Possible simple cure for cancer, pharmaceutical companies not interested

Jokester · 15 May 2011 at 10:05

Biohazard said:
How?

Because the US sank billions of $ into silicon integration and microchip development and perhaps the most important aspect, miniturisation, for control and guidance systems.

[FnG]magnolia · 15 May 2011 at 10:51

RDM said:
Nothing more than a front for big pharma, their sole purpose is to stop cheap, reliable miracle cures like this from ever getting to market...

BIG PHARMA GONE DONE BAD AGAIN :mad:

Phreaky · 15 May 2011 at 11:05

Err yeah, this is basically garbage? It comes up every few years, its completely non-feasible as a 'cure', just one of those '**** THE CAPITALISTS' type things.

Tefal · 15 May 2011 at 11:06

RDM said:
Nothing more than a front for big pharma, their sole purpose is to stop cheap, reliable miracle cures like this from ever getting to market...

Not sure if serious.

[FnG]magnolia · 15 May 2011 at 11:09

Tefal said:
Not sure if serious.

Almost certain not serious.

I hope.

Art · 15 May 2011 at 11:24

Just took a rapid scan through that Science article (emphasis mine):

However, because the clinical use of DCA has been associated with peripheral nerve toxicity (28, 29), the clinical efficacy and toxicity profile of DCA as an anticancer agent will have to be carefully examined in clinical trials. If this toxicity can be tolerated and its efficacy demonstrated, DCA treatment may be an important example of anticancer intervention through metabolic targeting. Although the above observations offer hope for a relatively simple and cost-effective way of specifically killing cancer cells by targeting their metabolism, the situation is likely to be more complicated in practice. [Section explaining that this chemical targets the pathway cells use to get energy from glucose, and that many cancers appear to be able to use alternative pathways.] Indeed, it has been documented that cancer cells can switch metabolic pathways or energy sources in response to nutrient depletion or fuel source limitation (36). Thus,
the targeting of a single metabolic pathway, such as inhibiting glycolysis, may not be sufficient to eliminate tumor cells. Given the heterogeneity of human tumors and the instability of cancer cell genomes, a major challenge to the metabolic targeting strategy may be potential resistance to a single antimetabolic drug. Combination therapies that block multiple metabolic pathways should therefore be considered in both preclinical “proof of principle” trials and in clinical settings.

In other words, it ain't as simple as just giving the patient one drug. First they have to check if the toxicity is a problem, then they have to work on combining it with other chemicals. The thing about cancer is that it isn't a condition, it's dozens of causes which manifest in an often relatively similar way. A drug which cures one kind probably won't cure all kinds, so walking around saying this is a Cure For Cancer isn't really accurate. There seems to be a bit of doubt in that Science article about exactly how many kinds of cancer and therefore how many people this would definitely help.

I'd guess that Pharma actually are interested in this, but not on its own. They're probably busy trying to find what it combines well with to produce a real, useable drug.

RDM · 15 May 2011 at 11:55

Tefal said:
Not sure if serious.

Tefal · 15 May 2011 at 11:57

RDM said:

Thank Christ i was trying to wonder if you'd gotten concussed as you normally seem sane

One thing to remember though, even if the drug can be produced by anyone, the company that tests it, then first treats will have all the news coverage eg "GlaxoSmithKline CURE CANCER!!!"

Doesn't matter if someone muscles in on the cheap production later, that there would be the single greatest PR campaign of all time and get them a lot of funding/recognition and stock boost.

Stretch · 15 May 2011 at 12:27

shroomz said:
This is old news. The pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to sponsor because the drug can't be patented IIRC.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/05/12/potential-cancer-drug-dca-tested-in-early-trials/

Then charity's like cure for cancer should step in.

Doohickey · 15 May 2011 at 12:48

Old Wino said:
There's no money in a cure

I could quote numerous other posts which are so quick to jump on the bandwagon of cynicism against these big money making pharmaceuticals.

While I agree that their model is of course making profits first, everything else second, refusing to produce and market a guaranteed 100% safe and effective 'cure' for cancer would be an outrage and this would never happen. I haven't done the research, but I am certain there are significant reasons why this drug is not our 'cure' for cancer.

In any case, the reason that they are not taking it on because they can't patent it is ridiculous. A drug company can patent anything if they wanted to. All they have to do is modify/augment the drug in some small way and then patent that. Even better, they produce some form of combination therapy. Either way, the patent is not an issue.

Amleto · 15 May 2011 at 14:45

there is buckets and buckets of money in cancer research just from charities. If it is promising and pharmac'ls won't pick up, then one of the charities definitely will/would have.

jak731 · 15 May 2011 at 15:44

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/05/12/potential-cancer-drug-dca-tested-in-early-trials/

muon · 15 May 2011 at 15:56

Amleto said:
there is buckets and buckets of money in cancer research just from charities. If it is promising and pharmac'ls won't pick up, then one of the charities definitely will/would have.

Precisely. Also, universities will almost definitely be willing to pump money into research which leads to the cure to cancer. They are desperate to improve reputation via Nobel laureates.

This is after all why people donate to cancer charities - not having to rely on pharmaceuticals.

~>Dg<~ · 15 May 2011 at 16:15

sorry but if it worked it would be being used.

conspiracy about it not being used cause they cant cash in on it sorry i call bs

UncleRuckus · 15 May 2011 at 16:21

I expect there's a cure already but the pharma companies can make much more money treating cancer than curing it. What use are we to them if we are healthy?

C64 · 15 May 2011 at 16:30

Genuine or not the drug companies are not interested in cures for anything they wouldn't sell drugs if they found cures.

Doohickey · 15 May 2011 at 16:42

C64 said:
Genuine or not the drug companies are not interested in cures for anything they wouldn't sell drugs if they found cures.

What about vaccines and antibiotics, for example :confused:

neodude · 15 May 2011 at 16:48

What we need is someone to broadcast the cure....wideband!!

UncleRuckus · 15 May 2011 at 16:50

Doohickey said:
What about vaccines and antibiotics, for example

I don't take antibiotics they destroy the immune system, thus making you more prone to sickness a nice side effect as the pharma make more money.

Rroff · 15 May 2011 at 16:56

Tefal said:
I remember this ages ago, didn't it need something like direct application or huge concentrations and wouldn't work outside of a petri dish and inside a person.

But equally if this is so cheap and effective as they claim why hasn't one of the NPOs or cancer research charities funded it?

Pretty sure that was the problem with it - hard to direct it to the cancer or you had to flood the body with such a high level that it was more likely to kill them than the cancer.

EDIT: It was rats/mice - without being able to target the cancer directly they had to exceed the LD50 of dichloroacetate in rats/mice to attack the cancer with the obvious side effects - I'd imagine tho that does mean in cases where they can apply it directly it is potentially useful.

EDIT2: WHO investigation also found that absorbtion/metabolisation of it in rats was much higher than in humans making it less useable in humans.