Slashdot Mirror
Cheap, Safe, Patentless Cancer Drug Discovered
PyroMosh writes "The New Scientist is reporting that researchers working at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada have discovered that an existing drug called dichloroacetate (DCA) is effective in killing cancer cells, while leaving the host's healthy cells unharmed. DCA has already been used for years to treat metabolic disorders, and is known to be fairly safe. Sounds like great news, is it too good to be true? Why is the mainstream news media failing to report on this potential breakthrough? The University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board have set up a site with more info, where you can also donate to support future clinical trials."
Cancer Drug May Not Get A Chance Due to Lack of Patent
Thanks for playing.
Here is your scientific biweekly peer reviewed journal with an article on the topic. Those "I'll wait until the peer-reviewed journal" rehearsed responses are getting annoying.
[alk]
Here went my moderation to this thread, but sod with it.
The original article apparently was published in Cell. I am not subscribed to it so I cannot verify that right away, but I am assuming this to be true. If the stuff passed peer review it would have been published in something at that level.
There is an ongoing joke in molecular biology (for the last 10 years). "If you publish once in Cell you can happily retire". Compared to Cell, Science or Nature are yellow corner newshop rags. Also, if it was published in Cell, they are going to be getting money regardless of the patents. All major foundations follow it. There is another joke amidst the molecular biology crowd: "If you publish once in Cell you will never have to ask for funding till you retire, it will come to you". So I would not worry about lack of sponsorship by major pharmaceuticals either.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
DCA is one of several haloacetic acids (HAA) that are disinfection byproducts (DBPs) water. When chlorine (or chloramine) are added to natural water to kill microorgamisms, the chlorine reacts with natural organic matter in the water to produce several byproducts, most notably trihalomethanes (THMs) and HAAs. The other HAAs have different levels of bromine and chlorine substitution. Disinfection byproducts are regulated because they may increase your cancer risk (surprise!). It's a problem because drinking water represents a chronic exposure.
The regulated concentration of DBPs is several orders of magnitude below the doses of DCA that are listed in the linked articles, so don't count on getting (or killing) cancer from your drinking water.
List of common Drinking Water Contaminants
I was skeptical so I checked, and indeed, there it is:
t ?uid=PIIS1535610806003722&highlight=A%20Mitochondr ia-K+%20Channel%20Axis%20Is%20Suppressed%20%20in%2 0Cancer%20and%20Its%20Normalization%20%20Promotes% 20Apoptosis%20and%20Inhibits%20Cancer%20Growth
http://www.cancercell.org/content/article/abstrac
Slashcode will most likely screw that link, so just go to cancercell.org , and search for the title
A Mitochondria-K+ Channel Axis Is Suppressed
in Cancer and Its Normalization
Promotes Apoptosis and Inhibits Cancer Growth
by
Se bastien Bonnet,1 Stephen L. Archer,1,2 Joan Allalunis-Turner,3 Alois Haromy,1 Christian Beaulieu,4
Richard Thompson,4 Christopher T. Lee,5 Gary D. Lopaschuk,5,6 Lakshmi Puttagunta,7 Sandra Bonnet,1
Gwyneth Harry,1 Kyoko Hashimoto,1 Christopher J. Porter,8 Miguel A. Andrade,8 Bernard Thebaud,1,6
and Evangelos D. Michelakis
Crap, I forgot to include the summary:
The unique metabolic profile of cancer (aerobic glycolysis) might confer apoptosis resistance and be
therapeutically targeted. Compared to normal cells, several human cancers have high mitochondrial
membrane potential (DJm) and low expression of the K+ channel Kv1.5, both contributing to apoptosis
resistance. Dichloroacetate (DCA) inhibits mitochondrial pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK),
shifts metabolism from glycolysis to glucose oxidation, decreases DJm, increases mitochondrial
H2O2, and activates Kv channels in all cancer, but not normal, cells; DCA upregulates Kv1.5 by an
NFAT1-dependent mechanism. DCA induces apoptosis, decreases proliferation, and inhibits tumor
growth, without apparent toxicity.Molecular inhibition of PDK2 by siRNA mimics DCA. The mitochondria-
NFAT-Kv axis and PDK are important therapeutic targets in cancer; the orally available DCA is
a promising selective anticancer agent.
I won't claim to understand what it means, but there it is.
There's a direct link to download it, in case you understand that sort of thing, here:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/cancer_cell.pdf
DCA and a related chemical TCE were both found to play a prominent role in creating liver cancers with DCA accelerating the growth rate of liver cancer
Later research found that DCA and its metabolites may have different roles in the cancer process and that dose-response is very non-linear because DCA inhibits its own metabolism.
DCA has such serious side effects on the human nervous system that in a recent study 15 out of 15 test patients had to be taken off experimental DCA treatment because of toxic neuropathy and the study was terminated early.
DCA has been found to prevent and reverses pulmonary high blood pressure
Scroogle
"All three high profile cases show the callous disregard for the
health and well-being of people and a single-minded focus on profit -
whatever the human cost."
Here's a fourth one: AZT as an AIDS treatment. The drug was initially produced in the early 1960s under a NIH grant as a cancer treatment, but wasn't particularly efficacious and had nasty side effects, so it fell out of usage. Then, in the mid 1980s, three scientists from the National Cancer Institute who were working with a couple of others from Burroughs-Welcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) discovered that it was effective against the AIDS virus, and after a small trial that cost very little (the initial Welcome scientists were working at the National Cancer Institute and using their facilities, so Welcome's initial investment amounted to two peoples' wages), Burroughs-Welcome were given a usage patent by the FDA on this previously public domain medication, and proceeded to charge the _highest price of any treatment in prior history_ for something that was extremely cheap and easy to produce. Furthermore, this patent was upheld by the US Supreme Profit Ensurers (those people who decided that "eminent domain" lets local governments take your property and sell it to someone else whenever they feel like it) against challenges by AIDS organisations two separate occasions.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
As an Aussie I concur, few people here have private health cover, and the cover normally boils down to a gaurentee of a private hospital for elective sugery. All private hospitals are fairly small and some have nice nice garden's, they are generally less well equiped and use the same doctors/surgeons as public hospitals, if something goes seriously wrong with a patient they are immediately transfered to a better equiped public hospital.
...what's that thing called...oh yes, "the market".
If you are just interested in your health then use the "free" (1.5% of taxable income) universal health cover, even millionaires are not forced to pay more than $1200yr for prescriptions. The doctors are well paid, nurses are well trained and the PUBLIC hospitals measure up to anything offered overseas. What's more I recently visited the UK and got a chest infection, went to casualty twice and got antibiotics "free". The doctor laughed when I ask "should I pay at reception", seems our governments have a recipricol arrangement to look after each other tourists.
A company must make a profit, that is it's sole reason for existance, if the government can't do it to a higher standard with less money then they are doing something wrong. No Australian politician would dare dismantle the public scheme and go back to the early 70's privatised "pay or die" scheme, the voting public would tie them to an ambulance and drag them through the streets. This situation is also boosted by a "balance of power/share the blame" component, the fed's collect the money and the various states spend it. If you are seriously ill in this country there is absolutely no fucking around, especially with admin, accountants and lawyers, because guess what - prevention and early treatment is much cheaper than "the machine that goes ping". Oh and guess what - a healthier population is less profitable for private hostpitals and more productive in
Having said that I will also point out Godel has proven no system is complete, some doctors are butchers and that is when the lawyers, accountants and admin come out of the woodwork. However all I ever hear from American's when asked "why not have UHC like just about every other wealthy country", is a ranting reply about their pathological fear of "socialisim" and vacuous examples of "higher costs". Some will listen and are surprised by the reality they find, others are like the people who talk about global warming on Mars to deny it on Earth, there is no possible reply to that level of brainwashed dogma other than sarcasam and abuse.
And before some free market zealot starts waving the WSJ to point out the painfully obvious: yes UHC is a form of "socialisim", some things just work better that way, New York's central park for example or does Disney sell tickets to walk your dog now?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Studies in Austria revealed that private health care has administrative overhead costs of up to 30%, while public ones had ca. 4%. Which makes sense to me considering the ridiculous advertising and applicant screening that private health care seems to need. And I won't even go into the minor stuff like the different costs created by the CEO of a private company vs. the director of a publicly-held insurance.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
The premise of the article is flawed. First, using DCA to treat cancer IS patentable -- it would be a new indication for the compound. Also, it's known to be moderately toxic in humans, causing organ damage and exacerbating certain cancers (esp. hepatic). Also, there's not any evidence that it may have the sames effect in humans as in mice. Further, the safety work for the drug, production, and formulation have been worked out long ago. Right now, one would only need to do a study to show efficacy and that'd likely cost less than $1 million; which is an amount for which grants are still widely available.
So, the article is a little misleading. Nobody (other than the article author) feels that this drug would cure cancer, or that it's even less toxic than current treatments. There's also most assuredly profit to be had from it.
Again, it is not the Brand, per se that FDA approves.
FDA approves the drug as manufactured BY THAT MANUFACTURER. The reason is that the manufacturing facility itself is part of the approval process. It must meet FDA standards in order to be approved. If a manufacturer builds a new facility, even if it will make currently approved drugs, it must still be newly inspected and approved for each drug it will make.
So the reason FDA requires each manufacturer to seek separate approval for each drug isn't Brand related, but related to the fact that not all physical manufacturing plants are necessarily made equal.
If a company wants to use a currently approved drug for a use other than for which it is currently used, it must apply for a new NDA (New Drug Application), which starts the approval process off as new. Safety isn't an issue, since the company can point to a safety record as part of the original NDA, plus a public record of safe use under that prior approval, so the process IS cheaper. However, unless the company can point to a lengthy record of the drug being used for the new purpose (doctors can use approved drugs for different uses than that for which they were approved but it isn't strictly legal) new clinical trials will be needed. These trials are needed to prove efficacy, not safety. When other companies then apply to use that same drug they do so as a generic drug, so the applications do not require clinical trials.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
Dr. Steven Novella discusses this drug on his blog.
From: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp ?Display=28
Those are interesting links and it's always good to keep the downsides in mind. But, on the scientific merit I did want to add:
The first link refers to a summary about trichloroethylene environmental cleanup, and the effects of DCA as a metabolic breakdown product of TCE. This is rather different from controlled dosage in a medical application. Every cancer drug known is a violent poison whose effects at uncontrolled dosage are not pretty.
The second link is a scientific article talking, again, about the medical effects of TCE in the environment.
The third link discusses the use of DCA in a similar context to the cancer study, ie to lower metabolic rate of mitochondria. However, they were trying to lower the rate of all the patient's mitochondria, not cancerous ones, because they were trying to treat a metabolic disease. The dosage rate was 25 mg/kg/day. For a 70kg person (154 lbs), that's 1750 mg per day, which is on the order of two teaspoons-worth of pure drug. That is an enormous dose. The whole point with the cancer cells is their metabolism is so revved up that they're susceptible to much lower doses than normal cells. I don't know what the dosage in the Alberta study was, but I'd expect it to be a lot lower.
The fourth link discusses research that showed DCA-induced cell death (=apoptosis) in the smooth muscle cells of pulmonary arteries. Again, these are not cancerous cells, but they are over-active, I gather from the article, in pulmonary hypertension.
Any time there's a difference in mitochondrial activity between normal cells and targeted cells, there's the possibility that DCA could be used to selectively target the abnormal cells without harming the others. That said, anything that targets mitochondria is a vicious drug that does need to be treated with lots of caution.
Deployed pay is confusing, but usually not much more than your base pay.
If you're in a hostile fire zone, you get (depending on your rank) around $100-200 extra per month, and tax-free income (Which is pointless at the lower ranks, because you're barely paying taxes in the first place).
If you're premenantly in a foreign country (Germany, UK, Japan, etc.) - you get a Cost of Living allowance that supposedly normalizes your pay to account for the dollar's shitty exchange rate. If you buy all your stuff on base, or over the internet, this is huge (~400 a month here in Germany, higher in the UK or Japan)
Military chow halls are, by and large, disgusting places to eat at. People who absolutely have to save money (heavy debts, etc.) - will eat there religiously. The rest of us buy food.
Housing is indeed paid for, it's adjusted to the local area's housing prices.
Overall with my allowances and base pay, I'm getting paid somewhere around $40K a year, total, as an E-3.
Yeah, quoting a notorious Communist fellow traveler is really going to make you look respectable in a debate. There are plenty of legitimate, peer-reviewed political scientists you could quote, why you have to quoted a deranged vet with no appropriate qualifications is beyond me.
The title of "commander-in-chief" goes back to the early days of the United States. Even the most popular civilian usage of the term, the march "Hail to the Chief" was penned in the first half of the 19th century.
Sneak a look at your medical file sometime. Near the top will be the printout of the limits that your insurance will reimburse. The office will try to get you in just enough to max out your insurance reimbursements. Dentists are even worse.
As for insurance rates: I assume you're talking about malpractice insurance. I'd be somewhat surprised if a physician talked to patients about malpractice rates except in the aggregate. Malpractice rates are based on the individual physicians' faults. However, they are also based on the specialty the physician practices.
For instance, in the state of Pennsylvania, recently there was an exodus of practicing high-risk obstetricians due to the increase in malpractice insurance for the specialty. It's a particularly high-risk specialty because (if I recall correctly) the child has the right to sue until he reaches 21 (at least).
As for being able to trust a hospital more than a physician: The worry is always continuity of care. A number of bigger hospitals are offering "Hospitalist" services. These are physicians who are payed by the hospital to take care of patients in the hospital. They save money overall because they don't have outpatient practices of their own; in this way, private physicians don't need to enter the hospital at all. They just entrust the hospitalist to take care of their patients until they are discharged. This leads to less continuity of care. The hospitalists don't really know the patients as well as the physician who may have been treating the patient for a decade or more. Also, the hospitalist is pressured by the hospital (who pays his bills) to discharge patients early to make way for more admissions.
Continuity of care is also the problem with limiting resident hours while on call. The resident who was taking care of a sick patient during the day will sign off to someone else who covers for the night and really doesn't get invested in the patient's wellbeing. I'm not saying residents should live in the hospital, but a 36 hour call may be of more benefit to patients in general, with the caveat that the resident is not allowed to do procedures if he is in the hospital for more than 24 hours.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.