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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.