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."
DCA kills many sorts of cancer in mice. This is a good sign. It's based on something found naturally in food and is already used safely in humans. That's also good.
But many, many things kill cancer in mice but don't in humans-- mice have significantly different molecular machinery than we do re: cancer prevention (just look at the cancer rates of control lab rats!). This is promising, but it's no breakthrough until it proves itself in humans.
I feel there's a lot of politicking going on behind the scenes on this issue.
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.
Not only is this story a dupe but having read the paper in Cancer Cell I'm nowhere near that optimistic. Yes, they show death of cancer cells both in vitro and in vivo but the proposed mechanism of action (re-activation of mitochondrial metabolism leading to increased free radical production and apoptosis) is debatable to say the least. Moreover, even though DCA is registered for treatment of congenital lactate acidosis, it has quite a few unpleasant side effects so it's definitely not a silver bullet. The paper is not clear on how they came to interpretations they present as some of the data could easily be interpreted in other ways. Although the concept of targeting mitochondria to treat cancer is very interesting, as usual, beware of breakthroughs in medical sciences - they often aren't. jan
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]
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)
I'm a student at the University of Alberta. The student newspaper is called "The Gateway" and at the end of the winter term there is a joke issue called "The Getaway." In THIS YEAR'S December joke issue the cover story way "U of A Scientists Cure Cancer." Five issues later they broke the real story here: http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/index.php?iid=247. No one believed the real story...
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.
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/
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
Yeah, just in the same way that you can't patent a spoon, which is why nobody makes spoons.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
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.
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
Of course not. There is no spoon.
I bet the public Canadian Health Care System would foot the bill to produce this drug. If you had a universal health care system in your country eradicating cancer cheaply would definately reduce the money the government would pay for overall health care costs.
Keeping all the people who would have died of cancer in your economy would also keep it nice and healthy.
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.
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.
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.
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
The problem I have with your attitude is simple. Doctors spend long hours and lots of time schooling, followed by a period in which they work extremely long hours for next to nothing. That much is certain. What about Engineers and Programmers? We go through the same crap, but we don't make near as much as you do. What is it that makes you feel your time is worth $800.00 an hour? (I arrived at this figure by timing how long my physician spends with me vs. how much I pay them.) The reason is simple. People would die without your help. What you are doing is nothing more than taking advantage of sick people, milking them for all they are worth. It is tantamount to extortion, except you use illness instead of violence.
You think you're the only type of business that has overhead? Virtually every business pays an office staff, has to be insured, needs a building, etc. Why don't they charge outrageous fees? It comes back to the arrogant sense of entitlement that you exhibit. My plumber is more professional and friendly than any doctor I have ever seen. He comes to my home, does his job and courteously thanks me. He charges less than my doctor. If he can do it, why can't you?
I will never trust you. You are a doctor. It is in your best interest to keep me just well enough to survive, but sick enough to keep returning. You are exceptionally greedy, and you wouldn't hesitate to prolong, rather than cure, any illness. I will only go to doctors if I need to, and I will second guess EVERYTHING you say. It is for the best, because you wouldn't hesitate to kill me by making me take medications that are dangerous, but which you get kickbacks for prescribing.
I am the penguin that codes in the night.
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.
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.
I sincerely believe what I posted above. If you want to have a reasoned debate about it, I'm game. But modding me down just makes you out to be the ignorant child you are.
Now, let me address something ShadowsHawk said in response to my comment.
That's right. People join the military to get job training, or to get money for college, or because they've been brainwashed into a military tradition by their family, or lastly and leastly, so they can serve their country. But what all of these people have in common is that, wittingly or not, they are doing just that.
Now, I would argue that any responsible adult should be able to consider the repercussions of their actions, and one of the things that results from joining the military is that it grows. I know this sounds like a very sophomoric point to actually address, but since some people (including your esteemed self) don't seem to be getting this point, I'm going to belabor it until the dead horse has been well-whipped. I can think of no other way to get the point across. When the military is larger, it is easier to apply it to various situations in which it is not warranted. For instance, http://adbusters.org/media/flash/hope_and_memory/t imeline.swf is one of my favorite little presentations on American military history. If you just glance through it you will see that the majority of American military actions were questionable to say the least. We forced Japan to trade with us by force, and of course we all know that we invaded Mexico repeatedly, and stole large portions of what is now the Estados Unidos Norteamericanos away from them, forcing them at gunpoint to sell the rest for a song. We were involved in the Opium wars. We annexed Hawaii in 1898. Especially check out Honduras in 1905; this is one of many American military conquests specifically supporting the United Fruit Company. Look carefully at Nicaragua in 1910, Cuba in 1917, Guatemala in 1954, Haiti in 1959...
The list goes on and on but what all of these things have in common is that they were financially motivated. They weren't about helping people. They were about money and power. Yes, in the same list there are conflicts that are about protecting people from bad people. There's attacks on pirates (the real kind) and their institutions. There's WWI and WWII.
Today, we are seeing much the same thing. We have bombed the shit out of a middle eastern company yet again. And yet again, the bulk of the rebuilding will be carried out by American contractors. In fact, the sole contractor overseeing and profiting from the entire thing is, guess who, Halliburton. The government claimed that they were the only contractor that could be ready "in time" and so they got the contract. Gee, I wonder why they were the only ones to meet the lengthy, detailed, and frankly unnecessary requirements so suddenly. Could they have had, you know, advance warning? Given the connection between certain high-ranking officials in our government and Halliburton, not only is that highly likely, but it is a virtual certainty.
Are you getting the message yet? There are times when the American military has done good things. Most of these were minor conflicts. A couple of them were major. In the case of the minor conflicts, a large standing military was not necessary. In the case of the major ones, the draft was utilized to bring up the numbers of people sent off to combat the menace. In neither case is a large standing military requir
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"