Alternative Drugs!

Today in the Sunday New York Times, Week in Review section, most of the editorials concern cancer and cancer treatments, budget shortfalls, etc. The one that interested me the most is "Patents Over Patients," which I include below:

WE could make faster progress against cancer by changing the way drugs are developed. In the current system, if a promising compound can’t be patented, it is highly unlikely ever to make it to market — no matter how well it performs in the laboratory. The development of new cancer drugs is crippled as a result.<o></o>

The reason for this problem is that bringing a new drug to market is extremely expensive. In 2001, the estimated cost was $802 million; today it is approximately $1 billion. To ensure a healthy return on such staggering investments, drug companies seek to formulate new drugs in a way that guarantees watertight patents. In the meantime, cancer patients miss out on treatments that may be highly effective and less expensive to boot.<o></o>

In 2004, Johns Hopkins researchers discovered that an off-the-shelf compound called 3-bromopyruvate could arrest the growth of liver cancer in rats. The results were dramatic; moreover, the investigators estimated that the cost to treat patients would be around 70 cents per day. Yet, three years later, no major drug company has shown interest in developing this drug for human use.<o></o>

Early this year, another readily available industrial chemical, dichloroacetate, was found by researchers at the University of Alberta to shrink tumors in laboratory animals by up to 75 percent. However, as a university news release explained, dichloroacetate is not patentable, and the lead researcher is concerned that it may be difficult to find funding from private investors to test the chemical. So the university is soliciting public donations to finance a clinical trial. <o></o>

The hormone melatonin, sold as an inexpensive food supplement in the United States, has repeatedly been shown to slow the growth of various cancers when used in conjunction with conventional treatments. Paolo Lissoni, an Italian oncologist, helped write more than 100 articles about this hormone and conducted numerous clinical trials. But when I visited him at his hospital in Monza in 2003, he was in deep despair over the pharmaceutical industry’s total lack of interest in his treatment approach. He has published nothing on the topic since then.<o></o>

Potential anticancer drugs should be judged on their scientific merit, not on their patentability. One solution might be for the government to enlarge the Food and Drug Administration’s “orphan drug” program, which subsidizes the development of drugs for rare diseases. The definition of orphan drug could be expanded to include unpatentable agents that are scorned as unprofitable by pharmaceutical companies. <o></o>

We need to foster a research and development environment in which anticancer activity is the main criterion for new drug development. <o></o>

<nyt_author_id></nyt_author_id> By Ralph W. Moss: Moss writes a weekly online newsletter about cancer.



This issue has been in my thoughts for a while. Perhaps I'm cutting off my nose so to speak, but I actually hate those news reports that celebrate new miracle drugs, costing about $100,000 a year, that prolong the life of someone with cancer another three or four months. It's my life long cynicism I suppose, but I always wonder if the drug companies are only interested in developing such month-to-month drugs, that if they actually find a cure for cancer they're out of business, or that they might actually supress research on real cures.

So what I'm wondering is this. Can we as a group come up with some thoughts about promoting a governmental or privately-funded program called "Drug Alternatives" that would focus on doing research and development on cancer drugs that won't yield billion dollar profits for drug companies but will yield cures for those who have cancer? I thought I would send some emails to organizations like those financed by Gates/Buffet and to people like the Edwards who have lots of visibility. Any ideas from those on the board would be welcome. I am particularly interested in the work going on in Alberta, concerning dichloroacetate.

[Joe]

Robert Moss's name comes up from time to time on these boards. Most of his statements have been discredited. I would suggest the following website:

http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQua...h/altseek.html

Regards
Joe

Thanks Joe,

I never heard of this gentleman before reading his editorial in the New York Times. However, I agree with the all the points he makes fully I am cautiously enthusiatic about DCA research and just made a donation to the University of Alberta in the hope that clinical trials will soon start--sometime this spring from what I'm reading. Anyone else out there who is interested in seeing more research on unpatentable drugs that hold out hope for a cure might want to consult the University of Alberta website. I do love those Canadians!

Hi Joe, again,

I just looked at the website you recommended, which is about alternative cancer cures and not with the article I cited, which is the reluctance of drug companies to fund research on drugs/chemicals currently used for medical and other purposes but which have lost their patentability, and thus won't offer drug companies huge profits if they develop or test these drugs further. I do confess, though, I take my 20 grams of flaxseed a day, my Grapeseed Extract for fibrosis, and my CoQ-10 for heart, and about 15 other supplements. If I don't swat this disease one way, I'll swat it another!

[CLTann]

The point is well taken. I certainly agree wholeheartedly. I also believe that to make a difference, we need funding from a major donor or a group of major donors, such as Gates foundation, to lead the crusade. The small, though enthusiastic, grassroot support does not change the tide. We cannot totally blame on the drug companies whose major responsibility is indeed to provide profits for their stockholders. We need to arouse those who are key trend setters to see our objectives. If we would start a letter writing campaign, I would be more than happy to participate.

Thanks Ann,

I agree we can't blame the drug companies. We have to look to ourselves. I never gave much thought to the whole issue of cancer funding (with the exception of universal health care,which I've supported for years), but selfishly I'm now very interested. My own instinct is to focus on one or two possibilitites, the research at the U. of Alberta on DCA is my first interest, and I've already written to them asking how I can help in their fundraising campaign for the projected clinical trials. I'll let you know if anything comes of that. I've written to the Gates Foundation previously about other issues like AIDS funding in Africa but never got a response, so I may let that one go.

[vickie h]

Grace, Drug companies have been trying to discredit Ralph Moss for years. Cancer has become a mega industry for pharmaceutical companies. I think we need to stay pro-active and listen to all sides of the cancer debates. Ralph Moss used to work for Sloan-Kettering and has seen alot of fraud, reporting such facts to those who have ab open mind and a will to change the way our health care choices are run. I. for one, think he has done amazing work and will continue to follow him. There is room for alternative or complimentary medicine right along with allopathic medicine. Some of the top Oncologists are now seeing the need for "alternatives" to the treatment of cancer. Thank you for you message and I would love to be a part of the change. Love, Vickie

Hi Vicky,

As I mention above I never heard of Ralph Moss before reading the article I posted, and honestly have no idea what other positions he may have taken. However, what he says in this article is, I think, difficult to dispute. Drug companies are not philanthropical organizations--their purpose is to make money for their stockholders. Whatever good they do is secondary and, of course, they do lots of good. Thus, I think it's very important that other, primarily non-profit, organizations be involved in developing and testing drugs that offer no profit to drug companies. Obviously, if a drug can't be patented a drug company is not interested. In cancer research and drug development, we need both: the drug companies and the universities and the governmental agencies. I can't do anything for the drug companies but I can for non-profit groups. So that's my goal for the year.

[vickie h]

Grace,

You are exactly right! Ralph Moss has several books and arcticles that he's written over the years. He is quite knowledgable about cancer and has done much good in the way of educating people about alternatives, along with conventional therapies. Pharmaceutical companies have long tried to keep a muzzle on any kind of treatment that they cannot profit from. I am grateful for advances that have been made, but I always keep an open mind and ear to ALL kinds of treatment. Thanks for your input. Ralph Moss has his own web site and you can google lots of info about him. Love, Vickie

[vickie h]

It is always the small, grassroots groups that change the tide, never the Big Guys, etc. All change has been started by people like you and me, people who refuse to wear blinders, who forge ahead in times of change. They are the change! Look back on slavery, women's rights, the Vietnam war, and now cancer. Stand strong and continue to seek the truth. As for the Quackery web sites.....Some of our greatest minds, our greatest scientists and leaders were considered "Quacks" in their time........ Love, Vickie

[heblaj01]

Regarding the private funding of research on unpatentable drugs mentioned in above posts maybe this Forum could follow the example of some other similar organizations who helped fund part of some projects & thus gain some recognition & better access to the progress of the scientific work. One instance I am aware of is the CLL TOPICS web site which at one time funded the purchase of Honokiol in China for the lab work of a US group of researchers seeking a new treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL).
Could this be more effective than individual donations? Any comments?

[Joe]

The HER2 Support Group actively supports the work of the California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP), which funds non-traditional breast cancer research. This year we have supported an application proposed by a southern California research scientist. We cannot divulge the details as the grant has not been acted upon yet.

