Slashdot Mirror
If We Can't Kill Cancer, Can We Control It?
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from The New Yorker:
In April, [Dr. Eytan Stein] presented his findings to a packed auditorium at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, in San Diego. It was the first public airing of the results of AG-221; patients with progressive [acute myelogenous leukemia] had never improved so quickly and definitively. ... The breakthrough is notable in part for the unconventional manner in which the drug attacks its target. There are many kinds of cancer, but treatments have typically combated them in one way only: by attempting to destroy the cancerous cells. Surgery aims to remove the entire growth from the body; chemotherapy drugs are toxic to the cancer cells; radiation generates toxic molecules that break up the cancer cells' DNA and proteins, causing their demise. A more recent approach, immunotherapy, co-opts the body's immune system into attacking and eradicating the tumor. The Agios drug, instead of killing the leukemic cells — immature blood cells gone haywire — coaxes them into maturing into functioning blood cells. Cancerous cells traditionally have been viewed as a lost cause, fit only for destruction. The emerging research on A.M.L. suggests that at least some cancer cells might be redeemable: they still carry their original programming and can be pressed back onto a pathway to health.
I have two objections on the "big pharma fighting the truth about cancer" point of view... maybe you can give this some thought and comment on them:
1) how can the pharma have a PERFECT bureaucracy that wins EVERY time a new alternative cure comes along? A lot of people say that big pharma has a big cover up operation in place and no cure will ever be publicised or made viable unless it suits big pharma. However, when articles about alternative cures come along, they are always revolutionary and obviously simple. If that's the case, why don't we see something as simple as gathering 100 or 1000 cancer patients, treat them, document the success and only then release the findings on Youtube/P2P/whatever?
2) Consider the annual sales and profits of Big Pharma. Then the same for Big Food. IF there's a simple cure using natural food and basic ingredients that big pharma cannot patent, what's Coca Cola, Pepsico and other similarly large companies waiting for to steal big pharma's lunch?
you are full of shit. As a cancer victim I can say that it is down to risk, if the numbers are against you, age, over weight, lack of exercise, genetics, environment exposure, then you'll be more likely to get some form of cancer. These may go undetected for years, at which point it is too well established to be totally eradicated. Early detection is very important, survival is dependant on early detection and the effectiveness of treatment, sadly the cost of drugs is high and people are not always able to afford them, even in 1st world countries. As for the conspiracy theory, improvements are there, but the thoughts that there are magic bullets out there, being suppressed, is crap. If you want to survive, do the right things, loose weight, build fitness, eat better, look out for body changes, get regular check ups. You can't live forever.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Why not work on prevention? Cancer rates have quadrupled in the last century, thanks to our increasing use of synthetic chemicals in food and environment. Why not try to get rid of the causes instead of finding out what other sort of drugs and chemicals we can add to reverse it?
2) Consider the annual sales and profits of Big Pharma. Then the same for Big Food. IF there's a simple cure using natural food and basic ingredients that big pharma cannot patent, what's Coca Cola, Pepsico and other similarly large companies waiting for to steal big pharma's lunch?
Actually, if a cure was "known" Big Pharma "A" would want to produce it first and charge $$$$$, before Big Pharma "B" does it. It's not like Big Pharma works as a single organism. Multiple companies, competition and all that. Furthermore, don't forget "little pharma". The drug mentioned in the article comes from a little drug company, Agios, not some multi-billion behemoth.Several new drugs have been created by start-ups and were later sold. In fact, Big Pharma mostly does the last part of the pipeline (human trials, FDA accreditations and marketing) but the first part of the drug-discovery process often comes from little inventors who are not afraid to take risks.
I happen to know two people who are in the drug "startup" business and would be quite happy to make $$$$$ selling a cure for cancer to Big Pharma. These are the people that actually do in vitro/in vivo experiments and, trust me, if compound ZZZ were very effective they would be very happy to test it immediately, even if it meant loss of billions for other companies.
The main proponent of sodium bicarbonate as an alternative cancer treatment is Tullio Simoncini, MD. ..
According to the Cancer Treatment Watch Web site, "[Dr. Simoncini] has been using unsubstantiated cancer treatments for 15 years in 2003, his [Italian] license to practice medicine was withdrawn, and in 2006 he was convicted by an Italian judge for wrongful death and swindling"
My response to those "they're sitting on a cure" conspiracy theorists is that though pharma may be the most powerful lobby in the US, there's a whole world out there. A number of other countries would love the sheer prestige attached to announcing a cure. And even if they gave that treatment away through nationalized health care systems, they would reap huge income from American medical tourists.
As another doctor and Internist (not the same as the AC), it absolutely hurts to keep talking about the same quackery that has been discussed and dismissed decades ago. It brings false hope to desperate people. It keeps people away from legitimate treatments (Eg: Steve Jobs) which may lead to worse outcomes because of the delay. And it wastes the precious time of both the patient and the medical staff, and promotes distrust of the very people who could likely help cancer patients the most. This is not a benign discussion.
On the technical aspects, anyon
We're not ready as a society for elimination of aging. Currently, with money and power generally growing with age, death is the great equalizer. Rich or poor, everybody dies. This is the only thing stopping unfettered hoarding of wealth. Would Bill Gates give away his money if he never aged? I don't know, but it does seem less likely. We'd be stuck in a society where the elders own and control everything, and the young would fight to survive. Murder would replace age-related illness as the leading cause of death.
For this society to work, the time value of money has to be negative, not positive. Money has to decay with time, not grow. This is the way money should work today, but good luck convincing our overlords.