mikes
Senior User
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 158
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:09 pm Post subject: Re: 3-bromopyruvate - Dr. Young Ko |
 |
|
This is the first I have heard of 3-bromopyruvate. The type of behavior being implicated at Johns Hopkins is indicative of what I was communicating to Leo last evening in my post under "The War On Cancer" in this subforum when I said: "Also, their institutional environment was not always conducive to productive thought. "
While there are people dying of disease, with no hope of cure, these people are bickering amongst themselves. This discourages people like Dr. Ko from moving forward with new discoveries and making real progress against cancer.
It appears from the link you gave that this treatment may or may not be ready for human trials.
What I cannot understand is why someone cannot try it before the trials if they are willing to sign some kind of liability waiver. The only reason that I can think of is that the laws and regulations were written under the pressure of lobbyists from the "Cancer Industry" in such a way to discourage independent studies and to favor lengthy and expensive trials and approval processes. This is easy for the big guys and impossible for independents.
Otherwise, Dr. Ko could just "pick up her marbles" and introduce the treatment herself.
From what was indicated in your link, Dr. Ko has the knowledge to move forward with the treatment, but is being impeded by her environment. And without the backing of a large research facility or a pharmaceutical company, she has no chance of success.
Keep us posted and good luck. |
|
ScottM
New User
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:45 am Post subject: 3-bromopyruvate and Johns Hopkins |
|
|
Hi Everyone,
I am a researcher in the diagnostics sector and I was a colleague of Dr. Ko's back in Washington State University. I can speak for both her integrity and her scientific abilities. She is not only one of the most dedicated scientists that I've ever had the priveledge to know, but she is one of the few researchers who really cares. This is why she did not hesitate to put her entire career in jeopardy for the sake of her research.
Although it is of course too early to know if 3-BrPA will work in humans, it is of course exactly that question that should be under examination right now. Unfortunately the way in which Johns Hopkins is stifling her research, while egregious, is not unique. The problem is much bigger than JHU or any single university. The system is broken from top to bottom. First, let me apologize in advance for the length of this posting, but even at this length, I can barely touch on what needs to be said.
Anyone who knows a little bit about the current state of cancer treatments knows that with a few limited exceptions (eg. Gleevec), cancer treatment has changed very little since the 1970s. The cytotoxic agents used in chemotherapy are the same, and unfortunately the 5-year survival times for most cancers have also remained unchanged. But it isn?t only cancer. Remember ?Jerry?s kids?? There has not been one single drug to help those children with muscular dystrophy since the start of that famous telethon. Not one. They still die the same inevitable horrible deaths. Lou Gehrig?s Disease? Not one new treatment since the 1970s. Alzheimer?s Disease, cystic fibrosis, Huntington?s Disease, scleroderma, pemphigus, myelofibrosis, pulmonary fibrosis, malaria, CJD, polycystic kidney disease, the list goes on and on. For all of these terrible diseases (as well as many others) there has been absolutely no treatment advances in 30 years. Furthermore, there have been virtually no new antibiotics (or any other anti-bacterial agents) developed in the last 30 years. This despite the ominous problem of antibiotic-resistant strains. New vaccines? Nothing.
What makes this particularly exasperating is that the last thirty years has seen the most incredible advances in our understanding of molecular biology and our ability to manipulate life at the molecular level. Many refer to it as ?the biochemical revolution?. In the 1960s they cracked the DNA code. In the 1970s and 1980s we learned how to manipulate DNA (to ?clone? genes) and we worked out the molecular basis for most of the process of life. No period in history ever has, or probably ever will, see advances in our understanding of how life works than the last 30-40 years. Never have we learned so much and never have we had so little to show for it. While molecular science has advanced more than any other (except computer technology), medicine has stood still.
Although this is true only in the treatment area. Diagnostics has advances leaps and bounds. In other words, we are getting better at telling you what will kill you, but we still can?t do anything about it.
So why is this true? The system is broken at every level. It would take many pages to do the problem justice, but I will try to summarize:
1) Corporate Medicine
In modern America, only corporations develop drugs. And there are very few of them. Even though your tax dollars are spent by universities to do the basic research, the few
remaining mega-corporations involved decide which drugs get developed and which don?t. It is a very ?bottom-line? decision and saving people?s lives doesn?t enter in to it. They will not develop any new drug that?s not patentable (hence the death knell for 3-bromopyruvate) and they almost never develop a drug unless it will be taken by a patient continuously for years. Hence drugs like vioxx and lipitor. The pharmaceutical industry figured out years ago that there is much more profit in ineffectively ?managing? a disease than there ever would be in curing it.
2) Academia
The academic sector has been corrupted by the same enormous amounts of money that corrupted the drug companies, only in a different way. Most of the money going in to academic research is for so-called ?basic research?. That is, research designed to understand the basic ?nuts and bolts?. Although this is necessary it has come to the point where this is basically the only research that academia does. Dr. Ko?s research is the proverbial exception that proves the rule. Almost all the tax money as well as almost all the money from cancer foundations and other disease-fighting charities goes to this type of research. The result is that our academic institutions NEVER produce a cure for anything, or even get close. Under the current system, they never will. For example, this week?s big break through was the announcement of the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome, and how that will eventually lead to wonderful cures. Everything done in academia will ?eventually? lead to great cures. Only ?eventually? never comes. However, what does come is money. Lots of money. Professors and especially administrators get rich accepting tax money as well as corporate money for their buildings and esoteric research while leaving the ?applied? research to someone else.
That ?someone else? is the same pharmaceutical industry mentioned above.
3) Government
The FDA exists to ensure that drugs are safe and effective. But these days corporations give massive amounts of money to the very officials who regulate them. When the FDA is not ignoring the dangers of new drugs and devices, it is putting obstacles in the way of possible treatments for terminal diseases. The dirty little secret with vioxx is NOT that it?s dangerous. The danger would be considered minimal if the drug was worth anything, but it?s not. It?s not one iota more effective than ibuprofen, but since it?s patented, it?s infinitely more expensive. Imagine that: Merck making billions of dollars off a drug no better than aspirin. This is the business model the pharmaceutical industry has adopted and the main focus of the FDA is to facilitate this process.
Meanwhile the Orphan Drug Act is essentially dead and the FDA?s bureaucracy still means it takes years to get a drug approved, even for terminally ill people who only have months to live. They simply don?t contribute enough money to the politicians who appoint the FDA officials.
What?s the Solution??
It is not enough to get involved. You must get angry. Everyone must understand that this situation will continue for years, maybe even decades unless priorities are completely changed. Right now, no politician even talks about curing cancer, or anything else for that matter. It?s on the bottom of their list of campaign priorities. Those who hold the most potential to affect a change are the charitable organizations. They must be pressured to only spend their money on research directly related to treatments. Not basic research that might lead to something 20 years from now or will help build an impressive new building at a university. (This is not to put down the importance of basic research, it is merely calling for balance by putting applied research back into academia). If these organizations decided to use their funding power to ensure that those who receive their funding are working directly on treatments and then held them accountable for tangible results, this would start to change things.
But more than anything, we need a ?Manhattan Project? for medicine. If the federal and state governments decided to put billions of dollars towards directly finding treatments for diseases in the manner of the Manhattan project or the race to the moon, it would not only stimulate the economy by supporting thousands of high paying jobs, but we might even find a cure for something. But until politicians, academicians and researchers make finding treatments for disease a national priority, the elusive cure for cancer will always be ?someday?. |
|
Search 
Email Digests
Register to post
Profile 
Check private messages 
Log in
What is this ?
We subscribe to the HONcode principles. Verify here. All content and posts are copyright.
