Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
Speaker 1: at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
Speaker 1: on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we
Speaker 2: look at buy American not just a slogan, but a rule,
Speaker 2: and there is concern now that that rule will make
Speaker 2: America less safe. We've heard all about targeted cancer drugs
Speaker 2: for years, but now it looks like they're finally starting
Speaker 2: to show results that are more substantial than just the hype.
Speaker 2: And we'll look at a call for the FDA to
Speaker 2: get to the root of hair straighteners. But first we
Speaker 2: begin with climate change and the debate over the science
Speaker 2: of climate change. Science provides a framework for understanding the world,
Speaker 2: but deciding how to shape policy based on that guidance
Speaker 2: can be a matter of interpretation. During climate negotiations at
Speaker 2: the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai, a controversial
Speaker 2: statement from Sultan Algebert, the oil executive who led the
Speaker 2: COP twenty eight climate summit in Dubai, has resurfaced about
Speaker 2: the limitations of science.
Speaker 3: And there is no science out there or no scenario
Speaker 3: out there that says that the phase out of fossil
Speaker 3: fuel is what's going to achieve one point five. One
Speaker 3: point five is my not start, and a face down
Speaker 3: and a face out of fosil fude, in my view,
Speaker 3: is inevitable.
Speaker 2: He defended his comments, saying they've been misinterpreted.
Speaker 4: I have said over and over that the phase down
Speaker 4: and the phase out of fossil fuel is inevitable. I
Speaker 4: honestly think that there is some confusion out there and
Speaker 4: misrepresentation and misinterpretation.
Speaker 2: Let's turn out a Bloomberg opinion columnist Lara Williams covers
Speaker 2: climate change, and she attended COP twenty eight. She can
Speaker 2: shine some light on all of this forest. Lara Algebra's
Speaker 2: comments are not wrong, they are true. So how much
Speaker 2: room for interpretation is there? Really?
Speaker 5: Every turn of carbon we put into the atmosphere ies
Speaker 5: there's there's less and less room for interpretation. As you know,
Speaker 5: our carbon budget for keeping warming temperatures under one point
Speaker 5: five degrees is being reduced every day. But the IPCC,
Speaker 5: so that is the inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
Speaker 5: They review all the science that's out there and they
Speaker 5: come up with the report that determines based on you know,
Speaker 5: strong certainty, medium certainty, low certainty. It basically sums up
Speaker 5: all the studies and science out there on climate change,
Speaker 5: and they have a number of pathways and scenarios compassible
Speaker 5: with limiting warming two one point five degrees and so
Speaker 5: some of them like rely on what would happen if
Speaker 5: we switch to renewables, what would happen if we relied
Speaker 5: more heavily on energy efficiency measures, what would happen if
Speaker 5: we rely on carbon capture technology. So the way that
Speaker 5: you know it's presented in IPCC reports does leave room
Speaker 5: for interpretation, which I guess, you know, people can you know,
Speaker 5: choose their pathway based on what kind of priorities they have,
Speaker 5: how confident they are in technology and the economics. But
Speaker 5: having said that, all scenarios campassable with limitsing warm and
Speaker 5: two one point five degree celsius above pre industrial temperatures,
Speaker 5: which is ideally what we want to do, does involve
Speaker 5: greatly reducing fossil fuel use to a fraction of what
Speaker 5: it is today.
Speaker 2: And that's basically the point behind your column, which is
Speaker 2: that the science is debatable but inescapable, which is how
Speaker 2: you put in your column. You know, so often if
Speaker 2: the science has proven correct, it's the fact there's not
Speaker 2: a lot of wiggle room. That's what it is, black
Speaker 2: and white. But that doesn't always seem to be the
Speaker 2: case when it comes to climate change. As you distillustrated,
Speaker 2: because there are so many different paths to get to
Speaker 2: the actual answer. Is that why this is so hard
Speaker 2: because we're in uncharted territory and there's so much debate
Speaker 2: about how to get from point A to point B.
Speaker 5: I think so, I think, you know, and obviously you've
Speaker 5: got to remember that everybody has their own entrenched interests,
Speaker 5: and so renewables are really cheap, and so they're a
Speaker 5: really good way to reduce fossil fuels, which is ultimately
Speaker 5: what we need to do and therefore stop global warming.
Speaker 5: But you know, some people made lots of money out
Speaker 5: of fossil fuels, and so they're obviously going to want
Speaker 5: to push a different agenda. And then some countries, you know,
Speaker 5: renewables aren't so cheap because the cost of capital is
Speaker 5: more expensive. So developing nations might feel that even though
Speaker 5: you know, they recognize that we shouldn't we need to
Speaker 5: phase out fossil fossil fuels as quickly as possible. You know,
Speaker 5: developed nations like the UK and the US have kind
Speaker 5: of really had the kind of former advantage and being
Speaker 5: able to develop by using fossil fuels, and therefore it
Speaker 5: might not be so fair or for them not to
Speaker 5: be able to do that. So it becomes, I guess
Speaker 5: a little bit more more competated when you're thinking about
Speaker 5: enabling the continuation of sustainable development.
Speaker 2: What was your takeaway when you heard the controversial statement
Speaker 2: from Saltan Algebrat.
Speaker 5: I well, I think that actually, you know, he's not
Speaker 5: technically rounded, not technically run, as Jim Steer, the head
Speaker 5: of the IPCC points out, but it's missing that crucial contacts,
Speaker 5: which is the there's no room for expansion of fossil fuels,
Speaker 5: which is what AD not, which is the Abidabbi National
Speaker 5: Oil Company, which algebra is the oil is the CEO
Speaker 5: of an oil company they want to pump more oil
Speaker 5: by twenty twenty seven. And you know, so his comments,
Speaker 5: while technically true, kind of miss out that that concept,
Speaker 5: which is there's there's no room for its mansion. We're
Speaker 5: gonna we barely need any fossil fuels by twenty fifteen,
Speaker 5: twenty one hundred if we follow a pathway compassible with
Speaker 5: one point five and so he was kind of missing
Speaker 5: out some ty facts.
Speaker 2: I also wondered if he also intended to include that
Speaker 2: they'd have to do more than just limit fossil fuels.
Speaker 2: It sort of almost sounded like there's no pathway for
Speaker 2: these fossil fuel limitations to get us to that goal,
Speaker 2: because it won't be enough, you know what I mean,
Speaker 2: Like it seemed like he was calling for to do
Speaker 2: more than just focus on fossil fuels.
Speaker 5: Yes, and that is that is a good point. We
Speaker 5: need to do more than just limit fossil fuels because
Speaker 5: the way we use our lands, the way we grow
Speaker 5: our foods, also contributes to global warming, and so that
Speaker 5: there needs to be a lot more action. And if
Speaker 5: we aren't going to phase out fossil fuels entirely, then
Speaker 5: we're going to have to ramp up carbin tapture technology,
Speaker 5: carbin removal technology, and so there is a lot of
Speaker 5: words to be done beyond just twitting the use of
Speaker 5: fossil fuels.
Speaker 2: We are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lara Williams about
Speaker 2: the science of climate change and if there's any room
Speaker 2: for interpretation. Laura. One of the points you make in
Speaker 2: your column on the Bloomberg Terminal is that the future
Speaker 2: role of fossil fuels is one of the most controversial
Speaker 2: issues that countries are grappling with at the Climate Summit.
Speaker 2: Some have been pushing for a phase out, others are
Speaker 2: calling for a weaker language of a phase down. Why
Speaker 2: is all of this so very hard to nail down?
Speaker 5: Well, because everybody has their different priorities and the I
Speaker 5: guess the problem with the with the top process is
Speaker 5: that everything has to be made by consensus, which means
Speaker 5: all the parties of the United Nations have to agree.
Speaker 5: And it's incredibly difficult to just you know, pick something
Speaker 5: and stick to it when there are different you know,
Speaker 5: they're at different levels of readiness, they have different economic abilities,
Speaker 5: they have you know, they make their money in different ways.
Speaker 5: It's you know, it'd be much easier for the UK
Speaker 5: now to switch entirely to renewables what a You're mean
Speaker 5: to do it by twenty thirty five than it is
Speaker 5: for you know, potentially a poorer country which doesn't have
Speaker 5: that capacity yet. And so that makes it difficult. And
Speaker 5: then you know, you also have those entrenched interests in
Speaker 5: some countries, like for example, Saudi Arabia, which will block
Speaker 5: you know, the use of quite definitive language. They want
Speaker 5: to leave as many options on the table as possible,
Speaker 5: and so that's what makes it hard to just you know,
Speaker 5: put a fossil fuel phase out on the table that
Speaker 5: there's always going to be, Oh, there has historically always
Speaker 5: been you know, some holdouts and people who don't want
Speaker 5: that to happen because they make a lot of money
Speaker 5: out of fossil fuels. It would mean completely changing the
Speaker 5: way that they make their money and run their economy,
Speaker 5: and they are, I guess understandably extremely hesitant, even though
Speaker 5: I say understandably in a way that I don't agree
Speaker 5: with it obviously.
Speaker 2: Well, you attended COP twenty eight. You were there. Did
Speaker 2: anything at the conference stand out for you or surprise you? Well?
Speaker 5: I think I was surprised. It's a very exciting place
Speaker 5: to be. There's a buzz you you know, everybody from
Speaker 5: all over the world, you know, every country is represented
Speaker 5: at top twenty eight, which was trying. I found it interesting.
Speaker 5: You know, so you have every lots of nations and
Speaker 5: NGOs have their pavilions where they you know, hold events
Speaker 5: and you know, highlight the kind of things that they're
Speaker 5: doing in their country or their group too, you know,
Speaker 5: on time at Action. And I found interesting is in
Speaker 5: one building, you know, you go in on the ground
Speaker 5: floor and OPEC has their pavilion and you walk up
Speaker 5: two flights of stairs and just above the OPEC pavilion
Speaker 5: is the Indigenous People's pavilion calling out, you know, for
Speaker 5: a complete phase out of fossil fuels. And so that
Speaker 5: was a really interesting kind of judgtaposition of you know,
Speaker 5: all all views were represented at.
Speaker 2: Prop Laura, thank you very much for your time today.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Laura Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist who covers climate change. Now,
Speaker 2: coming up, we'll look at the by American rules, especially
Speaker 2: when it comes to the military, and how some believe
Speaker 2: that could make the US less safe. You're listening to
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast counts Saturdays at
Speaker 1: one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. A little
Speaker 2: more than a year ago, President Biden laid out his
Speaker 2: economic vision for America, including a buy American provision to
Speaker 2: help invest in existing jobs, add more jobs, and secure
Speaker 2: the supply chain.
Speaker 6: We're going to invest in America again, We're going to
Speaker 6: make it in America again, and the federal government's going
Speaker 6: to buy American. That's been my economic vision.
Speaker 2: The buy American rules have long applied to the military's
Speaker 2: purchase of things like food and clothes and construction supplies,
Speaker 2: but now weapons manufacturers have some wide discretion to use
Speaker 2: materials from outside the US if they have to, if
Speaker 2: doing so is necessary for the country's defense. Well, now
Speaker 2: Congress is taking steps to rain all of that. In
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Opinion, editor Romes Retinassar is joining me now to
Speaker 2: sort of help shed some light on what's going on here. First, Romesh,
Speaker 2: thank you. And what does buy American mean? Really?
Speaker 6: Well, dating back to the Depression, the federal government has
Speaker 6: been required to source any goods that they purchase to
Speaker 6: domestic sources. So at the moment, fifty five percent of
Speaker 6: anything any goods that the federal government buys has to
Speaker 6: contain content made in the United States. The Biden administration
Speaker 6: has since coming into office tried to increase that threshold,
Speaker 6: so that number has now been bumped up to sixty percent,
Speaker 6: with an aim, at least according to the executive order
Speaker 6: that the administration put out, of getting to seventy five
Speaker 6: percent by twenty twenty nine.
Speaker 2: Now, in your column, you say that the White House
Speaker 2: and the protectionist forces in Congress, which is your terminology,
Speaker 2: they're taking steps to make it harder for the US
Speaker 2: to replenish its weapons stockpiles. Not that that's their intent,
Speaker 2: but that maybe the end result. My first question is,
Speaker 2: how are the White House and protectionists on the same
Speaker 2: page at all.
Speaker 6: Well, you know, the impulse behind a lot of this
Speaker 6: sort of push to buy American is this idea that
Speaker 6: what we've seen over the last several years is the
Speaker 6: vulnerability of the US supply chain and the fact that
Speaker 6: so many materials that we need that are critical to
Speaker 6: our new national security are made overseas, and because of
Speaker 6: that diffuse supply chain, we are vulnerable to shocks like
Speaker 6: the pandemic, but also potentially to you know, military conflicts
Speaker 6: with other countries, most notably China. So that's the kind
Speaker 6: of basis for this push. The problem is that the
Speaker 6: military needs access to technology and draws on technology from
Speaker 6: all over the world. And the fact is that the military,
Speaker 6: just like many other parts of our economy, has been
Speaker 6: using and trading with partners all over the world to
Speaker 6: make its weapon systems. And a lot of weapon systems
Speaker 6: that the military uses have components that are made in
Speaker 6: other parts of the world. And by increasing the threshold
Speaker 6: that the military has to meet when they buy these weapons,
Speaker 6: you're going to actually make it harder and more costly
Speaker 6: for the military to replenish its supplies when they run low,
Speaker 6: as they are running low right now. If you are
Speaker 6: telling the military you can no longer use a supplier
Speaker 6: that you have an arrangement with, that you have a
Speaker 6: contract with that you've negotiated a lower price with, I mean,
Speaker 6: or a defense contractor those companies are then going to
Speaker 6: have to find new suppliers. Maybe they're based in the US,
Speaker 6: but the costs of doing that are going to be higher.
Speaker 6: And the other factor that people don't take into account
Speaker 6: is a lot of the best stuff does come from overseas.
Speaker 6: The United States in many cases doesn't manufacture the best
Speaker 6: components for certain weapons systems, and the military has a
Speaker 6: reason to use components that are made over because they're
Speaker 6: better for they better protect the country security. So setting
Speaker 6: these requirements, while well intended, could have these consequences that
Speaker 6: could be actually quite negative for national security.
Speaker 2: And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion editor Roma is
Speaker 2: rednas are about the downside of buy American. Remember when
Speaker 2: we were kids, the idea of buy American became just
Speaker 2: really entrenched. How did it get so entrenched in how
Speaker 2: did it turn on us?
Speaker 6: Well, I think that there still are good reasons to
Speaker 6: buy American. There still are good reasons to try to
Speaker 6: find ways to make as much as we can domestically.
Speaker 6: I think that is, in the long run, the way
Speaker 6: you can insulate yourself from unexpected supply chain shocks and disruptions.
Speaker 6: I think the point is that if you talk to
Speaker 6: people both in the Pentagon and also in the defense industry,
Speaker 6: they would say, we're faced with an extraordinary challenge right now.
Speaker 6: We are trying to supply arms to Ukraine, now to Israel,
Speaker 6: while also dealing with the potential for escalating tensions with
Speaker 6: China and trying to make sure that Taiwan is adequately defended.
Speaker 6: There simply aren't enough resources domestically right now to meet
Speaker 6: those needs. And if you've basically tied the Pentagon's hands
Speaker 6: behind their back, you are going to make it harder,
Speaker 6: more expensive, and less likely that they can actually meet
Speaker 6: those national security needs and protect the country's security.
Speaker 2: What message does it send when those protectionist messages are
Speaker 2: tacked into the defense budget.
Speaker 6: Well, one of the biggest problems is the message it
Speaker 6: sends to our allies. I mean, one of the things
Speaker 6: that the military and the Pentagon has been trying to
Speaker 6: do is encourage and build more partnerships with allies and
Speaker 6: courage allies to take on a bigger role in defense production,
Speaker 6: knowing that we can't do it all ourselves. By imposing
Speaker 6: these kinds of rules, you're sort of discouraging allies from
Speaker 6: cooperating in the same way. And you could lead to
Speaker 6: some of our some countries we partner with very closely
Speaker 6: erecting their own restrictions on the weapons that we produce.
Speaker 6: And that's a again be counterproductive. You're going to hurt
Speaker 6: American industry, You're going to cost Americans jobs if that happens.
Speaker 6: So the message it sends is we're trying to protect
Speaker 6: our industries, You're going to encourage other countries to protect theirs,
Speaker 6: and that's incompatible with a really coordinated multilateral defense strategy.
Speaker 2: Where does this go from here at this point, what's
Speaker 2: going to happen next, and is there any way to
Speaker 2: resolve it?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 6: I think what you're going to see is more pressure
Speaker 6: for more explicit exceptions to this rule for our close
Speaker 6: allies and partners. So we have arrangements trading arrangements with
Speaker 6: a number of our NATO allies that basically allow the
Speaker 6: Pentagon to do business with them and trade with them
Speaker 6: without being affected by these rules. But there are a
Speaker 6: lot of NATO allies that don't have those arrangements, and
Speaker 6: then we have a lot of partners, especially in Asia,
Speaker 6: who don't have those arrangements. So more exemptions for those
Speaker 6: countries I think might be one way to mitigate the
Speaker 6: potential damage. And then I think more investment in building
Speaker 6: up that defense industrial base in the US, even if
Speaker 6: in the short term this is a bad idea, in
Speaker 6: the long run, we do want to have and produce
Speaker 6: more of the weapons we need here in the United States,
Speaker 6: and there are steps that can taken to upgrade the
Speaker 6: workforce here, to encourage better contracting, better procurement practices. Those
Speaker 6: are the kinds of things that need to be done
Speaker 6: in the long run to build that defense industrial base
Speaker 6: here at home.
Speaker 2: Ramesh Ret Nazzar is a Bloomberg Opinion editor and coming
Speaker 2: up the science surrounding targeted cancer drugs. It's giving more
Speaker 2: people some hope. Don't forget. We're available as a podcast
Speaker 2: on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This is
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
Speaker 1: at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen
Speaker 1: on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris and after
Speaker 2: decades of fits and starts, the science around designing and
Speaker 2: testing targeted cancer drugs has finally coalesced and this class
Speaker 2: of drugs is now having its moment. The field has
Speaker 2: gone through waves of hype and investment over the past
Speaker 2: few decades, but now it's starting to look like the
Speaker 2: hype may be more than just hype. Let's bring in
Speaker 2: Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis. She covers biotech, healthcare, and
Speaker 2: the pharmaceutical industry, and she's going to bring us up
Speaker 2: to speed on this. First of all, Lisa, what is
Speaker 2: a targeted cancer drug?
Speaker 7: Right? So the class of drugs we're talking about is
Speaker 7: called antibody drug conjugates. That's a wonky term, but basically,
Speaker 7: the antibody part of the drug is going straight to
Speaker 7: a protein that's on a tumor cell and tacked onto
Speaker 7: the antibody is chemotherapy. I say tacked on as if
Speaker 7: that's like it was just thrown on there, but actually
Speaker 7: it's taken a lot of work to attach it to
Speaker 7: the antibody in just the right way so that this
Speaker 7: very powerful chemotherapy doesn't release until it hits the cancer cell.
Speaker 7: So that means that the side effects should be a
Speaker 7: lot more mild than when you just you couldn't give
Speaker 7: this type of chemotherapy just on its own. You need
Speaker 7: that antibody to bring it straight to the tumor. And
Speaker 7: so people have been working on this for quite literally decades,
Speaker 7: like forty years, trying to get this technology right, and
Speaker 7: we're starting to see a host of just really impressive
Speaker 7: data that these drugs can work in a broader range
Speaker 7: of cancers than I think people anticipated in the past.
Speaker 2: So what made the difference? What is new with these
Speaker 2: drugs that they are finally starting to live up to,
Speaker 2: as you say, the hype.
Speaker 7: I think it took a lot of tinkering on all
Speaker 7: parts of the actual molecule, picking the right antibody, but
Speaker 7: really that linker was important because if it releases too early,
Speaker 7: it could have toxic side effects. And then I think
Speaker 7: clinical data, they're starting to understand where to use these drugs.
Speaker 7: And we had a trial that came out that read
Speaker 7: out last year in twenty twenty two in breast cancer.
Speaker 7: That was a really big turning point for the field
Speaker 7: because basically it was a drug that targeted a protein
Speaker 7: called HER two that's on the surface of a lot
Speaker 7: of breast cancers. But what they found was not only
Speaker 7: did that drug help people live longer, but it also
Speaker 7: you didn't need to have as much HER too around
Speaker 7: that they previously thought, So that kind of opens the
Speaker 7: door to using this in a lot more kinds of cancer.
Speaker 2: Why is targeted therapy in and of itself so significant
Speaker 2: so important? I understand that it's lessens the it lessens
Speaker 2: the side effects, but does it make it more effective.
Speaker 7: Well. One of the things they're also learning and that
Speaker 7: has also changed the field, is that you know, they
Speaker 7: have these bystander effects. So when you if you just
Speaker 7: gave this, there's drugs that target just her two on
Speaker 7: their own. Those are classic cancer drugs. They can only
Speaker 7: kill cancer cells that have her too on the surface.
Speaker 7: And this type of drug, once the chemo is released,
Speaker 7: it can actually kill a few different cells. And so
Speaker 7: there's having this bystander effect that turns out to be
Speaker 7: really important and powerful and is increasingly something they're designing
Speaker 7: into the drug. And so I think that's kind of
Speaker 7: where the future is going with this class of drugs,
Speaker 7: is understanding how to get them to kill not just
Speaker 7: the one cell that it targeted, but some of its
Speaker 7: neighbors that may not have that protein on the surface.
Speaker 7: Which is important because not all tumor cells are alike.
Speaker 7: We think of them as alike, but our two tumors
Speaker 7: are actually heterogeneous and have lots of different things going
Speaker 7: on there.
Speaker 2: And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis
Speaker 2: about targeted cancer drug therapy and how it is finally
Speaker 2: starting to live up to the hype and the work
Speaker 2: that's been put into this for decades. Lisa, let's shift
Speaker 2: to the business sector. Then, what are you seeing in
Speaker 2: the business sector that gives you more of a sense
Speaker 2: that there really is something here now?
Speaker 7: Well, we've seen three big deals this year, I mean
Speaker 7: two of them quite big. One was obviously in the
Speaker 7: spring we saw buysor by Cgen for forty three billion dollars.
Speaker 7: That was a huge acquisition, and Cgen had been pursued
Speaker 7: by other companies. We then just recently saw Abvi acquire
Speaker 7: Immutagen for ten point one million dollars billion dollars. Sorry,
Speaker 7: that company was really like the original Those are the
Speaker 7: two original companies that have been working out as technology.
Speaker 7: But we've seen smaller deals that are still significant. Merk
Speaker 7: paid for billion dollars upfront to do a deal, not
Speaker 7: to acquire, but to just get access to a few
Speaker 7: drugs from diet thank you. And then we've seen other
Speaker 7: companies doing collections of little deals like Bristol Miners, quib
Speaker 7: and Lily Just it feels like the technology has matured
Speaker 7: to a point where people finally really believe that it's
Speaker 7: going to be a staple in cancer care.
Speaker 2: Why was it so hard to get here?
Speaker 7: It's funny a lot of the companies that I just
Speaker 7: mentioned is buying other people had been working in this
Speaker 7: field years ago and they all got out of it.
Speaker 7: I think that it just it sounds so simple, say
Speaker 7: like tack a chemo onto the antibody, That actually was
Speaker 7: very difficult to do. That piece getting it right was
Speaker 7: just the science behind it, and the chemistry was very tough.
Speaker 7: And it's just finally reached a point where they understand
Speaker 7: how to make these drugs, how to manufacture them, and
Speaker 7: now it's going to be more about exploring biology and
Speaker 7: seeing how they can design better ones to work in
Speaker 7: many more kinds of cancer.
Speaker 2: Is targeted cancer therapy like what we were describing here.
Speaker 2: Is it in common use yet? Is it considered standard
Speaker 2: of care yet?
Speaker 7: I think it's getting there. And there's a number of
Speaker 7: these drugs that are on the market. But the really
Speaker 7: important one, as I mentioned, there was this data that
Speaker 7: came out last year in a drug called in her Too.
Speaker 7: That drug is developed by Astrozenic and ATI sank you
Speaker 7: in her too positive breast cancer, but again could also
Speaker 7: be in people who very little her too on their tumors,
Speaker 7: and so right now it's in metastatic cancer. I mean,
Speaker 7: I think there's an idea that this could be moved
Speaker 7: earlier and earlier eventually. When I talked to oncologists when
Speaker 7: this really impressive data came out last year, some of
Speaker 7: them felt like it could replace chemo in some you know,
Speaker 7: types of cancer, which would be a big deal. I mean,
Speaker 7: it's I'll say it's more expensive than chemo, but you know,
Speaker 7: I think it's also potentially more effective and you know,
Speaker 7: maybe a little easier on patients.
Speaker 2: Where are insurance companies on this? Have they bought in
Speaker 2: or is that jury still out? Yeah?
Speaker 7: I think they've bought in certainly. I think, you know,
Speaker 7: we're seeing increasingly. For example, another drug, immunoge In, the
Speaker 7: company that was proposed acquisition by ABVI, has a drug
Speaker 7: called ella here that was approved last year for obarian cancer,
Speaker 7: and that was really considered the first advance for ovarian
Speaker 7: cancer patients in a long time. Another thing that I
Speaker 7: think companies find attractive about this is they're very hard
Speaker 7: to mimic. It's going to be hard for generic companies
Speaker 7: to swoop in when the patents expire and make their
Speaker 7: own versions of these, so you know they probably are
Speaker 7: going to be in companies portfolios for a really long time.
Speaker 2: When you describe the targeted cancer therapy, I get this image,
Speaker 2: because I am a simple woman. I'll get this image
Speaker 2: of like a little heat seeking missile painted on the
Speaker 2: end with the targeted therapy and it goes into the
Speaker 2: system and it aims for that cancer cell and poof.
Speaker 2: It's almost cartoon like in my head because I have
Speaker 2: to oversimplify it to understand it. When they are able
Speaker 2: to create a technology that can do something like that
Speaker 2: you had mentioned replacing chemo altogether, how far away would
Speaker 2: that be?
Speaker 7: You know, I think we need more data, you know.
Speaker 7: I think it's you know, kind of a clinical story
Speaker 7: with some of these drugs, is trying to show that
Speaker 7: they can work in other kinds of cancer. But I
Speaker 7: think one of the things that's really exciting is that
Speaker 7: this discovery, and again I know it sounds so wonky,
Speaker 7: but that people with very low levels of this protein
Speaker 7: on the surface of their tumors respond to these drugs.
Speaker 7: That could open up the landscape of other types of
Speaker 7: antibodies that people use that may have been sitting on
Speaker 7: a shelf because they thought, oh, these aren't going to
Speaker 7: be the heat seeking missile we anticipated. And so I think,
Speaker 7: you know, we're going to see a broader landscape of
Speaker 7: drugs developed and then we'll just have to see how
Speaker 7: it plays out in the clinic. But you know, I
Speaker 7: think in the next few years, these are going to
Speaker 7: become even bigger drugs. They are already some of them
Speaker 7: are a few of them handful are already pretty good
Speaker 7: drugs in doing pretty well. But I think we're going
Speaker 7: to see more of that.
Speaker 2: Are they also going to have to do the same
Speaker 2: sorts of standard of care apt that would normally have
Speaker 2: to do after chemo, Like when you have chemotherapy your
Speaker 2: white blood cell count is low. Is that less of
Speaker 2: a risk with this new targeted therapy?
Speaker 7: So, you know, it's funny because we talk about these
Speaker 7: as being heat seeking missiles, but they do sometimes come
Speaker 7: apart in your bloodstream, so they're not free of side effects.
Speaker 7: I think part of the attractiveness of them is that
Speaker 7: you can attach such a powerful chemotherapy to them that
Speaker 7: you wouldn't be able to give, you know, kind of
Speaker 7: on their on its own, and so it's really really
Speaker 7: good at cancer killing. So the side effects are not benign,
Speaker 7: but they're pretty good, and they're getting under really good
Speaker 7: at understanding how to manage those and how to predict
Speaker 7: what they see in animal studies, for example, how that
Speaker 7: will translate into humans.
Speaker 2: So this is tremendous. Thank you so much for following
Speaker 2: this for us. We're going to continue to follow it
Speaker 2: with you, Lisa, as they make more developments. Thank you
Speaker 2: so much.
Speaker 7: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 6: Amy.
Speaker 2: Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg opinion columnist who covers biotech, healthcare,
Speaker 2: and the pharmaceutical industry. Don't forget We're available as a
Speaker 2: podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This
Speaker 2: is Bloomberg Opinion. Let's talk hair. Hair straighteners, specifically, the
Speaker 2: Food and Drug Administration announced this ball that several common
Speaker 2: treatments to smooth, straightened or relax hair contain known carcinogens
Speaker 2: like formaldehyde. Let's learn more from ft FLO. I'm a
Speaker 2: Bloomberg opinion columnist covering science and host of the follow
Speaker 2: of the Science podcast Fay Welcome formaldehyde. How dangerous is this?
Speaker 8: Well, you know, the dose makes the poison, and we
Speaker 8: get exposed to formaldehyde all the time in tiny amounts.
Speaker 8: But the concern is that there's actually a lot of
Speaker 8: formaldehyde in some of the hair treatments that are being
Speaker 8: used in salons right now. I talked to a young
Speaker 8: female chemist who said she had one of these treatments.
Speaker 8: She'd saved up for it. She didn't really know what
Speaker 8: was in it, and then she smelled the distinct smell
Speaker 8: of formaldehyde while she was in the chair, and that
Speaker 8: got her to really look into it.
Speaker 2: So you can get formaldehyde free products for your hair,
Speaker 2: but you explain they include something called glycolic acid, it's
Speaker 2: not much better.
Speaker 8: Well, it actually is a precursor to formaldehyde, so when
Speaker 8: it's treated, it can become formaldehyde. And so there are
Speaker 8: a lot of salon treatments that are apparently marketed as
Speaker 8: formaldehyde free to the salons, but they actually create the
Speaker 8: same hazard because the formaldehyde is formed during the heating,
Speaker 8: which is usually part of the process. Usually they will
Speaker 8: use hot dryers and they'll the straight iron your hair
Speaker 8: with a lot of heat, so the hazard is still there.
Speaker 8: There are other ones that don't use any formaldehyde or
Speaker 8: formaldehyde forming products, but most of us don't know the
Speaker 8: ingredients or wouldn't ask what the ingredients are in a
Speaker 8: salon treatment. We go to the salon and just assume
Speaker 8: that it's reasonably safe exactly.
Speaker 2: That's what I was going to ask about. How solid
Speaker 2: is this data? How do they know that what we've
Speaker 2: been putting in or on our hair for decades might
Speaker 2: actually be this harmful.
Speaker 8: Well, there are two things that are going on. First,
Speaker 8: formaldehyde is a new in carcinogen, you know, in a
Speaker 8: high enough dose, And there actually have been OSHA studies
Speaker 8: where they monitored the amount of formaldehyde that was getting
Speaker 8: in the air in salons and found that it was
Speaker 8: above standards that should keep worker safe. So at least
Speaker 8: for the workers there could definitely be a hazard. But
Speaker 8: the other thing was there was a big epidemiological study
Speaker 8: that came out about a year ago, and it showed
Speaker 8: that women who used hair straighteners, relaxers, these different kinds
Speaker 8: of products, either at home or in a salon, had
Speaker 8: a much higher rate of uterine cancer, which is sometimes
Speaker 8: associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals. It was as much as
Speaker 8: three times as high as the women who didn't get
Speaker 8: these But the weird thing about that was they can't
Speaker 8: really distinguish between the different kinds of products and whether
Speaker 8: it's the ones with formaldehyde or a whole other class
Speaker 8: that's used more often by black women. They use it
Speaker 8: on a regular basis sometimes and these have lie or
Speaker 8: something that's very irritating the scalp and also some potentially
Speaker 8: anto disrupting chemicals, and so that combination could also be
Speaker 8: a possible mechanism for being carcinogenic.
Speaker 2: So where is the FDA in all of this.
Speaker 8: Well, I think they're probably trying to figure out what
Speaker 8: they should control and what they should bran because this
Speaker 8: new study was kind of a surprise. I think they thought, oh,
Speaker 8: it's just the formaldehyde that's the big problem, But this
Speaker 8: study suggests maybe this other type of treatment might actually
Speaker 8: be more of a danger to the customers the consumers,
Speaker 8: and a lot of salons are phasing those out now
Speaker 8: because it's very unpleasant to work with. The salon workers
Speaker 8: recognize that there that the hairdresser I go to said
Speaker 8: she'd done it a few times when the formaldehyde containing
Speaker 8: once first came out and she felt so sick afterwards,
Speaker 8: and so did her colleagues in that salon that they
Speaker 8: stopped using it and got something else that was more expensive,
Speaker 8: but you know much nicer.
Speaker 2: Fd Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science and
Speaker 2: host of the Follow the Science podcast and that Does
Speaker 2: It For this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are produced by
Speaker 2: Eric Molow, and you can find all of the columns
Speaker 2: on the Bloomberg terminal. We are available as a podcast
Speaker 2: on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us.
Speaker 2: Today's top stories and global business headlines are just ahead.
Speaker 2: I maybe Morris, this is Bloomberg.