PDA

View Full Version : Canadian scientists find cancer cure. Pharmaceutical companies not interested.


dennilfloss
05-14-2011, 07:34 PM
...because it won't make them a ton of money. Should government get involved with pharmaceutical research? For example, Canadian scientists are reported to have found a cancer cure that looks real promising but pharmaceutical companies are not interested since it won't make them much money.:)

http://bit.ly/jD7dVj

I tend to lean towards the opinion that, particularly under a system of single-payer-type universal healthcare, our government should get involved with funding & implementation as this development could significantly decrease healthcare costs for our aging population if it really works that well, not to mention all the grief and suffering that could be alleviated and those have social costs too. It just strikes me as the thing a civilized and evolved society that emphasizes the good of many over the good of a few would do for its population.


This article is 4 years old. They did not find a cancer cure. Even the update says that not only can no conclusions be made on whether the drug is safe or effective in patients with this form of brain cancer, but that use of DCA by patients or physicians in any but research trials is not only inappropriate but may also be dangerous.

admin allisolm

SandEagle
05-14-2011, 07:37 PM
there is no profit in cures. there is only profit in treatments.

Imp
05-14-2011, 07:38 PM
there is no profit in cures. there is only profit in treatments.

Same reason more is spent on baldness/Viagra drugs than a bunch of life-threatening diseases. Can't blame them. I'd like money too.

Brigandier
05-14-2011, 07:38 PM
The Canadians didn't cure cancer, they just got a Texas Mickey and made shit up.

HamburgerBoy
05-14-2011, 07:38 PM
there is no profit in cures. there is only profit in treatments.

lol

thecrecarc
05-14-2011, 07:43 PM
IIRC, this is not new. Some doctors have already been prescribing it for cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Off-label_use

Some key quotes:
"Akbar and Humaira Khan have since March 2007 treated cancer patients using DCA off-label at their private clinic, Medicor Cancer Centres"

"some patients "are showing varied positive responses to DCA including tumour shrinkage, reduction in tumour markers, symptom control, and improvement in lab tests".

"In 2010 it was found that for human colorectal tumours grown in mice, under hypoxic conditions, DCA decreased rather than increased apoptosis, resulting in enhanced growth of the tumours.These findings suggest that at least in some cancer types DCA treatment could be detrimental to patient health, highlighting the need for further testing before it can be considered a safe and effective cancer treatment."

DangerAardvark
05-14-2011, 07:52 PM
Why are there 4 year-old comments on the article? Also this:
In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective.

DangerAardvark
05-14-2011, 07:55 PM
there is no profit in cures. there is only profit in treatments.

Yep, that's the narrative alright. And there seems to be no end of people grasping at straws in order to support it.

dennilfloss
05-14-2011, 07:58 PM
Here's the update.

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm

thecrecarc
05-14-2011, 08:00 PM
A mitochondria is an organelle, not a cell. Article fail.

PottedMeat
05-14-2011, 08:01 PM
A mitochondria is an organelle, not a cell. Article fail.

maybe the author should stick to writing pomes

cgull8m on HubPages

I love Hubpages, I learn new things every day here. There are pretty smart hubbers here in diverse topics.

I also write poetry, quotes and short stories. You can check my quotes and poems in my blog here.

cubby1223
05-14-2011, 08:07 PM
there is no profit in cures. there is only profit in treatments.

*sigh*

So not true it's not even funny anymore to read.

Did it make you feel smart posting your opinion?

senseamp
05-14-2011, 08:12 PM
The drug already exists and is widely available. What more is needed from the drug companies?

Bignate603
05-14-2011, 08:21 PM
there is no profit in cures. there is only profit in treatments.

It scares me that people actually believe that this is the reason why we don't have cures for diseases.

Imp
05-14-2011, 08:36 PM
It scares me that people actually believe that this is the reason why we don't have cures for diseases.

There should actually be figures out there showing that the money spent on "lesser" medical issues is higher for those that are more profitable.

Too lazy to look, so feel free to prove me wrong.

Pliablemoose
05-14-2011, 08:43 PM
If you nutjobs think even for a second that "big pharma" wouldn't sell their soul for a cancer cure, you're sadly mistaken.

Just for bragging rights alone, they'd fund clinical trials.

rudeguy
05-14-2011, 08:43 PM
I thought URL shorteners were banned

SandEagle
05-14-2011, 08:47 PM
It scares me that people actually believe that this is the reason why we don't have cures for diseases.

ahh, Littlenate603 shows up just in time to show just how little he knows.

Bignate603
05-14-2011, 08:47 PM
There should actually be figures out there showing that the money spent on "lesser" medical issues is higher for those that are more profitable.

Too lazy to look, so feel free to prove me wrong.

There's huge amounts of research dollars spent by non-profit groups looking for cures for things like cancer and AIDS. They don't care about turning a profit.

Bignate603
05-14-2011, 09:03 PM
ahh, Littlenate603 shows up just in time to show just how little he knows.

As opposed to you who shows how little he knows with every post?

Here's the reasons why your argument about pharmaceutical companies choosing not cure things is wrong:

1. Non-profits do huge amount of cancer research, they don't care about profits. The guys doing research at universities are all about getting recognition from their peers. Curing cancer would make them a rock star in their research community.
2. Any pharmaceutical company that cures cancer can charge ridiculous amounts for it and will instantly get 100% of the market. They'll blow their competitors out of the water.
3. Countries that have any form of government provided healthcare are incredibly interested in finding cures and are behind a large amount of research dollars spent.

Capt Caveman
05-14-2011, 09:17 PM
there is no profit in cures. there is only profit in treatments.

Like usual, incorrect. Do a little research before posting.

I'm sure the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (http://www.dana-farber.org/) would have no interest in curing cancer. A world renown Cancer Institute trying to cure cancer. A non-profit that I have had the pleasure of volunteering for and donating to in hopes of finding a cure for cancer.

TheVrolok
05-14-2011, 09:18 PM
This about DCA again? Oh, it is? Jury is still out on the final verdict, but it is very interesting research. Claiming that the cure for cancer has been found is absolutely absurd, and equally absurd is claiming that pharm companies wouldn't want in. The first company that would bring a cancer cure to the market? I can't even imagine the money.

rudeguy
05-14-2011, 09:19 PM
Like usual, incorrect. Do a little research before posting.

let him tinfoil hat it. People like that refuse to believe that big corporations can do something good.

Bignate603
05-14-2011, 10:15 PM
let him tinfoil hat it. People like that refuse to believe that big corporations can do something good.

Actually, in the case mentioned in the OP the big corporations may not be able to do anything, even if the drug looks very promising. It's a generic, meaning that anyone can make it without paying any licensing. If any pharmaceutical company pays to do all the work to get it approved then anyone could make and sell it, they'd never recoup their costs. They'd spend millions without having a hope of ever making money off it.

This is why there are so many non-profits and government funded research, they'll test the promising things without worrying about their ability to recoup their costs.

rudeguy
05-14-2011, 10:19 PM
Actually, in the case mentioned in the OP the big corporations may not be able to do anything, even if the drug looks very promising. It's a generic, meaning that anyone can make it without paying any licensing. If any pharmaceutical company pays to do all the work to get it approved then anyone could make and sell it, they'd never recoup their costs. They'd spend millions without having a hope of ever making money off it.

This is why there are so many non-profits and government funded research, they'll test the promising things without worrying about their ability to recoup their costs.

here's a protip:

Most nonprofit and damn near all government funded research companies are more worried about making a buck than big pharma.

Do you think $10 mil means anything to J&J?

Nintendesert
05-14-2011, 10:24 PM
there is no profit in cures. there is only profit in treatments.


And there's a cure for AIDS/HIV but they keep it hidden to keep selling expensive drugs too right? I mean, look at Magic Johnson, the proof is there!

Pardus
05-14-2011, 10:26 PM
This article was published March 2nd, 2007. The real story is it doesn't work.

