505
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] wheresmypillow@lemmy.one 23 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Neuraxis@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] unused_nerons@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago

You speak like someone whose never had to buy insulin before.

[-] sznowicki@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago

Which is cheap or free in literally everywhere except the country of free. It’s US problem, not industry.

[-] myrmidex@slrpnk.net 8 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] shottymcb@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago

I live in the US, my wife couldn't find test strips for over a week.

[-] hackitfast@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] w00tabaga@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] skillissuer@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

it doesn't look very advanced or hard to make honestly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOH1996

[-] wintersummerland@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago

What is the indicator in the article that the compound is trivial to produce?

[-] skillissuer@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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

[-] skillissuer@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] unused_nerons@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

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?

[-] Erk@cdda.social 7 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] osarusan@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

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!

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
505 points (97.6% liked)

World News

37341 readers
2507 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS