• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 years 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
        33
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years 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?

    • CarrotBottom@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’ll be reasonably expensive, but sequencing and gene alteration is way cheaper than in needs to be.

      If this can actually cure cancers, it may even be worth it.

      The thing is, surely there’s antibody against cancer antigens anyway, in ordinary cancer. A cancer cell expresses epitopes not on healthy cells.

      Why is this better?

      • qarbone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        but sequencing and gene alteration is way cheaper than in[sic] needs to be.

        …what? this sounds like you’re advocating for price increases.

        • CarrotBottom@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 years ago

          Oops, new to Lemmy. But not new to typing, so no excuse.

          I meant than “it used to be”.

          I blame autocorrect.