[olePigeon]

Dichloroacetate Effective Against Aggressive Brain Cancer
14 New Questions for Cancer Research Maverick Zheng Cui - Popularmechanics.com

So a Biochemist discovered a drug that is effective against aggressive brain cancer. We're talking about a potential cure for one of the most debilitative and deadly forms of cancer.

The back story is interesting. Doctor Zheng Cui had been developing cancer resistant mice back in 1999. He had funding from major pharmaceutical companies to investigate possible treatments.

The thing was that what he discovered wasn't a treatment, but a potential cure. As soon as that information was made available, all of his funding dried up. The pharmaceutical companies didn't want to fund a cure for cancer because they wouldn't make much (if any) of a return on their investment; they only want to invest in treatments of symptoms, not cures. Cures lose money.

So this cancer fighting drug sat on the back burner for over ten years while they formed a group to raise money for human clinical trials through donations and auctions, when finally the Canadian government stepped in and funded the research.

The new drug showed positive improvements in 4 out of 5 patients. That is an astounding success rate.

It is also a disturbing look into privatized medicine, and why government funded University research grants are very important.

[turtle777]

It's hard to believe that there is no company that would be willing to take teh risk to bring this to market.

Just think about it: it just takes ONE company to fund this, and they will reap all the money, while every other pharma company loses out.

So this could be a case of a monopolistic cartel.

-t

[turtle777]

Oh ( and I can't believe I'm saying this) in defense of the pharma companies:

They NEED to maintain their cash cows, since the reimbursement rates go down (gov't pressure for cheaper medicine).
So for them, this is a way for paying for all the medicine of Obama care, handed out for "free" people that never paid a dime into the system.

-t

[lpkmckenna]

Not surprising that industry didn't bother to research, but why didn't the gov't? This deserves congressional/parliamentary investigation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh ( and I can't believe I'm saying this) in defense of the pharma companies:

They NEED to maintain their cash cows, since the reimbursement rates go down (gov't pressure for cheaper medicine).
So for them, this is a way for paying for all the medicine of Obama care, handed out for "free" people that never paid a dime into the system.

-t

That argument really doesn't apply to 10 years ago.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Not surprising that industry didn't bother to research, but why didn't the gov't? This deserves congressional/parliamentary investigation.

The Canadian government did get involved.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's hard to believe that there is no company that would be willing to take teh risk to bring this to market.

The money is in treatments, not cures. It's very expensive to fund research, they have to make a return on their investment. That means funding treatments to ensure repeat business, cures do not create repeat business.

That's why government research grants that Conservatives love to hate are important. The private industry isn't likely to develop the cures we need, only to treat the symptoms.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The money is in treatments, not cures. It's very expensive to fund research, they have to make a return on their investment. That means funding treatments to ensure repeat business, cures do not create repeat business.

That's why government research grants that Conservatives love to hate are important. The private industry isn't likely to develop the cures we need, only to treat the symptoms.

That's only true if the price of the cure doesn't cover the cost of the research. Charge enough for the cure and you'll make your money back and then some. It's not a vaccine, so people will continue to get cancer.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The money is in treatments, not cures. It's very expensive to fund research, they have to make a return on their investment. That means funding treatments to ensure repeat business, cures do not create repeat business.

That's why government research grants that Conservatives love to hate are important. The private industry isn't likely to develop the cures we need, only to treat the symptoms.

For an outsider (that doesn't have a stake in the treatment market), this should be a worthwhile investment / bet.

-t

[mduell]

Big pharma funds the discovery of another great cure. Way to go big P!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Big pharma funds the discovery of another great cure. Way to go big P!

Makes you wonder what other great discoveries were made by funding from pharmaceutical companies that we'll never see.

[Dork.]

There is an interesting narrative developing here. It may not end up where we we all think it will: it is possible that this cure will not pan out, or if it does there is something preventing it from being effective on a large scale, and all the big drug companies know this and that's why they are shying away from it. But let's assume the narrative will play out the way olePigeon implies it will: it is promising research which will lead (down the road) to a cure, but once the drug companies got wind of it (and the fact that the cure was generic and couldn't be patented) they stopped funding it, and it languished for 10 years before obtaining enough funding to get to the next step. A cure which could have been commercialized ten years earlier if funding continued, and saved countless lives in that ten year span.

This really isn't an indictment of privatized medicine, but of the private sector in general, and perhaps even of capitalism itself. As long as the primary responsibility of drug companies are to its shareholders, and maximizing shareholder returns are the only priority, we are going to have decisions made like this. In fact, it may be a breach of fiduciary responsibility for the company to take actions which will impact its profit margin (selling treatment) in this manner, no matter how many lives end up being saved (by developing a cure). That kind of seems backwards to me.

But, the study did eventually get funded, and my understanding was that it was funded in large part by wealthy people with this type of cancer, in the hopes that the cure could be developed in their lifetime (and they also participated in the study, ensuring that they would be the first to benefit). Perhaps these folks were simply acting in their own enlightened self-interest, as a good little Capitalist would. And maybe the lesson that we should take from it is that if something is important enough to safe lives, it will get developed eventually by people motivated to do so, even if ED and hair-loss drugs take priority because of their shareholder-friendly profitability. Is that good enough?

Can the government step in and fund this type of research, with the knowledge that, if successful, it will take away a major source of profit for these drug companies? Probably not, since even though Corporations do not vote (yet), they are largely funding politicians' reelection campaigns. Even there, saving lives takes a back seat to cold hard cash.

[Wiskedjak]

If someone were on the verge of discovering a cheap and effective cure to all disease, would big pharma fight against it's development on the basis that it would destroy their business?

an impossible scenario, but a discussion of this scenario would yield some insight in to the possible actions of big pharmas in more likely scenarios.

[Dork.]

That would be absolutely horrible. If we no longer needed Big Pharma's products and their business went away overnight, billions of dollars would evaporate from the markets. And since we all have our retirement money in the markets, we would be broke in our newly prolonged golden years.

Plus, it would get kind of crowded....

[ebuddy]

The myopic vision of some here is astounding. Why on earth would "BIG PHARMA" not support spending millions of dollars to attempt bringing a new cure to market that would return billions in revenue?

"Two agents from the FDA visited us today and ordered that we stop making and selling DCA."

Of course it's the evil private sector that funded the research, then pulled it. When people start growing beaks and clucking like chickens it'll be the private sector to blame and boycott. At the end of the day, it's the FDA that ultimately stands in the way of a cure my friends. How does this problem eventually manifest? Treatments like Ted Kennedy's that were illegal elsewhere, under socialized medicine.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The money is in treatments, not cures. It's very expensive to fund research, they have to make a return on their investment. That means funding treatments to ensure repeat business, cures do not create repeat business.

I've heard the more mundane explanation that it's because no one can get a patent on it.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The myopic vision of some here is astounding. Why on earth would "BIG PHARMA" not support spending millions of dollars to attempt bringing a new cure to market that would return billions in revenue?

Maybe once you're knee stops jerking, you'll see who is being myopic here. We are making the point (substantiated by everything linked here thus far, including your link) that "BIG PHARMA" is not interested in this cure because it can't be patented and it will bring in less revenue than treatments. Do you have a relevant counterpoint?

Your link details how the FDA shut down someone who was selling it, today, as a cancer cure, when it hasn't been proven yet. Which is entirely appropriate, since the connection hasn't been proven yet and more study is needed. Study which hasn't been funded by the big drug companies because it can't ever be profitable for them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Maybe once you're knee stops jerking, you'll see who is being myopic here. We are making the point (substantiated by everything linked here thus far, including your link) that "BIG PHARMA" is not interested in this cure because it can't be patented and it will bring in less revenue than treatments. Do you have a relevant counterpoint?

Your link details how the FDA shut down someone who was selling it, today, as a cancer cure, when it hasn't been proven yet. Which is entirely appropriate, since the connection hasn't been proven yet and more study is needed. Study which hasn't been funded by the big drug companies because it can't ever be profitable for them.

You say it hasn't been proven yet, but the drug has been in use for decades. The problem is a US LAW BANNING THE SALE OF substances with the suggestion that they are cancer treatments unless they are approved by the FDA. DCA can still be obtained from pharmacies with a prescription and from chemical companies. Not withstanding the fact that with such promise, there is absolutely no reason why Federal grants would not be forthcoming right? Since they do not have the "profit-motive" often demonized here?

The cure involves taking white blood cells from healthy people. It is not a treatment you can prescribe until you've diagnosed the cancer in the would-be recipient of these cells. Until they find a means of prohibiting cancer (not likely in our lifetimes) the cure will be very profitable for someone.

Let me answer, it is an old drug (for mitochondrial disease) and cannot be patented yes, but this does not mean it is not profitable or tested or beneficial. Jim Tassano of Sonora, California, claims to have sold DCA to more than 2000 people, with no reports of serious side effects, via his website www.buydca.com. So, why would the FDA step in to cease this activity? It's working, has been used for decades, and is being sold and effectively used on thousands of people. Someone is profiting from it, but they cannot because of US LAW.

There are plenty of people who will fund it, there are plenty of people willing to test this on themselves, and there is plenty of money to be made regardless of whether or not it's made by BIG PHARMA. The only thing hindering progress on this treatment in the US is US LAW.

kneejerk indeed.

[Dork.]

I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that the US LAW that prohibits someone for selling something for a health purpose that hasn't been proven is bad? Or are you saying that the FDA should get out of the business of regulating which drugs can and can't be sold, and for what purposes they can be administered?

[Shaddim]

I think he's saying that the gov't has known about this for a very long time, and hasn't been in much of a hurry to do ****all about it. They know it's out there, they could have picked up the ball at any time (I'm sure Obama knows but he's sitting on his hands, same goes for the Dems in Congress). The only people who are stoked are the people who created it and the handful of people who were buying it under the table.

Personally, if this stuff is the golden bullet, it's been a combination of gov't and the pharmas trying to keep a lid on it for some reason.

[Dork.]

That is a valid question: if this treatment shows so much promise, why hasn't the Government funded it? I think I already answered that question: although corporations do not vote, their money is what enables politicians to run for re-election. If a large, profitable industry decided not to fund this research our of fear of what it would do to its profits, it stands to reason they would only support politicians who decline to fund the research as well. So anyone who wished to support it would have to get a different Corporate backer to counteract all the money going to his opponents' campaign. And the smart industries do this in the primaries, so they have already bought and paid for both major candidates before the general election.

The people may have the final say, but their choices are dictated by Corporate money.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The people may have the final say, but their choices are dictated by Corporate money.

I'm sorry, but IMO this is a cop-out response. I just illustrated how you can buy, sell, request grants from, and do just about anything you want as long as it is in accordance with US law. Your choices are not dictated by pharma as they are not the only ones who conduct or fund research. The only thing standing in our way of this alleged miracle cure is government inaction and US law. Ibuprofen ( a very inexpensive non-steroidal anti-inflammatory) was already patented as a treatment for arthritis and is now in use on a widely-available commercial basis for anything from achy muscles to headaches.

With regard to DCA advancement there were no NIH grants, no NCI grants, no State grants, and hell; not even a grant from the American Cancer Society? Who in the American Cancer Society (a non-governmental, nonprofit org) is beholden to corporate lobbyists Dork? They all just want you to die so they can continue marketing marginally effective treatments for cancer? This argument is more akin to conspiracy theory than anything else I'm afraid and I certainly have no clue how the inaction of so many institutions both governmental and private is any indication of the failures of privatized medicine. If anything, it's a failure from the top-down. The top of course being the centralized authority over medical research and advancement, and the ability to bring new "cures" to market.

[Shaddim]

If it's so great, why hasn't anyone come forward to fund it?

Tell you what, I'll dig into this tomorrow, really make an effort to get to the bottom of all this. If it's as great as they claim, and if it's ready for trials, I'll put up the cash to push this forward. Hell, if the success rate is only half as high as they claim, I'll be a billionaire in 10 years, and that's selling it at a price so low the pharma companies would faint. After my first billion, I'll even give it away for free (minus bare production costs).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If it's so great, why hasn't anyone come forward to fund it?

Tell you what, I'll dig into this tomorrow, really make an effort to get to the bottom of all this. If it's as great as they claim, and if it's ready for trials, I'll put up the cash to push this forward. Hell, if the success rate is only half as high as they claim, I'll be a billionaire in 10 years, and that's selling it at a price so low the pharma companies would faint. After my first billion, I'll even give it away for free (minus bare production costs).

I'd be happy with the book rights to this story and your subsequent fortune if you'll oblige.

[Shaddim]

I'm actually rather serious. If it's real and all they need is cash, then I'll bankroll it.

[Shaddim]

Tried to contact them and haven't received a reply. C'mon guys, you don't want money?

[Snow-i]

Whats the catch to this thing? Has to be one...Otherwise you're talking a conspiracy bigger then the truthers clamor on about.