Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Small molecule offers hope for cancer treatment
CTV.CA ^ | 1/17/06 | Staff

Posted on 01/17/2007 6:33:23 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

1 posted on 01/17/2007 6:33:24 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

bump


2 posted on 01/17/2007 6:35:28 AM PST by alecqss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

I'm hopeful, but skeptical.............


3 posted on 01/17/2007 6:36:48 AM PST by Red Badger (New! HeadOn Hemorrhoid Medication for Liberals!.........Apply directly to forehead.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
But because it's not patented or owned by any drug firm, it would be an inexpensive drug to administer.

It'll never get off the ground because course drug companies want to own a drug so they can charge the moon for it.

4 posted on 01/17/2007 6:43:46 AM PST by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bump


5 posted on 01/17/2007 6:47:50 AM PST by true_blue_texican (...against all enemies, foreign and domestic...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alecqss

Governments at various levels seem to be bending over backwards to fund embryonic stem cell research despite little evidence of utility.

I don't advocate government funding of research, but if its going to happen, this cancer treatment seems like a better use for it.


6 posted on 01/17/2007 6:50:56 AM PST by CertainInalienableRights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
It'll never get off the ground because course drug companies want to own a drug so they can charge the moon for it.

This seems to me (full disclosure: retired former R&D scientist in a large proprietary pharmaceutical company) a great opportunity for one or more "generic" drug companies to show their worth since they supposedly thrive on selling off-patent drugs.

7 posted on 01/17/2007 6:53:26 AM PST by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

This is the sort of research foundations should be funding. What billionaire wouldn't want the publicity of helping to fund a cheap treatment for cancer?


8 posted on 01/17/2007 6:55:16 AM PST by Our man in washington (The Democratic party is an alliance of narcissists and parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

They will alter the chemical slightly, claiming it increases potency or solubility, patent it and then make billions. Assuming, of course, there is something to this.

A good example: Prilosec=Omeprazole, Merek was making 11 million/day on it when the patent was to expire. They brought out Nexium=Esomeprazole and claimed it to be better. Omeprazole was the first in the class, little was known about it. Originally it was approved for 20mg/day, no more than 6 weeks. It was learned to be realatively safe over time. Nexium has a recommended dose of 40mg/day, it should work better. Trust me, drug companies know how to work the system.


9 posted on 01/17/2007 7:00:18 AM PST by millerph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

possible ping


10 posted on 01/17/2007 7:03:32 AM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to take a drug from the labratory to the market? Would you invest in any project or financial instrument if you were offered no return?


11 posted on 01/17/2007 7:14:06 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Our man in washington
We have a federal institution called the NIH. They fund billions in research. Regrettably, the research they fund is almost all basic research and not clinical trials. Clinical trails are expensive to design and administer and can take a decade to complete to get a drug on the market. So don't expect this to ever be approved by the FDA (Forcibly Deny Access).

I take a fat soluble form of Thiamine (Benfotiamine) that is off patent. It was shown to help protect against damage that diabetics experience in their eye, nerves and kidneys. It will never go through a clinical trial and is hard to find (thank goodness for the web). Dosing is a problem but the form is is considered relatively safe and nontoxic.

The FDA and the medical profession should be ashamed in the way that they refuse sick individuals right to experiment on themselves. ALL DRUGS should be over the counter. The only role the FDA should have is a stamp of approval. One should not have to obtain a prescription to buy life saving medicine. End of rant...
12 posted on 01/17/2007 7:16:38 AM PST by Investment Biker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

I would not be so skeptical. Drug companies could use it in an "additive" formulation. DCA plus X plus Y and patent.


13 posted on 01/17/2007 7:16:52 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

Sorry, chemicals already being used for treatments, so there is clearly already some sort of medical market for it....

Market or no, you get cancer, and you know about this chemical, you are going to take it, whether Bayer or Bristol or whoever wants to sell it to you or not.


14 posted on 01/17/2007 7:24:26 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

Sorry, chemicals already being used for treatments, so there is clearly already some sort of medical market for it....

Market or no, you get cancer, and you know about this chemical, you are going to take it, whether Bayer or Bristol or whoever wants to sell it to you or not.


15 posted on 01/17/2007 7:24:30 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Investment Biker

Ditto to rant!

"Prescriptions" should be recommndations, and you should not need them. Many of our prescription drugs are otc (over-the-counter) in Canada and part of Europe. Don't see their populations dropping like flies.


16 posted on 01/17/2007 7:24:31 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: monocle

Assuming a 15% cost of capital it cost approximately $1/2 billion. see http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/howmuch.html


17 posted on 01/17/2007 7:26:50 AM PST by Investment Biker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Investment Biker

The figure you cite is somewhat on the low side, but my response was based on the uninformed opinion to someone who should be posting at the Democratic Underground.


18 posted on 01/17/2007 7:33:12 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

I'm not sure I'd go that far because of the problem of addiction. Addiction can be considered a market failure. The drug causes people to make a different choice than they otherwise would have made.

When I was recovering from surgery last year, I was glad to have a physician who managed my pain medication. He first gave me strong stuff. He then gave me prescriptions for weaker and weaker stuff. I realized how easy it would have been to get hooked if my physician wasn't being careful. Given how many people get addicted to painkillers now, how many more would get addicted if we didn't have any controls?

The solution is not to get rid of the prescription system, but to make it a lot more flexible. People should be able to make their own choices about risk versus reward. If people want to get something that hasn't gone through all phases of testing, they should be allowed to take that chance.


19 posted on 01/17/2007 7:37:23 AM PST by Our man in washington (The Democratic party is an alliance of narcissists and parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Our man in washington

Whenever there is a discussion of legalizing medication for over the counter there is always someone that brings up narcotics. My response is.. Keep these illegal and requiring a prescription. Now can we get on with legalizing the rest as OTC?


20 posted on 01/17/2007 7:40:58 AM PST by Investment Biker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson