Slashdot Mirror
Cancer Drug May Not Get A Chance Due to Lack of Patent
theshowmecanuck writes to mention that in a recent study, researchers at the University of Alberta Department of Medicine have shown that an existing small, relatively non-toxic molecule, dichloroacetate (DCA), causes regression in several different cancers. From the article: "But there's a catch: the drug isn't patented, and pharmaceutical companies may not be interested in funding further research if the treatment won't make them a profit. In findings that 'astounded' the researchers, the molecule known as DCA was shown to shrink lung, breast and brain tumors in both animal and human tissue experiments."
here
-mcgrew (my computer is broken):
Even if the companies do turn it down they will get a further crack at it. Courtesy of the Byah-Dole act most publicly funded research (especially drug research) in the U.S. can later be "bought" by private companies who may then claim "intellectual property" on the fruits of the public's labors. It is this law that allows both AZT and Viagra (developed with funding from the National Institutes of Health) to be considered "private" property and for the companies to charge the people who invested in their development for their use.
The practical upshot of this is that if the drug does go to the universities to be developed it would be following the normal track of most medical research. And if any patentability (say on dosage levels) does show up the companies can always buy it then.
Cuba has a large, thriving and internationally recognized cutting-edge pharmaceutical and biomedical research industry. They specialize in developing and distributing drugs to the 99% of planet Earth that can't afford $5/day to get harder erections. They generally research based on the commonality and severity of particular diseases, and then try to find exceptionally low-cost ways to solve them better. Ironically enough, it's quite profitable since selling tens of millions of pills to entire continents at 1% profit can add up pretty quickly.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I am not surprised. I watched my mother in law die of lung cancer a few years ago. Her best (insurance-funded, of course) option was radiation & chemotherapy. A few months ago (July-August), I watched my father go through practically the same thing. Once again, his best (and also insurance-funded) option was radiation & chemotherapy. One bill I saw, that he had to fork out $225 for (co-pay for it being over $20k), was almost $21,000. Why is there not a cure and treatments are our best option? The fat ass American medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry can charge 10K per session to the Insurance Industry, who just plain rips off the American people. It would be such a wonderful irony to see something that isn't patented become a cure...then it would be available to EVERY F*CK*NG PERSON who could throw down a few bucks for the cure, instead of having to rely on the bullshit fat ass Insurance, Medical and Pharmaceutical industries to give us these bullshit treatments that prolong the agony. There would be fierce competition for sales of this cure, therefore making the price of it affordable without the necessity for the Insurance company to intervene.
It's not a broken system. On my local news (Edmonton, home of the UofA) they are specifically NOT including drug companies in funding the trials, because they want the drug to be cheap.
FTA:
"A small, non-toxic molecule may soon be available as an inexpensive treatment for many forms of cancer, including lung, breast and brain tumours, say University of Alberta researchers."
Sir Frederick Banting, (another Canadian) did the same thing with his patent for Insulin, so that drug companies would never have a monopoly on something needed for people to live.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
I was not aware that the drug is already in use. If it is, you don't actually have to do anything: you can just get doctors to prescribe it off-label. (That's in the US; given that this is Alberta I can't say what the rules are.) You'd end up doing a Phase IV trial, which can be a lot cheaper if you can just get doctors to send in data.
Or you can patent one of the production processes for it.
Someone mentioned the inventor of insulin trying to ensure a "no-monopoly" situation, but since the advent of human insulin produced by genetically engineered bacteria (as opposed to from the pancreas of slaughtered cows/pigs), a select few companies (Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk and that's about it with one exception) have dominated the insulin market since the 1970s (Insulin was discovered in the early 1920s, by the way) due to patents on:
Methods of producing insulin (specifically recombinant DNA origin insulins)
Methods of tweaking insulin to be absorbed/used by the body over a longer period of time by adding stuff to the injected mixture (Lente, Ultralente, NPH, etc)
Methods of producing insulin with "faster than natural" activity profiles by tweaking the molecular structure itself (Humalog and Novolog)
Methods of producing insulin with extremely long "peakless" activity profiles by a combination of the above two techniques (Lantus and Levemir) - BTW this is where the one exception to the Lilly/Nordisk dominance is. Lantus is made by Aventis.
From one "unpatented" drug that according to this article will not have an interest from big pharma, history shows that global market dominance can still be established. I have a feeling drug companies right and left will be racing to tweak this new drug to make a better version or better production process (which happens to be patentable).
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Actually, if you read the article (I know bizarre), you would have know that it is already and FDA approved drug and is actively prescribed. It has some side effects but nothing horrible. Since it is already approved, getting it cleared for use in a an additional capacity is much easier since it has been proven safe for human use. The only thing that needs to be proved is effecacy.
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
Well, then he's trolling. 'Nationalized Healthcare' means we pay for it through our taxes, so price does matter. Many cancer treatments can run $12,000 a month, and are not covered by many provincial healthcare plans.
There are many things we must pay for, out of pocket. Perscription drugs and non-approved cancer treatments are two of them.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain