• Ganbat@lemmyonline.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    You know what this sounds like to me?

    Like Moderna is gonna ask $10k a poke.

    Edit: ITT: Pharma bros telling me how awesome artificially-inflated medication prices are.

      • CarrotBottom@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        It wouldn’t exist at all if capitalism didn’t exist.

        People would just get cancer and die like they used to.

        Capitalism is the reason we (and you) have nice things.

        • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yes, no innovation has been done under any system but capitalism. /s Let’s forget about how totalitarian Russia was the first to space. Let’s forget about how much medicine was developed under the religious authoritarianism of ancient Arabia. Let’s forget about how much philosophy was conceived under feudalism.

        • viking@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m sure leaving reddit was a good idea, but joining lemmy might not have been. People here are just delusional in their approach to reality.

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      When it’s inevitably going to be a lot less than that, will you eat your words?

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        If it cost ten thousand dollars I’d throw an enormous party. That’s already a very small price for a cancer treatment.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Oh, what villains! Developing a cure for cancer and asking for ten thousand dollars for it!

      In terms of cancer treatment, do you have any idea how small ten thousand dollars is?

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The vaccine works by instructing the body to make up to 34 “neoantigens.” These are proteins found only on the cancer cells, and Moderna personalizes the vaccine for each recipient so that it carries instructions for the neoantigens on their cancer cells.

    That’s pretty dope

        • Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          But… But everyone having a right to medical care whether they’re rich or poor? Unthinkable! Think of the shareholders!

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I wonder if, even at this early stage of the therapy’s development, this would actually be more affordable than the alternative.

        Melanoma patients are highly likely to have the cancer come back and or metastasize. Repeat treatments and hospitalizations are not cheap.

        • Overzeetop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Which is why the Moderna vaccine will be priced at just 95% of the cost of the repeat treatments and hospitalization plus the value of the time saved and pain and suffering avoidance by the patient. Say, an extra half a million. I mean, what price would you put on avoiding seeing your parent or child subjected to round after round of chemotherapy?

          • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Depends on how much time was spent on R&D. You have to recover those costs. I know everyone wants everything for free but it takes a fuck ton of man hours and tons of investments to get to this point. You can’t just give it away unfortunately.

            • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Did they pay for their own R&D? Usually that get socialized and then the profits are privatized, it’s the American Way.

              • Cannonhead2@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I like to shit on big pharma as much as the next guy, but in this case, yes they do. Developing new drugs is a ludicrously risky and expensive venture, typically costing billions of dollars. Sometimes it may be subsidized somewhat, sure, but the vast majority of it is coming out of pocket for these companies.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              You actually can. The simplest way is to literally just give the research away and charge a fair price for the medicine. That’s allowed.

              The slightly more capitalist way would be to sell the rights to the government to recoup costs.

              The slightly less capitalist way is for the government to notify you that you don’t own it anymore because of the public good.

              This is also ignoring exactly how much the public already funds the basic research that goes into pharmaceuticals, which is quite a bit more than you might expect, so the argument of what’s even “fair” is less clearly in favor of the company than you might expect.

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                There’s a tricky balance.

                For every endeavor that could recoup its costs in a fairly reasonable way, there are several other attempts that end in failure.

                If you know that best case your project can be modestly better than break even, but it will most likely completely fail, would you invest in it?

                I could respect an argument for outright socializing pharmaceutical efforts and rolling the needs into taxes and cutting out the capitalist angle entirely, but so long as you rely on capitalist funding model in any significant amount, then you have to allow for some incentive. When the research is pretty much fully funded by public funds, that funding should come with strings attached, but here it seems the lead up was largely in capitalist territory.

  • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is amazing news for countries with free healthcare! Even though the vaccine is expensive, it’s nowhere as expensive as the care a cancer patient needs today.

    Plus you can send a healthy individual back to their families and into society again.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Here’s the thing: we’re not getting many people to the natural limits of the human body’s age much less working out ways to go past that.

      Jeanne Louise Calment was 122 when she died. There’s a hypothesis that she switched identities with her mother at some point, but most scientists who study aging don’t consider it credible. Many other supercentenarian claims don’t hold up; they often come from places that had bad record keeping a century ago, and they just forget how many birthdays they’ve had. 115 seems the typical limit for most people, but even that might have very few legit claims.

      There are so few people who make it that far that they’re basically rounding error even when including incorrect claims. Monaco has the highest average life expectancy at 87. We should be able to add almost 30 more years to that before we even talk about extraordinary youth serums.

      Better cancer treatments will be part of getting us there, but far from the only factor.

      • xor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        telomeres are cells’ biological clock… they get shorter with each division, and is the general cause of your body breaking down, round the 80’s.
        telomerase and other chemicals can reset those telomeres, but also cause the body’s existing precancerous cells to go malignant. (telomeres also limit cancer cell growth, and creating telomerase is one of the mutations required for full on cancer)
        so, if we can regrow cells telomeres without causing cancer… we have a youth serum.
        but there’s already other telomerase gene therapy in development anyways…

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          and is the general cause of your body breaking down

          This is the step where a heavy [citation needed] comes along. There are a lot of complex processes involved in aging, we have no idea if simply “make the telomeres longer!” is going to solve all of that. Frankly it seems unlikely that that’s all there is to it.

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m an optimist when it comes to longevity research. I think aging is a problem that will eventually be solved. But there’s not going to be just one “cure for aging”, there’s a lot of things that go wrong over time and we’re probably going to have to find ways to fix each of them as they come along.

  • Drusas@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The article doesn’t go into much in the way of details, so I can’t begin to say how it might extend into the treatment of other cancers, but it does make it clear that this treatment is specifically for melanoma only. Which is great–it’s a deadly cancer. But without more information, we shouldn’t get too excited about this being able to treat other types of cancer.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I would be extremely surprised if this approach only worked for melanoma. I expect this is just the first cancer type they’ve tried applying it to. Some excitement is warranted here, IMO.