4 ms·

>The fact is, our Big Pharma/FDA/IP-driven approach to medicine makes it almost impossible to test and profit off something like garlic, or a low glycemic index

>The fact is, our Big Pharma/FDA/IP-driven approach to medicine makes it almost impossible to test and profit off something like garlic, or a low glycemic index diet or intermittent fasting or turmeric or fruit and fiber or astragalus, etc. That's patently false. The vast majority of cancer funding does not come from industry or private interests, but from government or non-profit sources. If I can convince my PI that garlic or a low glycemic index diet can improve survival outcomes in an inducible cancer mouse model, then I'd be grinding garlic and putting mice on starvation diets for the next 2 years.

refurb 11y ago
You're both wrong. Most drugs comes from private companies, not public institutions. It's about a 2/3 private and 1/3 public split. Note, that's discovery, not development. Private companies almost exclusively bring discoveries to market. Second, yes, if garlic cured cancer drug companies could make money off of it. Isolate the active compounds, optimize it for efficacy and patent it. Kind of what they've already done for antibiotics, antifungals, anticholesterols and anticancer drugs. It's nothing new.
- jszymborski 11y ago
  Public institutions wouldn't necessarily find a druggable small molecule, but every last step up until that point is almost assuredly being funded by the public. That'd include verifying that diets rich in garlic or what have you have an affect on overall survival. My point still stands, private funding is not the bottle-neck. If garlic or low glycemic index diets actually made a difference in overall survival, it would mostly likely be discovered in a publicly funded institution. A private institution would then jump on the opportunity to "discover" and develop a small molecule that is suitable for drugging and IP'ing based on the findings of the public lab.
  - chii 11y ago
    What if the effects are not based on one active compound, but on a complex mix which could be rather chaotic, but an experienced practitioner could devise a treatment, but a drug company can't easily pinpoint a one size fits all formulae?
    - jszymborski 11y ago
      It's inconceivable that an "experience practitioner" can devise a treatment a drug company can't manufacture, but you are correct that the economics of personlised medicines aren't financially viable for drug companies. I don't think there is a simple solution for that, but I can tell you is that these economics still won't prevent the discovery of such treatments. Some initial proof of this is the fact that the scientific community has embraced the concept that cancer is extremely heterogenous and will require a unique treatment for each individual patient (which has generated the "personalised medicine" buzzword).
- rdtsc 11y ago
  > It's about a 2/3 private and 1/3 public split. It is not as clear sometimes. Private companies provide grants to professors and departments in public colleges for research related to their drugs. Is that included in "private" or "public" in the 2/3-1/3 split? Because depending on which side you'd argue on, you can make it flip flop. "Well it is public because these are employees of public institutions and their time and effort is spent researching drugs for private pharma companies, instead of say teaching or doing other research". Or one can say "It is private, because the pharma companies pay for it". Now I don't know which is more likely but just thought, that would be an interesting point to look at.
  - refurb 11y ago
    The data i saw (i'll see if i can find a link), just looked at whether or not a public institution's name was on the patent. Not a perfect way to do it, but probably one of the easier ways.
    - rdtsc 11y ago
      Makes sense. That's a reasonable metric.
dev1n 11y ago
Big Pharma provides major campaign contributions Congress [1]. Would not be surprised if most of the funding from government is to support the OP's idea. [1]: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=h04&cycle=2016&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=h04&c...
themgt 11y ago
Take a look at allicin and ajoene.

refurb 11y ago

You're both wrong. Most drugs comes from private companies, not public institutions. It's about a 2/3 private and 1/3 public split. Note, that's discovery, not development. Private companies almost exclusively bring discoveries to market. Second, yes, if garlic cured cancer drug companies could make money off of it. Isolate the active compounds, optimize it for efficacy and patent it. Kind of what they've already done for antibiotics, antifungals, anticholesterols and anticancer drugs. It's nothing new.

jszymborski 11y ago
Public institutions wouldn't necessarily find a druggable small molecule, but every last step up until that point is almost assuredly being funded by the public. That'd include verifying that diets rich in garlic or what have you have an affect on overall survival. My point still stands, private funding is not the bottle-neck. If garlic or low glycemic index diets actually made a difference in overall survival, it would mostly likely be discovered in a publicly funded institution. A private institution would then jump on the opportunity to "discover" and develop a small molecule that is suitable for drugging and IP'ing based on the findings of the public lab.
- chii 11y ago
  What if the effects are not based on one active compound, but on a complex mix which could be rather chaotic, but an experienced practitioner could devise a treatment, but a drug company can't easily pinpoint a one size fits all formulae?
  - jszymborski 11y ago
    It's inconceivable that an "experience practitioner" can devise a treatment a drug company can't manufacture, but you are correct that the economics of personlised medicines aren't financially viable for drug companies. I don't think there is a simple solution for that, but I can tell you is that these economics still won't prevent the discovery of such treatments. Some initial proof of this is the fact that the scientific community has embraced the concept that cancer is extremely heterogenous and will require a unique treatment for each individual patient (which has generated the "personalised medicine" buzzword).
rdtsc 11y ago
> It's about a 2/3 private and 1/3 public split. It is not as clear sometimes. Private companies provide grants to professors and departments in public colleges for research related to their drugs. Is that included in "private" or "public" in the 2/3-1/3 split? Because depending on which side you'd argue on, you can make it flip flop. "Well it is public because these are employees of public institutions and their time and effort is spent researching drugs for private pharma companies, instead of say teaching or doing other research". Or one can say "It is private, because the pharma companies pay for it". Now I don't know which is more likely but just thought, that would be an interesting point to look at.
- refurb 11y ago
  The data i saw (i'll see if i can find a link), just looked at whether or not a public institution's name was on the patent. Not a perfect way to do it, but probably one of the easier ways.
  - rdtsc 11y ago
    Makes sense. That's a reasonable metric.

dev1n 11y ago

Big Pharma provides major campaign contributions Congress [1]. Would not be surprised if most of the funding from government is to support the OP's idea. [1]: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=h04&cycle=2016&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=h04&c...

themgt 11y ago

Take a look at allicin and ajoene.