Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As with anything pharmaceutical - they still need to make sure it doesn't have long term side effects. As horrible as it is to prevent treatment and prolong suffering, it would be more horrible if thousands of people suffer from unknown side effects if they would have recovered without it.


My takeaway that this drug was for folks that are literally on their “last leg”. I don’t think potential aide effects are going to deter such a patient, at least it wouldn’t deter myself.

It’s tough to worry about a future when you don’t have one.


Only for now, because it isn't approved. If it is approved and doesn't have too many effects it should be much much more effective early on.


So you advocate to not use any new molecule until we have studied the effects over 5-10 years?


I advocate clinical trials and giving it to those would surely die without it. Which is what the FDA prescribes, and what Gilead is doing.

Nobody said the studies should take 5-10 years. Obviously this should be weighted against the urgency.


False dichotomy much? This is a nuanced issue, and the parent comment didn't suggest this at all.


Well, how do you know the long term effects if you don't study the effects over a long period?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: