Canada's cancer attempt

[El_Machinae]

I'm pretty proud of this one, because I was a bit worried that the system wasn't designed to test something like this.

There's a fairly cheap compound, that's already been proven acceptably-safe in people, that might be an effect cancer-killing drug. The problem was that the drug was cheap and common - meaning that no drug companies are willing to undergo the $800 million of running it through a clinical trial ... they'd never be able to patent it and profit off it.

Because it wasn't being run through a clinical trial, there was no way to 'prove' (within the system) that the compound is effective. People were selling the compound to treat "Pet cancers" (wink, wink) but those companies get shut down because people assume that they're selling to cancer victims who will self-dose without any medical supervision (because none is available yet)

It's marvelously effective in animals, but only about 2% of drugs which work in animals end up being effective in people.

Anyway, it looks like Canada Health has stepped up to the plate. We've approved a clinical trial of the compound. I'm crossing my fingers on this one.

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8760

Health Canada has approved clinical trial of a promising new cancer treatment that will be tested on patients with one of the most aggressive forms of cancer.

Known commonly as DCA the drug, dichloroacetate, was proven to cause regression in several cancers, including lung, breast and brain tumours in mice and in human tissues in vitro. The research by cardiologist
...
Today, Michelakis told reporters that Health Canada has approved phase II clinical trials of the drug in patients diagnosed with a type of brain tumour called malignant gliomas. The mean survival rate for these patients is one year.
...
Michelakis and his colleagues at Capital Health are looking for 50 patients for the clinical trial. Patients interested in enrolling in the clinical trial should visit the DCA website or call 492-2604.[El_Mac note: apparently patients need to be local to Edmonton
...
Michelakis said that the fact that the clinical trials are being done at all is a miracle. The drug itself cannot be patented, so no pharmaceutical firm is funding the research. Instead, about $800,000 has been raised by donors from all over the world.

For those who want more detailed knowledge on the biochemistry, here's a link to a good podcast interview with the doctor

http://www.twit.tv/fib21

NOTE TO ALL:
There is a lot of medical data out there for safe dosing levels for other diseases and a qualified and determined doctor should be able to piece together a dosing strategy. However, it is greatly recommended that people don't try this on their own - too few people are qualified to understand the biochemistry (to determine if it's appropriate to a specific cancer) and dosing levels. So, don't try this at home

 

[sysyphus]

Nice that it's proving itself useful for once.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well done Canada! Fingers crossed for results.

 

[Che Guava]

COmmon sense in teh Canadian beaurocracy! This is a rare day

 

[Merkinball]

The problem was that the drug was cheap and common - meaning that no drug companies are willing to undergo the $800 million of running it through a clinical trial ... they'd never be able to patent it and profit off it. - El

Come on...you don't seriously believe this do you?

 

[Che Guava]

Come on...you don't seriously believe this do you?

Why not? If its not going to be profitable for them (and there's no guarantee it will work anyhow) why would a corporation invest in expensive testing? Someon else is bound to do it sometime, and they can still sell it, given that it is not patentable.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Indeed, it doesn't imply they are evil.

 

[Che Guava]

Indeed, it doesn't imply they are evil.

Not at all, just good accountants

 

[Yuri2356]

Why not? If its not going to be profitable for them (and there's no guarantee it will work anyhow) why would a corporation invest in expensive testing? Someon else is bound to do it sometime, and they can still sell it, given that it is not patentable.

And thus, who better to devellop it than a body which doesn't care the slightest bit about wasting millions of dollars?

 

[Che Guava]

And thus, who better to devellop it than a body which doesn't care the slightest bit about wasting millions of dollars?

God bless you, Canadian beaurocracy!

 

[JollyRoger]

Come on...you don't seriously believe this do you?

Someone who believes in certain fundamentals of the free market would.

 

[El_Machinae]

Come on...you don't seriously believe this do you?

No, you're right, it's a mangling of statistics.

The average cost of developing a drug all the way to market is ~$800 million, since so many fall by the wayside and the failures are incorporated into the cost of the successes. I'm assuming that you're challenging the price-tag I put on bringing a drug to market, and I misrepresented. Sorry.

The clinical trial process is still expensive, and too expensive for any company to expect to get a profit off of it. It would require gov't funding or private donations to get DCA through the clinical trial process. Venture capital was approached and denied the researcher.

