Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971&feedId=online-news_rss20

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:04 (nineteen years ago)

The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap.

Where do we send money to make sure this doesn't get brushed under the carpet (like the legendary non-carcinogenic cigarette) and help fund the trials? SRSLY.

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:07 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn10971/dn10971-1_550.jpg

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:08 (nineteen years ago)

Stan, this is incredibly exciting, but why isn't it getting more media response?

Everybody needs to know about this or else yes, it will get brushed under the carpet.

Isn't this what the world has been waiting for?

― Rumpsy Pumpsy (Rumpie), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:18 (nineteen years ago)

Totally exciting!

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:24 (nineteen years ago)

Actually, this kind of seems unreal. Wow!

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:25 (nineteen years ago)

I'm guessing it's still early days and it would be unfair to people suffering right now to give them false hope ten years before a real medicine comes out of this.

I'm trying to think positive thoughts about this so I don't get into plausible-sounding but ultimately unproveable conspiracy theories (like the one I once heard about about the still lacking AIDS medicine: "there isn't one because the first company to develop one would have an unfair advantage over all the others and they would have a monopoly, which is against the law. So the status quo, where all the companies can experiment with their own "slowing down" medicine cocktails, is maintained as long as possible." - which is probably the biggest load of uninformed conspiracy crap ever, but you do wonder if that is how it really works behind the curtains, sometimes...)

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:27 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006176497

This is depressing:

Michelakis told reporters they will be applying to public agencies for funding, as pharmaceuticals are reluctant to pick up the drug.

At roughly $2 a dose, there isn't much chance to make a billion on the cancer treatment over the long term.

― molly mummenschanz (mollyd), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:28 (nineteen years ago)

This cancer drug is cool and call, but have you guys seen "Children of Men" ?!?!?! It is SO SO GREAT!

― cousin larry bundgee (bundgee), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:29 (nineteen years ago)

If a cancer panacea were seriously found in a drug that's non-patented and already proven safe for humans ... I dunno, I'd have to rethink my whole position on exactly how lucky/awesome the world ever gets to be. This doesn't sound like anything to get super excited about quite yet, but that's amazing new that instead of waiting decades to even try the stuff on humans, it's pre-approved as safe -- the time savings there is just amazing.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:30 (nineteen years ago)

Next step: anti-propaganda from the pharma-industry? ("it's cheap, it can't possibly be safe!")

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:32 (nineteen years ago)

I guess I'm not completely cynical because that AHN article shocks me.

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:33 (nineteen years ago)

I can't open that link: server unreachable?

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:34 (nineteen years ago)

Here, Stan:

Miracle Cancer Drug: 'Shrinks Tumors, Costs $2, Can't Get Funding'

January 18, 2007 8:52 a.m. EST

Danielle Godard - All Headline News Staff Writer

Edmonton, AB (AHN) - It is expected there would be no problems securing funding to explore a drug that could shrink cancerous tumors and has no side-effects in humans, but University of Alberta researcher Evangelos Michelakis has hit a stalemate with the private sector who would normally fund such a venture.

Michelakis' drug is none other than dichloroacetate (DCA), a drug which cannot be patented and costs pennies to make.

It's no wonder he can't secure the $400-600 million needed to conduct human trials with the medicine - the drug doesn't have the potential to make enough money.

Michelakis told reporters they will be applying to public agencies for funding, as pharmaceuticals are reluctant to pick up the drug.

At roughly $2 a dose, there isn't much chance to make a billion on the cancer treatment over the long term.

According to research on DCA, formerly used to fight metabolic disease in children, the drug apparently revitalizes damaged mitochondria in cancer cells, effectively triggering cell death and shrinking the cells.

"One of the really exciting things about this compound is that it might be able to treat many different forms of cancer," explained Michelakis.

― molly mummenschanz (mollyd), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:36 (nineteen years ago)

The thought of a cancer cure is exciting, and absolutely needs to be pursued, but I can't help thinking about the global population explosion that would follow. PLEASE NOTE I'M NOT SAYING CURING CANCER WOULD BE A BAD THING.

― do i have to draw you a diaphragm (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:38 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks, mm!

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:39 (nineteen years ago)

suck a dick Hardy, what else you saying?

― Dr. Alicia D. Titsovich (sexyDancer), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:40 (nineteen years ago)

The thing about this I'd like to know before I can really get optimistic, though: has any part of this been in one of the "official" big peer-reviewed science publications yet? Or is this just one pulmonary/cardiology specialist making a lot of noise about something that looked like it happened but we're not sure yet?

( http://cardiosrv1.uah.ualberta.ca/Cardiologist/EMichelakis/EMichelakis.asp?page1.htm )

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:52 (nineteen years ago)

I'm saying TANSTAAFL, is what I'm saying.

― do i have to draw you a diaphragm (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:59 (nineteen years ago)

Umm Rock I wouldn't really worry about that: surely a lot of the cancer deaths a new treatment could prevent would be among people already past reproductive age. So it's mostly a matter of living and consuming resources for a couple extra decades, not some kind of exponential population boom. If you're that worried about population, your most efficient bet would be going around the world campaigning in favor of infant mortality.

P.S. I'm not sure how much we can or should be shocked that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't fund research on a drug that wouldn't recoup much, even if it worked. It can't be patented; you'd be paying for developments every competitor could profit from; it'd be a really bad investment in a shared public good. Thankfully, the "public" part of that = this is precisely the sort of thing the public sector is supposed to be funding, and presumably will, so everything works out -- public health funded by the public sector.

That said, OMG big PR + marketing opportunity missed here: I'd bet a few hundred million would be TOTALLY WORTH the 2% chance of being able to say "we're the company that CURED YOUR CANCER FOR CHEAP, just out of niceness," plus having such vast inroads into cancer treatment that you can trick every other patient out with a prescription for your nail-fungus regimen or whatever.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 18 January 2007 21:08 (nineteen years ago)

just need some good branding "the company that killed cancer" or whatever

― deej.. (deej..), Thursday, 18 January 2007 21:11 (nineteen years ago)

hmm i suppose you already said that

― deej.. (deej..), Thursday, 18 January 2007 21:11 (nineteen years ago)

merk: the company that killed cancer or whatever!

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 18 January 2007 21:15 (nineteen years ago)

Point taken in yr first paragraph, nabisco.

― do i have to draw you a diaphragm (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 18 January 2007 21:16 (nineteen years ago)

Cancer charities could cannel cash into it, no?

― Rumpsy Pumpsy (Rumpie), Thursday, 18 January 2007 21:30 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, it would definitely be in the best interests of Cancer charities to fund proper research.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 18 January 2007 21:33 (nineteen years ago)

Nobody is else excited about this? :-(

Or is everyone as curmudgeonly "Okay, nice, but I really wish someone invented pills that kill people! I hate them!" as Mr. Hardy? ;-)

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 19 January 2007 07:40 (nineteen years ago)

i wonder what liberal communist org like Gate's Foundation have to say about this

― SÆbästìên (immortalist), Friday, 19 January 2007 07:49 (nineteen years ago)

this PEER-REVIEWED article here seems to suggest that DCA is itself a carcinogen

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13823249

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 19 January 2007 07:52 (nineteen years ago)

but fuck peer-reviewed science, newscientist.com is about to blow the lid off the cancer drug conspiracy!!

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 19 January 2007 07:53 (nineteen years ago)

golly should you update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid

― SÆbästìên (immortalist), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:00 (nineteen years ago)

maybe i am being too jaded about this, but the initial findings were published *yesterday*. also the articles are a little fuzzy about things like what's the relationship between induced cancer in rats and cancer in humans, long term side effects, etc. this sounds more like the new cold fusion.

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:02 (nineteen years ago)

The short notes about the article in Cancer Cell journal:

http://www.cancercell.org/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1535610806003722

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:10 (nineteen years ago)

(it's not like they discovered this yesterday afternoon (Received 25 November 2005; revised 12 July 2006; accepted 18 October 2006. Published: January 15, 2007. Available online 16 January 2007.), but yeah, you're right, the press about this is probably more meant to alert fundraisers for further research than to excite the general public)

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:14 (nineteen years ago)

it's a big leap from "it looks like this kills these cells" to "we have a DCA therapy that makes people better". like a 20 year leap. all i'm saying.

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:21 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, but you believe in astrology.

All I'm saying.

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:26 (nineteen years ago)

And anyway, no matter how big a leap, the problem seems to be that no one will fund the necessary research on it, because drug companies can't patent the drug.

Somebody call Bill Gates, plz.

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:28 (nineteen years ago)

MSDCA

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:29 (nineteen years ago)

(service pack 3)

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:30 (nineteen years ago)

Laugh all you like, he's the philanthropist of the decade.

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:31 (nineteen years ago)

wow. I had no idea it was this extensive. Sorry, Bill.

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:36 (nineteen years ago)

I'm tellin' ya.

I almost feel sorry for his little nerdlings. He is not leaving them his vast fortunes. He is giving them away.

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:40 (nineteen years ago)

astrology? your spreadsheet needs revising.

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:43 (nineteen years ago)

i may have you cornfused with another "v" person.

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:47 (nineteen years ago)

vahim? vahood? vafrim? vahfroot?

Whoever it is that I can't stand that keeps popping up on every religion thread to argue that religious people are only following their hearts. Or some indefensible crap.

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:55 (nineteen years ago)

Way off topic. Sorry.

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:55 (nineteen years ago)

GOD i hate people

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:56 (nineteen years ago)

I think thats Vic, Kenan. Different guy.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:58 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry, forgot my closing tag.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:59 (nineteen years ago)

Shit didnt work.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:59 (nineteen years ago)

Yes! Thank you, Trayce.

Anyway, I can't stand that dude.

Sorry, Vahid. Only clash I've had with you is over Fugiya & Miyagi.

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 09:00 (nineteen years ago)

And that was stupid.

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 09:01 (nineteen years ago)

Anyway, cancer.

― Charlie Brown (kenan), Friday, 19 January 2007 09:01 (nineteen years ago)

GUYS! WE'VE CURED CANCER! BRILLIANT!

(cue me dying of some horrible cancer in 10 yrs time cos no bastard would fund the research. Cunts.)

― Johnney B English (stigoftdump), Friday, 19 January 2007 09:08 (nineteen years ago)

The Economist has a somewhat more scientific explanation of the principles at work.

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 19 January 2007 09:36 (nineteen years ago)

(and a subtle "Americans were first, you know" thing) (ok, that's just me being evil)

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 19 January 2007 09:45 (nineteen years ago)

RNA interference is the subject of eager investigation among pharmaceutical companies, but so far it has yet to yield a drug approved by the regulators.

You know, I could swear I read an article in the Economist at the end of November about a common HIV treatment that halts the growth of tumours. Is this the same thing?

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Friday, 19 January 2007 09:49 (nineteen years ago)

Could be, there are a couple of research articles about this in Cancer Cell, the journal that's now publishing this DCA article: one from 2002 and then this one from 2006 (probably more, but I just looked up Leder there)

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 19 January 2007 10:03 (nineteen years ago)

I almost feel sorry for his little nerdlings. He is not leaving them his vast fortunes. He is giving them away.

Carnegie said that a man who dies rich dies disgraced.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 19 January 2007 10:11 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.