regarding the effects of garlic in preventing or treating the common cold. A single trial suggested that garlic may prevent occurrences of the common cold but more studies are needed to validate this finding. Claims of effectiveness appear to rely largely on poor-quality evidence.

from

http://www.cochrane.org/CD006206/ARI_garlic-common-cold

and there's also a huge difference between "while the garlic group only had 24 occurrences. " and " the most common ills are gone/never appear."

isn't there?

So, as I said,

Why say daft things like that?

[Strange]

I have not been ill for over 20 years..

 

I am very, very disappointed to see a statement like this on a science forum, especially from one of the members who is clearly pretty bright.

 

It is bad enough when I hear morons and politicians on the radio saying things like, "The government has no right to tax cigarettes [sugar/alcohol/whatever], my grandfather smoked 300 a day for 130 years and was still running four marathons a day". Don't these people understand anything about the nature of evidence?

[Sensei]

There is insufficient clinical trial evidence regarding the effects of garlic in preventing or treating the common cold. A single trial suggested that garlic may prevent occurrences of the common cold but more studies are needed to validate this finding. Claims of effectiveness appear to rely largely on poor-quality evidence.

from

http://www.cochrane.org/CD006206/ARI_garlic-common-cold

and there's also a huge difference between "while the garlic group only had 24 occurrences. " and " the most common ills are gone/never appear."

isn't there?

That's the same as on the bottom of my own link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0013804/

"Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient clinical trial evidence regarding the effects of garlic in preventing or treating the common cold. A single trial suggested that garlic may prevent occurrences of the common cold but more studies are needed to validate this finding. Claims of effectiveness appear to rely largely on poor‐quality evidence."

 

Yes, I read the whole article, I gave link to.

 

I don't know of any researcher who would write "we have found everything what we wanted to, with perfect evidence, and no further research is needed".

That's typical asking for more funds to continue their job, on larger amount of people.

Even if they would make experiment with 10k people their conclusions in the next paper would be "give us more money to continue research on 100k people group, around the whole world, the all continents".

 

If you don't understand what's written in the paper, I will happily explain it to you:

146 people were split to two groups, 73 people each one.

From 73 people group who received placebo,

65 of them in the next 3 months were ill. 65/73=89% of group. 11% were fine.

From 73 people group who received 180 milligrams of allicin per day,

24 of them in the next 3 months were (slightly less) ill. 24/73=32.8% of group. 67.1% were fine.

The conclusion from it is drop from 89% -> 33% between non-takers and takers.

65-24=41 people who didn't catch illness in tested period.

(Casinos and lotteries would bankrupt in one day, if somebody would have such influence on random numbers..)

 

Obviously more research is needed.

Just to confirm already made (and worldwide known by millions of people by dozen human generations) observation,

and make researchers more rich, for obvious worldwide well known experimental human knowledge.

 

So, as I said,

Why say daft things like that?

The more you write the more you sound like our old member xyzt, impertinent and plain rude.

 

Do I write "Why say daft things like that?" when you, John Cuthber, claimed to be "chemistry expert",

are showing scientific community, that you f.e. cannot even calculate right amount of Nitrogen in thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93083-making-nitrocellulose/?p=904803

 

According to John Cuthber, mathematic skills (because it's mathematic question, not chemistry),

if we have 1000 apples,

and for each 6 apples, there are 2 oranges,

you claim result will be:

1000 * ( 6 / 2 ) = 3000 oranges.

Like you showed in the above linked thread post.

(moles of Carbon must be > moles of Nitrogen)

 

While the proper result is:

1000 * ( 2 / 6 ) = 333 oranges.

Obviously quantity of apples is higher than oranges.

 

More realistic example,

we have 2500 kg of apples, each one with 125 grams,

2500000 g / 125 g = 20,000 apples

for each 6 apples there are 2 oranges 150 grams each

20,000 / 6 = 3333 * 2 = 6666 * 150 = 1000 kg of oranges.

Obviously mass of apples is higher than oranges.

(125 gram Apple vs 150 gram of Orange is just to mimics difference between slightly lower mass of Carbon versus Nitrogen)

 

And that would need 2.22/ 0.389 = 5.7 grams of nitrogen

Can I quote you?

"Why say daft things like that?"

(should I include this sentence in every thread post you're making some mistake? Will it make you return from your pedestal to the Earth back?)

 

Instead of somebody, mathematician, coming and explaining to you where you made mistake, there was no further reaction by scientific community, except your cheeky claim, that I made mistake while pointing your error in calcs.

And wrong result remained in thread unfixed. And perhaps influencing other reading it people that you are "chemistry expert".. Chemistry expert that cannot even calculate the basic things in his own science discipline..

 

ps. You're the second one the most rude, and unpleasant, generally skilled member of this forum, after xyzt..

You have a long route to learn swansont's, Phi for All's, Imatfaal's, Mordred's, social behaving skills.

 

 

I am very, very disappointed to see a statement like this on a science forum, especially from one of the members who is clearly pretty bright.

Well, I just wrote the truth in the above statement.

Not sure what is upsetting you in it.

 

It is bad enough when I hear morons and politicians on the radio saying things like, "The government has no right to tax cigarettes [sugar/alcohol/whatever], my grandfather smoked 300 a day for 130 years and was still running four marathons a day". Don't these people understand anything about the nature of evidence?

Definitely.

But it's result of poor US education. And pay for education scheme.

So poor people have no money for college and university. And they and their children are generally not well skilled.

Unlike rich, and people who were saving the whole life for their kids go to college.. or took insane loans for education, and are desperately dreaming to get good job after PhD..

It's straight route for making human classes. Better (rich), worser (poor). Rich get educated, poor are poorly educated, can have only poor jobs, and poor life, in f.e. NY ghetto.

Here education is for free.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Sensei

[Sirona]

 

I am very, very disappointed to see a statement like this on a science forum, especially from one of the members who is clearly pretty bright.

 

It is bad enough when I hear morons and politicians on the radio saying things like, "The government has no right to tax cigarettes [sugar/alcohol/whatever], my grandfather smoked 300 a day for 130 years and was still running four marathons a day". Don't these people understand anything about the nature of evidence?

Absolutely. They are constantly trying to link specific foods as having 'disease curing properties' or improving your immune system, clearing your skin, etc. However, the evidence is not conclusive like the correlation between smoking and cancer for example. That Australian trial from the University of Western Australia you've sourced was an extremely small as they only studied 146 people over a period of three months. It is also likely that the participants from the group taking the garlic knew as from the smell when burping. It says 'other biases were controlled' but how? Also, participants self recorded their episodes of the common cold and no physical examinations or other tests were taken.

 

I really dislike poor quality trials like this one where the health supplement industry can get their hands on little evidence and data which they can later exaggerate to sell supplements. We also have a responsibility not to circulate poor claims like this and encourage the spread of unproven data and the sales of ineffective health supplements.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Sirona

[Strange]

Well, I just wrote the truth in the above statement.

Not sure what is upsetting you in it.

 

The idea that you think a random anecdote has any relevance to the discussion.

 

Definitely.

But it's result of poor US education. And pay for education scheme.

 

I find it hard to believe that politicians and people ringing talk shows here would have been affected in any way by the educational system in the USA.

If you don't understand what's written in the paper, I will happily explain it to you:

 

Apparently, according to you, it said "The most of ill people around the world could simply use garlic a day, and the most common ills are gone/never appear."

[Sensei]

Absolutely. They are constantly trying to link specific foods as having 'disease curing properties' or improving your immune system, clearing your skin, etc. However, the evidence is not conclusive like the correlation between smoking and cancer for example. That Australian trial from the University of Western Australia you've sourced was an extremely small as they only studied 146 people over a period of three months. It is also likely that the participants from the group taking the garlic knew as from the smell when burping. It says 'other biases were controlled' but how? Also, participants self recorded their episodes of the common cold and no physical examinations or other tests were taken.

 

I really dislike poor quality trials like this one where the health supplement industry can get their hands on little evidence and data which they can later exaggerate to sell supplements. We also have a responsibility not to circulate poor claims like this and encourage the spread of unproven data and the sales of ineffective health supplements.

Garlic is not food supplement. It's plant. Cheap to produce. No serious company can make a profit on selling it (and that's whole problem to discourage people from using it).

They used allicin just because to not influence people in the experiment. So they won't know in advance whether they took placebo or allicin.

 

However, the evidence is not conclusive like the correlation between smoking and cancer for example.

Now you must be kidding making such statement.......

 

The idea that you think a random anecdote has any relevance to the discussion.

Experimental personal experience is not anecdote...

 

I find it hard to believe that politicians and people ringing talk shows here would have been affected in any way by the educational system in the USA.

Explain then difference in the amount of people in prison is USA, versus European countries...

 

I don't understand WTH are you talking about here.

Politicians are generally from the richest group of community.

Their parents didn't have to "save the whole life every dollar" to push their kids to go to study...

Then how they can be "affected" by money needed to spend on education of their kids the next generation?

Affected are people that live from week by week, or month by month,

we call it from 1st to 1st (month).

 

Apparently, according to you, it said "The most of ill people around the world could simply use garlic a day, and the most common ills are gone/never appear."

The most "common ill", with average 14-28 billions occurrences per year in total population (2-4 average per adult, child more) is "common cold".

Instead of downvoting my post, you should spend time searching for objective experiments proving that garlic did not heal/prevent people from getting "common cold",

instead it increased symptoms.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Sensei