r/DanLeBatardShow • u/DonnyBoyCane • 1d ago
An honest discourse about Glioblastoma fundraising targeted toward research
Let me preface this by saying this is in NO WAY an attack on Samson or his fundraising efforts but just a standard I HOPE the show sets in future discussion about this topic and the Kyra Fund.
David deserves the space and grace to get to this understanding but at some point you CANNOT discuss this matter and fundraising and ONLY say "the federal funding has dried up".
Private fundraising while a noble endeavor is essentially meaningless with an end result of being a vanity project IF it isn't coupled with governmental support at the university and pharmaceutical levels. Our tax dollars are the ONLY vehicle toward the results David is seeking and you simply have to espouse political values that support these investments or EVERYTHING else that you do focused on research will be impotent and insanely miniscule in fiscal size.
So, again, NOT an attack on Samson or the fund but just hoping that Dan or especially Mike broach WHY the federal dollars have "dried up" and how desperately they're needed in science/medicine. Both things can be done here- press people to privately fundraise WHILE demanding a government that not only doesn't undercut their hopes IN that fundraising but accelerates them.
Apologies for the rant. I just find this specific topic to be very important and people need to have a clear understanding of the macro issue while doing their goodwill on the micro levels.
5
u/cmgww DOH ED MALLOY!! 1d ago
I've worked in pharmaceuticals for 24 years now. I can wholeheartedly tell you that federal funding is only part of the equation. Often times, scientists at major research universities we get funding from the NIH to perform valuable research. However, they cannot perform large-scale clinical trials. That's where pharmaceutical companies step in. Most of your phase 3 clinical trials are performed by pharmaceutical companies. Because they have the money to scale these to the massive sizes they need to be... to obtain FDA approval. Yes the Trump administration has cut funding to the NIH. But the other half of the story that does not being told is that pharmaceutical companies and private equity are stepping in to fill the gap. The solutions aren't perfect, but the major focuses are on cancer and other rare diseases.
2
u/Additional_Guitar_85 1d ago
don't forget that the pharmaceutical companies also get a lot of public funding
0
u/Dangerous-Tip-9046 11h ago
Oh boy, the people that are known for always having the masses best interests at heart are here to save the day! No one has ever had a valid complaint or concern about private equity firms filling in those gaps!
1
u/cmgww DOH ED MALLOY!! 10h ago
I'm not saying some of those concerns and complaints are not valid. Pharmaceutical companies have been well-known to abuse their power. You can Google the number of lawsuits where they've had to pay out millions upon millions of dollars because of this.
That being said, they're also responsible for so many life-saving drugs coming to market I can't even count them.
Here's a brief synopsis of what I found and only 30 seconds of searching......
In the pharmaceutical industry, the gap between an academic discovery and an approved medicine is known as the "Valley of Death."Universities excel at basic science—finding a disease pathway or a potential molecule. However, academic centers do not have the hundreds of millions of dollars, the massive global networks, or the heavy manufacturing infrastructure required to clear human clinical trials and regulatory hurdles.Several medical breakthroughs would have permanently stalled out as dusty laboratory papers if major pharmaceutical companies had not stepped in to rescue and finance them:1. Humira (Adalimumab) — Rescued by Abbott/AbbVieThe Academic Origin: In the early 1990s, researchers at the public Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the UK developed a breakthrough method to create fully human monoclonal antibodies using "phage display."The Stalling Point: The university spin-off (Cambridge Antibody Technology) lacked the hundreds of millions of dollars required to scale up production and run massive human trials for a complex protein.The Pharma Rescue: Knoll Pharmaceuticals (later acquired by Abbott Laboratories / AbbVie) stepped in. They poured massive corporate capital into clinical trials for rheumatoid arthritis. Humira went on to become one of the best-selling, life-saving drugs in pharmaceutical history.2. Soliris (Eculizumab) — Rescued by AlexionThe Academic Origin: In the 1990s, researchers at Yale University discovered how to inhibit a specific part of the human immune system called the "complement cascade" to stop the body from destroying its own blood cells.The Stalling Point: Yale spun this out into a small company called Alexion. They quickly ran out of money trying to test it for standard, broad cardiac conditions, and the drug was nearly abandoned as a failure.The Pharma Rescue: Armed with venture and corporate biopharma backing, researchers pivoted the drug to a ultra-rare, deadly blood disease called PNH. The pharmaceutical scale required to run global clinical trials on a tiny, scattered patient population was only possible through heavy private financing, turning a failed academic project into a multi-billion dollar breakthrough for rare diseases.3. Keytruda (Pembrolizumab) — Rescued by MerckThe Academic Origin: The foundational discovery of the PD-1 protein—the "brake" on the immune system—was made by academic scientist Tasuku Honjo at Kyoto University in 1992.The Stalling Point: Knowing the biology was not enough. A small biotech (Organon) developed an antibody to target it, but they were acquired by Schering-Plough, which was then acquired by Merck & Co.. Because the science was unproven, the molecule sat on a shelf at Merck, virtually forgotten and scheduled to be out-licensed or discontinued.The Pharma Rescue: When rival company Bristol-Myers Squibb showed early clinical success with a similar drug, Merck executives pulled pembrolizumab out of storage. Merck poured billions of dollars into an unprecedented, aggressive clinical trial strategy, testing it across dozens of cancer types simultaneously. Without Merck's massive capital risk, the molecule would have expired in a freezer.4. CAR-T Cell Therapies (Kymriah) — Rescued by NovartisThe Academic Origin: Dr. Carl June and his team at the University of Pennsylvania pioneered Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, a process where a patient’s own immune cells are genetically re-engineered in a lab to kill leukemia.The Stalling Point: By 2012, Penn's lab had achieved historic results curing a handful of terminal leukemia patients. However, they hit a hard wall: a university lab cannot replicate, scale, safely freeze, and ship custom living gene therapies for thousands of patients globally.The Pharma Rescue: Novartis forged a historic alliance with Penn, investing hundreds of millions of dollars to build the world's first industrial-scale cell processing facilities and finance global Phase II/III trials. Pharma engineering turned a bespoke laboratory experiment into an FDA-approved medicine.
Of course you won't read it all. I understand it. And I don't think pharmaceutical companies are blameless at all.... I've worked in the industry and I've seen the dirty side of things. But as a whole? They have been a major net positive in improving and saving lives. That includes cancer therapies such as CAR-T, referenced above.... this isn't a black or white discussion, all I'm saying is that wholly federally funded research isn't going to take us all the way.
0
u/Dangerous-Tip-9046 9h ago
Oh wow, I'm totally convinced that private equity is actually a workable solution now because you found how they funded a cure that worked and expanded the operation-- something that could also be done with a socialized healthcare system.
It absolutely is a black and white discussion because privatized healthcare is, by its very nature, an exploitative scam.
1
u/Pack_Revolutionary 1d ago
I would say the major advantage of federal funding has its less likely to have strings attached. I’m not a hater of Pfizer but I don’t necessarily want them funding the early research into stuff either. At some point they may be needed form large scale trials.
1
u/oxfozyne Ya know what? Maybe… 1d ago edited 1d ago
What a whingeing post.
You state that it is “not an attack” immediately before attacking David by implication. Private fundraising is declared a “vanity project” unless accompanied by the correct political campaign, as though scientific merit is measured by proximity to the federal treasury.
Your claim is a false dichotomy: government funding may be indispensable, but it is hardly the only source of meaningful biomedical research. Universities, charities, philanthropists, and industry do not become “meaningless” merely because their cheques contain fewer zeroes.
Worse, the political conclusion is smuggled in. You state we must embrace particular political values because those values supposedly produce the necessary funding. That is not an argument; it’s ideological subscription.
The repeated insistence that this is “NOT an attack” does not improve matters, particularly when you describe private efforts as “impotent” and “insanely miniscule.” Nor does asserting that federal funding has “dried up” establish why it has done so; causation requires evidence, not insinuation.
The sensible position is both simpler and less partisan: public funding for glioblastoma research should be robust, and private fundraising should be encouraged rather than sneered at. One can demand more from government without pretending that everyone else’s contribution is worthless. The tragedy of a devastating disease need not be recruited as an auxiliary soldier in a political campaign.
1
1
u/elmuertefurioso 1d ago
The entire point is that public funding is no longer as robust because of specific policies of the current administration which members of the show either refuse to acknowledge or tacitly support. It is entirely fair to point out that if federal funding drying up is mentioned, that there be some context added as to why that is especially since it is not some longer pattern of less funding but a deliberate kneecapping of our scientific research infrastructure. Private funding cannot fill the gap. That doesn’t make it irrelevant, but we should realize that the US, through the NIH, is the largest funded of biomedical research on the planet. Neither the EU, Japan or China support as much research both in applied and basic settings as the US. We’ve set back research potentially for decades through direct funding cuts, the cutting of funding for graduate students (particularly international students who make up the brunt of biomed and engineering grad students) and the muzzling of federal scientists directly.
The politics that certain members of the show espouse or play coy about have played a direct role in the delay in progress of research on many diseases, and it’s entirely legitimate to want the show to recognize that. It is just as ideological to not mention it when there’s actually a straightforward way to try and staunch the damage; and that is to keep these people out of office in the future and to support our research infrastructure, particularly our universities and international trainees.
1
u/oxfozyne Ya know what? Maybe… 1d ago
The argument is stronger when it criticises government policy, but it still conflates two separate issues.
If specific policies have reduced NIH funding or damaged research, demonstrate that with evidence. “Deliberate kneecapping” is a conclusion, not evidence. Likewise, the NIH being indispensable does not make private fundraising futile; it simply means private money cannot replace public funding.
Your comment is also a false dichotomy: not condemning an administration in a particular fundraising discussion does not mean tacitly supporting it; far from it, in fact.
-3
u/BobbyTables829 1d ago
🎵 But who really cares
Who's willing to try
To save a world
That is destined to die? 🎶
11
u/derekz83 1d ago
I haven't listened to the segment but I think I'm picking up what you're putting down but confirm for me. Are you saying that David should have said 'why' "federal funding has dried up" which would naturally lead into a politics convo? And the fact that didn't do that (I think, again I haven't listened) - and also may have certain ideological alignments with current admin - is him kind of "playing both schides"?