NationStates Jolt Archive

For years, doctors have used a little-known chemical called dichloroacetate acid (or DCA) to treat metabolic disorders. The substance is not patented, making it incredibly cheap to produce, and has only has a few minor side effects -- pain, numbness, and "gait disturbance".

Amazingly, Dr. Evangelos Michelakis and his colleagues at the the University of Alberta have discovered a stunning new application for the drug: cancer killer.

Here's the low-down: most cells get their energy from microscopic structures called mitochondria, the "power plants" of the biological world. Mitochondria also act as the self-destruct mechanism of the cell, through a process called apoptosis.

Cancer cells, however, do not use mitochondria, opting instead to power themselves through the cell-wide process of glycolysis. Scientists have long hypothesized that their mitochondria are simply broken, but recent developments have shown that this is not the case. The truth is, the mitochondria of cancerous cells are smothered in the tumorous mass, unable to acquire the chemicals necessary to function. A key consequence of this is the shut-down of mitochondrial apoptosis, effectively making the cancer cells immortal, free to multiply to deadly levels.

Dr. Michelakis's research found that DCA reactivates the supposedly broken mitochondria of cancerous cells. When they take over, glycolysis comes to a halt. However, since they lack access to vital chemicals, the mitochondria are unable to power the cell. The only other thing they can do? Activate apoptosis. When this happens, cancer cells whither and die by the millions.

Early trials have shown the drug to be remarkably effective. When tested on human cell cultures, DCA has been shown to eliminate lung, breast, and brain cancer cells while sparing normal ones. In addition, rats with brain cancer had their tumors shrink dramatically when given DCA-laced water over the course of several weeks, with no major impairments.

Sadly, this long hoped-for cure may never see the light of day, at least not in the near future. Michelakis himself has admitted that most pharmaceutical companies will have no interest in DCA, since it is not patented and therefore not profitable. If there is any future for the treatment, it will have to be through government, university, or charitable funding.

And, considering how Bush wants to slash funding (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6329917.stm) for health and education to fund his fiasco, that doesn't seem too damn likely right now.

:mad:

:(

Links:
New Scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html)
Wikipedia article on DCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetate#Potential_cancer_applications)
Graphic explaining method of treatment (http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn10971/dn10971-1_550.jpg)

Well, duh. It was found to cut profits in lab rats.

So, this is basically "Conclusive evidence that pharmacutical companies do, in fact, hate each and every one of us."

Gait disturbance? Was it funded by the Ministry of Silly Walks?

Amazing what happens when the driving force behind health is money.

isn't capitalism lovely? :mad:

Bastards! As long as the shareholders are happy who cares about the rest of us?

I remember hearing something about this in urgently needed medicine to Africa

Why do we have private medical companies :(

Give it a little while and Small Pharma will develop and market it. After all, it's the small firms that do most of the manufacturing , R&D and distributing anyways; they just wait for the patents to expire and manufacture it generic...and usually better.

Besides, most of the innovation in the field has long since shifted from the Mercks and Pfizers of the industry to small companies and biotech firms like Genentech. Ironically, of course, their need to drive short-term profits is also driving them in to technological obsolescence, which means in the long run their profits will be significantly affected.

Big Pharma are neither the forefront of research nor the most competitive in the industry; if anything, they're a relic that is going to eventually disappear due to changes in the industry.

Cure cancer? Not profitable, just like curing AIDS wouldn't be profitable. What they want to do is make it something you can live with. Take a pill every day and you're fine. In that they're probably pretty content with AIDS.

Cure cancer? Not profitable, just like curing AIDS wouldn't be profitable. What they want to do is make it something you can live with. Take a pill every day and you're fine. In that they're probably pretty content with AIDS.

And you know what happens in the end? Some small biotech or nanotech firm will develop a cure, implement it, and make a fortune while the bigger companies are left in the dust.

Why do we have private medical companies :(
Because governments tend to avoid the risky investments and possible social disturbances that can be caused by innovations in technology or culture?

And you know what happens in the end? Some small biotech or nanotech firm will develop a cure, implement it, and make a fortune while the bigger companies are left in the dust.

Don't matter, the big guys make a killing til it happens. Then they just look for the next disease to milk. They want us all on drugs all the time, which is why we're bombarded with ads for odd medical conditions no one has ever heard of.

Don't matter, the big guys make a killing til it happens. Then they just look for the next disease to milk. They want us all on drugs all the time, which is why we're bombarded with ads for odd medical conditions no one has ever heard of.

Yeah, but they're also losing the war in the long run. We're no longer just alleviating the symptoms of disease, we're actively working to cure them.

I mean, right now we are looking at cures for the major degenerative illnesses like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancers, and even the process of aging itself, and all of it is coming to market in the next 10-15 years. This is a sea change in the medical industry comparable to the development of the germ theory or the invention of antibiotics...it's going to change things forever.

These guys are running scared and are trying to stop the inevitable.

In addition, rats with brain cancer had their tumors shrink dramatically when given DCA-laced water over the course of several weeks, with no major impairments.

Just 'cause I'm a stickler, it wasn't brain cancer. It was cells from a lung cancer cell line (non-small cell) that were implanted subcutaneously, as far as I can tell, in the abdomen.

The tumors did shrink drastically though, from the pictures in the paper. The treated rats had tumors that were *maybe* a quarter of the size of the untreated rats.

Sadly, this long hoped-for cure may never see the light of day, at least not in the near future. Michelakis himself has admitted that most pharmaceutical companies will have no interest in DCA, since it is not patented and therefore not profitable. If there is any future for the treatment, it will have to be through government, university, or charitable funding.

Isn't it just lovely how so many people want healthcare to be all about profit, instead of being about saving people's lives? =(

Of course, to be honest, the experiments didn't show complete reversal of cancer. The best treatment for many cancers may be to combine DCA with other treatment. A pharma company could, conceivably, combine it with something else and profit. Maybe one will try.

Otherwise, we'll just have to keep doing the experiments out of government-type funding and large-scale grants (this study was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, and Canadian Foundation for Innovation).

Because governments tend to avoid the risky investments and possible social disturbances that can be caused by innovations in technology or culture?

Actually, the public sector has long been crucial in the development of new drugs.

Give it a little while and Small Pharma will develop and market it. After all, it's the small firms that do most of the manufacturing , R&D and distributing anyways; they just wait for the patents to expire and manufacture it generic...and usually better.

That makes sense. Producers of generica neither rely on patents, nor do I think they'll give a shit if they destroy the market for other cancer cures, why would they?

I'm not too worried. THere are many exciting new advances in cancer research. Something like this can possibly take off in other countries first and make them the place to go for cancer cures until the US wises up.

That makes sense. Producers of generica neither rely on patents, nor do I think they'll give a shit if they destroy the market for other cancer cures, why would they?

Thing is, though, they don't destroy the market for them. If anything, they put pressure on Big Pharma and other companies to keep their technological edge so as not to lose their revenue; they keep them on their toes so to speak. Otherwise, these companies could simply rest on their already developed drugs and not have to worry about serious threats to their markets.

Because governments tend to avoid the risky investments and possible social disturbances that can be caused by innovations in technology or culture?

Is that why they fund so much technological and scientific research?

I'm not too worried. THere are many exciting new advances in cancer research. Something like this can possibly take off in other countries first and make them the place to go for cancer cures until the US wises up.

.....wait, what?
Personally, this is quite retarded.
"We found a cure for one of the most degenerating and common killers on Earth! But we're not going to market it, because it won't get us any many."

So much for human kindness,eh?

I'm not too worried. THere are many exciting new advances in cancer research. Something like this can possibly take off in other countries first and make them the place to go for cancer cures until the US wises up.

That's true. Thanks to the increasing global cooperation on R&D, the intransigence of a company here to market or develop new drugs is not that much of a problem; someone somewhere else, perhaps in Asia or Europe, will do the research and development instead.

And don't forget the government's role. Government and university research is excellent for the basic R&D that large companies might avoid due to the cost and risk. You get the expertise and resources of Big Pharma without the pressures of revenue or profits.

Actually, the public sector has long been crucial in the development of new drugs.

Indeed. Pretty much all of the basic science research is public. It's only when something is damn near the clinical trial stage that the private sector takes over and runs with it.

Actually, the public sector has long been crucial in the development of new drugs.
In the form of grants which private organizations that then do the actual work.

In the form of grants which private organizations that then do the actual work.

The government also grants a lot of money to public universities which produce a large amount of research. Ohio State, for example, is one of the premier research universities in the country. We receive funds from both the state and federal government for various kinds of research, from engineering to medicine and physics.

We also get a lot of money from private firms, which reflects their "outsourcing" of research to public institutes in order to save money on maintaining their own basic R&D facilities and to accelerate progress overall.

In the form of grants which private organizations that then do the actual work.

Actually, no... the public sector often does quite a bit of the "actual work" underlying new drugs, especially in the research stages.

Its influence goes substantially beyond mere "grants."

Honestly... do you think everyone who works for the NIH just sits on his or her ass all day?

.....wait, what?
Personally, this is quite retarded.
"We found a cure for one of the most degenerating and common killers on Earth! But we're not going to market it, because it won't get us any many."

So much for human kindness,eh?

I agree that it's quite stupid in a sense; especially as someone whose wife is currently fighting cancer. Still, she is coming along swimmingly and as I said, there are many new advances lately that look quite promising in the fight against cancer (stem cells, smart drugs, cancer killing cells, nanotech...); I just wish that wecould get them now, rather than wait for years, but it's good to know that they are being tested.

That's true. Thanks to the increasing global cooperation on R&D, the intransigence of a company here to market or develop new drugs is not that much of a problem; someone somewhere else, perhaps in Asia or Europe, will do the research and development instead.

And don't forget the government's role. Government and university research is excellent for the basic R&D that large companies might avoid due to the cost and risk. You get the expertise and resources of Big Pharma without the pressures of revenue or profits.


right, and if it doesnt come directly to the US, there is nothing (beyond cost) stopping us from going somewhere out of country to get the treatments we need.

I know someone who goes to Europe to get allergy shots that are banned in the US because they havent gone through the whole process of getting approval from the FDA (extreemly costly!!!!!)

Honestly... do you think everyone who works for the NIH just sits on his or her ass all day?
Well, given that the big corporations apparently are controlling everything to make us all sick, yes, I suppose that just might be what they do with their time.

given that the big corporations apparently are controlling everything to make us all sick

What are you talking about?

right, and if it doesnt come directly to the US, there is nothing (beyond cost) stopping us from going somewhere out of country to get the treatments we need.

"Medical tourism" as it's called (although not all medical treatment falls under "tourism" which implies voluntary rather than necessary surgery) is a fast growing industry. Places around the world offer medical treatment that is not only cheaper, but equally or even more advanced than what is available here.

I know someone who goes to Europe to get allergy shots that are banned in the US because they havent gone through the whole process of getting approval from the FDA (extreemly costly!!!!!)

FDA approval is rather out of whack. Unfortunately, it's got all kinds of lobbying and decades of overlapping and often outdated regulation attached to it that has nothing to do with the actual safety or impact of the medicine or treatment itself.

It needs to be reformed in order to accelerate the arrival of drugs and treatments in the US...there's no reason not to allow something that is legal in countries with medical systems comparable or superior to ours.

What are you talking about?

He's in the final stages of strawmanosis. Horrible disease.

I like how they told us this accompanied by a bunch of dead lab rats in the shape of a middle finger. It's kinda touching how much they care.

"Medical tourism" as it's called (although not all medical treatment falls under "tourism" which implies voluntary rather than necessary surgery) is a fast growing industry. Places around the world offer medical treatment that is not only cheaper, but equally or even more advanced than what is available here.



FDA approval is rather out of whack. Unfortunately, it's got all kinds of lobbying and decades of overlapping and often outdated regulation attached to it that has nothing to do with the actual safety or impact of the medicine or treatment itself.

It needs to be reformed in order to accelerate the arrival of drugs and treatments in the US...there's no reason not to allow something that is legal in countries with medical systems comparable or superior to ours.


Yeah, I recently hear a story on NPR about a luxury hospital in India where your room is practically an apartment, and you are pampered as you go about yoru treatments there for approx. the same cost of a stay and treatment in an overcrowded US hospital.

I completely agree about the need to make changes to the FDA approval system.

Yeah, I recently hear a story on NPR about a luxury hospital in India where your room is practically an apartment, and you are pampered as you go about yoru treatments there for approx. the same cost of a stay and treatment in an overcrowded US hospital.

I've read about places like that; apparently, the quality of healthcare offered in places like that and others, like Thailand or Singapore, is far superior to that available in the US and is often significantly more advanced. For people willing to pay, there are some absolutely incredible facilities out there that they can take advantage of for cutting-edge treatments. In fact, in many cases it's actually a lot cheaper than comparable treatment in the US, and in many cases is even more advanced.

Of course, the goal is to expand that to more people than the wealthy, but it's a step in the right direction. Given that costs fall over time, I think "medical tourism" will swiftly become more available to more people.

"Medical tourism" as it's called (although not all medical treatment falls under "tourism" which implies voluntary rather than necessary surgery) is a fast growing industry. Places around the world offer medical treatment that is not only cheaper, but equally or even more advanced than what is available here.

Unfortunately, places around the world also offer a lot of expensive, untested "miracle cures" that dupe the very ill into traveling halfway across the world to get a treatment that is not only unlikely to help them, but may end up harming them instead.

FDA approval is rather out of whack. Unfortunately, it's got all kinds of lobbying and decades of overlapping and often outdated regulation attached to it that has nothing to do with the actual safety or impact of the medicine or treatment itself.

You'd be surprised. Many of the tests that the industry will tell you are completely unnecessary are there precisely because they weren't always required and people got hurt. There are certainly ways that the FDA could streamline the process - and they are trying - but I've seen no evidence of anything that "has nothing to do with the actual safety or impact" of the device/treatment/drug.

It needs to be reformed in order to accelerate the arrival of drugs and treatments in the US...there's no reason not to allow something that is legal in countries with medical systems comparable or superior to ours.

Approval in other countries greatly speeds up the FDA approval process, actually. This is the reason that many companies will market a drug first in Europe and then, as long as there are no major complications, move it to the US.

The FDS lightened up a biit in the 1990s and made the approval process faster and easier, in some cases. Since then a number of drugs that passed have been taken off the market because they are unsafe.

The FDS lightened up a biit in the 1990s and made the approval process faster and easier, in some cases. Since then a number of drugs that passed have been taken off the market because they are unsafe.

LOL. That was always happening - and likely will always happen. You certainly haven't shown any cause-and-effect here. Even a large-scale trial can't predict all of the issues a given drug might cause. With any drug/implant/etc., there is a risk of adverse effects.

The largest problem with the FDA is its difficulty in classifying new technology. The FDA got very used to a medical industry in which something was either a drug or a device. Then they added biologics. Now, many new products are some combination of the three. How should they be treated in trials? That's one of the biggest hurdles right now for the FDA.

LOL. That was always happening - and likely will always happen. You certainly haven't shown any cause-and-effect here. Even a large-scale trial can't predict all of the issues a given drug might cause. With any drug/implant/etc., there is a risk of adverse effects.

The largest problem with the FDA is its difficulty in classifying new technology. The FDA got very used to a medical industry in which something was either a drug or a device. Then they added biologics. Now, many new products are some combination of the three. How should they be treated in trials? That's one of the biggest hurdles right now for the FDA.

I know. Thorazine birth defects being the best well known case. I merely said it because of those setbacks making the FDA quicker will meet more political resistance.