President Joe Biden appointed biomedical scientist Dr. Renee Wegrzyn to lead the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health during a speech on his Cancer Moonshot Initiative in Boston yesterday. The initiative aims to cut the cancer death rate in half over the next 25 years.
Cancer Moonshot Initiative - Advanced Prostate...
Cancer Moonshot Initiative
Written by
Scout4answers
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.
63 Replies
•
LoL
Since the time frame stated is 25 years, unlikely to help any current CPa patients.
I applaud the individual scientists that get funding for a worthy project. As you know I am a believer that a cure or a way to create permanent remission ie: lack of progression to CRPC will be found in the next 5-10 years and very hopeful it is found sooner.
I welcome what ever help the Gov. provides but my faith in the private sector where there is a profit motive to find a cure is the greatest, is where I think the cure will come from.
I do think that the private sector is more interested in the profitability of treatments rather than cures. Typically, long term treatment is where the real revenue streams are. That said, I hope I am completely wrong about that but I don’t think so.
Good luck getting the government to solve anything. I thought Obamacare was the answer to our insurance issues, lol.
Obamacare was not the answer to medical inflation, but previously uninsurable folks were able to have insurance, as well as millions who simply couldn't afford coverage. I'm unsure of all the funding for the program, but I believe some of the needed funding came from higher premiums for those who had been insurable( no pre-existing conditions) pre-ACA...for those folks, premiums were likely higher post-ACA, to compensate for now insuring the previously uninsurable folks.
Obamacare allowed many folks under 65 with pre-existing conditions to retire before qualifying for Medicare. A multi-faceted program.
I'm guessing that this new agency will collaborate with private businesses.....perhaps encourage less haphazard research and focus the research in certain areas.
Looking at PCa studies, there seems to be lots of redundancy and not enough guidance to better use research $$ !! Just IMHO !!
I would say the goal to reduce death by 50% in 25 years is a far more difficult challenge than the moonshot!!!
Well insurance costs were supposed to go down, and we were all supposed to see a $2500 reduction in our costs, yea right. No one can convince me that once the government gets involved that things will get better. Let the free market sell insurance across state lines and keep politicians hands off.
in reply to bglendi53
Medicare works great and it is run by the government.
bglendi53 in reply to
Youre kidding right? Medicare is involved in price fixing, which makes non-medicare patients prices go up
For my entire life, insurance has been regulated....in some states more favorably for consumers than in other states. Licensed agent for 30 years. I have no idea why anyone would have expected premiums to be reduced by $2500? I certainly didn't !! Free mrket = millions more without coverage. See most other developed countries with government rules and universal coverage.
I'm only repeating what Obama told us, typical politician gaslighting.
really he said evrone would save $2500 on premiums annually?
I guess gaslighting is lying? If so, pols from both sides??? or just those you vote against?
I can't stand either side, but if you want to make it political theres plenty of proof out there if you want to look.
The government is the way we have of solving problems we can't solve as individuals. It can work very well. The major cause of increased life expectancy over the past 150 years was the building of water and sewage treatment infrastructure. The interstates, ports and airports, the electrical grid, interstate highways were all taxpayer funded government projects. The internet was an idea whose initial build out was a government project begun in the 60's. Our world class state university systems are government projects. NIH is the leader in funding basic research in biology and medicine. Pubmed is a government project. These all work because of talent and dedication of all of the individuals working together toward a common end. Obama care was a start- in medical coverage, less emphasis on profits for a few and more on taking care of each other in the best way possible please.
Holy cow, you just praised some of the most corrupt institutions we have, especially the "world class state university systems"
U Illinois was top notch for many grads.
Thats hardly a majority, universities chraging outrageous tuitions while have billions in endowments is immoral
Endowments pay most tuition at Harvard...correct me if your research shows otherwise.
well Harvard had 40 Billion in endowments in 2020
Water treatment, sewage systems, airports, NIH, Pubmed are some of the most corrupt institutions we have? Do you mean that the professors and administrators at the major state universities are corrupt individuals or do you refer to how they are funded? Because if you're talking about funding, I agree with you. We should go back to how it was when I was a student. Higher education was seen as a public good. We need an educated populace. It's what Jefferson thought when he founded the University of Virginia in 1819, it's what most of us thought when the GI bill was passed in the early 1940's. State colleges and universities were mostly funded by direct taxpayer subsidies until the 1980's. The idea that the private sector could do it cheaper and better resulted in the student loan system we now have. It doesn't work very well, unless of course you are a banker.
Best way to cut the death rate is simply to detect more cases earlier, as they've done with PCa.
of course, not all organs can just be removed or decapitated with radiation....most are not disposable!!!
To cut the death rate from cancer in half during the next 25 years does not necessarily mean finding cures. It may be more about finding and eliminating causes. If we can reduce the number of cases, then we can expect the number of deaths from cancer to fall as well. In addition, we need to apply cures with open minds, not guided by profit, but by results. Maybe we can lower numbers of cases by eliminating things from our diets and experiences, rather than by adding curative drugs and substances. Eliminating or reducing meat, asbestos, smoking, agent orange, weedkillers, BPA, radiation, increased vitamin D, and other similar actions are known to reduce cancer risk. So that is a matter of government regulation and personal choice. No doubt, we have already made progress, but we need to advance our efforts.
When politicians want to put price controls on pharmaceuticals, expect R&D and potential cures to be far less important to those companies.
Scout,? Thanks. Is it a dream? Like a serious Bear Mkt, it is darkest before dawn. We (as in Us) really don’t need a cure. We need an extended remission. I believe that is closer than we think.
Our son, age 32 yday, reminded me again, that …Dad, it is hard to calculate how fast technology is accelerating everything (think CRISPR). What used to take 10yrs happens in a month. Time May be accelerating for us, but Medical Technology even faster Mike
This lady has a very "interesting" biography to be heading up a project to reduce cancer deaths. Something is not adding up here.
Perhaps you should add up her political donations???
Hey Scout,
Been done once before --fifty-one years ago. I'm still waiting.
________________________________________________________________________
Milestone (1971): President Nixon declares war on cancer
dtp.cancer.gov/timeline/nof...
________________________________________________________________________
An excerpt:
In 1970, the American people made clear their desire for a cure for the second-leading cause of death in the United States. President Nixon responded during his January 1971 State of the Union address: "I will also ask for an appropriation of an extra $100 million to launch an intensive campaign to find a cure for cancer, and I will ask later for whatever additional funds can effectively be used. The time has come in America when the same kind of concentrated effort that split the atom and took man to the moon should be turned toward conquering this dread disease. Let us make a total national commitment to achieve this goal."
In the last fifty-one years many mice and beagles have died--probably simians too---however--the war on cancer has been said to be a success --of sorts--especially for those who haven't had or don't have cancer.
Another excerpt:
The National Cancer Act (P.L. 92–218), "The War on Cancer," gave the NCI unique autonomy at NIH with special budgetary authority. The Cancer Chemotherapy National Service Center (CCNSC) increased its efforts to acquire new compounds for testing with the awarding of an acquisition and inventory contract responsible for the collection and documentation of test agents.
And another:
According to Vincent DeVita, M.D., director of NCI from 1980–1988, the War on Cancer “…did everything it was supposed to do. It supported basic research handsomely. It set up application programs—the EORTC [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer] and U.S. clinical trials programs. The incidence of cancer in this country started dropping in 1990 and has continued to drop every year since, and so has mortality. And the morbidity from cancer, comparing 1971 to 2005, is like night and day….So, every benchmark of the mandate has been hit.”
Currumpaw
Every once in a while they need to act like they care, believe none of it
So, every benchmark of the mandate has been hit.”
The real question is how much of that would have happened without Govt. involved. causation or association?
Without an RCT we will never know!
Hey Scout,
I replied before with the below--it didn't go through--oh well! Try, try and try again!
DeVita--"every benchmark of the mandate has been hit.”
This was the goal--below--not benchmarks.
"a cure for the second-leading cause of death in the United States. President Nixon responded during his January 1971 State of the Union address: "I will also ask for an appropriation of an extra $100 million to launch an intensive campaign to find a cure for cancer"
Currumpaw
The VA's "Prostate Cancer Manhattan Project" has been going for around 17 years. So far many millions have been spent. The only progress has been 'yet another chemical castration agent'. I agree that progress isn't likely to come from government.
FYI, there was a similar effort launched in January 2016 headed by then Vice President Biden with less funding. Not sure of the results especially as it relates to PCa.
aacr.org/professionals/poli...
Hey GARunner,
Snopes has the nitty gritty. Everything between the lines--
_________________________________________________________________
Did Biden’s Cancer Charity Spend Millions on Salaries …
snopes.com/fact-check/biden...
__________________________________________________________________
Ahh well!
Currumpaw
Government funding of education, in the form of loan guarantees and now loan forgiveness, has raised the cost of tuition at a rate far exceeding inflation.
maley2711 in reply to
Ok.....we are just seeing here how the politics breaks down among the participants here...obviously no one will change anyone else's mind....fortunately, there is a large middle in this country not sold on the extremes of either side.
in reply to maley2711
I'm just glad I went to college before the government decided to be so helpful. I was just stating the facts. Nothing at all extreme about what I said. Just the new reality facing parents trying to figure out how to fund their kids' college education.
maley2711 in reply to
your " facts "sounded of a certain political persuasion, and comments from others osunded of a different political persuasion....but maybe you'd surprise me ?
I guess I went to UI when government was much more involved....tuition just $270 thanks to state government subsidies....as someone else mentioned, a decent summer job would pay a substantial part of my entire cost..tuition and room and board...at least 50%, and middle class parents helped with rest. I don't know ...is that possible today? Maybe I could earn $10k with a decent summer job, and middle class(NOT upper middle class) parents handle the other $10k without borrowing???
Government didn't become evil until a certain 1980s Prez?
Hope it’s more effective than the Covid vaccine.
If not it’s still a very nice government works program.
My point was that the big infrastructure projects were not built by the private sector. The expense of building and maintaining of such would not produce a profit for investors that would match the risk. The Flint, Michigan problem is one of aging water infrastructure. The new conservative state government thought they could reduce expenses in Detroit by cutting Flint off from the Detroit system and draw water directly from the river. They didn't have a proper treatment plant in place and the water ph was low, it began leaching toxic levels of lead from the old pipes. Just as when these original systems were built, it won't be the private sector that rebuilds them.
While it's true that many of the most exclusive universities are private- Harvard has been referred to as hedge fund with a small university attached. The flagship universities of state systems are also among the best in the world. When most of us went to college, it was prior to 1980. Most state schools covered 75% of tuition with state and federal money with 25% being tuition. A student could pay for tuition with a part time job. Now those numbers are reversed. The idea of funding higher education through government backed student loans was a creation of the early 1980's. Basically a stream of federal money flows through private banks who charge relatively high interest on loans which for them, hold almost 0 risk. It's was effort to privatize education funding that has had, as you point out, disastrous results. Not because of the government involvement, but because of turning over what should be a public effort, to the private sector.
One last point, highways, the largest airports, the largest ports are all run and maintained by state and municipal governments.
facts????
Way too many responses that are off-topic. We are not on Twitter (or Truth Social) here.
imagine those Elite surving on their own
I think they can cut prostate cancer deaths in half right now by doing business differently.
When i look at their protocols (guidelines for patient treatment pathways) it does not appear to be set up to save maximum mens lives. It appears to be set up to make fat juicy customers.
please provide your life-saving protocols???
We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. Just one more example, prefer to keep my medicare rather than switch to a private medicare advantage plan. Medicare operates with a 3% overhead, while for private medicare advantage it runs about 25-30%. They make up the difference by denial of care and lack of coverage.
Kaiser doesn't operate on 25-30% overhead.....neither does Providence plan.here. where did you find your "facts"? Nothing is without pros/cons...whether standard Medicare/Advantage plans...or almost anything else in life.But maybe some view things as black and white?
I know that Kaiser, and it is a large presence in the insurance market in the 7 states where it operates, is a non profit, so perhaps it's margins are different. Providence was paying its' CEO somewhere north of $10,000,000. The largest health insurance company by revenue is United Health Group, a $400 billion company. They are in business to earn a profit and make money they do. A few years ago their CEO was pulling down $30,000,000 a year. The way Medicare Advantage works is the government provides companies a set amount yearly for each subscriber. One figure I've read is that it's about $20,000. The insurance company makes the most money then by retaining as much of the $20,000 as possible. Regular Medicare simply pays the bill. There are bad actors who are routinely rejecting 1 out of 3 claims for service. As I see it there are 2 major problems with a for profit health insurance model. The first is the financial incentive for the company to deny service. The second is related to the first, healthcare decisions are taken out of the hands of physicians and patients and at least in part, made in terms of how much money will be coming to the entity making the decision. One might think that this would translate into rational financial discipline in delivering health care. In fact it does not. It's well known that our system costs us about twice as much as that of other developed countries having equal or better outcomes.
To generate a profit for investors, pay salaries and other forms of compensation, advertise, administer claims, 30% for overhead is one estimate that I've read and it doesn't seem outlandish.
You can do your own actual research and not rely on 2nd hand reports...simply check United's annaul report...the numbers are there in the annual income statement. You surely don't think an all-government system( Britain) has no limits? Ask some of the British men who contribute here! I believe ACA enacted something like a 15% overhead rule...you can check that? I have essentailly been in Advantage -like program with Kaiser for 25 years...my wife works there. The primary limitation is being able to see non-Kaiser Docs...only in a very limited number of situations.....also Kaiser didn't have the special equipment required for fusion biopsy..had to appeal to be approved for biopsy at local med school clinic.
Their CEOs , etc are also paid very well.
Also, Advantage plans are mandated to cover anything that traditional Medicare covers. The main gripe is basically limitation on Doc selection...though in some plans out-of network coverage available but for higher out-of-pocket. Many men here have spoken highly of United coverage.
That's great that you have an advantage plan that works well for you. The 15 or 20 % rule is based on a calculation called a Medical Loss Ratio introduced with the ACA. Check out this article regarding ways large integrated health insurance providers owning hospitals, pharmacies, etc. legally get around MLRs. healthpayerintelligence.com.... Whether it's 15 or 20 is based on company size. Early on some states and companies received waivers. I think those have been phased out. It sounds like with your wife working for Kaiser, you live in medically well served area.
I read a lot and have a friend who guides people on what medicare options are available when turning 65, he's been doing this professionally for 20 years. So in the sense of gaining information from reading and from conversation my sources are secondhand. My understanding is that an advantage plan can seem like a good idea because of low premiums, but if you happen to get sick and live in a rural area without many medical choices, allowed networks can be a real limitation to care. And if I'm running an advantage plan network I would preferentially try to set up and serve areas where I can make the most profit.
Another problem that can come up is that while advantage plans are required to cover whatever medicare covers, they are allowed to determine the meaning of what constitutes a "medically necessary procedure". They may deny coverage. While Kaiser may not do this often, some advantage plans regularly do deny 1 out of 3. This can be a burden both for doctors and patients. A difficulty for consumers of all kinds is that the neither the government nor the industry provides transparency on these kinds of behaviors.
no one would argue that any system is without problems.....and I have many gripes re Kaiser.....but no assurance I'd be more satisfied outside Kaiser. I am certainly not arguing the superiority of any system...and I doubt any other human has that answer...many speak as though they do. No one should be denied needed care based on ability to pay...that I do believe!! Especially when , as pointed out here(by you?) , CEOs take home such huge sums of $$ !!
wow, that's an interesting simplification ??
Well, it will be a challenge, but I will try and do my part by staying alive for another 25 years. That will make me 97. Difficult but not completely impossible. That’s 25 X 365 days, 9125 small steps for Man,. One giant leap indeed!
Disappointed to hear that you are not at least planning to attend my 105th in 31 years.
I will save you a seat anyway Paul, as the exponential growth of the conversion of science and technology is going to change our futures in ways we can not yet imagine.
There is always hope?
I have a medigap part G plan. The boomerbenefits explanation of the difference between advantage and medigap plans is a reasonable one. I would say that the advantage plans would not be a great choice for most with cancer, costs will be higher and there is a chance that procedures ordered by a physician could be denied. If your choice was for the lower to no monthly payment and you are diagnosed with a serious disease, it might be a rude awakening when you discover that in switching back to real medicare from a private advantage plan you'll be subject to underwriting. Instead of the $140 I pay, it could be many times this, even denial.
As for the stat opinion piece, a commenter made this referral, shpnc.org/what-the-health/n.... This is an article dealing with the enormous profit hospitals in North Carolina were making on the pandemic, while refusing to increase staffing levels. Similarly, Providence maintains a fund of over a billion and also failed to increase staffing proportional to the needs during the worst of Covid. Most hospitals in the US are now for profit and they will pursue that regardless of health outcomes for patients or working conditions for staff. Also worth noting that authors of that opinion piece are associated with insurance industry.
Also- Happy to hear that your father has few healthcare problems at 91! Fantastic.
Yeah it is a lot of coin. How do we cover hospital care for everyone? The hospital in the article was an example of a dedicated staff delivering above average outcomes despite under funding in a poor inner city. Freedman said many things, in the end his hedge fund's involvement turned it into a real estate deal. I would like to hear what his plan would be. Private insurance patients are higher paying, but weren't going to be a fix in this particular case. The author points out, paying for healthcare through private insurance was the result of giving tax breaks to companies for providing health insurance to employees. As the nature of employment has changed and medical care has gotten more complex, effective and expensive, we've become chronically under insured. Income for most hit a plateau in the mid 80's. ACA provides partial solutions making premiums for the self employed more affordable, but with high deductibles that are probably unrealistic when most Americans don't have $800 in savings. A thorny problem.
The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
HDR Brachytherapy after initial RT
2-3 years after initial Radiation of the prostate gland in case of recurrence of cancer? Thank you...
First diagnosis includes cancer in bones.
lived when the initial, very first diagnosis of prostate cancer already showed cancer in the bones...
Radiation 10+ years after initial imrt
Psma detected a small area of cancer in what is left of my prostate…..psa of 20 at that time....
Low PSA at initial Diagnosis
metastasic Prostate Cancer Diagnosis shows that it is a so agressive prostate cancer.
Father was...
Dumb Question about rising PSA after initial RT.
BAT initiated - PSMA/FDG scans negative
PSA rise from initial Pluvicto treatment
