Posted on 07/17/2016 10:06:40 AM PDT by MarchonDC09122009
I hate to burst any bubbles, but actual evidence of this compound being a miracle drug is lacking.
Speaking purely from my PhD-level knowledge of biochemistry, I have strong reservations about any drug whose mechanism of action is to inhibit the functionality of hsp70 and hsp90 (referenced in post 8, this thread). The heat shock proteins play a major role in converting newly made proteins into their functional forms by helping them to fold properly and maintaining them in the correctly folded shapes. Cells, and therefore, organisms, function on properly folded proteins. Some diseases, notably the prion diseases, occur because certain proteins misfold.
The ability to show an anti-microbial or anti-cancer effect in vitro is not very significant. The effect must be shown in a living system, and the effect must be specific to the target without causing significant harm to the host. One of the most effective anti-microbial and anti-cancer agents I know is common household bleach. I haven’t seen a cancer cell yet that does not die upon being bleached. Most microorganisms die within seconds of being bleached. Despite this incredibly high activity of bleach to kill nasty things, it has absolutely no therapeutic value as an anti-cancer or anti-microbial treatment.
I looked for clinical trials of this drug, using the search terms “PDK1 inhibitor AR-12” and “OSU-03012” and found 1 result using the first search term. This was a phase 1 trial, conducted between 2009 and 2013, with no results posted. The fact that the study took 5 years is a red flag, as is the fact that no results are available 3 years after the completion date. The study was also extremely small, with only 35 patients.
In PubMed, the research database, there are only 11 articles published, found using the full chemical name as a search term. The earliest one was in 2006. The fact that there is so little published on this compound is another red flag. Yet another red flag is the fact that the last article published is actually a warning from the editors of a journal that published an article about the compound in 2007. The warning indicates that there is some evidence to believe that the 2007 article was fraudulent. (See:
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/90/1/61.long.)
My take on this particular UK Express article is that someone is trying to gin up interest in this compound in order to attract investors. The fact that so few scientists are interested in studying the compound is a clue: don’t waste your money on this.
This is the medicine that will cause the Zombie Apocalypse! Because think about it-— the drug will keep the body from dying of HIV and ebola. Therefore, the ebola will just eat up your face, but you won’t die! People will have to shoot you in the head to kill you! Oh, I am adding to my ammo stores right away!
Ping
Yes, of course, we must consider the consequences of finding cures for deadly diseases! /s
This is just a derivative of the prescription NSAID Celebrex that has been modified so that it doesn’t block the COX-2 enzyme so to remove the potentially bad side effects of coronary problems and gastrointestinal bleeding that sometimes occur with drugs of that class. Not likely a “miracle cancer cure” by any means (any more than celebrex itself, which presumedly acts via a similar mechanism), possibly useful as an adjunct. This is just hype to pump the stock, the sleazy reporter probably got paid to plant it.
On the other hand if I had colon cancer I probably would take an NSAID as an adjuctive treatment, preferably celebrex or sulindac both of which have a slew of studies pointing to efficacy in treating certain cancers, especially of the colon.
Thank you for your take on this article.
RE: “This is just a derivative of the prescription NSAID Celebrex that has been modified so that it doesn’t block the COX-2 enzyme so to remove the potentially bad side effects of coronary problems and gastrointestinal bleeding that sometimes occur with drugs of that class. Not likely a “miracle cancer cure” by any means (any more than celebrex itself, which presumedly acts via a similar mechanism), possibly useful as an adjunct. This is just hype to pump the stock, the sleazy reporter probably got paid to plant it.
On the other hand if I had colon cancer I probably would take an NSAID as an adjuctive treatment, preferably celebrex or sulindac both of which have a slew of studies pointing to efficacy in treating certain cancers, especially of the colon.”
Good lady, thanks for your follow-up research and thoughts about this drug news.
RE: “Speaking purely from my PhD-level knowledge of biochemistry, I have strong reservations about any drug whose mechanism of action is to inhibit the functionality of hsp70 and hsp90 (referenced in post 8, this thread). The heat shock proteins play a major role in converting newly made proteins into their functional forms by helping them to fold properly and maintaining them in the correctly folded shapes. Cells, and therefore, organisms, function on properly folded proteins. Some diseases, notably the prion diseases, occur because certain proteins misfold.
The ability to show an anti-microbial or anti-cancer effect in vitro is not very significant. The effect must be shown in a living system, and the effect must be specific to the target without causing significant harm to the host. One of the most effective anti-microbial and anti-cancer agents I know is common household bleach. I haven’t seen a cancer cell yet that does not die upon being bleached. Most microorganisms die within seconds of being bleached. Despite this incredibly high activity of bleach to kill nasty things, it has absolutely no therapeutic value as an anti-cancer or anti-microbial treatment.
I looked for clinical trials of this drug, using the search terms “PDK1 inhibitor AR-12” and “OSU-03012” and found 1 result using the first search term. This was a phase 1 trial, conducted between 2009 and 2013, with no results posted. The fact that the study took 5 years is a red flag, as is the fact that no results are available 3 years after the completion date. The study was also extremely small, with only 35 patients.
In PubMed, the research database, there are only 11 articles published, found using the full chemical name as a search term. The earliest one was in 2006. The fact that there is so little published on this compound is another red flag. Yet another red flag is the fact that the last article published is actually a warning from the editors of a journal that published an article about the compound in 2007. The warning indicates that there is some evidence to believe that the 2007 article was fraudulent. (See:
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/90/1/61.long.)
My take on this particular UK Express article is that someone is trying to gin up interest in this compound in order to attract investors. The fact that so few scientists are interested in studying the compound is a clue: don’t waste your money on this.”
adjunctive = meant adjuvant
Bttt
Makes sense.
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.