Cancer Cure

PolkThug

This seems too good to be true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16776882/site/newsweek/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

zombie boy 2000

But that's also a problem, because big drug companies are unlikely to spend a billion dollars or so on large-scale clinical trials for a compound they can't patent.

This tells you everything...

Shizelbs

zombie boy 2000 wrote:

But that's also a problem, because big drug companies are unlikely to spend a billion dollars or so on large-scale clinical trials for a compound they can't patent.

This tells you everything...

Well thats what the NIH has funds for. They would fund a study. Universities would gladly participate. And drug companies can still find a way to make a product using a generic drug and acquire a patent for it. Look at how many prescription prenatal vitamins there are. Tons, and its all pretty damn similar.

Anyways, I'll believe it when I see it.

bobman1235

I don't know of many corporations who would spend a billion dollars out of the goodness of their hearts, but that's what government research grants are for. There's SO much money out there for research into this kind of thing, I REALLY can't imagine that money for clinical trials could be a deterrent if this is really possible.

Shizelbs

bobman1235 wrote:

I don't know of many corporations who would spend a billion dollars out of the goodness of their hearts, but that's what government research grants are for. There's SO much money out there for research into this kind of thing, I REALLY can't imagine that money for clinical trials could be a deterrent if this is really possible.

Particularly if the phase I and IIs have been done.

hearingimpared

I'm skeptical about cures. It may cure or reverse cancer in one person and have the opposite effect on another. My mother was diagnosed with Chronic Myologis (sp) Leukemia. This is not the "bad" kind of Leukemia. The hematologist said that older people who contract this illness usually live five years but that there was a cure for it and that my mother qualified to get the medication for free. Now she was 79 when she was diagnosed.

Five years later the hematologist told us that she was cured and the chromosome that caused the Leukemia had reversed itself. The follow week, she went back and found that not only was it back but worse. She passed about 4 or 5 month after that at the ripe old age of 84. Exactly five years after being diagnosed.

Soooo I take cure alerts with a grain of salt but pray that they do work for some people.

Early B.

Every so often some researcher discovers a potential cure for cancer. Big deal.

Once again, these researchers are not dealing with the source of the problem (whatever that is). If the source of the cancer is not the mitochondria (which it isn't), then how can cancer be cured with DCA? At best, you can temporarily alleviate the pain or slow the growth, but you ain't gonna cure it.

bobman1235

Wow. Early knows the source of cancer? I think your time could be better spent than the Polk message boards, EB....

[/sarcasm]

Not all cures "make sense" at first sight. All they know is that they have a drug which has been shown to reduce the size of cancerous tumors. I don't particularly think that is a "cure for cancer", as not all cancers are solid tumors (just ask anyone with leukemia), but it obviously does SOMETHING which is helpful, so who are we to question them testing it out?

unc2701

Phase II hasn't been done yet- that's where you establish dosing.

Anyhow, if it really is that promising, there's plenty of NIH grant money out there, plus the FDA will extend patent time for drug companies for doing research in areas that would otherwise not be economical. Also, the cost is exaggerated- average cost bring a drug through phase III is about $750 million, but that includes the R&D cost of all the failures that never make it to an IND and all the ones that fail before submission. You can also cut a lot more corners with cancer since they usually fall under the FDA's fast track program & ethical issues are mitigated by the lack of other treatment options.

Shizelbs

EarlyB, in this type of disease, preventing the causes is probably not going to be a viable option.

Cells need mitochondria to live. Its what makes usable energy for all the different parts and machines in the cell so they can do their jobs. If the cells don't have any energy to do things, including maitaining life, then they will die. Take away their source of energy, they will die.

Demiurge

These articles are a dime a dozen. Don't know whether that's a good or bad thing.

Shizelbs

Demiurge wrote:

These articles are a dime a dozen. Don't know whether that's a good or bad thing.

Its neither. Its just more of the press crapping out whatever people want to read.

Toxis

I've always said, there's more money in finding the cure than having the cure. I don't think they're trying to hard or really want to have a REAL cure. Same with AIDS...

Shizelbs

Toxis wrote:

I've always said, there's more money in finding the cure than having the cure. I don't think they're trying to hard or really want to have a REAL cure. Same with AIDS...

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

unc2701

Toxis wrote:

I've always said, there's more money in finding the cure than having the cure. I don't think they're trying to hard or really want to have a REAL cure. Same with AIDS...

yeah, I gotta disagree, too.

Early B.

Toxis wrote:

I've always said, there's more money in finding the cure than having the cure. I don't think they're trying to hard or really want to have a REAL cure. Same with AIDS...

You're absolutely right.

I write medical research grants, so my job is to follow the money. Sounds cold and heartless, but the money is never in the cure.

Shizelbs

Early B. wrote:

You're absolutely right.

I write medical research grants, so my job is to follow the money. Sounds cold and heartless, but the money is never in the cure.

But don't you write grants so that scientists can explore the mechanisms of the disease, so that they can find a cure? Do you write grants to manufacture an established cure?

Just what exactly is your profession Early? You got me all curious over here.

Early B.

Shizelbs wrote:

But don't you write grants so that scientists can explore the mechanisms of the disease, so that they can find a cure? Do you write grants to manufacture an established cure?

Just what exactly is your profession Early? You got me all curious over here.

Sorry, I should have elaborated.

First, about one-half of the research money goes into the coffers of the medical school or research institution as overhead. The remaining amount goes to the study, with a nice chunk of change going to supplement the researchers' salaries. The goal of researchers is not to find a cure, but to publish their results in medical journals. The more they publish, the more likely they are get promoted and get more grant money. There's also lots of ego glorification and competition in medical research. It's all about who has the bigger dick, ugh, I meant the bigger grant. Of course, there's a tremendous amount of politics associated with who gets grant money, and the feds are the biggest culprits.

What I'm trying to say is that medical research is a money making scheme like anything else. It's not much different than the pharmaceutical industry. The true motivating factor is money, no matter how altruistic it may appear to be.

PhantomOG

Wow... and to think I thought that some of those people actually cared about finding a cure and helping people. I really had no idea it was that bad.

unc2701

Early B. wrote:

Every so often some researcher discovers a potential cure for cancer. Big deal.

Once again, these researchers are not dealing with the source of the problem (whatever that is). If the source of the cancer is not the mitochondria (which it isn't), then how can cancer be cured with DCA? At best, you can temporarily alleviate the pain or slow the growth, but you ain't gonna cure it.

Yeah, I'm curious, too. That really isn't what I'd expect based on the above. I've worked many sides of medical research (med school labwork; NIH, EPA research grants/contracts; and pharma big &small) and I'm wondering what it is that you've seen to make you reach that conclusion.

Early B.

I wanted to add that medical schools recruit researchers just like they recruit top athletes. Researchers that get lots of grant money are highly sought after because they bring lots of money and notoriety to the medical school. They are the superstars of the academic medical world.

unc2701

Oops. posted at the same time. Anyhow, it amounts to a big "So what?" as far as I'm concerned. Most of what you say is true, but no researcher is going to ignore a cure to get more publications in the long run. Sorry, but that's just plain stupid. Yes, research is very incremental and they all seem to be focused on a small part of the problem, but that's how it works. Sooner or later you make a breakthrough, and believe me, there's a LOT more money to be had when that happens.

Early B.

Shizelbs wrote:

But don't you write grants so that scientists can explore the mechanisms of the disease, so that they can find a cure? Do you write grants to manufacture an established cure?

Think about it.

What would happen if researchers found a low cost cure for cancer today? Well, tomorrow, billions of dollars in medical research, prescription drugs, surgeries, doctor visits, cancer insurance, etc. would virtually go away.

Health care is a HUGE money machine, and cancer is a major contributor to keeping this machine operating. So large medical corporations such as hospitals, health insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies have a tremendous financial incentive to ensure a cure for cancer is never made available.

unc2701

Yeah, kinda like they'd never let a vaccination for HPV reach the market. There's billions of dollars being spent to treat cervical cancer, can't let that get away.

oh, wait. it already happened

Shizelbs

EarlyB is right, a big **** chunk of the grant money goes to the University. Its like the researcher's form of rent. They get a lab, the university gets money to build buildings, hire staff, run a university.

But, who the hell is going to fund a grant asking for $2B saying they are going to cure cancer. You have to break it up into smaller chunks that identify molecular signals and processes that can explain the disease process. You can't say you are going to do something if you have no clue on how to do it. Thats what all the non-cure studies are working towards.

And you cannot convince me that all the sweat and tears that is exerted by medical students, grad students, physicians, statisticians and scientists is all motivated by big dick contests and money. There are people that want to find cures and treatments. They are not in it for the money. Every scientists I have met and worked with lived a very modest life. They are well compensated, but for all the years of education they've put in (~13-16 years of college alone) they are not doing it for the money.

Early B.

unc2701 wrote:

Yeah, kinda like they'd never let a vaccination for HPV reach the market. There's billions of dollars being spent to treat cervical cancer, can't let that get away.

oh, wait. it already happened

Huh? There's a cure for cervical cancer?

We're not talking about treatment, we're talking about cures.

Shizelbs

Early B. wrote:

Think about it.

What would happen if researchers found a low cost cure for cancer today? Well, tomorrow, billions of dollars in medical research, prescription drugs, surgeries, doctor visits, cancer insurance, etc. would virtually go away.

People would live longer lives filled with other ailments besides cancer. A cure for cancer is not the end all cure for disease. There is still plenty to treat.

Early B.

Shizelbs wrote:

And you cannot convince me that all the sweat and tears that is exerted by medical students, grad students, physicians, statisticians and scientists is all motivated by big dick contests and money. There are people that want to find cures and treatments. They are not in it for the money. Every scientists I have met and worked with lived a very modest life. They are well compensated, but for all the years of education they've put in (~13-16 years of college alone) they are not doing it for the money.

Of course, there are honest researchers in the world. However, researchers don't control whether their results will be published, nor do they control if their results will be disseminated to other researchers.

Many of the large research studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies. They expect a specific outcome, so it the researcher's responsibility to deliver that outcome.

Like I said, it's a huge money machine and profits have to be protected.

Shizelbs

EarlyB criticizes science for its lack of targeting the cause of cancer. There are many causes of cancer; exogenous pollutants, radition (both man-made and atmospheric, medications, viruses). Okay, some of those we can limit, some we can prevent exposure to, and some we are just plain stuck with. Most of all, DNA is just succeptable to being changed into a form that is going to cause cancer. Its not as if we can reengineer our DNA (at this point in science anyways) to make it more stable from change.

So basically, at this point, we have to target the cancer in other ways. Like, find unique ways to kill the cancerous cells based on their small differences from healthy human cells.

PhantomOG

Do you think they go so far as to secretly fund research on how to purposefully give people cancer in order to make money treating all the cancer patients?? Are we getting into tin foil hat territory here?

wingnut4772

It sounds promising. I have a friend who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer last year. I wish they could try it on him.