You can't "cure cancer". It's not one disease with one course of action, it's a spectrum of disorders with infinite variables. Every cancer for every person is different, and to suggest that there's some magic bullet cure-all is preposterous and unfair to those who are suffering.

NeoV
05-14-2011, 10:34 PM
the ignorance is strong in this thread.....

Kadarin
05-14-2011, 10:35 PM
*sigh*

So not true it's not even funny anymore to read.

Did it make you feel smart posting your opinion?

H. Pylorii scam, maybe? http://www.ulcer-cure.com/H_Pylori/helicobacter-pylori.php?sl=2

Bignate603
05-14-2011, 10:40 PM
here's a protip:

Most nonprofit and damn near all government funded research companies are more worried about making a buck than big pharma.

Do you think $10 mil means anything to J&J?

And here's another pro-tip. There are plenty of places where research is occurring that aren't worried about profit.

Also, yes blowing $10 million means quite a bit to J&J when they know that the profits from their investment will never be recouped.

rudeguy
05-14-2011, 10:41 PM
And here's another pro-tip. There are plenty of places where research is occurring that aren't worried about profit.

Also, yes blowing $10 million means quite a bit to J&J when they know that the profits from their investment will never be recouped.

I would be very interested to read about the places you are talking about.

SandEagle
05-14-2011, 10:41 PM
the cure for cancer is weed.......no wonder they want to keep it illegal

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/05/05/2011-05-05_dad_says_medical_marijuana_helped_cure_2yearold s_cancer_pop_slipped_son_pot_oil_.html


And there's a cure for AIDS/HIV but they keep it hidden to keep selling expensive drugs too right? I mean, look at Magic Johnson, the proof is there!

i bet he smoked and ate a lot of weed to cure it. but we'll never know. i have a gut feeling that mj is the miracle drug

Bignate603
05-14-2011, 11:11 PM
I would be very interested to read about the places you are talking about.

Dana Farber as previously mentioned, St. Jude, the National Cancer Institute's Center for Cancer Research just to name a few. On top of that there are plenty of research programs occurring at universities around the world. If you actually have contact with these people you'll realize that most of them aren't in it for the money.

It may be hard to believe, but there are actually people choosing to do the research because they think its a good thing to do.

Eug
05-14-2011, 11:21 PM
...because it won't make them a ton of money. Should government get involved with pharmaceutical research? For example, Canadian scientists are reported to have found a cancer cure that looks real promising but pharmaceutical companies are not interested since it won't make them much money.:)
http://www.philzimmermann.com/images/TinFoilHatArea.jpg

dennilfloss
05-14-2011, 11:27 PM
I thought URL shorteners were banned

Don't know about that but I used one here because the forum software breaks the original URL up into a nonworking link.

GoSharks
05-15-2011, 06:26 AM
H. Pylorii scam, maybe? http://www.ulcer-cure.com/H_Pylori/helicobacter-pylori.php?sl=2

Start at ~1982 and decide for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disease_and_Helicobacter_ pylori

It takes time to verify and translate research effort in a lab into a clinical setting.

PlasmaBomb
05-15-2011, 06:56 AM
Fail article is fail.

The drug already exists and is widely available. What more is needed from the drug companies?

Where is your rage at the drug companies not putting billions of dollars into research of something that is widely available, and that they can't patent and then make money off?

/sarcasm

William Gaatjes
05-15-2011, 07:22 AM
there is no profit in cures. there is only profit in treatments.

I am sorry to say that logically that is very true.
Luckily there are more then enough integer scientists who have found ways to circumvent this problem. When integer scientists have made enough money, they can start creating cures on their own or as non profit organization instead of treatments. However, patent rights and bullying of pharmaceutic companies must not be forgotten.

EDIT :

I do however think it is wise to look into how this cancer cure really functions.
The page is not that specific.

William Gaatjes
05-15-2011, 07:34 AM
There you go :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycolysis#Cancer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect


Oncology

Basis

In oncology, the Warburg effect is the observation that most cancer cells predominantly produce energy by a high rate of glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation in the cytosol, rather than by a comparatively low rate of glycolysis followed by oxidation of pyruvate in mitochondria like most normal cells.[1] The latter process is aerobic (uses oxygen). Malignant rapidly-growing tumor cells typically have glycolytic rates that are up to 200 times higher than those of their normal tissues of origin; this occurs even if oxygen is plentiful.

Otto Warburg postulated that this change in metabolism is the fundamental cause of cancer,[2] a claim now known as the Warburg hypothesis. Today it is known that mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes are responsible for malignant transformation[3][4] however a fundamental cause of cancer - if there is any - is still not understood.


Use in diagnosis

The Warburg effect has important medical applications, as high aerobic glycolysis by malignant tumors is utilized clinically to diagnose and monitor treatment responses of cancers by imaging uptake of 2-18F-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) (a radioactive modified hexokinase substrate) with positron emission tomography (PET).


Possible explanations of the effect

The Warburg effect may simply be a consequence of damage to the mitochondria in cancer, or an adaptation to low-oxygen environments within tumors, or a result of cancer genes shutting down the mitochondria because they are involved in the cell's apoptosis program which would otherwise kill cancerous cells. It may also be an effect associated with cell proliferation. Since glycolysis provides most of the building blocks required for cell proliferation, it has been proposed that cancer cells (and normal proliferating cells) may need to activate glycolysis despite the presence of oxygen in order to proliferate .[7] There is also evidence that attributes some of the high aerobic glycolytic rates to an overexpressed form of mitochondrially-bound hexokinase[8] responsible for driving the high glycolytic activity.

Tumor M2-PK, an enzyme thought to be responsible for the effect

In March 2008 Lewis C. Cantley and colleagues at the Harvard Medical School announced that they had identified the enzyme that gave rise to the Warburg Effect.[9][10] The researchers stated that Tumor M2-PK, a form of the pyruvate kinase enzyme, is produced in all rapidly-dividing cells and is responsible for enabling cancer cells to consume glucose at an accelerated rate; on forcing the cells to switch to pyruvate kinase's alternative form by inhibiting the production of Tumor M2-PK, their growth was curbed. The researchers acknowledged the fact that the exact chemistry of glucose metabolism was likely to vary across different forms of cancer, however PKM2 was identified in all of the cancer cells they had experimented upon. The enzyme variety is not usually found in healthy tissue, though it is apparently necessary when cells need to multiply quickly, e.g. in healing wounds or hematopoiesis.


Glycolytic Inhibitors

Many substances have been developed which inhibit glycolysis, and such glycolytic inhibitors are currently the subject of intense research as anticancer agents.[11] Some glycolytic inhibitors currently being studied as anticancer treatments include SB-204990, 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2DG), 3-bromopyruvate (3-BrPA, Bromopyruvic acid, or bromopyruvate), 3-BrOP, 5-thioglucose and dichloroacetic acid (DCA). Clinical trials are ongoing for 2-DG and DCA ClinicalTrials.gov.

DCA, a small-molecule inhibitor of mitochondrial pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase, downregulates glycolysis in vitro and in vivo. Researchers at the University of Alberta theorized in 2007 that DCA might have therapeutic benefits against many types of cancers.


Alternative models

A model called the Reverse Warburg Effect in which the cells producing energy by glycolysis were not the tumor cells, but the stromal fibroblasts. Although it was stated that the Warburg Effect would exist in certain cancer types potentially, it highlighted the need for a closer look at tumor metabolism.

Hayabusa Rider
05-15-2011, 08:37 AM
here's a protip:

Most nonprofit and damn near all government funded research companies are more worried about making a buck than big pharma.

Do you think $10 mil means anything to J&J?

Here's a tip from a professional. 10 mil won't begin to cover regulatory and legal costs, and that doesn't count liability.

No one will spend a hundred million for the honor of being sued. On the other hand if the feds want to I have no objection.