How legit is this? (Cancer cured?)

[Wilder]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/0...l-cancer-cure/


So, I have always been skeptical of the claim that pharmaceutical companies tend to ignore real cures because they undermine our profitable dependance on treatments, but this seems to give a fairly strong case that this is indeed happening. The problem is that some hack that has claimed to solve a problem we are all hoping to see go away, but in fact has nothing can easily attract a lot of attention. See the desktop cold fusion debacle from the late 80's.

So because I am both skeptical and lazy, I want you guys to do the work for me. What do you think, Is it legit?



Also, there are more sources out there that cover this topic, but like I said: lazy.

[alhoon]

1. Is this a matter for the mudpit or the science part of the forums?
2. There's not a single "cancer" ailment to be cured, like say virus XYZ or condition XYZ. There are many different forms of cancer. So for one to claim to have them all curable... doesn't seem legit.

Also the title is misguiding: The article mentions "extending the life 4/5 patients" that's good bad far from a cure. Also again, it possibly does so for certain forms of cancer.

Also:
"That doesn't mean it's the long-awaited cure — many other compounds have seemed similarly promising in the early stages of research without later living up to that promise — but nonetheless, Michelakis believes larger human trials on DCA are warranted. "


PS and most important:
"Evangelos Michelakis". That's a Greek name, and actually Cretan name.

EDIT:


"Big Pharma has no interest whatsoever in investing [in DCA research] because there will be no profit... If DCA proves to be effective, then it will be a ridiculously cheap drug," Michelakis said.

To get to the approval phase, drugs must undergo seven to 10 years of testing at a total cost averaging $500 million — all of which can be for naught if the drug doesn't receive Food and Drug Administration approval. Even if it does, "only three out of every 20 approved drugs bring in sufficient revenue to cover their developmental costs."
"

From the same article.

Well, I can't say I blame the pharmaceuticals. Let the goverment fund the research.

However:

" "those would never be enough to get DCA approved as a cancer treatment," said Akban Kahn, a Toronto doctor. "You need hundreds of millions of dollars, and a government grant is not that big." "

IMO you can't blame the companies for not looking into it when the cost is too large even for a non-profit organization (like the goverment)

[Wilder]

1. Is this a matter for the mudpit or the science part of the forums?

Political, emphatically so, the subject here is not whether cancer has been cured, but rather, if it has, why is big pharma so slow to jump on it, a question of capitalism, you see. (obviously the former question will need to be answered too, but this is quite political)

2. There's not a single "cancer" ailment to be cured, like say virus XYZ or condition XYZ. There are many different forms of cancer. So for one to claim to have them all curable... doesn't seem legit.

Continue...

[Seether]

Political, emphatically so, the subject here is not whether cancer has been cured, but rather, if it has, why is big pharma so slow to jump on it, a question of capitalism, you see. (obviously the former question will need to be answered too, but this is quite political)

*If* there was a cure for cancer, the reason big pharm would be slow to jump on it is because of one thing: $$$. There isn't money to be made on a cure, the money is made in the medicine. If people are cured, they no longer need the medicines, whereas if people have cancer they have to buy medicines for it until they die, which could be many years. Big pharm makes their money just like a drug dealer; on the come back.

[alhoon]

I did.

Read the edit of my post.

No offense but what the article actually says is quite different from what you said. It seems that big pharma isn't stopping this to keep selling other drugs and the question "is it legit or not" can't be answered even by the research team since they don't claim any results except "seems promising as means to prolong the life (not cure), further studies required". That by itself gives immensenly more legitimacy than a "Guy healed cancer!"

Political part:
Goverments give too little money for drug research. That's why these guys expect it to go slowly. They have some promising results and need... half a billion more.
3/20 such projects return profit.
You can see why big pharma doesn't care to invest half a billion for a drug that would be so cheap that it won't return a profit. Now, if the goverment payed the 500M, then they would happily take the opportunity to start spourting out the pill.

PS. It doesn't even claim to cure cancer, it claims to improve the situation.

[Wilder]

I did.

Read the edit of my post.

No offense but what the article actually says is quite different from what you said. It seems that big pharma isn't stopping this to keep selling other drugs and the question "is it legit or not" can't be answered even by the research team since they don't claim any results except "seems promising, further studies required". That by itself gives immensenly more legitimacy than a "Guy healed cancer!"

Oh, I know, The Hyperbole was intentional, get people to read the thread and all. (hey, plus the title was the article's, not mine )

But the core question still stands: if lets say this treatment is very cheap, and fairly effective, are the pharmaceutical companies justified in ignoring it, especially as they are really the only manufacturers and distributors of medicine these days?

[alhoon]

They won't ignore it after someone pays the 500M$. After that, it would be for them as cheap to make as say aspirin and they would make as much profit from it as from selling ... few aspirins because less people (thankfully) have cancer that could be treated with that, instead of a headache. But still a profit.