For those interested in this program, the California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP)is holding their bi-annual symposium September 7-9 in Los Angeles. We will be attending.

Regards
Joe

[hutchibk]

All of this is very complex and very interesting. I often wonder if a cure or treatment for cancer isn't lurking under our noses in some unexpected substance or compound. I do agree that a viable and generously funded system encouraging human trials of the more promising, unpatentable compounds would be lovely. I hope that someday it will become a reality.

That being said, I have a hard time getting too excited yet about anything that is showing good results on rats. Lots of animal research doesn't translate to humans. And as my onc often says "the last time I checked, you weren't a rat."

No easy answers here...

[Melinda]

FOod for thought
I was just reading about the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. A privately funded non for profit medical research facility and I quote"
"A revolution is taking place in biology, one that promises to transform our understanding of the living world and produce major advances in medical care. Among its leaders is the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).

<!--[[p]] ** INSERT VIDEO HERE ** [[/p]]-->The Institute is a nonprofit medical research organization that employs hundreds of leading biomedical scientists working at the forefront of their fields. In addition, through its grants program and other activities, HHMI is helping to enhance science education at all levels and maintain the vigor of biomedical science worldwide. "

The HHMI web site is quite interesting. As privately held it has the ability to negate the "red tape" often associated with government funding for medical research
The cost of the research being done thru HHMI or should I say lack of cost certainly should eliminate much of the expense that the drug companies say are involved...... unless I am misunderstanding this whole premise???

60 minutes did a feature on this and the link is below
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in584945.shtml
Interesting reading and a smart/rich man for whatever purpose .... what he did and why is now benefiting medical science.

Alas for the rats, most research on them does translate to humans, since that appears to be the research model these days: hypothesis, test tube, rat phase, then if the research shows promise, clinical trials on humans. If there's no money to continue to clinical trial, the research stops and any possible benefit to humans is not realized. Herceptin and many of the drugs we’re taking had their rat/mouse phase. And after six months on herceptin whenever I see a mouse go by, I think there with the grace of God go I.

Melinda,

Thanks for information on the Hughes foundation. I had no idea it existed.

[vickie h]

Thanks Grace for your insight about research. Cancer is affecting humans and animals in epidemic proportions. I have heard that cancer is on the decline (yet there are numerous reports that state just the opposite), I think the survival rates may be a little longer because of drugs like Herceptin, Tykerb, etc for Her2 positive patients, but I cannot speak for other forms of this disease. am glad that this site is funding "alternative" research here in California. And as for that mouse, amen, I feel the same way. Love and Peace, Vickie

[hutchibk]

Grace, I agree that a lot of animal research also does translate to humans... but a lot of it doesn't. Like you said "...hypothesis, test tube, rat phase, then if the research shows promise..." And that is always a big IF.

There has been much that doesn't move forward after the rat/animal phase, and there has been much that has moved forward but has failed in humans.
And of course, there are the successes! All I am saying is that I remain cautious about anything I hear about in the rat phase, since it is too early in the process to know anything about how it will do in humans. I do thank the rats who helped test the stuff that is keeping me alive today, though!

[habel]

Here's some articles mentioned from the Paul Harvey Show recently about DCA.
Newscientist.com Search- DCA
Vets have used DCA to treat animals with cancer for years. The problem is, there is no patent and it's a very cheap drug. So no drug company whats to start a trial cause they can't make BIG MONEY off if it.

Michelle

[AlaskaAngel]

When the primary therapies available for treatment are so toxic, and are given to patients who take them knowing they offer no guarantee and so little promise, it is reasonable to continue to raise questions about them. To some who are trying hard to hope, raising questions about current common practices can seem like a very negative thing to do. But how else would we ever move on to better treatments? To me it is sad that there have not been more people willing to take the heat for criticizing common practice, given that we end up with so much disagreement about therapy among the experts who recommend these toxic treatments to us.

One book that makes some positive logical suggestions is The Truth About Drug Companies; How They Deceive Us and What to do About It, by Marcia Angell, M.D.

-AlaskaAngel