January 5, 2024 • 35 mins
We take a closer look at fossil fuels, cancer drug development, and the pros and cons of buying American. Plus, just how dangerous are hair straighteners for your health? We explore it all with the Bloomberg Opinion team. Columnists Lara Williams, Romesh Ratnesar, Lisa Jarvis, and FD Flam join. Amy Morris hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we
look at buy American not just a slogan, but a rule,
and there is concern now that that rule will make
America less safe. We've heard all about targeted cancer drugs
for years, but now it looks like they're finally starting
to show results that are more substantial than just the hype.
(00:39):
And we'll look at a call for the FDA to
get to the root of hair straighteners. But first we
begin with climate change and the debate over the science
of climate change. Science provides a framework for understanding the world,
but deciding how to shape policy based on that guidance
can be a matter of interpretation. During climate negotiations at
(01:03):
the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai, a controversial
statement from Sultan Algebert, the oil executive who led the
COP twenty eight climate summit in Dubai, has resurfaced about
the limitations of science.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
And there is no science out there or no scenario
out there that says that the phase out of fossil
fuel is what's going to achieve one point five. One
point five is my not start, and a face down
and a face out of fosil fude, in my view,
is inevitable.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
He defended his comments, saying they've been misinterpreted.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
I have said over and over that the phase down
and the phase out of fossil fuel is inevitable. I
honestly think that there is some confusion out there and
misrepresentation and misinterpretation.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Let's turn out a Bloomberg opinion columnist Lara Williams covers
climate change, and she attended COP twenty eight. She can
shine some light on all of this forest. Lara Algebra's
comments are not wrong, they are true. So how much
room for interpretation is there? Really?
Speaker 5 (02:15):
Every turn of carbon we put into the atmosphere ies
there's there's less and less room for interpretation. As you know,
our carbon budget for keeping warming temperatures under one point
five degrees is being reduced every day. But the IPCC,
so that is the inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
(02:36):
They review all the science that's out there and they
come up with the report that determines based on you know,
strong certainty, medium certainty, low certainty. It basically sums up
all the studies and science out there on climate change,
and they have a number of pathways and scenarios compassible
(02:56):
with limiting warming two one point five degrees and so
some of them like rely on what would happen if
we switch to renewables, what would happen if we relied
more heavily on energy efficiency measures, what would happen if
we rely on carbon capture technology. So the way that
you know it's presented in IPCC reports does leave room
(03:19):
for interpretation, which I guess, you know, people can you know,
choose their pathway based on what kind of priorities they have,
how confident they are in technology and the economics. But
having said that, all scenarios campassable with limitsing warm and
(03:41):
two one point five degree celsius above pre industrial temperatures,
which is ideally what we want to do, does involve
greatly reducing fossil fuel use to a fraction of what
it is today.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
And that's basically the point behind your column, which is
that the science is debatable but inescapable, which is how
you put in your column. You know, so often if
the science has proven correct, it's the fact there's not
a lot of wiggle room. That's what it is, black
and white. But that doesn't always seem to be the
case when it comes to climate change. As you distillustrated,
because there are so many different paths to get to
(04:15):
the actual answer. Is that why this is so hard
because we're in uncharted territory and there's so much debate
about how to get from point A to point B.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
I think so, I think, you know, and obviously you've
got to remember that everybody has their own entrenched interests,
and so renewables are really cheap, and so they're a
really good way to reduce fossil fuels, which is ultimately
what we need to do and therefore stop global warming.
But you know, some people made lots of money out
of fossil fuels, and so they're obviously going to want
(04:48):
to push a different agenda. And then some countries, you know,
renewables aren't so cheap because the cost of capital is
more expensive. So developing nations might feel that even though
you know, they recognize that we shouldn't we need to
phase out fossil fossil fuels as quickly as possible. You know,
(05:09):
developed nations like the UK and the US have kind
of really had the kind of former advantage and being
able to develop by using fossil fuels, and therefore it
might not be so fair or for them not to
be able to do that. So it becomes, I guess
a little bit more more competated when you're thinking about
(05:32):
enabling the continuation of sustainable development.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
What was your takeaway when you heard the controversial statement
from Saltan Algebrat.
Speaker 5 (05:40):
I well, I think that actually, you know, he's not
technically rounded, not technically run, as Jim Steer, the head
of the IPCC points out, but it's missing that crucial contacts,
which is the there's no room for expansion of fossil fuels,
which is what AD not, which is the Abidabbi National
(06:05):
Oil Company, which algebra is the oil is the CEO
of an oil company they want to pump more oil
by twenty twenty seven. And you know, so his comments,
while technically true, kind of miss out that that concept,
which is there's there's no room for its mansion. We're
gonna we barely need any fossil fuels by twenty fifteen,
(06:25):
twenty one hundred if we follow a pathway compassible with
one point five and so he was kind of missing
out some ty facts.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I also wondered if he also intended to include that
they'd have to do more than just limit fossil fuels.
It sort of almost sounded like there's no pathway for
these fossil fuel limitations to get us to that goal,
because it won't be enough, you know what I mean,
Like it seemed like he was calling for to do
(06:54):
more than just focus on fossil fuels.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
Yes, and that is that is a good point. We
need to do more than just limit fossil fuels because
the way we use our lands, the way we grow
our foods, also contributes to global warming, and so that
there needs to be a lot more action. And if
we aren't going to phase out fossil fuels entirely, then
we're going to have to ramp up carbin tapture technology,
carbin removal technology, and so there is a lot of
(07:21):
words to be done beyond just twitting the use of
fossil fuels.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
We are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lara Williams about
the science of climate change and if there's any room
for interpretation. Laura. One of the points you make in
your column on the Bloomberg Terminal is that the future
role of fossil fuels is one of the most controversial
issues that countries are grappling with at the Climate Summit.
Some have been pushing for a phase out, others are
(07:48):
calling for a weaker language of a phase down. Why
is all of this so very hard to nail down?
Speaker 5 (07:55):
Well, because everybody has their different priorities and the I
guess the problem with the with the top process is
that everything has to be made by consensus, which means
all the parties of the United Nations have to agree.
And it's incredibly difficult to just you know, pick something
(08:20):
and stick to it when there are different you know,
they're at different levels of readiness, they have different economic abilities,
they have you know, they make their money in different ways.
It's you know, it'd be much easier for the UK
now to switch entirely to renewables what a You're mean
to do it by twenty thirty five than it is
(08:41):
for you know, potentially a poorer country which doesn't have
that capacity yet. And so that makes it difficult. And
then you know, you also have those entrenched interests in
some countries, like for example, Saudi Arabia, which will block
you know, the use of quite definitive language. They want
(09:04):
to leave as many options on the table as possible,
and so that's what makes it hard to just you know,
put a fossil fuel phase out on the table that
there's always going to be, Oh, there has historically always
been you know, some holdouts and people who don't want
that to happen because they make a lot of money
out of fossil fuels. It would mean completely changing the
(09:26):
way that they make their money and run their economy,
and they are, I guess understandably extremely hesitant, even though
I say understandably in a way that I don't agree
with it obviously.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Well, you attended COP twenty eight. You were there. Did
anything at the conference stand out for you or surprise you? Well?
Speaker 5 (09:46):
I think I was surprised. It's a very exciting place
to be. There's a buzz you you know, everybody from
all over the world, you know, every country is represented
at top twenty eight, which was trying. I found it interesting.
You know, so you have every lots of nations and
NGOs have their pavilions where they you know, hold events
(10:09):
and you know, highlight the kind of things that they're
doing in their country or their group too, you know,
on time at Action. And I found interesting is in
one building, you know, you go in on the ground
floor and OPEC has their pavilion and you walk up
two flights of stairs and just above the OPEC pavilion
is the Indigenous People's pavilion calling out, you know, for
(10:31):
a complete phase out of fossil fuels. And so that
was a really interesting kind of judgtaposition of you know,
all all views were represented at.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Prop Laura, thank you very much for your time today.
Speaker 5 (10:43):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Laura Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist who covers climate change. Now,
coming up, we'll look at the by American rules, especially
when it comes to the military, and how some believe
that could make the US less safe. You're listening to
Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast counts Saturdays at
one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the
iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on
demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. A little
more than a year ago, President Biden laid out his
economic vision for America, including a buy American provision to
help invest in existing jobs, add more jobs, and secure
the supply chain.
Speaker 6 (11:40):
We're going to invest in America again, We're going to
make it in America again, and the federal government's going
to buy American. That's been my economic vision.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
The buy American rules have long applied to the military's
purchase of things like food and clothes and construction supplies,
but now weapons manufacturers have some wide discretion to use
materials from outside the US if they have to, if
doing so is necessary for the country's defense. Well, now
Congress is taking steps to rain all of that. In
Bloomberg Opinion, editor Romes Retinassar is joining me now to
(12:10):
sort of help shed some light on what's going on here. First, Romesh,
thank you. And what does buy American mean? Really?
Speaker 6 (12:19):
Well, dating back to the Depression, the federal government has
been required to source any goods that they purchase to
domestic sources. So at the moment, fifty five percent of
(12:41):
anything any goods that the federal government buys has to
contain content made in the United States. The Biden administration
has since coming into office tried to increase that threshold,
so that number has now been bumped up to sixty percent,
(13:04):
with an aim, at least according to the executive order
that the administration put out, of getting to seventy five
percent by twenty twenty nine.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Now, in your column, you say that the White House
and the protectionist forces in Congress, which is your terminology,
they're taking steps to make it harder for the US
to replenish its weapons stockpiles. Not that that's their intent,
but that maybe the end result. My first question is,
how are the White House and protectionists on the same
page at all.
Speaker 6 (13:35):
Well, you know, the impulse behind a lot of this
sort of push to buy American is this idea that
what we've seen over the last several years is the
vulnerability of the US supply chain and the fact that
so many materials that we need that are critical to
(13:59):
our new national security are made overseas, and because of
that diffuse supply chain, we are vulnerable to shocks like
the pandemic, but also potentially to you know, military conflicts
with other countries, most notably China. So that's the kind
(14:23):
of basis for this push. The problem is that the
military needs access to technology and draws on technology from
all over the world. And the fact is that the military,
just like many other parts of our economy, has been
(14:43):
using and trading with partners all over the world to
make its weapon systems. And a lot of weapon systems
that the military uses have components that are made in
other parts of the world. And by increasing the threshold
that the military has to meet when they buy these weapons,
(15:05):
you're going to actually make it harder and more costly
for the military to replenish its supplies when they run low,
as they are running low right now. If you are
telling the military you can no longer use a supplier
that you have an arrangement with, that you have a
contract with that you've negotiated a lower price with, I mean,
(15:29):
or a defense contractor those companies are then going to
have to find new suppliers. Maybe they're based in the US,
but the costs of doing that are going to be higher.
And the other factor that people don't take into account
is a lot of the best stuff does come from overseas.
(15:49):
The United States in many cases doesn't manufacture the best
components for certain weapons systems, and the military has a
reason to use components that are made over because they're
better for they better protect the country security. So setting
these requirements, while well intended, could have these consequences that
(16:13):
could be actually quite negative for national security.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion editor Roma is
rednas are about the downside of buy American. Remember when
we were kids, the idea of buy American became just
really entrenched. How did it get so entrenched in how
did it turn on us?
Speaker 6 (16:32):
Well, I think that there still are good reasons to
buy American. There still are good reasons to try to
find ways to make as much as we can domestically.
I think that is, in the long run, the way
you can insulate yourself from unexpected supply chain shocks and disruptions.
(16:54):
I think the point is that if you talk to
people both in the Pentagon and also in the defense industry,
they would say, we're faced with an extraordinary challenge right now.
We are trying to supply arms to Ukraine, now to Israel,
while also dealing with the potential for escalating tensions with
(17:19):
China and trying to make sure that Taiwan is adequately defended.
There simply aren't enough resources domestically right now to meet
those needs. And if you've basically tied the Pentagon's hands
behind their back, you are going to make it harder,
more expensive, and less likely that they can actually meet
(17:44):
those national security needs and protect the country's security.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
What message does it send when those protectionist messages are
tacked into the defense budget.
Speaker 6 (17:53):
Well, one of the biggest problems is the message it
sends to our allies. I mean, one of the things
that the military and the Pentagon has been trying to
do is encourage and build more partnerships with allies and
courage allies to take on a bigger role in defense production,
knowing that we can't do it all ourselves. By imposing
(18:14):
these kinds of rules, you're sort of discouraging allies from
cooperating in the same way. And you could lead to
some of our some countries we partner with very closely
erecting their own restrictions on the weapons that we produce.
And that's a again be counterproductive. You're going to hurt
(18:36):
American industry, You're going to cost Americans jobs if that happens.
So the message it sends is we're trying to protect
our industries, You're going to encourage other countries to protect theirs,
and that's incompatible with a really coordinated multilateral defense strategy.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Where does this go from here at this point, what's
going to happen next, and is there any way to
resolve it?
