Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Not Looking So Good At Eli Lilly (or AstraZeneca) | Main | The NIH and Conflicts of Interest »

June 21, 2011

Senator Hatch And His Wonderful Industry

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Now, I try to help discover drugs for a living. And boy, do we not discover all that many of them. But you'd get a different impression if you listen to the radio here in the US. So many drugs! So many wonderful things that they can do! Improve your memory, boost your immune system, clean your liver, give you energy, grow hair on your head and flush those toxins out of you like a firehose.

Ah, but these aren't drugs, of course. They are nutritional supplements, silly people, and they are "not intended to treat, cure, or modify any disease". But they say that part low and fast, while the exciting parts are enunciated clearly, con brio, and at least three times. Drugs are foreign chemicals that you put in your body to make it do things, while nutritional supplements, why they're these all-natural. . .things. . .made out of, made out of. . .stuff. . .that you put in your body to make it do things. Anyway, they're different.

And here's the man who says so: Orrin Hatch, to whom (along with Henry Waxman) we owe the Hatch-Waxman legislation that made the supplement industry flourish like the green bay tree. $25 billion a year isn't bad, especially when you consider that the expenses of the supplement companies are just a tiny bit lower than those of the drug companies. Not having to do any preclinical research at all helps, of course, and not having to run any clinical trials at all (nothing for efficacy, nothing for safety) helps, and not having to be reviewed by the FDA helps, too. And then on the other side of the ledger, being able to say any damn thing that comes into your head helps the most of all.

And as you'll see from that article, not only has Senator Hatch himself benefited greatly from his nutritional ties, but so has his family, immediate and extended. And his friends, and his former business partners - pretty much everyone within range, it seems. Each sides regards the other as the gift that keeps on giving. And why shouldn't they?

Comments (59) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Snake Oil


COMMENTS

1. Robert Bruce Thompson on June 21, 2011 12:29 PM writes...

So, to ask the obvious question, why is your company or any other pharma company doing all these expensive clinical trials. In a $25 billion market, I'd think you could make more money by selling your products as nutritional supplements.

Permalink to Comment

2. Chemjobber on June 21, 2011 12:33 PM writes...

You really wonder how Waxman feels about this.

Permalink to Comment

3. Hap on June 21, 2011 12:35 PM writes...

Hey! There are limits on what they can say - after all, they have that little FDA warning in every commercial. Just because everything else they say during the commercial (and sometimes even the name of the product) contradicts the FDA disclaimer doesn't mean anything at all.

I guess Hatch-Waxman is like the command to "let a thousand flowers bloom" in the supplement business - even if some of them are digitalis or hemlock.

Permalink to Comment

4. johnnyboy on June 21, 2011 12:51 PM writes...

You seem a bit agitated, Derek. Here, have some passiflora aromatherapy.

Permalink to Comment

5. LeeH on June 21, 2011 12:51 PM writes...

C'mon Derek. You mean you don't support the free market, unfettered by regulation? Or are you arguing for the removal of regulation of pharma? You're starting to sound like one of those damn socialists. Next thing you know you'll be advocating that the military be taken over by the government.

Permalink to Comment

6. barry on June 21, 2011 12:52 PM writes...

it's going to be very very hard to put this genie back into the bottle. When nutraceuticals were carved out from the FDA's purview in '94 (what is it that you ingest that's neither Food nor Drug?) a monster was born with lobbying power commensurate to that $25billion/annum revenue.

Permalink to Comment

7. pete on June 21, 2011 12:59 PM writes...

Could it be that this mangosteen stuff is really what we drug hunters should have been seeking all along ? That is, a pleasant tasting, orally-available, double strength placebo.

Permalink to Comment

8. Frank Adrian on June 21, 2011 1:02 PM writes...

He's also a big supporter of the RIAA, given that he has recorded a few songs. But at least he's honest - he stays bought.

Permalink to Comment

9. PharmaHeretic on June 21, 2011 1:14 PM writes...

Derek,

Look at the bright side. You might make a better and more secure living selling snake oil than developing drugs.

Many fired and about-to-be-fired pharma people should seriously consider a second career in selling snake oil remedies. It is not as if the world cares about your objectivity or rationality.

Permalink to Comment

10. Myma on June 21, 2011 2:20 PM writes...

Aw, c'mon and be reasonable. What else would they put in those middle three aisles at Whole Foods, more soap? Lord knows I can't buy plain old calcium carbonate antacid there without herbal ginger licorice extracts in it.

Permalink to Comment

11. luysii on June 21, 2011 2:43 PM writes...

#10: Ah Whole Foods ! Shopping as a moral act. Around here it is full of the highly educated and relatively affluent, who buy the middle 3 aisles as avidly as the benighted lower classes buy fast food. P. T. Barnum, where are you now that we need you?

Permalink to Comment

12. Felix on June 21, 2011 2:47 PM writes...

Setting the rules to suit your own interests?

Orrin Hatch = Orren Boyle?

Permalink to Comment

13. patentgeek on June 21, 2011 2:48 PM writes...

The Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 is what led to the sitauation being discussed presently. That Act is distinct from, and unrelated to, the 1984 "Hatch-Waxman Act" which established the basis for Abbreviated NDA (ANDA) filings and 505(b)(2) filings before FDA, which are the basis of the generic drug industry.