I.e. the initial investment of 500M is huge, especially when it's not a sure investment (the pill may have side-effects or not work). After that is payed and the cure proves OK, it's profitable (even if just a bit) and they sell it.

Now, the real question is:
If that pill proves to be as cheap to make as aspirin, I'm willing to bet good money that they will sell it far more expensive than aspirin, just because it's life-saving. You wouldn't pay 5$ to get rid of a mind headache. But you would pay 40$/month to buy 10 pills that would prolong your life or save it. So why sell it for 2$ the 20 pills when you can sell it for 40$ the 10 pills?

[Don in the North]

i can only hope some communist or non-greedy-capitalist company will discover/steal the cure and release it for what it is...
an advancement for mankind, a cure for our ignorance.

[Morkonan]

..So because I am both skeptical and lazy, I want you guys to do the work for me. What do you think, Is it legit?...

Well, let's look at this the way it should be viewed:

This is a scientific question concerning experimental science.

1) What forum should be used to determine the legitimacy of its use as a cancer treatment?

A) The popular Newsmedia?
B) Scientific journals and symposiums focusing on pharmacology, oncology and related experimental treatments?

The question isn't difficult to answer.

Now, on the broader issue of Big Pharma's possible reluctance to pursue this approach, one has to ask another question:

2) Would Big Pharma recoup its costs for developing a Cure for Cancer?

A) Yes
B) No

Err.. You betcha, they would! Cancer is a huge issue and a cure for "all" of it would be stupendously profitable.

There's also the publicity to consider. What if your company could put under its logo "The Company That Brought You The Cure For Cancer" ? Eh? How much would that marketing line be worth? Bajillions... They would become the most beloved company since Disney and Coca-Cola...


All cancers are not the same and not all drugs that show promise in animal studies will be equally effective in human patients. There's a great deal of work that must be done in order to successfully develop treatments for humans, even with the data from animal subjects. Creating a new drug that doesn't kill patients or doesn't cause worse maladies than the illness they are already seeking help for is a very difficult thing to do. And, cancer changes... It is a "condition", not some static virus that a magic shot will be guarranteed to cure if it hasn't already mutated. In that, it's something like pneumonia which is a condition that can be caused by a variety of illnesses and circumstances. "Cancer" defines a very wide range of potentially lethal problems, not just one illness.

[Seether]

Now, on the broader issue of Big Pharma's possible reluctance to pursue this approach, one has to ask another question:

2) Would Big Pharma recoup its costs for developing a Cure for Cancer?

A) Yes
B) No

Err.. You betcha, they would! Cancer is a huge issue and a cure for "all" of it would be stupendously profitable.

How do you figure a cure would be more profitable than an expensive, continued treatment over the course of years - decades?

[HissingNewt]

How do you figure a cure would be more profitable than an expensive, continued treatment over the course of years - decades?

It's more affordable. More people can buy it.

Does anyone truly think that if a cure is stumbled upon, that there will not be one person involved with a conscience who will leak what compound was used? That's even assuming that there is a cure all compound. I truly doubt there is since there are so many different forms of cancer.

[Seether]

It's more affordable. More people can buy it.

Don't most people that have cancer receive treatment for it? If that is the case, would 'more people' even be a significant amount more? I still don't see how a cheaper one-time (or even daily for a year) cure would bring in more profit than an expensive medicine taken daily for up to 30 years. If the cure for Polio was never found, would companies that made polio medications have made more money by now (2011) than they did with the vaccines?

Does anyone truly think that if a cure is stumbled upon, that there will not be one person involved with a conscience who will leak what compound was used? That's even assuming that there is a cure all compound. I truly doubt there is since there are so many different forms of cancer.

I would hope so, but we both know greed has always been a greater motivator than morals when it comes to a business.

[Morkonan]

How do you figure a cure would be more profitable than an expensive, continued treatment over the course of years - decades?

Cancer is not a communicable disease. It is not going to disappear from human ailments even with a "cure." Until we perfect our genetics in order to introduce strengthened protections against rogue replication, we will experience cancer.

Cancer also takes many different forms. The chances of one, all encompassing, cure are extremely remote.

And, cancer can re-occur. A cure such as the one in the OP would only kill cancerous cells susceptible to it. Even if it killed all the "bad cells" that is no guarantee at all that cancer will not re-occur.

Plus, make no mistake about it, the notoriety and marketing potential of being known as the Company that Cured Cancer is.. huge.

[Seether]

Cancer is not a communicable disease. It is not going to disappear from human ailments even with a "cure." Until we perfect our genetics in order to introduce strengthened protections against rogue replication, we will experience cancer.

Cancer also takes many different forms. The chances of one, all encompassing, cure are extremely remote.

And, cancer can re-occur. A cure such as the one in the OP would only kill cancerous cells susceptible to it. Even if it killed all the "bad cells" that is no guarantee at all that cancer will not re-occur.

Plus, make no mistake about it, the notoriety and marketing potential of being known as the Company that Cured Cancer is.. huge.

You still didn't answer the question...

[Adar]

You still didn't answer the question...

There is a simple answer to that:

Pharmaceutical companies are reliant on blockbusters. If they could develop a blockbuster anti-cancer drug they would be earning a huge amount of money during the 14 years (average time of patent production after a drug reaches the market) they got protection for it.

At the moment the cancer treatment market is split up between a huge amount of companies and the drugs are either similar or only useful to treat a small number of cancer types. This means that drug development and marketing is incredibly expensive which makes it hard to make a profit on producing the drug.

[Morkonan]

You still didn't answer the question...

The question of a Cure for Cancer's profitability? I listed the reasons why a cure for cancer would be profitable and why it would have a continued market. Is it profit numbers that you want? Nobody can give you those.

There is a simple answer to that:

Pharmaceutical companies are reliant on blockbusters. If they could develop a blockbuster anti-cancer drug they would be earning a huge amount of money during the 14 years (average time of patent production after a drug reaches the market) they got protection for it.

Don't forget - A manufacturer can re-apply for protection if they develop other uses for the drug. So, perhaps a Cure for Cancer drug could also be seen to have uses outside of that? If so, and if they could continue to find new uses, protection could be extended for a long while.

[Admiral Piett]

What I don't get is if this compound is indeed successful at stopping the growth of cancerous cells, why has no one leaked this to other companies?

[alhoon]

What I don't get is if this compound is indeed successful at stopping the growth of cancerous cells, why has no one leaked this to other companies?

Ehh?

Not even the researcher knows (according to the article) if it is indeed successful and it's not research funded by any company so there's no need to leak this to other companies. The guy is looking for a company to pay the costs.
It's just that no company is willing to pay 500M$ (according to the article that's how much are needed) for a cheap product that has a small chance to actually work as intended because it would take decades to build up profit to cover the initial expenses of 500M$ and that is, if the pill works as intended without any unforseen side-effects. High risk - low turnout investment.

If the goverment funds the 500M$ and after 8-10 years this compound seems to work, the Big pharma will happily start producing and selling it, since it won't have risk and it won't have a large initial investment to cover.

But I suspect that he is more of a political activist than a proper researchers. Among other things he claim that it might be uninteresting for pharmaceutical companies to produce because the substance is so cheap. Anyone with a basic knowledge of pharmaceutical knows that most small molecule drugs are very cheap to make. The major costs are R&D, production in a secure environment and marketing so the drug would still be quite costly compared to M&Ms.

And that's the reason he published his work so that a company wouldn't have to pay as much for R&D so the pill's cost would be far, far lower which in the end, would lead to a far cheaper end product.

One must understand that Cancer is not like a virus. Cancer is a natural process in biology and "curing" it isn't going to necessarily be achieved with some magical pill.

One must also understand that cancer isn't just one unnatural process in biology but many different ones. Treatment that works for some types of cancer wouldn't work (or not as well) for other types of cancer. That's why they make a biopsy, taking tissue from the cancer patient to check the type of the cancer. So they can give the patient the right treatment.

[Adar]

And that's the reason he published his work so that a company wouldn't have to pay as much for R&D so the pill's cost would be far, far lower which in the end, would lead to a far cheaper end product.

The most expensive part of R&D is the clinical testing, not finding an active substance. He have most likely taken a work worth far less than 1 million USD and then made sure that no one else is going to be able to invest the remaining 499.9 million USDs necessary to turn it into a validated drug without suffering huge losses.

The proper way to do it would have been to tell his institution at the university about it and patented the application. Then they could publish it and then license rights to a pharmaceutical company who could validate the effect in vivo and then also conduct the clinical phase 1, 2 and 3 trials.

[Admiral Piett]

Ehh?

Not even the researcher knows (according to the article) if it is indeed successful and it's not research funded by any company so there's no need to leak this to other companies. The guy is looking for a company to pay the costs.
It's just that no company is willing to pay 500M$ (according to the article that's how much are needed) for a cheap product that has a small chance to actually work as intended because it would take decades to build up profit to cover the initial expenses of 500M$ and that is, if the pill works as intended without any unforseen side-effects. High risk - low turnout investment.

If the goverment funds the 500M$ and after 8-10 years this compound seems to work, the Big pharma will happily start producing and selling it, since it won't have risk and it won't have a large initial investment to cover.

There's more to it than that. Obviously this is not a cure for cancer, but this guy's marketing team is blowing it out of proportion in order to operate off of private donations and grants, which is totally insufficient. This isn't anything like the cure for polio so I don't see how he can make that parallel. If he did patent this, he has a better chance at everything he needs to do proper testing and development.


Here's a funny video of Glenn Beck hyping the sensationalism of it: