Posted on 01/17/2007 6:33:23 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
A small, non-toxic molecule may soon be available as an inexpensive treatment for many forms of cancer, including lung, breast and brain tumours, say University of Alberta researchers.
But there's a catch: the drug isn't patented, and pharmaceutical companies may not be interested in funding further research if the treatment won't make them a profit.
In findings that "astounded" the researchers, the molecule known as DCA was shown to shrink lung, breast and brain tumours in both animal and human tissue experiments.
"You typically get this eureka type of feeling. It's the most exciting thing a scientist can get," Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a professor at the University of Alberta department of medicine and a key study author, told CTV News.
The study was published Tuesday in the journal Cancer Cell.
The molecule appears to repair the damage that cancer cells cause to mitochondria, the units that convert food into energy.
"Cancer cells actively suppress their mitochondria, which alters their metabolism, and this appears to offer cancer cells a significant advantage in growth compared to normal cells, as well as protection from many standard chemotherapies," Michelakis said in a written statement.
As mitochondria regulate cell death, cancer cells can resist being killed off.
For years, DCA -- or dichloroacetate -- has been used to treat children with inborn errors of metabolism due to mitochondrial diseases.
Until recently, researchers believed damage to mitochondria in cancer cells was permanent.
But Michelakis questioned this theory and began testing DCA, which activates a critical enzyme, as a way to "revive" cancer-affected mitochondria.
He says one of the most exciting things about this compound is that it might be able to treat many different forms of cancer because they all suppress mitochondrial function.
Therefore, DCA can primarily affect the cancer cells without affecting the normal ones.
Researchers also say DCA may prove to be effective because it is a small compound, thus easily absorbed in the body.
After oral intake, it can reach areas in the body that other drugs cannot, making it possible to treat cancer of the brain, for example.
In addition, because DCA has been used in both healthy people and ailing patients with mitochondrial diseases, researchers know it is a relatively non-toxic molecule that can be immediately tested in patients with cancer.
The compound, which is sold both as powder and as a liquid, is widely available at chemistry stores.
But because it's not patented or owned by any drug firm, it would be an inexpensive drug to administer. And researchers may have a difficult time finding money for further research.
Dr. Dario Altieri, of the University of Massachusetts, said the drug is exactly what doctors need because it could limit side-effects for patients. But there are "market considerations" that drug companies would have to take into account.
Michelakis remains hopeful he will be able to secure funding for further research.
"We hope we can attract the interest of universities here in Canada and in the United States," said Michelakis.
With a report from CTV's Avis Favaro and Elizabeth St. Philip
National Review is a paper of opinion which for example was peddling the false myth of Bosnian and Kosovo genocides. You need some hard source.
Also what percentage of "new" drugs are old drugs repackaged or modified for marketing reasons?
I agree. And that goes for doctors as well. End the socialism for the rich - licensing.
We don't need government to fund basic research. Voluntary subscription works already.
Could you possibly be any more ignorant? Find me a hard source that refutes the ACSH's claim. This information comes directly from NIH statistics. Why do you insist on debating topics you know nothing about?
Also what percentage of "new" drugs are old drugs repackaged or modified for marketing reasons?
Modified drugs have to be proven to be uniquely different and efficacious or the FDA will not approve them. The FDA is no friend of industry. In the past 10 years more than 300 "new" drugs have been approved by the FDA. Of all the drugs in use today, more than half have been created in just the past 25 years. If you'd ever bother to do some of your own homework, and learned about the subject you choose to debate, you'd realize the pipeline is filled with lots of promising new drugs for cancer, fighting infection and managing other diseases. Profit is driving that innovation despite what you and your socialist allies would like us to believe. Kill that motive and you'll kill the golden goose. Then we can all be equally sick and equally miserable in socialist utopia.
A molecule big enough to be named DCA is big enough to not be considered small.
I understand the arguments for both narcotics and antibiotics being restricted.
As for narcotics, I'd turn control over to the pharmacists and would de-criminalize them anyway, preferably one at a time over a period of several years. Worked for alcohol. I seem to recall that in Canada you can get codeine without a prescription. Sine the overwhelming majority of people are responsible, and will follow the doctors' or pharmacists' recomendations.
Antibiotics are another matter, and one that concerns me more. Perhaps last-resort antibiotics should be controlled.
Yet Russians aren't dropping dead in the streets from mis-use.
How do you know? If you know it, why don't you provide a direct source instead of this very partisan magazine. After the wars on Serbs I lost my confidence in National Review completely (and I canceled my long time subscription).
We almost agree. I think some antibiotics might safely be otc, but not the major new ones.
Ditto that.
"Many of our prescription drugs are otc (over-the-counter) in Canada and part of Europe. Don't see their populations dropping like flies."
It's really a concern to maintain and further the professional monopoly. It's an income thing and a jobs program for ninnies.
LOL! Honey, I'm going shopping. Want anything from the chemistry store?
While you're doing your own research, why don't you find out why most major pharmaceutical companies have located their R&D facilities to the center of mean capitalism, the United States. You know, capitalism without a face. Learning the answer could be good for you.
Dichloroacetate is the anion of a salt. It is toxic and has a low potency. This paper covers it's effect. I'll point out that in no way can this be a cure for cancer. It does not kill cancer cells, which is what's required for cure.
Fundamentally, what you mean is that some people can handle their own affairs once they become adults, but not all. So, we must provide everyone with the universal parent to provide lifetime nanny services, which will be called fedgov and various other names covering it's various personalities. Like HUD, FDA, OSHA, FMSA, ect...
OK. So when does the patent run out on Prevacid?
Interesting.
And that they are being used on huge scale by agribusiness at low dosage.
Correct. Both have causes a lot of problems.
Well they could patent X and Y, and they could probably even patent DCA + X and Y, but they couldn't prohibit DCA alone from being used or sold by others.
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.