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
Good grief, how did you ever get that from allowing people to get freely what are now resticted to prescription access?
How is that more rather than less nanny-statism?
The only restrictons I would apply are to those few antibiotics that must be reserved for use against rapidly evolving bacteria.
Read my post carefully..I would restrict the newer antibiotics. That as my only exception.
"..It's really a concern to maintain and further the professional monopoly. It's an income thing and a jobs program for ninnies."
Not really. It is more nanny-statism. Most patients would still see their physician to get recomendations.
Some meds are dangerous if mis-used, but so are automobiles.
I didn't say it was more. I just pointed out the foundational motivation for fedgov to do any of this type of control. It denies the rights of all according to the lowest common denominator.
"The only restrictons I would apply are to those few antibiotics that must be reserved for use against rapidly evolving bacteria."
That applies to them all. Ever note the "alarming" news stories of drugs findings in water treatment plant effluent? In general, the concern only applies to high densities of sick people and high densities of pathogens. It is bad to use antibiotics in cases where they are not warranted. The antis you're alluding to are not generally appropriate for most infections anyway. The prescription scheme presumes, then establishes by fiat, that only certain folks have the ability to know, understand and use the materials involved. That is not the case. It is not all that hard to determine that a disease needs an antibiotic to facilitate a cure, which one applies and then read the directions.
"It is more nanny-statism. Most patients would still see their physician to get recomendations."
It's true that they would and most should, but their fundamental motive in law making is to protect the monopoly. It began ~1840 when the docs forming the AMA realized that they needed to do something about intelligent folks treating themselves successfully. They needed to put an end to that, because they were cutting into their bottom lines.
Antibiotic usage is more of an issue than you seem to recognize.
Just to clarify for me: do we agree that the fewest possible substances be restricted? And further that the restrictions, if any, should be a public health matter only, not a livlihood protection?
If we agree there, then we have a common base to hash out antibiotics. If not, then agreeing to disagree might be best
There are some amazing things going on now in biochemistry.
Two of the brightest stars on the horizon are Alpha Lipoic acid and Acetyl-L-Carnitine, both of which have to do with mitochondrial functioning.
Animals given doses of the above end up recycling alot of their Vitamin C and have much elevated antioxidant levels in their cells. Their mitochondria get positively perky!
bttt
Many Thanks! Trying to get this info from the doctors and insurance companies is like pulling teeth. It seems Freepers are better-informed than either of them. Since our insurance didn't cover non-generics, we were in a bind (hubby can't tolerate the other meds mentioned).
By intentionally picking only the S conformation the drug becomes more potent. I don't care if its efficacy is only marginally improved, the benefits are very real. In many cases these so called "me too" drugs can be made more effective, and with lesser side effects, by removing the D component entirely.
Also,Prilosec OTC isn’t the same as Prilosec. They’re both omeprazole, but the salt is different. OTC is omeprazole magnesium, whereas the prescription product is omprazole sodium. OTC is supposed to be for short-term use only but I've not seen anything proving it. Some have suggested that OTC could be unhealthy if used long-term. If someone is going to use Prilosec for the long term it's better to have a prescription.
However, if you were to study the history of drugs/drug companies & the FDA you would find that every time the FDA has loosened regs the drugs companies have done somethings deceitful which caused even stricter regs.
If you understand the FDA you know that they're driven by politics, public opinion and covering their ass. Not long ago there was public outcry that the FDA was sitting on therapies that could help people suffering from from specific diseases. In response, the FDA began fast tracking drugs. Then the problem with Vioxx occurred so the FDA reacted by playing it slow once again.
You want to know why you can buy drugs cheaper in Canada?
Because Canada dictates what prices the pharmaceutical makers can charge for their products. The Canadian government is the only entity that can purchase drugs in Canada.
Because US drugs companies sell them to Canada much cheaper than the do here.
Unfortunately, they're not given a choice. They either sell them for what the Canadian government is willing to pay or they don't get to sell them at all. At least the drug makers can use the volume to help cover their significant manufacturing overhead. If the manufacturer refuses to sell at the price the Canadian government is willing to pay, the Canadian government will threaten to ignore their patents and allow their generic industry to copy the drugs. Here's and easy question: name all the innovative drugs Canada has created over the last 25 years. Countries who practice price controls don't create new drugs.
Shouldn't those R&D cost be passed along to everyone who benefits & not just the American public?
Yes, they should. But you can thank the foreign socialists who, once again, leech off the U.S for this sad state of affairs. If this country ever adopts price controls you can kiss innovation goodbye and all the world will suffer.
Thanks for that study. I'm looking forward to reading it over the weekend. After brushing over it I can tell this is the kind of information that should be required reading for all students. It would temper the enthusiasm of many who believe we can innovate by controlling drug company prices and profits.
bump
Hey mtbobfuyn,
Fairwitness has a great idea. Why don't all those terrific generic companies take the massive profits they make and actually do something that benefits patients?! Better yet, why don't you start up a company that supplies this new drug to the world. You seem like a truly altruistic individual who cares nothing about making profits for your company or its investors. Go ahead! Give it a go!...
No? I didn't think so. Unless you are prepared to do the homework to understand the industry, it might be a good idea to keep your trap shut.
As it is said, you can take the boy out of communism but you can't take communism out of the boy.
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.