cancer cure found - but there's no money in it
Discussion
If this is true, then it's the ultimate condemnation of where Western society has got to.
http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/scientists-cure...
http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/scientists-cure...
Turns out it's not as good as the artice makes out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#P...
It went through phase 2 trials and failed to meet it's endpoints, also suffers from a number of poorly understood tox issues, so the chances of getting approval are essentially zero (tox issues can be mitigated by efficacy, low efficacy mitigated by low tox, this CD suffers tox and low efficacy). It joins a very long list of cures for cancer that don't meet the grade! There's no sinister story behind this. Go read the literature and come back
edited as my estimation of costs was wrong
edited as my estimation of costs was wrong
Edited by MilnerR on Monday 19th March 13:56
Ayahuasca said:
Whilst the drug companies may have little interest in developing it, if it were as good as described I would expect doctors to be clamouring to use it - is there any evidence that they are?
Getting drugs approved for specific indications is ruinously expensive, Drs can't give you any old thing in the hope it works, their prescribing has to be evidence based. This candidate drug failed to meet its clinical trial outcomes and had poorly understood tox issues. As I said this isn't a story, I could list 30 compounds that are more promising than this which have ended up in the bin despite having billions spent on them. Failure rate runs at over 95% in successful pharma companies!Timsta said:
Turns out it's not as good as the artice makes out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#P...
Unfortunaely it's the case that Wiki cannot be trusted in several scientific areas and NS is little better but maybe this one is closer to the mark bearing in mind this extract.Wiki said that New Scientist said:
For now, however, it remains experimental, never yet properly tested in a person with cancer.
So the matter remains unresolved but with no less potential for that.MilnerR said:
Go read the literature and come back
Fair point, can you offer a precis of the research itself as opposed to an overview of the situation, as you gave no links or references?Sounds like bunkum to me. Paracetamol isn't patented yet people make money out of making it. Given that 1 in 3 of us get cancer there's plenty to be made from this as a generic.
As said earlier, there is a better reason re: toxicity and eficacy. If this functional group is as good as the article suggests, then a drug could be developed that utilises and improves the efficacy but at lower tox levels. This COULD then be patented and, if successful, woudl be an instant blockbuster.
As said earlier, there is a better reason re: toxicity and eficacy. If this functional group is as good as the article suggests, then a drug could be developed that utilises and improves the efficacy but at lower tox levels. This COULD then be patented and, if successful, woudl be an instant blockbuster.
8Ace said:
Sounds like bunkum to me. Paracetamol isn't patented yet people make money out of making it. Given that 1 in 3 of us get cancer there's plenty to be made from this as a generic.
That's not the problem though. "Big Pharma" makes a lot of money from horrendously expensive cancer drugs, and if all of a sudden it turns out that cancer can be cured with something very cheap (not saying this is the thing of course) then their business is in a bit of trouble.davepoth said:
That's not the problem though. "Big Pharma" makes a lot of money from horrendously expensive cancer drugs, and if all of a sudden it turns out that cancer can be cured with something very cheap (not saying this is the thing of course) then their business is in a bit of trouble.
I agree that The industry does make a lot of money from some drugs, but as stated above, 95% of even the most promising leads don't make it to market. The clinical development costs are staggering (think hundreds of millions of pounds) and you patent the drug at the point the lead is first isolated. It then has another 10 years+ of trials before getting to market, and in some cases, the exclusivity period before the generic manufacturers can nick your hard work is only a few years. Given the staggering cost base the charges have to be high to enable the companies to continue.There's plenty to go wrong with the human body. One wonder compound that cured cancer, even if this did exist, would still give plenty of scope for Pharma to develop other drugs to treat all sorts of other ailments.
matchmaker said:
A lot of money - Panadol is Paracetamol and costs £1 a pack. Generic Paracetamol is 16p a pack in my local Tesco.
O/T slightly, but relevant I think.When I worked in Nigeria there were 3 main anti-malaria meds IIRC:
Malarone
Lariam
(Both with nasty mental side effects for some, taken weekly)
Doxycycline (An antibiotic, taken daily)
One ancient Septic who'd been out there for years asked me 'Why you takin' all that s
t? one brewers yeast tablet per day and the mossies won't come near you'Cost? For the prescribed meds, no idea but can't be as cheap as brewers yeast at tuppence a bucketful so the pharmaceuticals will push which one(s)?
davepoth said:
That's not the problem though. "Big Pharma" makes a lot of money from horrendously expensive cancer drugs, and if all of a sudden it turns out that cancer can be cured with something very cheap (not saying this is the thing of course) then their business is in a bit of trouble.
And of course, as well know, the employees, families and friends of 'Big Pharma' are all completely immune from cancer. 
My twin brother has HIV and I remember years ago having a rant about how they will never find a cure as there is no money in it. He told me that he believes that for the small team/person who crack the case there will be a nobel prize in it for them and that will be incentive enough.
Having spent most of last year going through radio therapy for cancer I found it was relatively inexpensive compared to what my brother has to cough up for ongoing meds.
Having spent most of last year going through radio therapy for cancer I found it was relatively inexpensive compared to what my brother has to cough up for ongoing meds.
Blackpuddin said:
If this is true, then it's the ultimate condemnation of where Western society has got to.
http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/scientists-cure...
That website looks entirely believable, and not like a tarted up blog for tin foil hat wearers.http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/scientists-cure...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff