The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Cancer Cures: Pharmaceutical companies are not your friends.
John T. Neufeld
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
There have been recent advances in the field of cancer treatment that have gone pretty much unnoticed by the majority of the world.
In Canada, there's currently a Phase II drug trial underway for compounds containing the relatively simple dichloroacetate (DCA) ion, specifically its sodium and potassium salts. This ion appears able to reactivate damaged mitochondrial function in cancerous cells, leading to eventual apotosis of the cell without damaging healthy tissue. Harvard University has identified the enzyme pathway that the ion targets, which is universal to all forms of cancer.
The drug has already seen clinical use for over 30 years in treating certain metabolic disorders, so its side effects and toxicity levels are well documented. Phase I trials of the drug were bypassed due to this fact.
The Phase II trials are currently only accepting those with inoperable cancers, having exhausted other avenues of treatment. Many in the general public have begun self-administering the compound they've purchased from chemical retailers and reported positive results.
The chemical compound itself is offpatent, meaning it can be made for less than a penny per daily dose. This also means that pharmaceutical companies aren't interested in funding research, as their current flagship drugs like the Folfox family run about $11,000 for an 8 week treatment. A penny a day does not stack up against $200 a day.
Is there a method to this madness?
When will the US flinch at Cancer Drug Prices?
Discuss.
In Canada, there's currently a Phase II drug trial underway for compounds containing the relatively simple dichloroacetate (DCA) ion, specifically its sodium and potassium salts. This ion appears able to reactivate damaged mitochondrial function in cancerous cells, leading to eventual apotosis of the cell without damaging healthy tissue. Harvard University has identified the enzyme pathway that the ion targets, which is universal to all forms of cancer.
The drug has already seen clinical use for over 30 years in treating certain metabolic disorders, so its side effects and toxicity levels are well documented. Phase I trials of the drug were bypassed due to this fact.
The Phase II trials are currently only accepting those with inoperable cancers, having exhausted other avenues of treatment. Many in the general public have begun self-administering the compound they've purchased from chemical retailers and reported positive results.
The chemical compound itself is offpatent, meaning it can be made for less than a penny per daily dose. This also means that pharmaceutical companies aren't interested in funding research, as their current flagship drugs like the Folfox family run about $11,000 for an 8 week treatment. A penny a day does not stack up against $200 a day.
Is there a method to this madness?
When will the US flinch at Cancer Drug Prices?
Discuss.
John T. Neufeld on
0
Posts
I find it hard to believe that pharmaceutical companies are actively denying dieing people effective treatment.
The $200 a day drug is a treatment.
The pennies a day drug is a cure.
Pharmaceutical companies have no direct say in the matter. However they have a lot of influence in the field via lobbyists and their role in research funding.
Phase II and III - Safety and Efficacy
Phase IV - Continued monitoring
I fail to see how "leaps and bounds" applies when it's more of a "guess" until phase II clinicals are complete. even then it's just a "better guess" until phase III. shit's been found wrong with stuff after phase III approvals as well. /medicalmanufacturingtechnician off
When it comes to a cheap cure for cancer i don't think pharmaceutical companies would pass it up if they really believed in it. Take Slim Fast for example. It's active ingrediant Chromium has been shown to cause problems in the cells of hamsters. Such problems are closely related to cancer causing agents. The dosage recommendation was subsequently lowered by a significant amount by the FDA. There's a wiki on it for chromium I think.
Assuming the compound has any sort of side effect that could be harmful short or long term, a pharmaceutical company could make a "killing" on a delivery agent directly to cancerous cells. However, even this drug offers limited aid when it comes to cancer. The main question, one that pharma is trying to deduce, is "Where does cancer come from?".
Case in point: My father had his prostate removed for prostate cancer. He's still got the cancer. Where is it coming from? Any number of mutations within the protein synthesis of a gene could be the answer. Is it a gene functioning normally but giving off something extra causing a mutation?
The common belief is that cancer cells that are apparant are not those that are the source. Somewhere along the line, a cell we can't detect is turning into something else when it replicates. The RNA codes the same gene upon the split but the new set comes out mutated and expands. Thus the original cancer cell never really increases it's rate of production and can be controlled for quite a long time (20+ years) if found early enough. The real growth is in the second phase of mutation where the detectable cancer spreads like wildfire.
edit: By control I meant that drugs control the second phase of mutation when it's small...it never really controls the first phase of the mutation because it's origin is unknown.
They're not trying to destroy it, but they're certainly not putting anything into it.
The article does not say that this in anyway cures cancer. It stems the growth. There's a big difference there. It's like curing aids or keeping your white cell blood count up. There's no cure for aids but it can be supressed so that you have an immune system.
Edit: I believe it was 8 months from the announcement of the discovery of its action in rats and human cell cultures to the commencement of clinical trials.
Remember, this drug has already been prescribed for 30 years for metabolic disorders, but doctors in Canada are not permitted to prescribe it for cancer treatment.
I'm assuming there are lypholizers and tablet presses involved. It's a lot less messier than injectables.
You'll have to explain that part to us lol. Phase II isn't cheap. Shit. NOTHING dealing with the FDA is cheap. Once you have the drug you gotta pay like $3 mil a year so they can come and decide whether or not to shut you down.
Exactly. They could easily do this for something to give old people erections, but not life saving drugs.
Also: what will investing more money into the exact same thing prove when a company is already in phase II?
We could liken this to any product. Not just drugs you know. Why research something someone else is already researching when upon their success the discovery will still be public domain? At that point you can cash in pretty easy as generics aren't nearly as difficult to set up. It's pretty much just process validation at that point.
I thought we were talking about the originating company.
Most of the current chemotherapy drugs are also considered carcinogenic.
Overhydration can kill you too.
Everything in moderation.
Wait what? The company in Phase II? If they're in Phase II they have been/and continue to spend money on research of the product. I don't know the company's name.
The dichloroacetate ion complex could easily be a signpost pointing towards a naturally occuring analog that could have a higher efficacy due to its pre-existing role as a 'vitamin'.
If you don't get enough vitamin C, your teeth fall out.
If you don't get enough vitamin I, you get cancer.
For example, algea is a natural concentrator of iodine from sea water. It's possible that this chemical compound could form naturally in these aquatic sources as part of a regular metabolic process that would produce the acetate ion, but produces a diodoacetate instead due to the presence of excess iodine concentrated within the cell walls. The iodine analog would have similar characteristics to the dichloroacetate ion, but the mass ratio of the carboxyl group to the halogenated carbon would be significantly larger, magnifying the complexes electrokinetic properties.
Japan and China are the world's largest consumer of seaweeds and kelp, and both have the lowest rates of cancer worldwide.
But they also have the highest rates of gastrointestinal cancers...
Everything in moderation.
When you think about it though...there is no cure for anything. The common cold? Nope. The Flu? Nope. In the some thousands of years we've had both Eastern and Western medicine there have been no cures. Period.
Genetic malfunction
Cell membrane malfunction
Viral initiation
Immune malfunction
The list goes on. There is no one cure for cancer. There are cures for some types of cancer.
As a biotech student, I know how fucking complicated a clinical trial process is. It's complicated and lengthy so people don't get killed when they find out a year of "x treatment" cures brain cancer but causes systemic organ failure in mice during phase II.
Small pox?
Cures are possible. The variety of cancers stems largely from the variety of cell-types in the human body. A one-size fits all cure that addresses the root of the problem instead of attempting to deal with the side effects isn't that farfetched.
Elaborate. Simply elongating your words enlightens no one.
What laws exist that prevent conditions from being 'cured'? It's well established that we have certain nutritional dietary requirements. We need certain vitamins and minerals to maintain good health. Not enough sodium in your diet can kill you. Too much sodium in your diet can kill you. But consume just enough and your body and all its cells function properly.
Why are chemical cocktails that slowly waste you away the way towards good health?
LoL I can get fired up about politics and the economy but at the same time I'm O.K. with ignorance when it comes to biotech. I know some but I know I don't know a lot...and how much less I know every day.
Cures may be possible. What you've got on the market of supposed cures is a misnomer. For example, you don't cure a headache. You've still go the headache. You've cured the symptom of the headache...which is to say pain. The closest thing you've got to a cure is tension headache medicine...but you can't really call stress a disease.
This "cure" doesn't address the root of the problem as I previously stated. It actually adresses a certain phase within the entire process. The cancer is still there, but somewhat abated.
Yes, but we have, for all practical purposes, killed the thing (too lazy to verify virility) off.
Assume an apocalypse of sorts where companies who distribute the vaccine no longer exist. Newborns and all people without the vaccine will be suseptible to it. Small pox could make a come back. Also...since it's your immune system fighting it off, what happens if you're exposed to a massive amount of the disease? There's only so much your body can handle before...boom. You're on your deathbed or in the grave.
Also it should be mentioned in the name of anti-biotics that there's something like 3-400 antibiotics known. We only use about 30ish because the rest aren't strong enough/compatible with our bodies. Research however, has shown some strains of bacteria becoming resistant to certain forms of anti-biotics. Given our limited pool (of even 300) that's kind of scary.
In the same way we can cure hunger and thirst.
Scurvy (N.Lat. scorbutus) is a deficiency disease that results from insufficient intake of vitamin C, which is required for correct collagen synthesis in humans.
Honestly calling it a disease is as confusing as calling hunger a disease. It was common among sea faring men without fruit long ago. I think they talk about it in the beginning of the book "Shogun".
Exactly.
And the same way we cure hypothyroidism.