Cure for Cancer?

[mazil]

Anyone else getting the too-good-to-be-true feeling?

Yeah, me too, a little bit

I think that might be the main reason why this hasn't been getting much coverage... not because of the lack of patent, but because I think the news outlets would be wary of announcing something like this, lest they get people's hopes up too much. Especially since there has been talk of "miracle cures" at times before, that haven't come to much.

But anyway, I was so happy to read this, this morning. It made me feel rather... hopeful ... about the world

Though, presuming it is a cure, I'm a bit sad for all the people it has come too late for, and for the people who it might still be too late for.

[Rachel]

was reading the new scientist article last night, and it does sound like it has the promise of what they're saying, but it's only in the researchs stage at the moment.

Clinical trials cost a lot of money, and pharmaceutical companies ofset this by the cost of the drug once its realeased. if you ran a business, would you really spend a whole load of money on something that wouldnt make you any money at the end of it? no, of course you wouldnt. and i dont think the pharmaceutical companies should be to blame for that, they're businesses and need to act like them.

i think This is where the governments need to step in and provide funding for things, as it would save the government money, both in drug costs and in general care costs for people with cancer.

[Asthaloth]

Well, it's too late for a lot of my family... But in the spirit of not dying to hereditary diseases I say good.
And I wish to take the opportunity to wish some vague evil to descend on the people who patent medical technology.

I seem to recall this being mentioned a while ago mind, but it wasn't as effective, seems they have improved on the technology?
(I'm still hoping for Nanotech to be viable in my life time though, insurance is necesary with my medical history

[Kitten Medli]

Well, it's too late for a lot of my family...

:/ *hug* That stinks. I'm sorry.

I also get the too good to be true feeling. I mean seriously.. but I hope this gets out and people can be cured. I also hope that there will be one thats safe for animals, too. I've lost a lot of pets to cancer, and I almost wonder if it isn't more common for them than us..?

[Morningstar]

If they did have a cure, they'd probably not want to tell anyone. They make more money when they are barely keeping you alive than if they cure you.

Smudge, I have to agree with you there. Won't say more. I'd love to, trust me, I would. But, this isn't the debate board.

[Shoyru_Lover]

You could make dichloroacetate in a nalgene bottle. If that works, it'd be RIDICULOUSLY cheap.

You could buy reagent grade stuff from a lab catalog for probably $15-20 per 500 mL.

Intriguing articles. New Scientist DOES actually have some scientific credibility, so it may be true. Although there are other types of apoptosis besides mitochondria mediated apoptosis. Mutations in p53 tumor suppressor can deactivate all apoptosis, but it is quite interesting that metabolism apparently can somehow deactivate the pathway for mitochondrial apoptosis.

I find it highly peculiar that no one has had both cancer and metabolic disorders and saw the cancer regress like that, heh heh. If any scientists would've stumbled on it before it WOULD have been reported right away because a possible "discovery" of a cure for cancer would definitely win a Nobel Prize in medicine and get worldwide recognition. Thus, I find it strange that if it actually works in vivo that it would not have been recorded before.

I'm actually going to be taking a class this semester, BSCI433 "the biology of cancer" so I'll let you guys know what I find out as there should be at least some recent research in cancer presented in class hopefully.

[Rachel]

I knew there was another article i'd read about it, as i'd read about it before reading that article that was linked (also from new scientist):

Editorial: No patent? No cancer drug development

SOME new cancer drugs emerge through better understanding of how the disease develops. Others work in ways we do not understand, and so give us fresh insight. It is rare to find a drug that sweeps away decades of assumptions and reveals a radical approach to treating all forms of the disease.

The drug is a simple, small molecule called dichloroacetate (DCA). Research in Canada led by Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta has shown that it has promising anti-cancer properties. That's not all. The drug's mode of action is also generating excitement.

In 1930, biochemist Otto Warburg proposed that cells turn cancerous by changing the way they generate energy. Normally, cells rely on specialised organelles called mitochondria to supply their energy. Cancer cells switch to a process called glycolysis, which takes place in the body of the cell. It is an inefficient process, used by many bacteria - and marathon runners - when oxygen is in short supply.

Curiously, Warburg found that cancer cells continue to use glycolysis even when oxygen is plentiful. He argued that this fact, now called the Warburg effect, was a defining property of cancer cells. However, the idea did not catch on, not least because another famous biochemist, Hans Krebs, said the Warburg effect was only a symptom of cancer, not its primary cause. This scepticism was reinforced by the belief that cancer cells only switch to glycolysis because their mitochondria fail.

Enter DCA, which has been used for years to treat people with mitochondrial disease. The drug boosts the ability of mitochondria to generate energy. When given to cancer cells, it did the same: it seems that mitochondria in cancer cells are not irreparably damaged after all. What's more, functioning mitochondria help to kill off these aberrant cells (see "Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers").

When Michelakis tested the drug on cancer cells in culture, they died. When he gave it to rats with human tumours, the tumours shrank. It appears Warburg may well have been right that the switch to glycolysis is more than just a symptom of cancerous cells.

Best of all, DCA looks like a potential anti-cancer agent. It is cheap, does not appear to affect normal cells, we know its side effects, and it should work on all cancers. But there's a hitch: it is an old drug and so cannot be patented. No pharmaceutical company is likely to fund costly clinical trials without some exclusive rights to make the drug.

This is not a new problem. Many drugs are left on the shelf because companies cannot make lots of money from them. It has happened with drugs for diseases that affect mainly poor people in developing countries, such as TB, though there are now an increasing number of partnerships between governments, charities and commercial companies to deal with these cases. Cancer, by contrast, is chiefly a disease of the rich, and testing DCA will need a one-off effort.

It is a safe bet that drug companies will be falling over themselves to find patentable compounds with a similar action to DCA. Any of these reaching the market will be hugely expensive. It would be a scandal if a cheap alternative with such astonishing potential were not given a chance simply because it won't turn a big enough profit.

[Asparagus Queen]

Now THAT article makes me mad. They could have figured out how to cure cancer 70ish years ago if they'd just listened to Warburg's theory, and not listened to Krebs? JEEEEEEEEEEZ. How much would it have hurt to see if Warburg's theory had some truth to it? If one of my immediate family members had died of cancer, I'd be trying to sue Krebs.

[Drake Redcrest]

I'm so glad they've finally found something. There's really no point in being mad about the past; what's done is done. They went with what they thought was right, and it turned out not to be. It happens all the time.

I hope this is available as soon as humanly possible.

[Asthaloth]

Now THAT article makes me mad. They could have figured out how to cure cancer 70ish years ago if they'd just listened to Warburg's theory, and not listened to Krebs? JEEEEEEEEEEZ. How much would it have hurt to see if Warburg's theory had some truth to it? If one of my immediate family members had died of cancer, I'd be trying to sue Krebs.

To be fair, an awful lot of "miracle cures" turn up round the world, and most (Like, 99%) cause more harm than good.
But still, if some guy came round today, and out of the blue said he could cure, oh, the common cold, would you believe him?
I doubt it, not least because it's a virus and thus can't strictly be cured, but because no one has been trying.
For as long as there has been cancer (Or medical tech good enough to see it for what it is) We have been trying to kick it in it's face and run off with it's wallet.

Although suing does sound fun
(And now I am going to be haunted by about five generations of my family.)

[Pudding]

I agree with Moonie that this is probably going to be less earth-shattering than it's being hyped as. Still, hype's good if this is true at all.

Drug companies are probably not going to be the ones to take the lead on this one, unless stockholders make a big deal about it. A lot of them consider their shareholders their first priority, and this is guaranteed to lose money.

However, I'd be stunned if no more research universities get grants to do some more thorough research on this within the next few years. Public outcry for a more readily available version of dichloroacetate will probably do the rest.