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."
It's only hope is to be prescribed as an "off-label" treatment, or for a University to foot the bill for the betterment of mankind.
while the revelation of the compound is somewhat novel, research around diseases has supposed "breakthroughs" like this quite often. the quest for funding outright on the web seems awkward, since there's more than enough foundations that fund cancer research and medicine. but i'm not in academia, so maybe this is the norm?
i'm not a big believer in conspiracies, and if cancer folks will travel to the backwaters of the earth to get voodoo remedies, shark parts and holy men to pray over them, they will surely fund anything with even a glimmer of promise. if this works, i expect it to float to the top once the news catches on (and it works).
As to funding studies, there are plenty of rich people, or simply the giving types, that would donate towards this. Again, with the drug already in existence, it's not a question of production, simply a question of supply and testing expenses. I've heard the same argument about Linux (why use it? It'll never be updated because there's no money in it...) but it keeps a lot of people pretty happy. Besides, this is a college, they can apply for more grants or funding than anybody would care to count.
The part I'm worried about...while pharmacological companies can mass-produce cheaply and without patent overhead, the bigger concern is that this drug shows some shred of a chance to cure some types/cases of cancer. The problem is, as the old saying goes "There's more money in treating the disease than there is in curing it". Just because there's profit to be made, and real potential here, there's a real chance that it won't happen because it won't induce continual and regular profit.
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
I think what you're refering to is Socialized medicine. One of the benefits of it is the fact that the hospitals and doctors aren't out there to squeeze every last penny out of you.
The doctors don't squeeze. Investors/shareholders (through HMOs and for-profit healthcare companies) squeeze.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
You mention that it won't get funding because there is no money in a patentless cure. I beg to differ. At least from a Canadian perspective, where we have socialized medicine, it makes a lot of sense. This is after all a Canadian institution that discovered this.
Cancer is very costly disease which costs the government, and as a result Canadian citizens a lot of money. If there was something that could cure cancer at a very minimal cost, it could save the government millions (possibly billions) in health care dollars every year. Not only that, many other countries which also have socialized medicine, such as all of the EU, would benefit from something like this in a similar way. I can see government funding filling the role that pharmeceutical companies normally play in this simply because it could save them billions.
I would hope that of all the articles you could complain about there being a dupe of, the cure for cancer would probably be at the bottom of the list. ;)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Well, chemotherapy has side effects too. Does DCA make your hairs go free? If it would be painfull only two weeks or month, is it worse than several months of pain with chemotherapy?
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
How we know is more important than what we know.
Now, if it was brand new, and cured an imaginary illness, then we'd be inundated with advertising on its behalf, as the plutocrats running the drug industry would be spending every dime they could to make as much money as fast as they could to recoup the losses of development and to line their own greedy pockets.
I don't see why this is even a question.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Rubbish. Firstly, it's an existing drug, so the burden of clinical trials is reduced. Secondly, governments, charities, and drug companies that make their living producing generics could fund this easily.
Yes. You are right on the money, there are no profits to be made
on DCA, in fact it even harms industry profits. Think of all the
chemotherapy, surgery and radiation therapy that doesn't get done
because of it.
A cancer patient usually brings in more or less a cool $100,000 in
profit, a breast cancer patient slightly less, a prostate cancer
slightly more.
I guess this will not receive any help from Pharma companies.
Reason, low amount of money.
I have personally seen this happening in case of another drug.
Once after a culture report we found that the only drug which would deactivate this bacteria was the cheapest antibiotic available in the market (1rs/tablet in India, or 1p in US$ amount).
But very few chemists stock it.
Why? doctors don't recommend it. It also can take care of many bacteria for which there are much more expensive antibiotics available and only those get prescribed.
Had to literally scout the whole city to get the medicine.
Low profit margins? Nobody is interested, this is the state of the drug industry today, and it is a sad state. So if somebody developed a cheap "open source" drug which will take of most bacterial infections, nobody will be interested, however, if the same drug is so expensive that you can't afford it without insurance, it will get backing, no matter how lousy it is.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
If you read it again, you'll see that that was not the argument. It was given that in Canada there is socialized medicine, that it makes sense for the tax payer to pick up the tab of the trials due to cost savings.
touchy touchy.
PS: Canada does cover everyone for less per capita than the US covers the old and the poor. ; )
How about all those folks that "Run for the Cure" every year? They've been quite good at raising money for cancer treatments.
There is a lot of people out their with cancer. A lot of them have money. I am sure that given sufficient evidence and a means to provide that money to the proper source, (as the original article linked to) the money will be fourth coming.
Big-Pharma is a dinosaur that deserves whats coming to them.
The future is of this kind of funding is in better organization of charitable donations and social lending.
If this drug were patentable then it would be worth the cost of bringing it to market, setting up factories, distributing it, and undertaking the risks if it caused harm. But it's not so the drug founders. It might not even be any good after. But we'll never know because the research to really test it in clinical trials won't get done.
One could bring this to market through a socialized medicine scheme of course. Or one could let third world countries implicitly test it for us for safety and efficacy.
It's a really good example of why patents and intellectual property are good things. They encourage private investment in the public interest by creating a profit incentive.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Except it's already used in humans for other reasons and shows minimal, minor, side effects. So the clinical trials are a case of equipment (to test for cancer progression rates or lack thereof) and patients. Plenty of people suffer cancer, I can't imagine many of them turning this down, can you?
So the cost should be minimal compared to other clinical trials. Does this mean we can smoke again?
Rational thought is the only true freedom
As a physician, I may squeeze patients a little bit. But that's more because HMOs and the government are squeezing me for every nickel they can. I would love to spend an hour seeing every new patient and half an hour on every followup. I am limited on how much the HMOs will pay me to see those patients, however. And my overhead is somewhat fixed (have to pay that secretary that works for me, etc.) If I spend less time seeing each patient, I get to see more patients and hopefully break even.
Yes, I make decent income now. However, I did 8 years schooling (that I am still paying for) followed by 7 years of residency and fellowship training in which I made $50K for 80 hour weeks + overnight in hospital calls and every third weekend on call. I think I'm due a bit more than average U.S. income, thank-you-very-much.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
The level of brainwashing in the US public on this topic is breathtaking. It comes as total news to them that we're paying about 2x per capita for less than half the service of other industrialized countries that do have UHC. It comes as news that the difference is spent on bureaucracies for hundreds of different redundant "plans," on beancounters to figure out ways to deny payments to patients, and on marketing.
It comes as such news to them that they can't believe it. It implies Fox and CNN and the rest have been lying to them, or at least not giving them the facts. And we know that never happens. So it can't be true.
The doctors don't squeeze. Investors/shareholders (through HMOs and for-profit healthcare companies) squeeze.
There's at least one more link in the chain that you're referring to... Don't forget the attorneys that launch frivolous lawsuits against the doctors and insurance companies to extract windfalls for clients and take 40%.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Why is the mainstream news media failing to report on this potential breakthrough?
Because this is a potential cure for cancer, not a proven one, and potential cures are a dime a dozen. If they made a big hooplah every time somebody came out with a potential cure, that's all they'd ever be reporting about.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
My Dr. is squezzing me and workman's comp, but when I look arround his waiting room it's obvious that about half the patient's don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever paying the bill, yet I see them There every six weeks. I swear my doctor lives at the hospital two doctors covering a regonal burn center is insane.
Some places have formally socialized medicine and we have informally socialized medicine
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
For three years, I made about $15K a year as a Soldier protecting you. You're welcome.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
I never understood the logic of that. We as a society will not let, for example, a truck driver drive for more than x number of hours in a day before they have to take a mandatory amount of time off. I forget what x equals, but it's 8-10 hours max. Yet, we'll stick a doctor into an emergency ward for days on end with said doctor only catching sleep when things are slow.
tinfoilmedia
First, let me say that if you are a soldier, I appreciate it. This comment is more to clarify my understanding of how soldiers are paid. That said, your statement about $15k seems to be a bit misleading. 1 - Were you deployed in a foreign country? Correct me if I am wrong, but deployed pay is 2-3x normal pay. So, I suppose you can consider yourself 'protecting' him, but I would say only if you were deployed. 2 - Isnt it true that the military covers most of your living expenses? Living Expenses (either by giving you a place to stay or by providing off-base stipends), Food/Meals (again by providing food directly or stipend), etc? $15k in profit is more than I make after rent + food.
well, I'm just a dumb American with asthma, but my insurance and medical bills (including prescriptions) over the last 5 years have averaged about $1000 / year, which works out to less than 1.5% of my annual income.
So why would I be better off under socialized medicine? I'd pay more, and if managed the way the government manages everything else they touch I'd get less. You all in the rest of the world like to point out how incompetent the US government is (and often with good reason), why do you think they'd be any better at running health care than they are at other things?
A lot of your training was part of a system designed to make it harder to become a doctor, artificially restrict demand, and drive up your current wages. There are faster and far better ways to assure a better quality of doctor. So pardon me if I don't cry you a river about what you had to go through.
Of course, doctors aren't quite the worst offenders here. You do know why orthodontists charge so much, don't you?
You do realize how little your doctor will ever see of that $800 right?
