Cancer Cure in Canada ! but Where's the Profit? Let's Get Our Priorities Correct !

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 1:04 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 6:40 PM GMT
    Thank you for the wonderful information man. The main point is that cancer treatment is a trilion dollar industry that is protected by the suppression of any cancer cure. I wonder if DCA is similar to sodium bicarbonate?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 6:47 PM GMT
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/cancercure.asp

    Surprise, journalists get sucked into ideological bias... there are plenty of incentives to get cheap effective drugs out - ie healthcare insurers (gasp! those evil insurers), etc. Look at the push towards anti-malarial drugs being pushed by not for profits like the Gates foundation.

    And, despite the claims, there are incentives in developing countries - particularly places like India and China to develop low cost drugs like this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 7:49 PM GMT
    ...................................if you believe one drug can cure cancer. TAKE A CLASS ON ONCOLOGY! YOU WILL LEARN THAT CANCER IS A BROAD TERM AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES/DEGREES OF CANCER. ONE PILL CAN'T CURE CANCER...

    You are an idiot if you ever think it is possible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 8:01 PM GMT
    Great, what is the generic name?
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Feb 05, 2013 8:02 PM GMT
    There's also a morality issue. Say you are studying a specific type of cancer, and are running human trials. You have a study and control group. You perform your double blind properly, and the study group is cured, but the control group is going to die.

    There is an ethical responsibility to give the drug to these people too. So you do. Now what has happened? You no longer have a control group to validate the study. There is no study. Your drug is not approved due to lack of evidence.

    This can, and has, happened to several drugs over the years. Not cancer specifically, but it easily could. The system is a bitch.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Feb 05, 2013 8:02 PM GMT
    RadRTT said...................................if you believe one drug can cure cancer. TAKE A CLASS ON ONCOLOGY! YOU WILL LEARN THAT CANCER IS A BROAD TERM AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES/DEGREES OF CANCER. ONE PILL CAN'T CURE CANCER...

    You are an idiot if you ever think it is possible.


    What, you mean cancer isn't the same thing happening the same way, just in different places? Madness!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 8:25 PM GMT
    They've just proven this in mice... what they are looking for is money to start the clinical trials (where they have to first analyse its toxicity and efficacy in humans). And also, I don't know for which type of tumours they have proven this... but for sure this is only valid for solid tumours.

    Remember that cancer is a multifactorial disease and there are many things to take into account (resistance, mutations, mechanisms of self reparation of the tumour...) so I guess that, if the drug ever comes to the market, it should be taken in combination with other therapies.

    In my opinion, I think it is a good idea to target cancer cells metabolism, but I'm not sure about the specifity and the toxicity of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 8:29 PM GMT
    Medjai said

    What, you mean cancer isn't the same thing happening the same way, just in different places? Madness!
    Yes and no. Lung Cancer. There is Adenocarcinoma, Small Cell Carcinoma, and Non-small cell carcinoma. Those 3 are different type of lung cancers but they are ACTUALLY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN HOW THE ACT. Actually non-small cell lung cancer is not caused by smoking. Small Cell and Adenocarcinoma are. Small cell cancer will 100% spread to the brain. Thats why we treat the brain profolactivley (before any symptoms arise)
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Feb 05, 2013 8:32 PM GMT
    RadRTT said
    Medjai said

    What, you mean cancer isn't the same thing happening the same way, just in different places? Madness!
    Yes and no. Lung Cancer. There is Adenocarcinoma, Small Cell Carcinoma, and Non-small cell carcinoma. Those 3 are different type of lung cancers but they are ACTUALLY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN HOW THE ACT. Actually non-small cell lung cancer is not caused by smoking. Small Cell is and Adenocarcinoma are. Small cell cancer will 100% spread to the brain. Thats why we treat the brain profolactivley (before any symptoms of the cancer is there)


    I know. I'm currently taking a number of biochemistry courses, and cancer factors into them pretty heavily. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 8:33 PM GMT
    Medjai saidI know. I'm currently taking a number of biochemistry courses, and cancer factors into them pretty heavily. icon_razz.gif
    I am really just writing that so people will understand, not ONE drug can kill cancer. It truly baffles me that people without any education in Oncology believe that one pill can wipe out cancer.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Feb 05, 2013 8:36 PM GMT
    RadRTT said
    Medjai saidI know. I'm currently taking a number of biochemistry courses, and cancer factors into them pretty heavily. icon_razz.gif
    I am really just writing that so people will understand, not ONE drug can kill cancer. It truly baffles me that people without any education in Oncology believe that one pill can wipe out cancer.


    One pill can wipe out babies, and they're pretty much cancer. It's just extrapolation.

    God, I'm horrible today. See what midterm season does to me?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 9:01 PM GMT
    RadRTT said
    Medjai saidI know. I'm currently taking a number of biochemistry courses, and cancer factors into them pretty heavily. icon_razz.gif
    I am really just writing that so people will understand, not ONE drug can kill cancer. It truly baffles me that people without any education in Oncology believe that one pill can wipe out cancer.


    Well, of course not 100%, but to say an example, Gleevec alone (Imatinib compound) is very efficient on treating chronic myeloid leukemia (75% of patients reach the complete molecular response)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 9:05 PM GMT
    Medjai said
    RadRTT said
    Medjai saidI know. I'm currently taking a number of biochemistry courses, and cancer factors into them pretty heavily. icon_razz.gif
    I am really just writing that so people will understand, not ONE drug can kill cancer. It truly baffles me that people without any education in Oncology believe that one pill can wipe out cancer.


    One pill can wipe out babies, and they're pretty much cancer. It's just extrapolation.

    God, I'm horrible today. See what midterm season does to me?


    thanks, that made my day..icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 11:26 PM GMT
    Medjai saidThere's also a morality issue. Say you are studying a specific type of cancer, and are running human trials. You have a study and control group. You perform your double blind properly, and the study group is cured, but the control group is going to die.

    There is an ethical responsibility to give the drug to these people too. So you do. Now what has happened? You no longer have a control group to validate the study. There is no study. Your drug is not approved due to lack of evidence.

    This can, and has, happened to several drugs over the years. Not cancer specifically, but it easily could. The system is a bitch.


    For life threatening disease, the control group receive the standard treatment, not a placebo, unless when there is no know treatment for the disease..

    Not saying there is no ethical issues, as the new treatment reach clinical trials not just because it demonstrated good enough potential and safety in previous animal and clinical studies to be tested for efficacity on humans, but because of the huge amount of money involved, which may put doubt in how informed is the consent of the subject, as the investigator have financial incentive to recruit them.

    In short, even with complete and unbiased information, with your survival in the balance, it's hard to choose to enter a clinical study.

    When the information is biased by what you perceive as trust of doctor in the new treatment over the standard one, it's worse.

    But without clinical trial, no way to discover better drug.

    As I see it, fucking complicated on ethical level.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 11:38 PM GMT
    RadRTT said
    Medjai saidI know. I'm currently taking a number of biochemistry courses, and cancer factors into them pretty heavily. icon_razz.gif
    I am really just writing that so people will understand, not ONE drug can kill cancer. It truly baffles me that people without any education in Oncology believe that one pill can wipe out cancer.


    You can try to use analogies to explain why.

    Cancer cells are a bit like like criminal.

    Criminals don't follow the law, laws are made so that society can be operational.

    Cancer cells, just the same, don't respect the regulations allowing the body (society of cell) to operate normally.

    They all share the same asocial behavior, but you need different kind of cops to fight drug dealing, serial killers, con artist etc.... because each criminal act in different way, using different kind of tool, hide themselves using different strategies etc...

  • toastvenom

    Posts: 1020

    Feb 05, 2013 11:39 PM GMT
    if humanity survives a thousand years from now and achieves some level of enlightenment they are going to look back at this period the way we do Neanderthals and shudder at how utterly stupid and selfish we were. The basic idea that some asshole always has to PROFIT from something is the reason why we as a society are morally going nowhere. capitalism blows chunks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 11:40 PM GMT
    Medjai said
    RadRTT said
    Medjai saidI know. I'm currently taking a number of biochemistry courses, and cancer factors into them pretty heavily. icon_razz.gif
    I am really just writing that so people will understand, not ONE drug can kill cancer. It truly baffles me that people without any education in Oncology believe that one pill can wipe out cancer.


    One pill can wipe out babies, and they're pretty much cancer. It's just extrapolation.

    God, I'm horrible today. See what midterm season does to me?


    I had to icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2013 11:42 PM GMT
    Toastvenom saidif humanity survives a thousand years from now and achieves some level of enlightenment they are going to look back at this period the way we do Neanderthals and shudder at how utterly stupid and selfish we were. The basic idea that some asshole always has to PROFIT from something is the reason why we as a society are morally going nowhere. capitalism blows chunks.




    Maddening is it not? Those CEO and VP of big pharma deserve their million dollar bonuses for selling boatloads of Viagra. My sister sold everything for her cancer treatments and was left with nothing when she passed.
  • Zinc

    Posts: 197

    Feb 05, 2013 11:45 PM GMT
    While cancers are specific to tissue of origin, certain mutations, and the health status of the patient, that is not to say that certain treatments will never be affective to a broad section of different cancers. But a "cure" to cancer in the sense of a single pill, I agree, is probably not in the cards.
  • Zinc

    Posts: 197

    Feb 05, 2013 11:49 PM GMT
    Toastvenom saidif humanity survives a thousand years from now and achieves some level of enlightenment they are going to look back at this period the way we do Neanderthals and shudder at how utterly stupid and selfish we were. The basic idea that some asshole always has to PROFIT from something is the reason why we as a society are morally going nowhere. capitalism blows chunks.


    You can look at it a different way and ask if society never granted a patent ever, what sort of medicine and technological advances would we be enjoying today? I think for cases like this, the universities and other academic institutions will probably look into this if there is real merit in it. Perhaps there would be a Nobel prize for finding a 'cure' to cancer?

    They are doing trials in Canada anyway: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20463368

    More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid

    It looks like this drug might have a role in restoring mitochondrial function, thereby allowing some cancer cells to 'kill themsevles'. But mitochondrial malfunction is only one component of cancer, and not all cancers might respond. In anycase, DCA is already used for other diseases, so it's safety profile is well established. There is not a lot holding this back but the actual pace that science follows. It's certainly not a conspiracy of big pharma though.
  • toastvenom

    Posts: 1020

    Feb 06, 2013 12:10 AM GMT
    well see that's just my point. even this idea of a "patent" that somebody has to trademark or own an idea or cure is just stupid and primitive. This sense of ownership is exactly why we have wars. The future will look back at be impressed by the strides made but they will marvel in disgust as to the motivations behind those strides. Again, capitalism blows chunks
  • Zinc

    Posts: 197

    Feb 06, 2013 12:20 AM GMT
    Toastvenom saidwell see that's just my point. even this idea of a "patent" that somebody has to trademark or own an idea or cure is just stupid and primitive. This sense of ownership is exactly why we have wars. The future will look back at be impressed by the strides made but they will marvel in disgust as to the motivations behind those strides. Again, capitalism blows chunks


    First, wars have been going on forever, and certainly long before a civil sense of private property entered society. War does not have anything to do directly with capitalism as system. In fact, free-market democratic nations NEVER go to war against each other.

    Second, the advances you enjoy now are largely due to advances made since the industrial revolution and capitalism as a system began. Prior to that, economic growth was anemic and most people did not enjoy a meaningful change in their standards of living at all during their life time. 100 years ago or so, if you got TB or any other number of common infections, you were toast.

    Third, I don't see some mythical future society being much different from our own, save for their advances in technology, which might make them feel superior, or give better ways to deal with problems. But it will be built on what we do today.

    Capitalism is actually quite good at making people less poor, and even Marx acknowledged that.