March 22, 2007EfficacyCancer is in the news again today. "Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., announced today that his wife's cancer has returned, but that his presidential campaign will go on." Mrs. Edwards' cancer is apparently a metastasis of her breast cancer, thought effectively treated in 2004 with radiation and chemotherapy. And the metastasis site is now within bone, which makes it difficult to treat: The bone is one of the most common places where breast cancer spreads, and once it does so it is not considered curable. When it comes to cancer, the present day "standard of care" as it's called - radiation treatments and chemotherapy - is brutal on the body and bleak in long-term prognosis. Cancers are very rarely referred to "cured" but instead are said to be in remission. The good news is that the scope and quality of cancer fighting research is truly impressive in this nascent age of genetic science. The bad news is that no new treatments have thus far been approved by regulatory bodies which do much more than to extend a patient's life by a few months or years. What's more, the cutting edge pharmaceuticals being developed are monstrously expensive - on the order of $10,000 per week with treatments required for life in some cases. But in February 2007 something different came to light. A biomedical researcher at the University of Alberta, Canada, Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, published a research paper in the journal 'Cancer Cell' that showed "Cancer Mitochondria Are Hyperpolarized and Have Suppressed Oxidative Metabolism, Both of which Are Reversed by DCA." "DCA" or dichloroacetate, is a simple compound that has apparently been approved for treatment of certain rare metabolic disorders in children. It is also a long-standing compound and can't be patented. Nonetheless, unless Dr. Michelakis' team's discovery is another cold fusion debacle, it could be a safe and powerful new treatment for this devastating disease. If true, this could also be an incredible threat to the big business of cancer cures. But the more pressing concern is what is happening with DCA today among current cancer patients, some of whom are considered "terminal." They are treating themselves - illegally - with this unproven compound. Desperate cancer patients are self-medicating with a cheap compound that has yet to be tested in humans, despite dire warnings of potential toxic poisonings. Predictably, the medical establishment and government regulatory bodies reactions range from extreme caution to total fear of the unknown. But for someone with no hope left, what's to lose? Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, the cardiologist whose academic paper sparked the worldwide fervour, said people shouldn't take DCA until clinical trials prove it is safe on humans and actually shrinks tumours as it did in rats. This is a complicated moral situation, one on which I've had difficulty forming an opinion. I think though my attitude is best expressed by an opinion on "thedcasite.com" which asks, "Is DCA worth trying?" We absolutely think so..Pharmaceuticals Posted by JohnGalt at March 22, 2007 2:53 PM |
I post in "Philosophy" so you just have to post in "Pharmaceuticals." Coincidence?
I think it is criminal for the government to disallow terminal cancer patients the right to try any therapy they would like. I was surprised that you called it a "complicated moral situation," jg. It seems pretty easy to me. Angel Raich should be allowed to use marijuana to ease her pain and Elizabeth Edwards, should she so choose, should be allowed to try DCP.
I can see no legitimate reason for the government to prohibit either one of these women from directing their own treatment.
Posted by: jk at March 22, 2007 6:11 PMNo, there is nothing complicated about government coercion. It is bad. What's complicated is... a few things:
Medical professionals, including the researcher who discovered the effect, strongly discourage human use. Is this because they really believe there's a safety concern, because they're fearful of government or industry retribution or, in the case of the discoverer, because he has a patent that he'd like to see commercialized?
Drug companies spend millions to explore complicated compounds with novel mechanisms but [apparently] aren't interested in a potentially simple cure. Is this because they don't believe in its potential or because there's more profit potential in the alternatives?
Given the uncertainties listed, what decision does a desperate patient make? This is where it gets complicated. In addition to not prohibiting access to a treatment, government also should not have a knee-jerk cautionary reaction to it.
Posted by: johngalt at March 23, 2007 3:38 PMI guess we're in complete agreement (as usual -- right!) There are some very difficult decisions to be made. I just don't want governmnet to make them.
Posted by: jk at March 24, 2007 1:45 PM | What do you think? [3]