"They Found the Cure for Cancer but no one will Research It because of Big Pharma" threads:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

Some DUers act as if no research happens if pharmaceutical companies don't fund it.

That's ridiculous.

There's a little organization called the National Institutes of Health, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, that funds quite a bit of research. Has a sub organization called the National Cancer Institute.

Despite this administration, which DOES heavily skew policy for the benefit of big pharmaceutical companies, they have many top scientists in their employ, as well as giving out billions in grants to top university researchers to study things just like this.

If you think that if a drug, like the one discussed in the current threads, has a potential to cure all or many cancers (I think these threads overstate and exaggerate that, we can't know the true potential), that just because it is off patent that all these university researchers and NIH scientists are going to pass up their chance to cure cancer, help humanity, and win the Nobel Prize, you have the wrong idea. The drug companies can't buy off every decent scientist in the country. You think no NIH scientist or administrator in control of grants in the government has had a relative die painfully of cancer? Even some Bush administration officials have probably experienced this, I'd warrant!

I have many friends and relatives who are government scientists and university professors/researchers, including some who administer grants for the NIH. These people are not primarily motivated by money. Many or most of them could have made more money seeking a career in the private sector rather than academics and research.

It is true that a large portion of funding that comes from pharmaceutical companies for this kind of research would not be forthcoming if there were no money to be made from a patented medicine. But to imply that there would be essentially no research on this in America because of it is patently absurd, pun intended.

(edited for spelling)

[Missy Vixen]

1. Thank you for saying this

We have a friend who works at the FDA. She's a Democrat.

All government employees are not the enemy, are not evil, are not motivated solely by cash. As MM mentioned, they'd make more in the private sector. They do it because they love what they do.

It is hard to believe that anyone could truly think those working on the R&D for the aforementioned drug have nobody in their circle of family and friends who desperately needs a cure, and would be willing to go along with any kind of campaign to suppress information on it.

Julie

[knitter4democracy]

2. Thank you!

I've thought the very same thing when I have read those threads. Not every doctor is all about the money (in fact, most I know aren't), not every researcher is all about the money (that's actually a joke), and there's tons of research going on (how else did they know about that venue for attacking cancer cells?).

[librechik]

3. Exactly! This is where government can help! They should also make flu vaccine

and some other things it's just SO much better to do by people who have no profit motive. (Making tanks and body armor is another one!)

developing medicines stuck in the "no profit" bucket is a natural for government intervention.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. I seem to remember that several years ago, some pharmco or

govt agency ponied up 2 million to study that stuff that comes from cabbage, broccoli and so forth. It is called indole 3 carbinol and it usually comes with a substance called dim. (your better products do) There are many NIH papers explaining its role in hindering the cancer process. I do know that in Japan, perhaps in China they use extracts of mushrooms to support cancer patients receiving traditional therapies.



http://www.icnet.uk/labs/med_mush/med_mush.html

"Medicinal mushrooms: their therapeutic properties and current medical usage with special emphasis on cancer treatments."

Authors

JOHN E SMITH BSc MSc PhD DSc FIBiol FRSE
Emeritus Professor of Applied Microbiology, University of Strathclyde
Chief Scientific Officer, MycoBiotech Ltd, Singapore

NEIL J ROWAN BSc MSc PhD MIBiol MIFST
Lecturer, Department of Bioscience, University of Strathclyde

RICHARD SULLIVAN BSc MD PhD
Head of Clinical Programmes, Cancer Research UK

Introduction

>>Many of the currently available anti-cancer agents are derived form natural products, for instance paclitaxel (Taxol), and camptothecin (Hycamtin) amongst many others. In 2000 Professor Gordon McVie, Director-General of the Cancer Research Campaign (now Cancer Research UK) and Professor John Smith of University of Strathclyde met in Glasgow to discuss the role of medicinal mushrooms in the treatment of cancer. The CRC had become aware that these natural products were being used extensively in the Far East as nutriceuticals (dietary supplements) and as a source for the generation of pharmaceutical-grade medicines to treat a wide variety of diseases, including cancer. The substantial range of medicinal mushroom species from which different bioactive compounds can be derived suggested that the humble mushroom could be a source of novel anti-cancer agents.<<

Since an increased intake of antioxidant nutrients and phytonutrients have been shown to NOT interfere with traditional therapies, I don't see why this isn't front page news.