If your plumber fucks up the pipes, he has to come back out and fix the leak. If your doctor fucks up *your* pipes you're dead.
To clarify, I was a Soldier in West Germany in the early 1980's (three minutes to midnight on the Doomsday Clock); our unit was expected to survive for about three weeks in the event of a NATO / Warsaw Pact conflict (other units were as low as a few hours). Yes, I was protecting him indirectly, just as millions of Soldiers and Police protect the rest of us (myself included) every day.
In the 1980's, there was no such thing as deployed pay for overseas duty, and we paid all federal and state taxes as well as Social Security. Hazardous Duty Pay today is still only about $150 a month.
Yes, we given "three hots and a cot", and our facilities were decent. However, when you are in the field, your living conditions can be a bit primitive, and you can be out there for quite a while. Yes, there were benefits, but the downside risks are very serious. You never forget the first time you are given mission load (the ammunition you will use) and told "this is not an exercise". Thankfully, I never faced combat, especially since a war in 1980's Europe would have gotten very ugly, very quickly.
In my original post, I just wanted to point out that we each have our cross to bear and we each chose it.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
I wish others here could understand that soldiers are not politics. I wish they could appreciate the sacrifice that people make when they join the military and take on that style of life. Thank you for your service.
I never understood the logic of that. We as a society will not let, for example, a truck driver drive for more than x number of hours in a day before they have to take a mandatory amount of time off. I forget what x equals, but it's 8-10 hours max. Yet, we'll stick a doctor into an emergency ward for days on end with said doctor only catching sleep when things are slow.
--
Part of it is pure hazing - the medical chiefs had to go through it so the new guys should too...
The other part, which is probably harder to fix, is that medicine is getting harder and harder every year. In 1940, when you set bones, had those new-fangled X-rays and antibiotics were cutting edge, you had four years of medical school to learn everything. Today you have four years of medical school to learn everything. This continues on into residencies and fellowships. Extending the term of learning would allow the hours to come down by allowing the number of students to increase for a given period of time. There are also very real studies showing that memory storage sucks when sleep deprived, as well as error rates skyrocket and judgment plummets. Yeah, it would suck for the students to have to be in school two more years, but if they're civil years I think as a society we can decide that's worth it to improve (and save) the lives of the citizenry.
I'm not a regulation-first kind of guy, but there's no opportunity for competition among philosophies here.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Where did you do your residency? ;)
As someone who spent twenty years writing software professionally at startups before taking on my current career, I'm callin' BS, there's no equivalent of residency in my old career.
I will never trust you. You are a doctor...
Wow, you sound very angry. Perhaps you, like I, have had some very bad doctors in the past. If that's the case, I'd suggest voting with your feet until you can find someone who is both highly competent and worthy of trust. Talk to your friends for recommendations, particularly ones who have had complex medical issues. (My current doctor was recommended to me by my gf, who is currently dealing both with rheumatoid arthritis and Hashimoto's.) While no first-line doctor is going to be an expert at every medical problem, but a good one should be able to delegate to specialists when necessary, as well as being able to listen well to what symptoms you report.
I do not mean to suggest that you should trust doctors because they are doctors, you should give due caution to conflict-of-interest issues and the quality of the care you receive. Yeah, it's gonna be a pain in the butt to sort through the ones who are just interested in getting through the day. And I don't mean to suggest that determining the competency of doctors is somehow trivial for those of us who aren't doctors, either.
Still, in the end, ethical, friendly and talented doctors exist. We needn't argue their relative rarity or frequency, my singular point is that you should accept nothing less, and if you aren't getting that right now, you should start voting with your feet until you do.
I'm a nature photographer.
As a military brat, I'd like to be among the first to thank you for your service. We were stationed at Spangdahlem in the early 80s. For those who think that grunts 'n' pilots should only be paid extra in time of war, consider this:
In dad's squadron (81st TFS, flying F-4Gs at that time) we had a officer and gentleman name of Jerry Linn. As he and his back-seater were running routine patrol/training, their engines flamed out, and wouldn't restart. They had two choices. They could "punch out," leaving the F-4 to drop into the middle of the town they were over. The other option? Ride that *&@#! into a mountain. They'd die, but the populace would be safe.
The fact that they chose the latter is I believe why our troops deserve better pay and benefits, and is why I'll randomly thank people I see in uniform. They deserve as much and more.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Governments? Charities? Drug companies? Why make it that farfetched when you can just ask the medical insurance companies to do it? They're the ones who're forking out $100k+ per cancer patient. This should be more than enough incentives to make them want to invest in it.
This shows why you should never trust a corporation to make decisions about safety and the value of human life. They'll choose the bottom line over safety every time.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Isn't it ironic that a profession alleged to be dedicated to the good of mankind is completely unwilling to accept human limitations as a criteria for their management in the work place? Sorry if I am so crass but the medical profession has made a business out of this sort of cruel behavior. (No this isn't troll -- its a fact)
Actually this whole story and it's subsequent discussions illustrates the conflicts of interest that develop as you take a person and reduce them to a mere cog in the wheels of society. The interests (Adam Smith "Invisible Hand") of the individual have in modern society become so departed from the common interest of the survival of society and the general welfare of all mankind that we allow arguments and policy that are insane on the face of them. The "Invisible Hand" only works when it is driven with the whole picture in mind. As such the economic and social arguments of many "Libertarian" and "Conservative" types (Not all of them please!) often depart from any reality. Medicine when driven by profit motive does not seek to cure, that is a one shot one time customer who pays little. It seeks rather to treat where many expensive unsuccessful repeat visits occur.
It is a complete reality that there are multiple technologies out there which for little cost will cure many conditions of mankind. There are also other solutions awaiting "research funding" that work well or will soon work well if given the chance. Examples of these include "Cold Lasers" which can improve healing, reduce most arthritic conditions, stop many infections and more. Another is strong magnets. They work for pain relief (in some cases as strong as morphine without the problems) and to accelerate healing. These all languish for lack of FDA approval due to the fact that they cannot be patented and held hostage to pay back for the expensive studies needed. The argument for socialized medicine becomes strong here. Many other things like vaccines could cure or prevent many diseases and will never happen because of this system. For example a vaccine against Syphilis and some other Sexually Transmitted Diseases would dramatically cut costs in our world. They compete against the ineffective treatments so they never happen. The reasons here are very simple. The "Invisible Hand" is pushed by the MD and Hospital Paycheck rather than by the end customer's needs.
In medicine there is another nasty realty. Answer for yourself, have you ever known anyone who was seriously ill that could pay their own medical costs? (Rare for sure) Everyone sick depends on the healthy to support them back to health. It is a reality that has no answer in the "Free Market." It has an answer as an obligation of mankind and a function of society. (Read Thomas Payne "Common Sense" [1776]) Government is the proper agent to compel those who forget this obligation of society to do their duty. All defects of Government admitted.
As to the kindness of Medical Personnel, there are many decent persons there. However; there is a group largely the management level who have no human compassion what so ever. They call the shots. These people think there is something right about having staff who does not have health care coverage. These people run an industry in the USA which has a very high rate of uninsured parties and primarily as a result of the determined policy of management. The best way to describe the management of Health Care in the USA is that it is a gang of vultures and jackals.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
I should start off by saying that I thought your post was utter bullshit times ten.
I'll try to address your points briefly.
No. I am a professional programmer, and I can attest that the average programmer/engineer has a bachelor's degree. We don't go through anywhere near the same crap, since we didn't endure 5+ years of graduate school or 80 hr/week residencies.
I looked at my most recent medical bill and the "negotiated rate" was $150 for about half an hour. Part of that money obviously goes to office rent, paying the secretary, malpractice insurance, etc. The average doctor actually makes about $90/hr, so your estimate was off by a factor of about 9.
Thus far, very few sick people have been "milked for all they're worth". I've been to the doctor several times and none of them demanded my current net worth.
No. It's not extortion unless they caused the illness or are threatening to cause one, and then they charge you for a cure. Simply curing an illness (or treating it) is not extortion.
Doctors don't claim that their business is the only one with overhead.
Do you honestly not know why? Do you think it's the best use of a neurosurgeon's extremely scarce time to drive to people's houses? And, would it be possible to take your pipes to the plumber's office?
You should be extremely grateful they even take you as a patient.
You hit on the one thing I think our doctors are good at: critical care. If you have a broken something or a leaking something they can fix you up amazingly. I know there are good doctors, I just think they are rare and subject to burnout. It's the little things that leave me feeling cheated. I shouldn't have to explain how the common cold works to a doctor.
You're wrong about the error rate. According to the FDA medical errors in hospitals kill 50k-100k Americans per year, and are the 8th largest cause of death. Not all of these errors are caused by doctors, but I think it's fair to mix doctors and the health care system up. This doesn't even begin to cover the millions of less critical errors made on an outpatient, office, or long term care facility. The linked document (from 2000) outlines an ambitious program to reduce medical errors. The results so far are hardly impressive.
I don't think minimizing the error rate and huge financial and human cost are helpful. I have respect for people in the health care field, but we need to be honest about the problems.
Man, you really need that seminar!