Would Penicillin-like drugs get produced in the US anymore? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 05-13-2010, 07:06 PM

Dichloroacetate Effective Against Aggressive Brain Cancer

With all of the Cancer charities spreading 'awareness', you would think they would throw a little money at some researchers who have come up with a cheap and effective method that looks like it holds promise after the small test. And if you follow the money, it doesn't lead to large corporations that can patent it and make billions. In this case (and in the US most of the time), it doesn't seem to lead to the government either. The government might benefit from lower Medicare payments, but doctors and big pharma campaign contributions might dry up if congress would give too much money to small researchers that produced simple and cheap cures.

Slashdot Science Story | Cheap Cancer Drug Finally Tested In Humans

As for why this is in Politics, this is the main thing that I like about socialized/communist medical care. There are incentives for the government to reduce costs and put money towards vaccines and cures. In the capitalist system, they need to make sure people get sick, and then treat the symptoms for years and years. There is no reason for a large bio-tech company to make this DCA drug treatment, since their competitors will be able to copy it, or researchers in foreign countries can produce it without royalties. Yes, there is the issue of where does the initial funding come from in order to produce and develop these drugs in socialized healthcare systems if there is no monitary incentive, but are we getting to a point where people can be perfectly healthy, but not have it cost very much?

The other big question, is where is all this money that is being raised by charities going to? How much is going to universities that don't have ties to drug companies (the drug companies probably funded the labs and provided a few professors), to allow the company to commercialize any discoveries? How much is going to lobbists and administraive costs? How about advertising costs, instead of going to paying for medical care of people who are sick with the disease?

I think the best solution is to have a x-prize type approach to this. If your lab or company cures AIDS, cancer, whatever, there should be a large sum of money that they would win. It doesn't matter how much the treatment costs, if it is a difficult treatment, or if it is just one shot.

robot_parade · 05-13-2010, 07:37 PM

I'm confused...what makes you think donations to cancer charities *don't* go to research? Cancer is the most-researched disease in human history. Millions of dollars a year are spent on cancer research every year.

Regarding this drug and research...research of existing drugs for alternate purposes is a thriving endeavor. However...from the (very short) article, this is a small, preliminary study. Most such studies don't pan out...no need to point fingers to eeevil drug companies and doctors trying to make a buck.

That said, funding of less profitable forms of medicine, like 'off-label' uses of drugs and diseases not found in the developed world, is a major problem. Drug companies are here to make a profit - there's nothing evil about that, that's just business. You don't work for free, and neither do they.

ASU2003 · 05-13-2010, 07:47 PM

I'm not saying that they aren't spending money on research, I'm saying that they aren't researching drugs that they can't patent and control. The universities (besides the great press), would want to sell their discovery to the drug company, and I'm not sure they would bother going through the process with a simple Penicillin-type drug that they wouldn't be able to charge a lot for.

genuinegirly · 05-13-2010, 08:40 PM

I have more faith in humanity and the scientific process than you do.
Any treatment that cheap, if published, will be pursued somewhere.
If nothing else, a company could make money by marketing the product appropriately. Or a company could use the cheap cure as a PR stunt / morale booster akin to Proctor & Gamble's PUR packets, giving it away for free, knowing that if people like their company they'll be more likely to purchase other products from them.

robot_parade · 05-18-2010, 04:57 AM

Here's a great blog post about the ongoing research (and quackery) around DCA.

Quote:

...as frustrating as it is, as slow as it is, letting science take its course to determine if DCA works, how it works, and for what cancers it works, is the best method to make sure that the most patients are helped and the fewest are harmed. I don’t say this because I want DCA to fail; I say it because I would very much like to see DCA succeed.

raging moderate · 06-03-2010, 11:16 AM

The fact is that doctors DO get kickbacks for prescribing drugs, and name-brand prescriptions ARE more profitable than generics. Some money donated to research IS misdirected. All of that is the case.

