Viruses and DRACOs in the Valley of Death in medical research.
post by morganism · 2016-10-08T20:36:12.394Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 9 commentsThis is a link post for https://www.inverse.com/article/16784-meet-todd-rider-the-man-who-maybe-probably-cured-most-of-the-viruses-on-earth
9 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by ChristianKl · 2016-10-08T20:59:58.560Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think we discussed this previously on LW. In general the argument isn't convincing in his case.
Gilead made 20$ billion with a drug that cures one virus. If a pharma company would think that his approach has a 10% of working to cure all viruses spending 100$ million or more would be very interesting for traditional pharma companies under the current incentive scheme.
Replies from: morganism↑ comment by morganism · 2016-10-08T23:47:44.744Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Someone did a article about creating a Kickstarter that actually issued shares in a company if they went over big.
If it was a tax deduction if it failed, but allowed for a gain, then it might be a way to do projects that were popular with people, but not attractive to Big Pharma or VC.
You could even have "Hackerspaces" that brought together teams just to do projects. If they included housing, it would be a great way to give postdocs some work, and some visibility while they wait to get into a static lab.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2016-10-09T13:22:16.953Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The problem is that the reason that his project was popular with people on Kickstarter was likely that he created the perception that the chances that his project will result in a working drugs is much higher than it is in reality.
If it was a tax deduction if it failed, but allowed for a gain, then it might be a way to do projects that were popular with people, but not attractive to Big Pharma or VC.
Big Pharma can make billions from this project if it works. Big Pharma also has a lot more expertise in judges the likelihood that it works than random people on Kickstarter.
If you take research on a new way to do exercise that inherently can't be patented then there can be a high chance that the research will create a lot of value but there's no business model to turn that value into money for the inventor. That's not the case with DRACO. Big Pharma is in a good position to assess whether it's a worthwhile investment of resources and put money into the project if they think it's a worthwhile investment.
Replies from: morganism↑ comment by morganism · 2016-10-09T19:37:02.263Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Actually, Big Pharma would LOSE billions if it works. There are only a few anti-virals, and none of them work well, and most need to be used in combinations.
This is also not a blue sky hunt, he has a mechanism, and just needs to fine tune the hydrogenation or delivery method.
from Wiki "DRACO is selective for virus-infected cells. Differentiation between infected and healthy cells is made primarily via the length and type of RNA transcription helices present within the cell. Most viruses produce long dsRNA helices during transcription and replication. In contrast, uninfected mammalian cells generally produce dsRNA helices of fewer than 24 base pairs during transcription. Cell death is effected via one of the last steps in the apoptosis pathway"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRACO
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2016-10-09T19:51:08.482Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Actually, Big Pharma would LOSE billions if it works. There are only a few anti-virals, and none of them work well, and most need to be used in combinations.
No. Gilead manages to charge it's 1000$ per pill for an antiviral. If Draco for all viruses works it could also be sold for a similar price for a bunch of conditions like AIDS.
You could argue say that Gilead isn't really Big Pharma but Biotech but it still shows that there are companies that have no problem with bringing cures to market. Gilead also makes a lot of money.
The company that would bring a working drug to market that cures drugs like AIDS would make a lot of money even if a few other companies might lose billions from it.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2016-10-11T00:14:40.529Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Worth noting that if I understand the mode of action of these proteins and have correctly read the tested dosages in the papers out thus far, a treatment would be more along the lines of the antibody immunotherapy infusions that people get for some types of cancer than a pill for a systemic effect, with localized versions like a nebulizer applied to things like a strong lung infection. And it's likely to cause a temporary inflammatory effect as lots of cells (including ones with no viral infection or latent viruses that everyone and I mean everyone has) blow up. You probably don't take this for a cold.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2016-10-11T12:55:09.922Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And it's likely to cause a temporary inflammatory effect as lots of cells (including ones with no viral infection or latent viruses that everyone and I mean everyone has) blow up.
Getting rid of all latent viruses might be a feature and not a bug.
comment by WhySpace_duplicate0.9261692129075527 · 2016-10-08T21:52:58.708Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Tangentially related: the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative pledged $3B to cure all disease within their child's lifetime.