Women have been taking I3C post breast cancer for years. It is probably the safe and effective alternative to Tamox that many people claim it to be.

A FEW papers from the NIH on I3C, there are many dozens more there and they all refer to I3C's ability to assist in cancer cell apoptosis, along with its effects on breast cell estrogen receptors.

1: Rahman KM, Sarkar FH, Banerjee S, Wang Z, Liao DJ, Hong X, Sarkar NH. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Therapeutic intervention of experimental breast cancer bone metastasis by indole-3-carbinol in SCID-human mouse model.
Mol Cancer Ther. 2006 Nov;5(11):2747-56.
PMID: 17121921

2: Kim DS, Jeong YM, Moon SI, Kim SY, Kwon SB, Park ES, Youn SW, Park KC. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Indole-3-carbinol enhances ultraviolet B-induced apoptosis by sensitizing human melanoma cells.
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006 Nov;63(22):2661-8.
PMID: 17086378

3: Hsu JC, Dev A, Wing A, Brew CT, Bjeldanes LF, Firestone GL. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Indole-3-carbinol mediated cell cycle arrest of LNCaP human prostate cancer cells requires the induced production of activated p53 tumor suppressor protein.
Biochem Pharmacol. 2006 Dec 15;72(12):1714-23. Epub 2006 Sep 12.
PMID: 16970927

4: Moiseeva EP, Heukers R, Manson MM. Related Articles, Links
Abstract EGFR and Src are involved in indole-3-carbinol-induced death and cell cycle arrest of human breast cancer cells.
Carcinogenesis. 2006 Sep 6;
PMID: 16956907

5: Sundar SN, Kerekatte V, Equinozio CN, Doan VB, Bjeldanes LF, Firestone GL. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Indole-3-carbinol selectively uncouples expression and activity of estrogen receptor subtypes in human breast cancer cells.
Mol Endocrinol. 2006 Dec;20(12):3070-82. Epub 2006 Aug 10.
PMID: 16901971

[Missy Vixen]

22. It's possible to get liquid mushroom extract at the health food store

It's helpful for building the immune system.

IMHO, YMMV, this is not medical advice.
Julie

[philosophie_en_rose]

5. I thought this would be a pro-Kevin Trudeau thread.

That guy is dangerous.

I agree with you about research, though.

[lastknowngood]

6. Anyone who believes the NIH is anything more than a branch of

big pharma is a fool. The researchers long ago changed everything the research to pattern big pharma and they do no real independent research at all. If they find something that looks like it might cure anything they are "hired" away from NIH to big pharma where they are told to research on something else. This has been going on since Rayguns gutted the NIH in the 80's. Trust me no one at NIH or big pharma is working on a cure for anything especially cancer. There is to much money being made on the sale of expensive marginal "treatments". As Chris Rock says they make their on the come back buy.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

7. This is such a broad brush. Do you know anyone who works at/for the NIH, or in medical research?

[bananarepublican]

55. They probably also believe in Arlen Specter's magic bullet theory! n/t

[BlooInBloo]

8. Until you tell me what percentage of drug research is funded via...

... big pharma, and what percentage is not, you haven't told me a damn thing.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

9. Here are some numbers below. NIH budget 28.6B for 2007. Pharm has been

outspending federal research money for the last 10 years. There is definitely a problem in terms of decrease in funding in federal research, there's nothing wrong inherently with pharmaceutical companies spending money on research, the problem is that the federal money is decreasing, a trend that could cause dependence on private money for medical research, but we aren't there yet.

As the editorial below states, the research money is usually allocated to different uses, with the huge majority of the Rx company money going to trials, and the government money going to a wider variety of uses, which is appropriate.

I'm not saying there isn't an issue, because there is, or that the GWB administration isn't corrupted in large degree by pharmaceutical company money (as evidenced by the Medicare Rx "benefit" among other things), but the posts on the DCA drug strongly imply that it would be impossible for there to be any research on this drug if there wasn't interest from the Pfizer, Merck et al., a position that I wholeheartedly disagree with.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1665

The NIH Budget and the Future of Biomedical Research
Joseph Loscalzo, M.D., Ph.D.

...

We have recently entered another period of stagnant funding for the NIH. Having doubled between 1998 and 2003, the NIH budget is expected to be $28.6 billion for fiscal year 2007, a 0.1 percent decrease from last year,1 or a 3.8 percent decrease after adjustment for inflation — the first true budgeted reduction in NIH support since 1970. Whereas national defense spending has reached approximately $1,600 per capita, federal spending for biomedical research now amounts to about $97 per capita — a rather modest investment in "advancing the health, safety, and well-being of our people."1 This downturn is more severe than any we have faced previously, since it comes on the heels of the doubling of the budget and threatens to erode the benefits of that investment. It takes many years for institutions to develop investigators skilled in modern research techniques and to build the costly, complicated infrastructure necessary for biomedical research. Rebuilding the investigator pool and the infrastructure after a downturn is expensive and time-consuming and weakens the benefits of prior funding. This situation is unlikely to improve anytime soon: the resources required for the war in Iraq and for hurricane relief, along with the erosion of the tax base by the current administration's fiscal policies, are expected to have long-term, far-reaching effects.

...

Meanwhile, for more than 10 years, the pharmaceutical industry has been investing larger amounts in research and development than the federal government — $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2005,2 for instance, or 78 percent more than NIH funding that year. Fiscal conservatives may view this industry investment as an appropriate, market-driven solution that should suffice and that does not justify additional government funding for biomedical research. However, the lion's share of industry funds is applied to drug development, especially clinical trials, rather than to fundamental research and is targeted to applications that are first and foremost of value to the industry. Federal funding has traditionally targeted a broad range of investigator-initiated research, from studies of molecular mechanisms of disease to population-based studies of disease prevalence, promoting an unrestricted environment of biomedical discovery that serves as the basis for industry-driven development. These approaches are complementary, and both have served society well.

...

Whatever mechanisms are ultimately chosen, it seems clear that new methods of support must be developed if biomedical research is to continue to thrive in the United States. The goal of a durable, steady stream of support for research in the life sciences has never been more pressing, since the research derived from that support has never promised greater benefits. The fate of life-sciences research should not be consigned to the political winds of Washington.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Ok - thanks. About 2/3 of the research $ are pharma industry.

[undergroundpanther]

11. I disagree

Most likely it will be ignored until public outcry forces thier hand so they can continue to be appear interested in our health.Then they will distort the reoports, send out the shills to talk over the scientists and say it's a dead end, and then they can dismiss it and go back to finding something to give hair to balding men.


The corporation is irresponsible because in an attempt to satisfy the corporate goal, everybody else is put at risk.

Corporations try to manipulate everything, including public opinion.

Corporations are grandiose, always insisting that "we're number one, we're the best."

Corporations refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions and are unable to feel remorse.

And the key to reversing the control of this psychopathic institution is to understand the nature of the beast.

No better place to start than right here.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/understanding.html
http://www.unknownnews.org/0511180514Krugman.html

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

12. Who says medical research is only carried out by coroporations?

Were you aware that the NIH funds research that is carried out in their facilities and in universities that is entirely independent of pharmaceutical corporations?

[mhatrw]

13. So how much money did the NIH appropriate to studying unpatentable

potential cancer medications last year? It's a simple and critical question. What's the answer?

You post is long on hopeful guesses, but lacking any numbers or even any anecdotal evidence.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. You tell me how you propose I'd look up something like that. You prove it's zero.

WTF is this.

[mhatrw]

16. No, I CONTEND that it is zero. That negates your entire argument

which is based on nothing but wishful thinking.

Now, do you have any evidence of the NIH funding any research into any unpatentable cancer medication of any kind?

Hope based arguments aren't very persuasive.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

18. How can your contending something prove anything?

My point is, I know people who are involved in medical and related life sciences research who work in the public sector, for government, or as university academicians, and who administer government grants, and that the people I know are not motivated by what benefits pharmaceutical companies.

They're people like the kind that post on DU.

They wouldn't not research a cancer cure because it's not patentable, or not give a grant for someone else to research a truly promising treatment.

[mhatrw]

23. Do you know anybody involved in researching unpatentable

cancer medications?

If so, where did he or she get his or her funding for this research?

Your argument is based on personalities and hope rather than reality. I do not dispute the altruism of research scientists. What I dispute is that any of these dear souls actually receive NIH funding to do research on unpatentable cancer medications.

[sweetheart]

15. bull, here's proof (link)

This link proves the very opposite of what you assert:
http://www.insinc.com/onlinetv/directms13oct2005/softvnetplayer.htm

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

17. Your link loads a 1 hr. video about Vitamin D and smoking. I'm not about to watch the whole

damn thing unless you can explain in greater detail how it PROVES your apparent assertion that pharmaceutical companies would prevent any research being done on a cancer cure in the U.S. just because the cure was not patentable.

