Posted on 01/17/2007 6:33:23 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
A small, non-toxic molecule may soon be available as an inexpensive treatment for many forms of cancer, including lung, breast and brain tumours, say University of Alberta researchers.
But there's a catch: the drug isn't patented, and pharmaceutical companies may not be interested in funding further research if the treatment won't make them a profit.
In findings that "astounded" the researchers, the molecule known as DCA was shown to shrink lung, breast and brain tumours in both animal and human tissue experiments.
"You typically get this eureka type of feeling. It's the most exciting thing a scientist can get," Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a professor at the University of Alberta department of medicine and a key study author, told CTV News.
The study was published Tuesday in the journal Cancer Cell.
The molecule appears to repair the damage that cancer cells cause to mitochondria, the units that convert food into energy.
"Cancer cells actively suppress their mitochondria, which alters their metabolism, and this appears to offer cancer cells a significant advantage in growth compared to normal cells, as well as protection from many standard chemotherapies," Michelakis said in a written statement.
As mitochondria regulate cell death, cancer cells can resist being killed off.
For years, DCA -- or dichloroacetate -- has been used to treat children with inborn errors of metabolism due to mitochondrial diseases.
Until recently, researchers believed damage to mitochondria in cancer cells was permanent.
But Michelakis questioned this theory and began testing DCA, which activates a critical enzyme, as a way to "revive" cancer-affected mitochondria.
He says one of the most exciting things about this compound is that it might be able to treat many different forms of cancer because they all suppress mitochondrial function.
Therefore, DCA can primarily affect the cancer cells without affecting the normal ones.
Researchers also say DCA may prove to be effective because it is a small compound, thus easily absorbed in the body.
After oral intake, it can reach areas in the body that other drugs cannot, making it possible to treat cancer of the brain, for example.
In addition, because DCA has been used in both healthy people and ailing patients with mitochondrial diseases, researchers know it is a relatively non-toxic molecule that can be immediately tested in patients with cancer.
The compound, which is sold both as powder and as a liquid, is widely available at chemistry stores.
But because it's not patented or owned by any drug firm, it would be an inexpensive drug to administer. And researchers may have a difficult time finding money for further research.
Dr. Dario Altieri, of the University of Massachusetts, said the drug is exactly what doctors need because it could limit side-effects for patients. But there are "market considerations" that drug companies would have to take into account.
Michelakis remains hopeful he will be able to secure funding for further research.
"We hope we can attract the interest of universities here in Canada and in the United States," said Michelakis.
With a report from CTV's Avis Favaro and Elizabeth St. Philip
When my wife got here (originally from Russia) she was amazed at how many drugs were restricted that were over the counter for her back home.
"Further research"? Marketing research, how to make this drug VERY EXPENSIVE? Why they did not DISCOVER it in the the first place?
So what? It's a painkiller not a hallucinogenic. REstricted everyone's rights for the benefit of the stupid does not strike me as a well thought out law.
Do you think that science is possible without basic research not based on profit?
Free Market ideology is as dangerous to the science as Political Correctness is.
Or, since it's a readily available drug, someone can donate $1 billion to get it through the FDA's approval process so doctors can write prescriptions from chemical supply stores. /sarcasm
Yeah. Morphine is GOOD. I can see how one could very easily become addicted to it. Something I didn't quite 'get' before I needed it (exploded pancreas).
Ditto!
As someone who suffered from acid reflux let me be the first to say that I'm very happy the drug companies know how to work the system. Nexium not only controls my reflux better than Prilosec, it also repaired the significant amount of damage done to my throat by the reflux. I'm no longer a candidate for throat cancer thanks to this treatment. You criticize them for attempting to protect patents for drugs that cost them $800 million to develop and that the FDA slow plays. However, you and your children better hope the drug industry remains as profitable as possible. The U.S. is the last country where they can still make the money necessary to fund their massive R&D expenditures. Ninety percent of all new drugs are discovered in the U.S. There's a very good reason for that.
Two questions:
Do you have a source for this "ninety percent" claim?
How much of the discoveries in US involved government funding?
Then please tell us about all the new drugs those countries without free markets are producing? Then tell us why nine out of ten of all new drugs are discovered in the U.S.
Only a socialist like you would argue that it's the drug companies responsibility to the state to create innovative therapies. The profit motive is insidious to people like you because you have no clue as to what drives innovation. I'm sure we can count on Poland, or any other nanny state for that matter, to supply us with new classes of antibiotics and effective cancer therapies. Yeah, right.
Ayn Rand, like her or not, had people like you pegged a long time ago when she said:
Yep.
Example: The standard model of particle physics.
THANK you for posting this article..
I don't know if anyone can go get some or if they need a license or permit or something. If a permit is needed, someone with a permit could make mega-bucks on ebay.
I'd agree with that if you said "ALL DRUGS should be over the counter, except antibiotics".
If antibiotics were over-the-counter, there'd be all sorts of idiots stoking up on penicillin and erythromycin and everything else "just in case I encounter a germ", and today's problems with drug-resistent germs would become "the good old days".
Carolyn
National Review: The Drug Importation Hoax
How much of the discoveries in US involved government funding?
To answer this you'd have to understand the role our universities play in partnering with drug companies and hospitals. You'd also have to understand that much of the primary research is done in universities who are supported by grants, charity and other contributions from drug companies. Then you'd need to understand how that primary research is used by the drug companies in applications to commercialize new drugs.
Once you understand how these partnerships work you can begin to determine how a particular discovery was funded. Be aware that research today, especially at our universities, has become more about grabbing money than discovery. It's unfortunate but true. This is one of the disappointing byproducts of government trying to play a role in the process. However, if government funding of research were to stop it would seriously impact the primary research drug companies rely on.
Maybe the better question to ask is why our funding yields new drugs while others do not. Could it have something to do with the profit motive? Only a fool would think that government funding could support the infrastructure and motivation necessary to create 90% of all newly discovered drugs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.