Speaker 5 (19:04):
Well?
Speaker 6 (19:05):
I think what you're going to see is more pressure
for more explicit exceptions to this rule for our close
allies and partners. So we have arrangements trading arrangements with
a number of our NATO allies that basically allow the
Pentagon to do business with them and trade with them
(19:26):
without being affected by these rules. But there are a
lot of NATO allies that don't have those arrangements, and
then we have a lot of partners, especially in Asia,
who don't have those arrangements. So more exemptions for those
countries I think might be one way to mitigate the
potential damage. And then I think more investment in building
up that defense industrial base in the US, even if
(19:48):
in the short term this is a bad idea, in
the long run, we do want to have and produce
more of the weapons we need here in the United States,
and there are steps that can taken to upgrade the
workforce here, to encourage better contracting, better procurement practices. Those
(20:09):
are the kinds of things that need to be done
in the long run to build that defense industrial base
here at home.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Ramesh Ret Nazzar is a Bloomberg Opinion editor and coming
up the science surrounding targeted cancer drugs. It's giving more
people some hope. Don't forget. We're available as a podcast
on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This is
Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris and after
decades of fits and starts, the science around designing and
testing targeted cancer drugs has finally coalesced and this class
of drugs is now having its moment. The field has
gone through waves of hype and investment over the past
few decades, but now it's starting to look like the
(21:15):
hype may be more than just hype. Let's bring in
Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis. She covers biotech, healthcare, and
the pharmaceutical industry, and she's going to bring us up
to speed on this. First of all, Lisa, what is
a targeted cancer drug?
Speaker 7 (21:30):
Right? So the class of drugs we're talking about is
called antibody drug conjugates. That's a wonky term, but basically,
the antibody part of the drug is going straight to
a protein that's on a tumor cell and tacked onto
the antibody is chemotherapy. I say tacked on as if
that's like it was just thrown on there, but actually
it's taken a lot of work to attach it to
(21:51):
the antibody in just the right way so that this
very powerful chemotherapy doesn't release until it hits the cancer cell.
So that means that the side effects should be a
lot more mild than when you just you couldn't give
this type of chemotherapy just on its own. You need
that antibody to bring it straight to the tumor. And
so people have been working on this for quite literally decades,
(22:14):
like forty years, trying to get this technology right, and
we're starting to see a host of just really impressive
data that these drugs can work in a broader range
of cancers than I think people anticipated in the past.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
So what made the difference? What is new with these
drugs that they are finally starting to live up to,
as you say, the hype.
Speaker 7 (22:35):
I think it took a lot of tinkering on all
parts of the actual molecule, picking the right antibody, but
really that linker was important because if it releases too early,
it could have toxic side effects. And then I think
clinical data, they're starting to understand where to use these drugs.
And we had a trial that came out that read
out last year in twenty twenty two in breast cancer.
(22:59):
That was a really big turning point for the field
because basically it was a drug that targeted a protein
called HER two that's on the surface of a lot
of breast cancers. But what they found was not only
did that drug help people live longer, but it also
you didn't need to have as much HER too around
(23:20):
that they previously thought, So that kind of opens the
door to using this in a lot more kinds of cancer.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Why is targeted therapy in and of itself so significant
so important? I understand that it's lessens the it lessens
the side effects, but does it make it more effective.
Speaker 7 (23:38):
Well. One of the things they're also learning and that
has also changed the field, is that you know, they
have these bystander effects. So when you if you just
gave this, there's drugs that target just her two on
their own. Those are classic cancer drugs. They can only
kill cancer cells that have her too on the surface.
And this type of drug, once the chemo is released,
(24:00):
it can actually kill a few different cells. And so
there's having this bystander effect that turns out to be
really important and powerful and is increasingly something they're designing
into the drug. And so I think that's kind of
where the future is going with this class of drugs,
is understanding how to get them to kill not just
the one cell that it targeted, but some of its
(24:21):
neighbors that may not have that protein on the surface.
Which is important because not all tumor cells are alike.
We think of them as alike, but our two tumors
are actually heterogeneous and have lots of different things going
on there.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis
about targeted cancer drug therapy and how it is finally
starting to live up to the hype and the work
that's been put into this for decades. Lisa, let's shift
to the business sector. Then, what are you seeing in
the business sector that gives you more of a sense
that there really is something here now?
Speaker 7 (24:54):
Well, we've seen three big deals this year, I mean
two of them quite big. One was obviously in the
spring we saw buysor by Cgen for forty three billion dollars.
That was a huge acquisition, and Cgen had been pursued
by other companies. We then just recently saw Abvi acquire
Immutagen for ten point one million dollars billion dollars. Sorry,
(25:15):
that company was really like the original Those are the
two original companies that have been working out as technology.
But we've seen smaller deals that are still significant. Merk
paid for billion dollars upfront to do a deal, not
to acquire, but to just get access to a few
drugs from diet thank you. And then we've seen other
companies doing collections of little deals like Bristol Miners, quib
(25:36):
and Lily Just it feels like the technology has matured
to a point where people finally really believe that it's
going to be a staple in cancer care.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Why was it so hard to get here?
Speaker 7 (25:48):
It's funny a lot of the companies that I just
mentioned is buying other people had been working in this
field years ago and they all got out of it.
I think that it just it sounds so simple, say
like tack a chemo onto the antibody, That actually was
very difficult to do. That piece getting it right was
just the science behind it, and the chemistry was very tough.
(26:12):
And it's just finally reached a point where they understand
how to make these drugs, how to manufacture them, and
now it's going to be more about exploring biology and
seeing how they can design better ones to work in
many more kinds of cancer.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Is targeted cancer therapy like what we were describing here.
Is it in common use yet? Is it considered standard
of care yet?
Speaker 7 (26:33):
I think it's getting there. And there's a number of
these drugs that are on the market. But the really
important one, as I mentioned, there was this data that
came out last year in a drug called in her Too.
That drug is developed by Astrozenic and ATI sank you
in her too positive breast cancer, but again could also
be in people who very little her too on their tumors,
(26:55):
and so right now it's in metastatic cancer. I mean,
I think there's an idea that this could be moved
earlier and earlier eventually. When I talked to oncologists when
this really impressive data came out last year, some of
them felt like it could replace chemo in some you know,
types of cancer, which would be a big deal. I mean,
it's I'll say it's more expensive than chemo, but you know,
(27:16):
I think it's also potentially more effective and you know,
maybe a little easier on patients.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Where are insurance companies on this? Have they bought in
or is that jury still out? Yeah?
