Discussion on cancer research drugs (Split from Rob Steward Court Case Thread)

[WetRocks]

He was talking about the fact that most cancer treatments, sometimes costing many, many, many thousands of dollars, are designed to add months to the patient's life.

I would have happily taken just a few more months with my Mom who passed away from Ovarian Cancer just 27 months after diagnosis...

 

[boulderjohn]

I would have happily taken just a few more months with my Mom who passed away from Ovarian Cancer just 27 months after diagnosis...

Does that mean you would prefer that to a cure or to a preventative treatment?

 

[drrich2]

He recently confessed to an ethical problem he has with their work. They focus on treatment that will extend the life and comfort of someone who has cancer. They do not focus on either prevention or a cure, and he said that is true throughout the industry.

I'm curious as to what 'prevention' he thought they should be researching. Avoid smoking, stay fit rather than obese, some dietary modifications, there are quite a number of things people can do to reduce cancer risk. And the health care system does provide some preventive care; pap smears, mammograms, etc...

Granted, if you're a private business, you invest in what you can reasonably hope to generate a return on.

Richard.

 

[Steve_C]

I'm curious as to what 'prevention' he thought they should be researching. Avoid smoking, stay fit rather than obese, some dietary modifications, there are quite a number of things people can do to reduce cancer risk. And the health care system does provide some preventive care; pap smears, mammograms, etc...

Granted, if you're a private business, you invest in what you can reasonably hope to generate a return on.

Richard.

I believe many medications are a boon and businesses need to make a profit. However, within the business, as noted above, there is a considerable amount of trying to get more money at the detriment to the patient.

 

[boulderjohn]

I'm curious as to what 'prevention' he thought they should be researching. Avoid smoking, stay fit rather than obese, some dietary modifications, there are quite a number of things people can do to reduce cancer risk. .

Several cancer vaccines have been developed.

 

[KevinNM]

It depends upon what you mean by "respond to those treatments well." I had a colleague who was cander free for many years after breast cancer. In that case, responding well means something like a cure. He was talking about the fact that most cancer treatments, sometimes costing many, many, many thousands of dollars, are designed to add months to the patient's life.

That’s the best you can do. Do you really think that a researcher who had an actual cure would not publish it? You don’t get a noble prize for a $10,000 bonus. Not to mention that you can get wealthy beyond your wildest dreams of avarice if you can find somone defrauding the government for billions a year, as you get 15%.

 

[drrich2]

If people think drug companies are 'sitting on the cure for cancer,' or could readily find it, one comforting thought...drug company decision-makers and their loved ones have all got to die of something. Cancer is high on the list of 'somethings' that could be.

Richard.

 

[boulderjohn]

That’s the best you can do. Do you really think that a researcher who had an actual cure would not publish it? You don’t get a noble prize for a $10,000 bonus. Not to mention that you can get wealthy beyond your wildest dreams of avarice if you can find somone defrauding the government for billions a year, as you get 15%.

You missed the point. This person, an executive in the firm, explained that the firm works on the projects it does for the reason I stated. People aren't working on cancer in their garages the way Ford worked on his car. They are working on whatever their employer tells them to work on , and they aren't working on cures because working on simple life extension activities are more profitable and will not lead to the company's demise of they are successful. No one in the firm is working on the cure for cancer, so they don't have the option of publishing it or not publishing it.

 

[gcarter]

And the health care system does provide some preventive care; pap smears, mammograms, etc...

Those things are detective, not preventative. From what I have read, no cites at hand, the current view is that although early detection can change the outcomes for some types of cancer, for others there is no significant change. Mammograms are falling out of favour. As is PSA testing for men. Pap smears are far from definitive.

 

[drrich2]

They are working on whatever their employer tells them to work on , and they aren't working on cures because working on simple life extension activities are more profitable and will not lead to the company's demise of they are successful.

Is it reasonably possible they've estimated the odds of success at pursuing some hypothetical 'cure,' vs. building on the current knowledgeable on fighting given types, and concluded the odds not just of profit but even success are much greater with the latter?

I'm curious about the vaccine angle. With vaccines against infectious disease, the usual approach is to exposure healthy people to a killed or inactivated version of a germ so the immune system can build a defense against it. Diseases prone to seriously injure or kill before that happens can sometimes be thwarted by giving the immune system a 'jump' on the disease. It's been a long time since I had cause to read about it, but IIRC, the HIV virus changes its surface, effectively keeping the body from getting a lasting handle on it. And the malaria organism can 'hide out' inside red blood cells. My point is, there are odd ball exceptions whereby infectious agents can cause chronic illness (tertiary syphilis comes to mind), but's the mainstream reality.

Cancer is composed of your own cells, and even fast-growing tumors take long enough to kill that the immune system should have time to develop a defense. There is a vaccine against human papilloma virus, a risk factor for cervical cancer.

You got me curious enough for some quick Googling; a page at Cancer.Net (disclaimer: I'm not familiar with it) has a page on the subject. It indicates researchers are exploring the matter.

Even if they produce an FDA-approved 'cancer vaccine,' I doubt it'll end any more of cancer. Be mindful flu shots are only effective against some strains, for example. So while a cancer vaccine might cut down risk (no small thing if we're talking lung cancer prevention in smokers, or people with high risk for hereditary cancers), it's not likely to end a disease. It's more more avenue to reduce occurrence, slow progression & maybe even occasionally cure somebody.

Mammograms are falling out of favour. As is PSA testing for men. Pap smears are far from definitive.

I see your point. Mine was those things are evidence that at least the health care industry is trying. As for pap smears, ideally you catch the dysfunction at a precancerous stage called cervical dysplasia, before it advanced to become carcinoma in situ and onward to be invasive (you're dredging up stuff from way back in my life).

Richard.