Word-of-mouth is that it's quicker to do a clinical trial in Canada than the US, mainly because our paperwork is less onerous (which has costs and benefits obviously)

 

[Merkinball]

Why not? If its not going to be profitable for them (and there's no guarantee it will work anyhow) why would a corporation invest in expensive testing? Someon else is bound to do it sometime, and they can still sell it, given that it is not patentable. - Che

Why wouldn't it be profitable? I'm being completely serious.

Someone who believes in certain fundamentals of the free market would. - JollyRoger

Oh yeah? What certain fundamentals of the free market are those?

 

[JollyRoger]

Oh yeah? What certain fundamentals of the free market are those?

That a private enterprise set on making profits is not going to undergo expenses for unprofitable ventures.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"Cheap and common"

 

[Merkinball]

That a private enterprise set on making profits is not going to undergo expenses for unprofitable ventures. - JollyRoger

What's unprofitable about it? With all seriousness, what on earth is there to stop them from making a profit on something that's cheap to make? So what. It costs money to test and money to go through clinical trials. Big deal. You slap that into the price when you sell it to consumers, make that money back, then jack the price up another 100% and make your profit.

It's asanine and absurd to think that...of all corporations out there, that DRUG COMPANIES wouldn't do something because they couldn't make a profit.

I got news for you, if Tylenol was a prescription, they could charge $20 a pill and people would pay for it.

When you have mechanisms like Medicaid, medicair, and health insurance which basically outright pays for things. There's no reason not to market this drug.

I mean, you need not look any further at the pharmecuetical industry doing exactly what I describe, than comparing and contrasting the cost of meds here in the US, and north of the border in Canada for the SAME DAMN DRUGS! Or compare and contrast the cost of regular drugs, and generic drugs, that have exact same ingredients.

There's alterior motives at play. The idea that it costs too much to develop, and is too cheap to produce is laughable. Because they could charge ANYTHING for cancer curing drugs and people would pay for it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Because they could charge ANYTHING for cancer curing drugs and people would pay for it

You're right. After Phizer runs it through clinical trials, I'll purchase it in bulk from a chemical-supply company and sell it myself. For the same price as tylenol if I have to.

It's already for sale! There's a 'free rider' problem (I think) on anybody who actually funds the testing.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok Merk, you jack the price up 100% and I will just jack it up 80%. I sell, you don't, I win.

Untill some bastard comes along and only jacks the price 60%. Then he wins. Untill some bastard etc etc

Or we stick together and agree to keep the price artificially higher than it needs to be. But we can't tell anyone because certain organisations would not aprove.

 

[Merkinball]

You're right. After Phizer runs it through clinical trials, I'll purchase it in bulk from a chemical-supply company and sell it myself. For the same price as tylenol if I have to.

It's already for sale! There's a 'free rider' problem (I think) on anybody who actually funds the testing. - El

This is absolutely positively no different than ANY OTHER DRUG! In particular, I ask you to look at Eli Lilly and Prozac. Eli Lilly made...ungodly amounts of money off of Prozac, but when it was litigated that their copyright on it was done, and that generic drug makers could make the SAME DRUG, their stock just absolutely plummeted. Meanwhile, the main competitor, and the company who was already ready to produce the generic, their stock went up...perhaps 100% the day of the litigation. Why? Because generic drug makers were gonna get that free ride, and were going to sell the same drug, at a remarkably cheaper price, and cut massively into Eli Lilly's profit margins. Eli Lilly was ultimately forced to reduce the price of the drug they were producing to a reasonable level in order to remain competitive.

With this case, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that profit cannot be had. The simple fact of the matter is that whoever invested the time and the money to research and ensure this stuff is safe, would have a PATENT on it. And they would be the only people out there that could sell the drug for quite some time.

So you'd inevitably end up with a Prozac situation.

One thing is for certain though, you'd make...unbelievable sums of money with such thing. For a solid period of time, you would literally be able to sell this drug for anything. And I mean ANYTHING, and people would pay for it. Medicare would cover it, medicaid would cover it, insurance companies would cover it. It'd be a slam dunk.

 

[JollyRoger]

The simple fact of the matter is that whoever invested the time and the money to research and ensure this stuff is safe, would have a PATENT on it. And they would be the only people out there that could sell the drug for quite some time.

That is not how you acquire patent rights. Plus, the Supreme Court has recently been raising the bar on what qualifies for a patent and making it easier to free ride off of patents.