However, there's no way that if this treatment is actually successful, that it won't be marketed and patented and upcharged and widespread and over-prescribed and all the other wonderful things that companies do with drugs currently on the market today. If there is a market for it, companies will fight to fill that market.

05-13-2010, 07:06 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Would Penicillin-like drugs get produced in the US anymore? Dichloroacetate Effective Against Aggressive Brain Cancer With all of the Cancer charities spreading 'awareness', you would think they would throw a little money at some researchers who have come up with a cheap and effective method that looks like it holds promise after the small test. And if you follow the money, it doesn't lead to large corporations that can patent it and make billions. In this case (and in the US most of the time), it doesn't seem to lead to the government either. The government might benefit from lower Medicare payments, but doctors and big pharma campaign contributions might dry up if congress would give too much money to small researchers that produced simple and cheap cures. Slashdot Science Story \| Cheap Cancer Drug Finally Tested In Humans As for why this is in Politics, this is the main thing that I like about socialized/communist medical care. There are incentives for the government to reduce costs and put money towards vaccines and cures. In the capitalist system, they need to make sure people get sick, and then treat the symptoms for years and years. There is no reason for a large bio-tech company to make this DCA drug treatment, since their competitors will be able to copy it, or researchers in foreign countries can produce it without royalties. Yes, there is the issue of where does the initial funding come from in order to produce and develop these drugs in socialized healthcare systems if there is no monitary incentive, but are we getting to a point where people can be perfectly healthy, but not have it cost very much? The other big question, is where is all this money that is being raised by charities going to? How much is going to universities that don't have ties to drug companies (the drug companies probably funded the labs and provided a few professors), to allow the company to commercialize any discoveries? How much is going to lobbists and administraive costs? How about advertising costs, instead of going to paying for medical care of people who are sick with the disease? I think the best solution is to have a x-prize type approach to this. If your lab or company cures AIDS, cancer, whatever, there should be a large sum of money that they would win. It doesn't matter how much the treatment costs, if it is a difficult treatment, or if it is just one shot.

05-13-2010, 08:40 PM	#4 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	I have more faith in humanity and the scientific process than you do. Any treatment that cheap, if published, will be pursued somewhere. If nothing else, a company could make money by marketing the product appropriately. Or a company could use the cheap cure as a PR stunt / morale booster akin to Proctor & Gamble's PUR packets, giving it away for free, knowing that if people like their company they'll be more likely to purchase other products from them. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

06-03-2010, 11:16 AM	#6 (permalink)
raging moderate Insane Location: Whatever house my keys can get me into	The fact is that doctors DO get kickbacks for prescribing drugs, and name-brand prescriptions ARE more profitable than generics. Some money donated to research IS misdirected. All of that is the case. However, there's no way that if this treatment is actually successful, that it won't be marketed and patented and upcharged and widespread and over-prescribed and all the other wonderful things that companies do with drugs currently on the market today. If there is a market for it, companies will fight to fill that market. __________________ These are the good old days... formerly Murp0434

05-13-2010, 07:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	I'm confused...what makes you think donations to cancer charities don't go to research? Cancer is the most-researched disease in human history. Millions of dollars a year are spent on cancer research every year. Regarding this drug and research...research of existing drugs for alternate purposes is a thriving endeavor. However...from the (very short) article, this is a small, preliminary study. Most such studies don't pan out...no need to point fingers to eeevil drug companies and doctors trying to make a buck. That said, funding of less profitable forms of medicine, like 'off-label' uses of drugs and diseases not found in the developed world, is a major problem. Drug companies are here to make a profit - there's nothing evil about that, that's just business. You don't work for free, and neither do they.

05-13-2010, 07:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I'm not saying that they aren't spending money on research, I'm saying that they aren't researching drugs that they can't patent and control. The universities (besides the great press), would want to sell their discovery to the drug company, and I'm not sure they would bother going through the process with a simple Penicillin-type drug that they wouldn't be able to charge a lot for.