Speaker 7 (27:28):
I think they've bought in certainly. I think, you know,
we're seeing increasingly. For example, another drug, immunoge In, the
company that was proposed acquisition by ABVI, has a drug
called ella here that was approved last year for obarian cancer,
and that was really considered the first advance for ovarian
cancer patients in a long time. Another thing that I
(27:48):
think companies find attractive about this is they're very hard
to mimic. It's going to be hard for generic companies
to swoop in when the patents expire and make their
own versions of these, so you know they probably are
going to be in companies portfolios for a really long time.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
When you describe the targeted cancer therapy, I get this image,
because I am a simple woman. I'll get this image
of like a little heat seeking missile painted on the
end with the targeted therapy and it goes into the
system and it aims for that cancer cell and poof.
It's almost cartoon like in my head because I have
to oversimplify it to understand it. When they are able
(28:26):
to create a technology that can do something like that
you had mentioned replacing chemo altogether, how far away would
that be?
Speaker 7 (28:35):
You know, I think we need more data, you know.
I think it's you know, kind of a clinical story
with some of these drugs, is trying to show that
they can work in other kinds of cancer. But I
think one of the things that's really exciting is that
this discovery, and again I know it sounds so wonky,
but that people with very low levels of this protein
on the surface of their tumors respond to these drugs.
(28:58):
That could open up the landscape of other types of
antibodies that people use that may have been sitting on
a shelf because they thought, oh, these aren't going to
be the heat seeking missile we anticipated. And so I think,
you know, we're going to see a broader landscape of
drugs developed and then we'll just have to see how
(29:18):
it plays out in the clinic. But you know, I
think in the next few years, these are going to
become even bigger drugs. They are already some of them
are a few of them handful are already pretty good
drugs in doing pretty well. But I think we're going
to see more of that.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
Are they also going to have to do the same
sorts of standard of care apt that would normally have
to do after chemo, Like when you have chemotherapy your
white blood cell count is low. Is that less of
a risk with this new targeted therapy?
Speaker 7 (29:45):
So, you know, it's funny because we talk about these
as being heat seeking missiles, but they do sometimes come
apart in your bloodstream, so they're not free of side effects.
I think part of the attractiveness of them is that
you can attach such a powerful chemotherapy to them that
you wouldn't be able to give, you know, kind of
on their on its own, and so it's really really
(30:08):
good at cancer killing. So the side effects are not benign,
but they're pretty good, and they're getting under really good
at understanding how to manage those and how to predict
what they see in animal studies, for example, how that
will translate into humans.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
So this is tremendous. Thank you so much for following
this for us. We're going to continue to follow it
with you, Lisa, as they make more developments. Thank you
so much.
Speaker 7 (30:31):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 6 (30:32):
Amy.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg opinion columnist who covers biotech, healthcare,
and the pharmaceutical industry. Don't forget We're available as a
podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This
is Bloomberg Opinion. Let's talk hair. Hair straighteners, specifically, the
Food and Drug Administration announced this ball that several common
treatments to smooth, straightened or relax hair contain known carcinogens
(30:56):
like formaldehyde. Let's learn more from ft FLO. I'm a
Bloomberg opinion columnist covering science and host of the follow
of the Science podcast Fay Welcome formaldehyde. How dangerous is this?
Speaker 8 (31:09):
Well, you know, the dose makes the poison, and we
get exposed to formaldehyde all the time in tiny amounts.
But the concern is that there's actually a lot of
formaldehyde in some of the hair treatments that are being
used in salons right now. I talked to a young
female chemist who said she had one of these treatments.
(31:30):
She'd saved up for it. She didn't really know what
was in it, and then she smelled the distinct smell
of formaldehyde while she was in the chair, and that
got her to really look into it.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
So you can get formaldehyde free products for your hair,
but you explain they include something called glycolic acid, it's
not much better.
Speaker 8 (31:53):
Well, it actually is a precursor to formaldehyde, so when
it's treated, it can become formaldehyde. And so there are
a lot of salon treatments that are apparently marketed as
formaldehyde free to the salons, but they actually create the
same hazard because the formaldehyde is formed during the heating,
which is usually part of the process. Usually they will
(32:16):
use hot dryers and they'll the straight iron your hair
with a lot of heat, so the hazard is still there.
There are other ones that don't use any formaldehyde or
formaldehyde forming products, but most of us don't know the
ingredients or wouldn't ask what the ingredients are in a
salon treatment. We go to the salon and just assume
that it's reasonably safe exactly.
Speaker 2 (32:38):
That's what I was going to ask about. How solid
is this data? How do they know that what we've
been putting in or on our hair for decades might
actually be this harmful.
Speaker 8 (32:50):
Well, there are two things that are going on. First,
formaldehyde is a new in carcinogen, you know, in a
high enough dose, And there actually have been OSHA studies
where they monitored the amount of formaldehyde that was getting
in the air in salons and found that it was
above standards that should keep worker safe. So at least
for the workers there could definitely be a hazard. But
(33:12):
the other thing was there was a big epidemiological study
that came out about a year ago, and it showed
that women who used hair straighteners, relaxers, these different kinds
of products, either at home or in a salon, had
a much higher rate of uterine cancer, which is sometimes
associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals. It was as much as
(33:34):
three times as high as the women who didn't get
these But the weird thing about that was they can't
really distinguish between the different kinds of products and whether
it's the ones with formaldehyde or a whole other class
that's used more often by black women. They use it
on a regular basis sometimes and these have lie or
something that's very irritating the scalp and also some potentially
(33:58):
anto disrupting chemicals, and so that combination could also be
a possible mechanism for being carcinogenic.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
So where is the FDA in all of this.
Speaker 8 (34:09):
Well, I think they're probably trying to figure out what
they should control and what they should bran because this
new study was kind of a surprise. I think they thought, oh,
it's just the formaldehyde that's the big problem, But this
study suggests maybe this other type of treatment might actually
be more of a danger to the customers the consumers,
and a lot of salons are phasing those out now
(34:30):
because it's very unpleasant to work with. The salon workers
recognize that there that the hairdresser I go to said
she'd done it a few times when the formaldehyde containing
once first came out and she felt so sick afterwards,
and so did her colleagues in that salon that they
stopped using it and got something else that was more expensive,
(34:53):
but you know much nicer.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Fd Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science and
host of the Follow the Science podcast and that Does
It For this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are produced by
Eric Molow, and you can find all of the columns
on the Bloomberg terminal. We are available as a podcast
on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us.
Today's top stories and global business headlines are just ahead.
(35:18):
I maybe Morris, this is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we
look at buy American not just a slogan, but a rule,
and there is concern now that that rule will make
America less safe. We've heard all about targeted cancer drugs
for years, but now it looks like they're finally starting
to show results that are more substantial than just the hype.
(00:39):
And we'll look at a call for the FDA to
get to the root of hair straighteners. But first we
begin with climate change and the debate over the science
of climate change. Science provides a framework for understanding the world,
but deciding how to shape policy based on that guidance
can be a matter of interpretation. During climate negotiations at
(01:03):
the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai, a controversial
statement from Sultan Algebert, the oil executive who led the
COP twenty eight climate summit in Dubai, has resurfaced about
the limitations of science.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
And there is no science out there or no scenario
out there that says that the phase out of fossil
fuel is what's going to achieve one point five. One
point five is my not start, and a face down
and a face out of fosil fude, in my view,
is inevitable.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
He defended his comments, saying they've been misinterpreted.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
I have said over and over that the phase down
and the phase out of fossil fuel is inevitable. I
honestly think that there is some confusion out there and
misrepresentation and misinterpretation.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Let's turn out a Bloomberg opinion columnist Lara Williams covers
climate change, and she attended COP twenty eight. She can
shine some light on all of this forest. Lara Algebra's
comments are not wrong, they are true. So how much
room for interpretation is there? Really?
Speaker 5 (02:15):
Every turn of carbon we put into the atmosphere ies
there's there's less and less room for interpretation. As you know,
our carbon budget for keeping warming temperatures under one point
five degrees is being reduced every day. But the IPCC,
so that is the inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
(02:36):
They review all the science that's out there and they
come up with the report that determines based on you know,
strong certainty, medium certainty, low certainty. It basically sums up
all the studies and science out there on climate change,
and they have a number of pathways and scenarios compassible
(02:56):
with limiting warming two one point five degrees and so
some of them like rely on what would happen if
we switch to renewables, what would happen if we relied
more heavily on energy efficiency measures, what would happen if
we rely on carbon capture technology. So the way that
you know it's presented in IPCC reports does leave room
(03:19):
for interpretation, which I guess, you know, people can you know,
choose their pathway based on what kind of priorities they have,
how confident they are in technology and the economics. But
having said that, all scenarios campassable with limitsing warm and
(03:41):
two one point five degree celsius above pre industrial temperatures,
which is ideally what we want to do, does involve
greatly reducing fossil fuel use to a fraction of what
it is today.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
And that's basically the point behind your column, which is
that the science is debatable but inescapable, which is how
you put in your column. You know, so often if
the science has proven correct, it's the fact there's not
a lot of wiggle room. That's what it is, black
and white. But that doesn't always seem to be the
case when it comes to climate change. As you distillustrated,
because there are so many different paths to get to
(04:15):
the actual answer. Is that why this is so hard
because we're in uncharted territory and there's so much debate
about how to get from point A to point B.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
I think so, I think, you know, and obviously you've
got to remember that everybody has their own entrenched interests,
and so renewables are really cheap, and so they're a
really good way to reduce fossil fuels, which is ultimately
what we need to do and therefore stop global warming.
But you know, some people made lots of money out
of fossil fuels, and so they're obviously going to want
(04:48):
to push a different agenda. And then some countries, you know,
renewables aren't so cheap because the cost of capital is
more expensive. So developing nations might feel that even though
you know, they recognize that we shouldn't we need to
phase out fossil fossil fuels as quickly as possible. You know,
(05:09):
developed nations like the UK and the US have kind
of really had the kind of former advantage and being
able to develop by using fossil fuels, and therefore it
might not be so fair or for them not to
be able to do that. So it becomes, I guess
a little bit more more competated when you're thinking about
(05:32):
enabling the continuation of sustainable development.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
What was your takeaway when you heard the controversial statement
from Saltan Algebrat.
Speaker 5 (05:40):
I well, I think that actually, you know, he's not
technically rounded, not technically run, as Jim Steer, the head
of the IPCC points out, but it's missing that crucial contacts,
which is the there's no room for expansion of fossil fuels,
which is what AD not, which is the Abidabbi National
(06:05):
Oil Company, which algebra is the oil is the CEO
of an oil company they want to pump more oil
by twenty twenty seven. And you know, so his comments,
while technically true, kind of miss out that that concept,
which is there's there's no room for its mansion. We're
gonna we barely need any fossil fuels by twenty fifteen,
(06:25):
twenty one hundred if we follow a pathway compassible with
one point five and so he was kind of missing
out some ty facts.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I also wondered if he also intended to include that
they'd have to do more than just limit fossil fuels.
It sort of almost sounded like there's no pathway for
these fossil fuel limitations to get us to that goal,
because it won't be enough, you know what I mean,
Like it seemed like he was calling for to do
(06:54):
more than just focus on fossil fuels.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
Yes, and that is that is a good point. We
need to do more than just limit fossil fuels because
the way we use our lands, the way we grow
our foods, also contributes to global warming, and so that
there needs to be a lot more action. And if
we aren't going to phase out fossil fuels entirely, then
we're going to have to ramp up carbin tapture technology,
carbin removal technology, and so there is a lot of
(07:21):
words to be done beyond just twitting the use of
fossil fuels.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
We are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lara Williams about
the science of climate change and if there's any room
for interpretation. Laura. One of the points you make in
your column on the Bloomberg Terminal is that the future
role of fossil fuels is one of the most controversial
issues that countries are grappling with at the Climate Summit.
Some have been pushing for a phase out, others are
(07:48):
calling for a weaker language of a phase down. Why
is all of this so very hard to nail down?
Speaker 5 (07:55):
Well, because everybody has their different priorities and the I
guess the problem with the with the top process is
that everything has to be made by consensus, which means
all the parties of the United Nations have to agree.
And it's incredibly difficult to just you know, pick something
(08:20):
and stick to it when there are different you know,
they're at different levels of readiness, they have different economic abilities,
they have you know, they make their money in different ways.
It's you know, it'd be much easier for the UK
now to switch entirely to renewables what a You're mean
to do it by twenty thirty five than it is
(08:41):
for you know, potentially a poorer country which doesn't have
that capacity yet. And so that makes it difficult. And
then you know, you also have those entrenched interests in
some countries, like for example, Saudi Arabia, which will block
you know, the use of quite definitive language. They want
(09:04):
to leave as many options on the table as possible,
and so that's what makes it hard to just you know,
put a fossil fuel phase out on the table that
there's always going to be, Oh, there has historically always
been you know, some holdouts and people who don't want
that to happen because they make a lot of money
out of fossil fuels. It would mean completely changing the
(09:26):
way that they make their money and run their economy,
and they are, I guess understandably extremely hesitant, even though
I say understandably in a way that I don't agree
with it obviously.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Well, you attended COP twenty eight. You were there. Did
anything at the conference stand out for you or surprise you? Well?
Speaker 5 (09:46):
I think I was surprised. It's a very exciting place
to be. There's a buzz you you know, everybody from
all over the world, you know, every country is represented
at top twenty eight, which was trying. I found it interesting.
You know, so you have every lots of nations and
NGOs have their pavilions where they you know, hold events
(10:09):
and you know, highlight the kind of things that they're
doing in their country or their group too, you know,
on time at Action. And I found interesting is in
one building, you know, you go in on the ground
floor and OPEC has their pavilion and you walk up
two flights of stairs and just above the OPEC pavilion
is the Indigenous People's pavilion calling out, you know, for
(10:31):
a complete phase out of fossil fuels. And so that
was a really interesting kind of judgtaposition of you know,
all all views were represented at.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Prop Laura, thank you very much for your time today.
Speaker 5 (10:43):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Laura Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist who covers climate change. Now,
coming up, we'll look at the by American rules, especially
when it comes to the military, and how some believe
that could make the US less safe. You're listening to
Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast counts Saturdays at
one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the
iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on
demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. A little
more than a year ago, President Biden laid out his
economic vision for America, including a buy American provision to
help invest in existing jobs, add more jobs, and secure
the supply chain.
Speaker 6 (11:40):
We're going to invest in America again, We're going to
make it in America again, and the federal government's going
to buy American. That's been my economic vision.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
The buy American rules have long applied to the military's
purchase of things like food and clothes and construction supplies,
but now weapons manufacturers have some wide discretion to use
materials from outside the US if they have to, if
doing so is necessary for the country's defense. Well, now
Congress is taking steps to rain all of that. In
Bloomberg Opinion, editor Romes Retinassar is joining me now to
(12:10):
sort of help shed some light on what's going on here. First, Romesh,
thank you. And what does buy American mean? Really?
Speaker 6 (12:19):
Well, dating back to the Depression, the federal government has
been required to source any goods that they purchase to
domestic sources. So at the moment, fifty five percent of
(12:41):
anything any goods that the federal government buys has to
contain content made in the United States. The Biden administration
has since coming into office tried to increase that threshold,
so that number has now been bumped up to sixty percent,
(13:04):
with an aim, at least according to the executive order
that the administration put out, of getting to seventy five
percent by twenty twenty nine.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Now, in your column, you say that the White House
and the protectionist forces in Congress, which is your terminology,
they're taking steps to make it harder for the US
to replenish its weapons stockpiles. Not that that's their intent,
but that maybe the end result. My first question is,
how are the White House and protectionists on the same
page at all.
Speaker 6 (13:35):
Well, you know, the impulse behind a lot of this
sort of push to buy American is this idea that
what we've seen over the last several years is the
vulnerability of the US supply chain and the fact that
so many materials that we need that are critical to
(13:59):
our new national security are made overseas, and because of
that diffuse supply chain, we are vulnerable to shocks like
the pandemic, but also potentially to you know, military conflicts
with other countries, most notably China. So that's the kind
(14:23):
of basis for this push. The problem is that the
military needs access to technology and draws on technology from
all over the world. And the fact is that the military,
just like many other parts of our economy, has been
(14:43):
using and trading with partners all over the world to
make its weapon systems. And a lot of weapon systems
that the military uses have components that are made in
other parts of the world. And by increasing the threshold
that the military has to meet when they buy these weapons,
(15:05):
you're going to actually make it harder and more costly
for the military to replenish its supplies when they run low,
as they are running low right now. If you are
telling the military you can no longer use a supplier
that you have an arrangement with, that you have a
contract with that you've negotiated a lower price with, I mean,
(15:29):
or a defense contractor those companies are then going to
have to find new suppliers. Maybe they're based in the US,
but the costs of doing that are going to be higher.
And the other factor that people don't take into account
is a lot of the best stuff does come from overseas.
(15:49):
The United States in many cases doesn't manufacture the best
components for certain weapons systems, and the military has a
reason to use components that are made over because they're
better for they better protect the country security. So setting
these requirements, while well intended, could have these consequences that
(16:13):
could be actually quite negative for national security.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion editor Roma is
rednas are about the downside of buy American. Remember when
we were kids, the idea of buy American became just
really entrenched. How did it get so entrenched in how
did it turn on us?
Speaker 6 (16:32):
Well, I think that there still are good reasons to
buy American. There still are good reasons to try to
find ways to make as much as we can domestically.
I think that is, in the long run, the way
you can insulate yourself from unexpected supply chain shocks and disruptions.
(16:54):
I think the point is that if you talk to
people both in the Pentagon and also in the defense industry,
they would say, we're faced with an extraordinary challenge right now.
We are trying to supply arms to Ukraine, now to Israel,
while also dealing with the potential for escalating tensions with
(17:19):
China and trying to make sure that Taiwan is adequately defended.
There simply aren't enough resources domestically right now to meet
those needs. And if you've basically tied the Pentagon's hands
behind their back, you are going to make it harder,
more expensive, and less likely that they can actually meet
(17:44):
those national security needs and protect the country's security.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
What message does it send when those protectionist messages are
tacked into the defense budget.
Speaker 6 (17:53):
Well, one of the biggest problems is the message it
sends to our allies. I mean, one of the things
that the military and the Pentagon has been trying to
do is encourage and build more partnerships with allies and
courage allies to take on a bigger role in defense production,
knowing that we can't do it all ourselves. By imposing
(18:14):
these kinds of rules, you're sort of discouraging allies from
cooperating in the same way. And you could lead to
some of our some countries we partner with very closely
erecting their own restrictions on the weapons that we produce.
And that's a again be counterproductive. You're going to hurt
(18:36):
American industry, You're going to cost Americans jobs if that happens.
So the message it sends is we're trying to protect
our industries, You're going to encourage other countries to protect theirs,
and that's incompatible with a really coordinated multilateral defense strategy.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Where does this go from here at this point, what's
going to happen next, and is there any way to
resolve it?
Speaker 5 (19:04):
Well?
Speaker 6 (19:05):
I think what you're going to see is more pressure
for more explicit exceptions to this rule for our close
allies and partners. So we have arrangements trading arrangements with
a number of our NATO allies that basically allow the
Pentagon to do business with them and trade with them
(19:26):
without being affected by these rules. But there are a
lot of NATO allies that don't have those arrangements, and
then we have a lot of partners, especially in Asia,
who don't have those arrangements. So more exemptions for those
countries I think might be one way to mitigate the
potential damage. And then I think more investment in building
up that defense industrial base in the US, even if
(19:48):
in the short term this is a bad idea, in
the long run, we do want to have and produce
more of the weapons we need here in the United States,
and there are steps that can taken to upgrade the
workforce here, to encourage better contracting, better procurement practices. Those
(20:09):
are the kinds of things that need to be done
in the long run to build that defense industrial base
here at home.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Ramesh Ret Nazzar is a Bloomberg Opinion editor and coming
up the science surrounding targeted cancer drugs. It's giving more
people some hope. Don't forget. We're available as a podcast
on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This is
Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris and after
decades of fits and starts, the science around designing and
testing targeted cancer drugs has finally coalesced and this class
of drugs is now having its moment. The field has
gone through waves of hype and investment over the past
few decades, but now it's starting to look like the
(21:15):
hype may be more than just hype. Let's bring in
Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis. She covers biotech, healthcare, and
the pharmaceutical industry, and she's going to bring us up
to speed on this. First of all, Lisa, what is
a targeted cancer drug?
Speaker 7 (21:30):
Right? So the class of drugs we're talking about is
called antibody drug conjugates. That's a wonky term, but basically,
the antibody part of the drug is going straight to
a protein that's on a tumor cell and tacked onto
the antibody is chemotherapy. I say tacked on as if
that's like it was just thrown on there, but actually
it's taken a lot of work to attach it to
(21:51):
the antibody in just the right way so that this
very powerful chemotherapy doesn't release until it hits the cancer cell.
So that means that the side effects should be a
lot more mild than when you just you couldn't give
this type of chemotherapy just on its own. You need
that antibody to bring it straight to the tumor. And
so people have been working on this for quite literally decades,
(22:14):
like forty years, trying to get this technology right, and
we're starting to see a host of just really impressive
data that these drugs can work in a broader range
of cancers than I think people anticipated in the past.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
So what made the difference? What is new with these
drugs that they are finally starting to live up to,
as you say, the hype.
Speaker 7 (22:35):
I think it took a lot of tinkering on all
parts of the actual molecule, picking the right antibody, but
really that linker was important because if it releases too early,
it could have toxic side effects. And then I think
clinical data, they're starting to understand where to use these drugs.
And we had a trial that came out that read
out last year in twenty twenty two in breast cancer.
(22:59):
That was a really big turning point for the field
because basically it was a drug that targeted a protein
called HER two that's on the surface of a lot
of breast cancers. But what they found was not only
did that drug help people live longer, but it also
you didn't need to have as much HER too around
(23:20):
that they previously thought, So that kind of opens the
door to using this in a lot more kinds of cancer.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Why is targeted therapy in and of itself so significant
so important? I understand that it's lessens the it lessens
the side effects, but does it make it more effective.
Speaker 7 (23:38):
Well. One of the things they're also learning and that
has also changed the field, is that you know, they
have these bystander effects. So when you if you just
gave this, there's drugs that target just her two on
their own. Those are classic cancer drugs. They can only
kill cancer cells that have her too on the surface.
And this type of drug, once the chemo is released,
(24:00):
it can actually kill a few different cells. And so
there's having this bystander effect that turns out to be
really important and powerful and is increasingly something they're designing
into the drug. And so I think that's kind of
where the future is going with this class of drugs,
is understanding how to get them to kill not just
the one cell that it targeted, but some of its
(24:21):
neighbors that may not have that protein on the surface.
Which is important because not all tumor cells are alike.
We think of them as alike, but our two tumors
are actually heterogeneous and have lots of different things going
on there.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis
about targeted cancer drug therapy and how it is finally
starting to live up to the hype and the work
that's been put into this for decades. Lisa, let's shift
to the business sector. Then, what are you seeing in
the business sector that gives you more of a sense
that there really is something here now?
Speaker 7 (24:54):
Well, we've seen three big deals this year, I mean
two of them quite big. One was obviously in the
spring we saw buysor by Cgen for forty three billion dollars.
That was a huge acquisition, and Cgen had been pursued
by other companies. We then just recently saw Abvi acquire
Immutagen for ten point one million dollars billion dollars. Sorry,
(25:15):
that company was really like the original Those are the
two original companies that have been working out as technology.
But we've seen smaller deals that are still significant. Merk
paid for billion dollars upfront to do a deal, not
to acquire, but to just get access to a few
drugs from diet thank you. And then we've seen other
companies doing collections of little deals like Bristol Miners, quib
(25:36):
and Lily Just it feels like the technology has matured
to a point where people finally really believe that it's
going to be a staple in cancer care.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Why was it so hard to get here?
Speaker 7 (25:48):
It's funny a lot of the companies that I just
mentioned is buying other people had been working in this
field years ago and they all got out of it.
I think that it just it sounds so simple, say
like tack a chemo onto the antibody, That actually was
very difficult to do. That piece getting it right was
just the science behind it, and the chemistry was very tough.
(26:12):
And it's just finally reached a point where they understand
how to make these drugs, how to manufacture them, and
now it's going to be more about exploring biology and
seeing how they can design better ones to work in
many more kinds of cancer.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Is targeted cancer therapy like what we were describing here.
Is it in common use yet? Is it considered standard
of care yet?
Speaker 7 (26:33):
I think it's getting there. And there's a number of
these drugs that are on the market. But the really
important one, as I mentioned, there was this data that
came out last year in a drug called in her Too.
That drug is developed by Astrozenic and ATI sank you
in her too positive breast cancer, but again could also
be in people who very little her too on their tumors,
(26:55):
and so right now it's in metastatic cancer. I mean,
I think there's an idea that this could be moved
earlier and earlier eventually. When I talked to oncologists when
this really impressive data came out last year, some of
them felt like it could replace chemo in some you know,
types of cancer, which would be a big deal. I mean,
it's I'll say it's more expensive than chemo, but you know,
(27:16):
I think it's also potentially more effective and you know,
maybe a little easier on patients.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Where are insurance companies on this? Have they bought in
or is that jury still out? Yeah?