That they would somehow prevent the government from funding any research in university or government labs on a promising cancer cure.

How can you prove this?

[sweetheart]

19. The conclusion of the video

Is that vitamin D cures many cancers and is preventative for many of them,
and that pharma won't promote it because there's no profit in it.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

20. Why does pharm have to fund the research, if it's as promising as

you indicate?

Are you saying that Merck and Pfizer and Organon basically pay all the governent agencies to not research promising cures?

If so, what evidence have you to support this?

[mhatrw]

24. Who is going to do it otherwise? The NIH?

If so, what evidence have you to support this?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

29. See my post 28, numerous examples of U.S. research. Not cancer studies, but

these are completed studies on the drug for a different disease.

[mhatrw]

37. Right. Other diseases are not the Big Pharma sacred cash cows like cancer is.

You seem to be missing my point. I was talking about the lack of NIH grants for research on unpatentable cancer medications -- not the lack of unknown grants for research on DCA for diseases other than cancer.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

39. The New Scientist article concerned research that was just published late 2006.

If these Canadian guys in the article have made the initial findings suggesting a cancer benefit, it's way too early to expect completed published studies aside from theirs yet.

I can't prove that something is being done or not done that may only be getting started.

If in the next year or two we have completed U.S. studies to cite, will you concede that you are wrong about the whole U.S. medical research industry being owned by the pharmaceutical companies?

[Miss Chybil]

21. The University of Alberta is doing research on a non-patented drug (DCA)

that they have very high hopes for. This drug has killed breast, lung, liver and brain human cancer cells cultured outside of the body by turning the mitochondria back on in these cells. It seems cancer cells turn their mitochondria off and thus become immortal. Once the DCA turns mitochondria back on, the cell realizes it's old and kills itself - with no damage to normal, healthy cells. They are just beginning clinical trials on humans. Being that there is no patent on this drug, it is very cheap to produce and being that it is already being used on humans for treatment of rare metabolic diseases means, if the trials are successful, it should be fast-tracked to the market.

This stuff is ground-breaking. You can read about it here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

and here:

http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/

[mhatrw]

25. Will the NIH be funding further research on DCA?

When and where?

[Miss Chybil]

27. These trials are being done in Canada. I don't know of any here.

According to the article, since the drug has no patent, they expect the research will have to be funded by "non-pharmaceutical" funds as the drug companies would not make any money on the drug. From what I've heard about how pharmaceutical companies work, though, it's probably a good bet, if the trials prove successful, the pharm companies will tweak the DCA drug a bit and patent the "new" formula. This way, they will be able to rape us as usual.

I'm not going to worry about all that, right now, though. I just hope the university researchers are right in their hypothesis and cancer will soon become a thing of the past.

[mhatrw]

32. I hope so as well. I just want to know why the NIH is not taking the

lead here.

[Miss Chybil]

41. Probably because the guys in Canada (Un of Alberta) discovered this. It's all

very new.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

28. Here are some examples. Since I only have abstracts and not the full article, I can't say who funded

these studies, but if either pharm companies (unlikely) or the government (likely) funded them, it disproves your concept that there will be no research on this because it can't be patented in any case.

If you were willing to look up the original articles, I will give you one hundred dollars if at least half of them, if not all, are not funded by government grants. Seriously. I could be wrong, it could be some private pediatric neuro disease foundation funding it, but I'll bet it's the NIH/NINCDS etc.

This is from the quickest, most cursory medline search. All U.S. facilities, reputable institutions.

These results are not about cancer, but apparently DCA (dichloroacetate, the drug which is the subject of the recent threads) has been researched at length as a possible treatment for mitochondrial diseases.

Not only that, but it's been found to have nerve toxicity as some of the citations discuss, something that was not mentioned in the New Scientist article. So at least I learned something from this exercise, anyway. Did you?

The point is, someone HAS funded research into this unpatentable drug that no pharma company can make any dough off of, and not only that, the research was into its possible application into mitochondrial diseases that are not very common, that even if the drug WAS patentable, the profit potential would be very low!

So do you feel that this information in any way challenges your concept that if pharmaceutical companies can't profit from it, no research will be done in the U.S. into it? Or do you insist on clinging to your idea that pharm companies and their evil cohorts in the Bush Administration will suppress and prevent any research into cheap cures for cancer, preferring that their friends and acquaintances die horribly from all cancers that could be easily and cheaply prevented, just so their company can continue to make money off the cancer industry?

Sheesh!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16725381&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

1: Mitochondrion. 2006 Jun;6(3):126-35. Epub 2006 May 3.Click here to read Links
Therapeutic potential of dichloroacetate for pyruvate dehydrogenase complex deficiency.

* Berendzen K,
* Theriaque DW,
* Shuster J,
* Stacpoole PW.

Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, P.O. Box 10226, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA. [email protected]

We reviewed the use of oral dichloroacetate (DCA) in the treatment of children with congenital lactic acidosis caused by mutations in the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDC). The case histories of 46 subjects were analyzed with regard to diagnosis, clinical presentation and response to DCA. DCA decreased blood and cerebrospinal fluid lactate concentrations, and was generally well tolerated. DCA may be particularly effective in children with PDC deficiency by stimulating residual enzyme activity and, consequently, cellular energy metabolism. A controlled trial is needed to determine the definitive role of DCA in the management of this devastating disease.

PMID: 16725381

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16651305

1: Pediatrics. 2006 May;117(5):1519-31.Click here to read Links
Controlled clinical trial of dichloroacetate for treatment of congenital lactic acidosis in children.

* Stacpoole PW,
* Kerr DS,
* Barnes C,
* Bunch ST,
* Carney PR,
* Fennell EM,
* Felitsyn NM,
* Gilmore RL,
* Greer M,
* Henderson GN,
* Hutson AD,
* Neiberger RE,
* O'Brien RG,
* Perkins LA,
* Quisling RG,
* Shroads AL,
* Shuster JJ,
* Silverstein JH,
* Theriaque DW,
* Valenstein E.

Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: Open-label studies indicate that oral dichloroacetate (DCA) may be effective in treating patients with congenital lactic acidosis. We tested this hypothesis by conducting the first double-blind, randomized, control trial of DCA in this disease. METHODS: Forty-three patients who ranged in age from 0.9 to 19 years were enrolled. All patients had persistent or intermittent hyperlactatemia, and most had severe psychomotor delay. Eleven patients had pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency, 25 patients had 1 or more defects in enzymes of the respiratory chain, and 7 patients had a mutation in mitochondrial DNA. Patients were preconditioned on placebo for 6 months and then were randomly assigned to receive an additional 6 months of placebo or DCA, at a dose of 12.5 mg/kg every 12 hours. The primary outcome results were (1) a Global Assessment of Treatment Efficacy, which incorporated tests of neuromuscular and behavioral function and quality of life; (2) linear growth; (3) blood lactate concentration in the fasted state and after a carbohydrate meal; (4) frequency and severity of intercurrent illnesses and hospitalizations; and (5) safety, including tests of liver and peripheral nerve function. OUTCOME: There were no significant differences in Global Assessment of Treatment Efficacy scores, linear growth, or the frequency or severity of intercurrent illnesses. DCA significantly decreased the rise in blood lactate caused by carbohydrate feeding. Chronic DCA administration was associated with a fall in plasma clearance of the drug and with a rise in the urinary excretion of the tyrosine catabolite maleylacetone and the heme precursor delta-aminolevulinate. CONCLUSIONS: In this highly heterogeneous population of children with congenital lactic acidosis, oral DCA for 6 months was well tolerated and blunted the postprandial increase in circulating lactate. However, it did not improve neurologic or other measures of clinical outcome.

PMID: 16651305

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16476929

1: Neurology. 2006 Feb 14;66(3):324-30.Click here to read Links

Comment in:
Neurology. 2006 Feb 14;66(3):302-3.
Neurology. 2006 Jul 11;67(1):184; author reply 184.
Neurology. 2006 Oct 10;67(7):1313; author reply 1313.

Dichloroacetate causes toxic neuropathy in MELAS: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.

* Kaufmann P,
* Engelstad K,
* Wei Y,
* Jhung S,
* Sano MC,
* Shungu DC,
* Millar WS,
* Hong X,
* Gooch CL,
* Mao X,
* Pascual JM,
* Hirano M,
* Stacpoole PW,
* DiMauro S,
* De Vivo DC.

Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York 10032, USA. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of dichloroacetate (DCA) in the treatment of mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes (MELAS). BACKGROUND: High levels of ventricular lactate, the brain spectroscopic signature of MELAS, correlate with more severe neurologic impairment. The authors hypothesized that chronic cerebral lactic acidosis exacerbates neuronal injury in MELAS and therefore, investigated DCA, a potent lactate-lowering agent, as potential treatment for MELAS. METHODS: The authors conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, 3-year cross-over trial of DCA (25 mg/kg/day) in 30 patients (aged 10 to 60 years) with MELAS and the A3243G mutation. Primary outcome measure was a Global Assessment of Treatment Efficacy (GATE) score based on a health-related event inventory, and on neurologic, neuropsychological, and daily living functioning. Biologic outcome measures included venous, CSF, and 1H MRSI-estimated brain lactate. Blood tests and nerve conduction studies were performed to monitor safety. RESULTS: During the initial 24-month treatment period, 15 of 15 patients randomized to DCA were taken off study medication, compared to 4 of 15 patients randomized to placebo. Study medication was discontinued in 17 of 19 patients because of onset or worsening of peripheral neuropathy. The clinical trial was terminated early because of peripheral nerve toxicity. The mean GATE score was not significantly different between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: DCA at 25 mg/kg/day is associated with peripheral nerve toxicity resulting in a high rate of medication discontinuation and early study termination. Under these experimental conditions, the authors were unable to detect any beneficial effect. The findings show that DCA-associated neuropathy overshadows the assessment of any potential benefit in MELAS.

PMID: 16476929

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16476925&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum

1: Neurology. 2006 Feb 14;66(3):302-3.Click here to read Links

Comment on:
Neurology. 2006 Feb 14;66(3):324-30.

Trial of dichloroacetate in MELAS: toxicity overshadows the assessment of potential benefit.

* Schaefer AM.

PMID: 16476925

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17241159&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

1: J Neurochem. 2007 Jan;100(2):429-36. Links
Dichloroacetate causes reversible demyelination in vitro: potential mechanism for its neuropathic effect.

* Felitsyn N,
* Stacpoole PW,
* Notterpek L.

Department of Neuroscience, College of Medicine, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32610-024, USA.

Dichloroacetate (DCA) is an investigational drug for genetic mitochondrial diseases whose use has been mitigated by reversible peripheral neuropathy. We investigated the mechanism of DCA neurotoxicity using cultured rat Schwann cells (SCs) and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) neurons. Myelinating SC-DRG neuron co-cultures, isolated SCs and DRG neurons were exposed to 1-20 mm DCA for up to 12 days. In myelinating co-cultures, DCA caused a dose- and exposure-dependent decrease of myelination, as determined by immunolabeling and immunoblotting for myelin basic protein (MBP), protein zero (P0), myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) and peripheral myelin protein 22 (PMP22). Partial recovery of myelination occurred following a 10-day washout of DCA. DCA did not affect the steady-state levels of intermediate filament proteins, but promoted the formation of anti-neurofilament antibody reactive whirls. In isolated SC cultures, DCA decreased the expression of P0 and PMP22, while it increased the levels of p75(NTR) (neurotrophin receptor), as compared with non-DCA-treated samples. DCA had modest adverse effects on neuronal and glial cell vitality, as determined by the release of lactate dehydrogenase. These results demonstrate that DCA induces a reversible inhibition of myelin-related proteins that may account, at least in part, for its clinical peripheral neuropathic effects.

PMID: 17241159

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16508366&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

1: Ann Plast Surg. 2006 Mar;56(3):320-6.Click here to read Links
Dichloroacetate reduces tissue necrosis in a rat transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap model.

* Tyner TR,
* Tong W,
* Donovan K,
* McDonald T,
* Sian K,
* Yamaguchi KT.

Department of Surgery, University Medical Center, Veterans Administration Medical Center, University of California San Francisco-Fresno Medical Education Program, CA 93702, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Ischemia-related complications may occur during postmastectomy transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap reconstruction. The aim of our study was to investigate whether necrosis of susceptible flap regions could be reduced by dichloroacetate (DCA)-induced stimulation of oxidative metabolism in hypoxic tissue. METHODS: The study was a randomized control trial using male Sprague-Dawley rats. A pedicled TRAM flap based upon the right inferior epigastric artery was elevated and reapproximated. Animals were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 treatment groups (n = 6). Group I received no DCA; groups II through V were administered 75 mg/kg DCA orally 24 hours preoperative; in addition, groups II through IV received 75 mg/kg/d DCA orally postoperative for 4 days; group III also received 75 mg/kg DCA (IP) intraoperatively; groups IV and V were given 15 mg/kg/d DCA orally for 6 days before the 24-hour preoperative treatment. Four days postsurgery, skin paddles were photographed and assessed for viability. Underlying TRAM muscle was biopsied for histologic analysis. Blood lactate levels were measured at pre- and postoperative time points. The mean percentages of viable skin paddle were as follows: 32.0%+/- 4.0% (group I), 68.1% +/- 6.2% (group II), 84.3% +/- 5.9% (group III), 92.8% +/- 2.0% (group IV), 82.6% +/- 5.8% (group V). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found in all experimental (DCA) groups relative to the controls (P < 0.01). Group IV (6-day DCA preconditioning, plus 24-hour preoperative and 4-day postoperative treatment) displayed the greatest improvement in flap viability, significantly better than other DCA groups (P < 0.01). Group IV also had significantly lower serum lactate levels than controls (P < 0.05). Histologic examination of muscle biopsies revealed reductions in inflammation and necrosis correlating with DCA treatment and skin paddle survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that DCA may provide a useful pharmacologic tool for reducing ischemia-related necrosis in TRAM flaps.

PMID: 16508366

[mhatrw]

30. So you have a bunch of links about DCA studies ...

None of them have anything to do with cancer research nor have you provided any information about their funding.

Good show! Hope springs eternal!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

31. If research is being done on this drug, what does it matter the source of the funding?

It disproves your thesis.

[mhatrw]

34. My thesis is that the NIH spends very little funding research

for unpatentable cancer medications. Or to put it another way, it's almost impossible to get a NIH grant to research unpatentable cancer medications. You haven't inflicted the tiniest dent in my thesis.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

33. I did indicate if you look up the articles, and at least half are not government grants,

I will give you 100 bucks, and I'm good for it.

[mhatrw]

35. Since they don't concern cancer research, they don't concern

my thesis.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

36. But if the point is that a drug won't be researched if it won't profit a pharma company, then

the fact that this drug has funded research for an uncommon orphan disease disproves that.

[mhatrw]

38. That's not MY point. My point is confined to the Big Pharma sacred

cash cow that is cancer medication.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

40. See my post 39

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. Did you read the findings? DCA in the amount needed causes peripheral nerve myopathy.

It kills your nerve endings.

[Miss Chybil]

42. FYI - the New Scientist article did mention side effects dealing with pain

and gait, but stated, if the drug works to kill cancers, the side effects would be well worth it. The way I read it, the side effects are not permanent.

I agree with your position about the research being done with no great profit in sight. I said in another post, if the drug does successfully treat cancer, I would expect the pharma companies would tweak it in such a way as to be able to patent the "new" formula and charge dearly for it. I don't believe they would ever block the research, or keep the cure from their family and friends, just as you have said. Also, just like Prilosec and Nexium, (an example of tweaking an old drug in order to patent a "new" one), the original DCA would still be available, just as Prilosec is still available now.

I am extremely excited about the prospects for DCA in cancer treatment. It makes so much sense. I really hope it works inside the body as well as it does in a dish!

[mnhtnbb]

26. I'm no fan of Big Pharma, but my brother (MD/PhD) is in charge of

oncology research for one of the majors. And yeah, he's a Republican and
we go round and round. BUT, he has the utmost integrity when it comes to science and calling bullshit.

It's absurd to think that cures for various kinds of cancer are being suppressed by Big Pharma. That's paranoia to the extreme.

[Skittles]

43. well

I doubt it is paranoia to believe some people will put moneyed interests above EVERYTHING - look at the things people will do for money - lie, steal, kill - how is it far-fetched to believe they'd engage in suppressing anything that could impede their profits? You cannot compare your brother to everyone. I don't believe in any kind of mass-conspiracy but I don't believe everyone has the best interests of the people at heart either, and certainly republicans don't.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Because

to discover this would make someone world-famous, guarantee a Nobel prize, and their name would go down in history alongside Pasteur, Salk, Watson & Crick and others.

Research scientists aren't exactly known for their love of money above all else.

[Skittles]

45. I don't thik they are the ones in control

not at all

[MonkeyFunk]

48. So they're all "suppressed"?

Not one of them would quit and publish their own findings?

Sorry, but the notion that "big pharma" keeps such a tight lid on everything is ridiculous. Thousands of researchers dedicate their lives to finding cures for cancer - you think they all "hush up" when they find a cure because the boss tells them to?

[Skittles]

49. you are reaching

where did I use the word ALL? All I know is something is not right with a nation that keeps its people loaded on prescription drugs

[MonkeyFunk]

50. Not you specifically

but many people here repeatedly make the claim that such cures would never see the light of day because "big pharma" won't allow it.

I think that claim is bullshit. It would require ALL scientists who make such discoveries - discoveries they've spent their lives searching for - to keep quiet about one of the greatest medical breakthroughs in human history.

It's bullshit.


Edit: it would also require universities and non-"big-pharma" labs to be part of the crackdown.

[Skittles]

51. no, I don't believe that at all

but I DO believe their interference helps keep a lot of people in America unncessarily loaded to the gills on prescription drugs and drives up health costs for everyone - and I believe these kind of people (in the pharma industry) do NOT have anyone's interests at heart except their own. In other words, I don't think it is ludicrous for people to question their motives, though their conclusions may be reaching a bit.

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. Ask him about this.

I know someone who works for NIH, they had not heard about DCA, however.

What does your brother think about the likelihood of this drug working?

or will it turn out like some other drugs (anti-angiogenics) that supposedly killed all cancer cells, but only in test tube?

[atommom]

52. kick

[Th1onein]

53. I agree and disagree.

I watched as Brezinski, the researcher who developed anti-neoplasms, and who was brought to court and tried in Houston, TX, fought and fought and fought, against the FDA, who treated him and his patients like shit. He finally won and sued the FDA. His work has been replicated in JAPAN over and over again, but the medical establishment went after him with a vengeance. Sloan-Kettering, one of the biggest manufacturers of chemotoxic drugs wouldn't even let him present an abstract at a conference. This is absolutely unheard of.

His crime? He patented his compounds and they couldn't buy him out and they couldn't make any money off of them.

There are thousands of avenues of therapy that are ignored, and tossed aside, simply because no one can make a buck off of them. This is the way it is in our capitalistic medical system.

Sure there are honest and caring scientists out there. But none of them are willing to spend the bucks to see to it that the drugs that they find can make it to market--especially if they are not patentable. A drug company or the government has to do it. Government is in the pocket of the drug companies and the drug companies won't do it, without a patent, because they would spend the money to test the drug and some other pharma will compete with them.

No way this is going to be tested in the near future, or ever, in a system such as ours.

[Dastard Stepchild]

54. CRISP.... government research info

This is a really cool website... shows all the research activities funded by NIH since 1996, if I am not mistaken. I wish it gave $$ amounts, but unfortunately it does not.

I've spent hours there browsing projects.

http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/

[Cetacea]

56. self-delete.. moved to reply to OP

Researchers at NIH discovered that Intravenous Ascorbic Acid (C) had a NEARLY ONE HUNDRED PER CENT SUCCESS RATE IN DESTROYING LYMPHOMA CELLS
(while leaving healthy cells alone). This i unprecedented. The study also encouraged further research into IV C as a treatment for lung and other hard to treat cancers.
Apparently, it raises Peroxide levels in the cells ,which is deadly to cancer cells but does not negatively impact healthy cells.

This study is a few years old, yet if one does a google search for "cancer and vitamin C" the first site listed is www.quackwatch.com!

Only one research group has been given permission by the FDA to begin clinical trials. And much time has already passed.

Also, IV C is affordable for nearly everyone and produces no side affects.

I applaud the NIH for their discovery and their plea that further studies begin at once.

[Cetacea]

57. NIH is OK. The problem is the FDA, as in the IV C discovery

Researchers at NIH discovered that Intravenous Ascorbic Acid (C) had a NEARLY ONE HUNDRED PER CENT SUCCESS RATE IN DESTROYING LYMPHOMA CELLS
(while leaving healthy cells alone). This i unprecedented. The study also encouraged further research into IV C as a treatment for lung and other hard to treat cancers.
Apparently, it raises Peroxide levels in the cells ,which is deadly to cancer cells but does not negatively impact healthy cells.

This study is a few years old, yet if one does a google search for "cancer and vitamin C" the first site listed is www.quackwatch.com!

Only one research group has been given permission by the FDA to begin clinical trials. And much time has already passed.

Also, IV C is affordable for nearly everyone and produces no side affects.

I applaud the NIH for their discovery and their plea that further studies begin at once.