Speaker 7 (27:28):
I think they've bought in certainly. I think, you know,
we're seeing increasingly. For example, another drug, immunoge In, the
company that was proposed acquisition by ABVI, has a drug
called ella here that was approved last year for obarian cancer,
and that was really considered the first advance for ovarian
cancer patients in a long time. Another thing that I
(27:48):
think companies find attractive about this is they're very hard
to mimic. It's going to be hard for generic companies
to swoop in when the patents expire and make their
own versions of these, so you know they probably are
going to be in companies portfolios for a really long time.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
When you describe the targeted cancer therapy, I get this image,
because I am a simple woman. I'll get this image
of like a little heat seeking missile painted on the
end with the targeted therapy and it goes into the
system and it aims for that cancer cell and poof.
It's almost cartoon like in my head because I have
to oversimplify it to understand it. When they are able
(28:26):
to create a technology that can do something like that
you had mentioned replacing chemo altogether, how far away would
that be?
Speaker 7 (28:35):
You know, I think we need more data, you know.
I think it's you know, kind of a clinical story
with some of these drugs, is trying to show that
they can work in other kinds of cancer. But I
think one of the things that's really exciting is that
this discovery, and again I know it sounds so wonky,
but that people with very low levels of this protein
on the surface of their tumors respond to these drugs.
(28:58):
That could open up the landscape of other types of
antibodies that people use that may have been sitting on
a shelf because they thought, oh, these aren't going to
be the heat seeking missile we anticipated. And so I think,
you know, we're going to see a broader landscape of
drugs developed and then we'll just have to see how
(29:18):
it plays out in the clinic. But you know, I
think in the next few years, these are going to
become even bigger drugs. They are already some of them
are a few of them handful are already pretty good
drugs in doing pretty well. But I think we're going
to see more of that.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
Are they also going to have to do the same
sorts of standard of care apt that would normally have
to do after chemo, Like when you have chemotherapy your
white blood cell count is low. Is that less of
a risk with this new targeted therapy?
Speaker 7 (29:45):
So, you know, it's funny because we talk about these
as being heat seeking missiles, but they do sometimes come
apart in your bloodstream, so they're not free of side effects.
I think part of the attractiveness of them is that
you can attach such a powerful chemotherapy to them that
you wouldn't be able to give, you know, kind of
on their on its own, and so it's really really
(30:08):
good at cancer killing. So the side effects are not benign,
but they're pretty good, and they're getting under really good
at understanding how to manage those and how to predict
what they see in animal studies, for example, how that
will translate into humans.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
So this is tremendous. Thank you so much for following
this for us. We're going to continue to follow it
with you, Lisa, as they make more developments. Thank you
so much.
Speaker 7 (30:31):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 6 (30:32):
Amy.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg opinion columnist who covers biotech, healthcare,
and the pharmaceutical industry. Don't forget We're available as a
podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This
is Bloomberg Opinion. Let's talk hair. Hair straighteners, specifically, the
Food and Drug Administration announced this ball that several common
treatments to smooth, straightened or relax hair contain known carcinogens
(30:56):
like formaldehyde. Let's learn more from ft FLO. I'm a
Bloomberg opinion columnist covering science and host of the follow
of the Science podcast Fay Welcome formaldehyde. How dangerous is this?
Speaker 8 (31:09):
Well, you know, the dose makes the poison, and we
get exposed to formaldehyde all the time in tiny amounts.
But the concern is that there's actually a lot of
formaldehyde in some of the hair treatments that are being
used in salons right now. I talked to a young
female chemist who said she had one of these treatments.
(31:30):
She'd saved up for it. She didn't really know what
was in it, and then she smelled the distinct smell
of formaldehyde while she was in the chair, and that
got her to really look into it.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
So you can get formaldehyde free products for your hair,
but you explain they include something called glycolic acid, it's
not much better.
Speaker 8 (31:53):
Well, it actually is a precursor to formaldehyde, so when
it's treated, it can become formaldehyde. And so there are
a lot of salon treatments that are apparently marketed as
formaldehyde free to the salons, but they actually create the
same hazard because the formaldehyde is formed during the heating,
which is usually part of the process. Usually they will
(32:16):
use hot dryers and they'll the straight iron your hair
with a lot of heat, so the hazard is still there.
There are other ones that don't use any formaldehyde or
formaldehyde forming products, but most of us don't know the
ingredients or wouldn't ask what the ingredients are in a
salon treatment. We go to the salon and just assume
that it's reasonably safe exactly.
Speaker 2 (32:38):
That's what I was going to ask about. How solid
is this data? How do they know that what we've
been putting in or on our hair for decades might
actually be this harmful.
Speaker 8 (32:50):
Well, there are two things that are going on. First,
formaldehyde is a new in carcinogen, you know, in a
high enough dose, And there actually have been OSHA studies
where they monitored the amount of formaldehyde that was getting
in the air in salons and found that it was
above standards that should keep worker safe. So at least
for the workers there could definitely be a hazard. But
(33:12):
the other thing was there was a big epidemiological study
that came out about a year ago, and it showed
that women who used hair straighteners, relaxers, these different kinds
of products, either at home or in a salon, had
a much higher rate of uterine cancer, which is sometimes
associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals. It was as much as
(33:34):
three times as high as the women who didn't get
these But the weird thing about that was they can't
really distinguish between the different kinds of products and whether
it's the ones with formaldehyde or a whole other class
that's used more often by black women. They use it
on a regular basis sometimes and these have lie or
something that's very irritating the scalp and also some potentially
(33:58):
anto disrupting chemicals, and so that combination could also be
a possible mechanism for being carcinogenic.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
So where is the FDA in all of this.
Speaker 8 (34:09):
Well, I think they're probably trying to figure out what
they should control and what they should bran because this
new study was kind of a surprise. I think they thought, oh,
it's just the formaldehyde that's the big problem, But this
study suggests maybe this other type of treatment might actually
be more of a danger to the customers the consumers,
and a lot of salons are phasing those out now
(34:30):
because it's very unpleasant to work with. The salon workers
recognize that there that the hairdresser I go to said
she'd done it a few times when the formaldehyde containing
once first came out and she felt so sick afterwards,
and so did her colleagues in that salon that they
stopped using it and got something else that was more expensive,
(34:53):
but you know much nicer.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Fd Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science and
host of the Follow the Science podcast and that Does
It For this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are produced by
Eric Molow, and you can find all of the columns
on the Bloomberg terminal. We are available as a podcast
on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us.
Today's top stories and global business headlines are just ahead.
(35:18):
I maybe Morris, this is Bloomberg.
Host
Vonnie Quinn
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com