Permalink to Comment

14. Fries With That? on June 21, 2011 2:51 PM writes...

People in power feather their own nests, it's just that they used to be more ashamed of it in the past. Now it's a badge of honor to be opportunistic and to take advantage.

Permalink to Comment

15. MoMo on June 21, 2011 3:05 PM writes...

You all are too hard on natural products because they threaten your existence and livelihoods and you don't need Pharma or the FDA to get them. You feel negated, exposing feelings of vulnerability and anxiety.

But if this depresses you and you reach for your Pharma drugs there is hope on the horizon. Simple music therapy has the same pharmacological outcome in depression as anything Pharma could spend billions developing.

So put on some Lawrence Welk and fire up the bubble machine and give your neurons a break from their drug-induced stupor.

Their effect is the same and much cheaper.

Permalink to Comment

16. barry on June 21, 2011 4:17 PM writes...

maybe a Pharmaceutical industry that has cut off its own Research in favor of ever more Marketing and Merging no longer has a legitimate gripe when the nutriceuticals claim a few billions a year.

Permalink to Comment

17. Sili on June 21, 2011 4:54 PM writes...

As pointed out by Goldacre, most of these supplements ain't made by mom'n'pop businesses. As I understand it, Bayer makes lossa vitamins for instance.

Permalink to Comment

18. McChemist on June 21, 2011 6:05 PM writes...

There was a nice defense of alternative medicine in The Economist a few weeks back:

http://www.economist.com/node/18710090

To sum up, the pharma industry spends a heck of a lot of cash trying to beat the placebo effect, when sometimes all you need is the placebo effect itself to make people better. Alternative medicine is here to stay, and this isn't really a bad thing.

Permalink to Comment

19. Space Jam on June 21, 2011 6:46 PM writes...

Weekly to fortnightly massage therapy and relaxation is the key. It'll cure cancer, no really I'm not lying.

Permalink to Comment

20. Bbooooooya on June 21, 2011 7:34 PM writes...

25 bill/yr, m'eh.

Lipitor does (for now) half that.

Margins not that great, and no protective moat.

I do like the irony of herbal life ( formed makers of ephedrine) sponsoring jersey inthe AMGEN tour of Cali bike race....

Permalink to Comment

21. Jsoh on June 21, 2011 8:22 PM writes...

Think of it as pharmaceutical Darwinism. If imbeciles want to piss their money/lives away on this stuff, there will be less traffic on the Long Island Expressway. Nonetheless, Hatch is pond scum.

Permalink to Comment

22. Anonymous BMS Researcher on June 21, 2011 8:54 PM writes...

Tobacco, pot, various deadly mushrooms, etc., are all natural products that I for one would not want to eat. Homeopathic medicines at least ought to be pretty safe since they contain few if any molecules of the "active ingredient."

But perhaps the loopiest notion of all is the notion of "detox." Millions of years of evolution have given us some very effective toxin-destroyers (at many Discovery Working Group Meetings a major topic of discussion has been how can we make our molecules survive these toxin-destroyers a little longer).

Then there's the whole "stiumulate the immune system" thing. Tegenero found a molecule capable of doing that really well and put some people into the intensive care unit. Sometimes you want a stronger immune response, sometimes you don't!

Permalink to Comment

23. Biff on June 21, 2011 9:13 PM writes...

Somehow, above average investment returns are pretty common in Congress. A recent study indicated that members of the House of Representatives outperform the stock market by an average of 6%, while Senators beat it by 12%. Not that the SEC considers trading on inside knowledge by politicians to be "insider trading", or anything disreputable, of course. For example, see the recent articles at http://www.cnbc.com/id/43183551 and http://www.cnbc.com/id/43471561

Permalink to Comment

24. WB on June 21, 2011 9:41 PM writes...

I'd love to cash in on the whole alternative medicine racket. Sadly, I've got morals and that prevents me from doing such things. Oh well, back to the bench and hoping I do find a real cure for a real disease....

Permalink to Comment

25. JM on June 21, 2011 11:34 PM writes...

Isn't Hatch-Waxman dealing with generic drugs, not with supplements? There's a Hatch-Harkin deal about supplements, but from everything I can find, this is largely Orrin Hatch's baby.

Permalink to Comment

26. Gerald Smith on June 22, 2011 2:08 AM writes...

Hmmmmmmm...... Let me see... I spent years at one time learning to identify plants in the wild and preparing medicines from it. So I do have some perspective on the whole thing. I ma a doctor's son and grew up with the PDR as my bedside reading.
My problem is that herbal medicines probably account for about half a dozen deaths a year wheras the death toll from pharamceuticals exceeds a hundred thousand. I love pharamaceuticals, but I owe my life to drugs that were developed from natural sources. I have been cured of Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia after almost dying of it. The main effective drugs are several members of the adriamycin family, a natural metabolite of Vitamin A all trans retinoic acid, and arsenic trioxide, the classic medieval poison. No synthetic drug has any real effect on this disease and you are dead in three weeks if you try. With the above three used early on, if you survive the first month then the long term cure rate is something like 95%. It used to be 0% I think big pharm still underestimates the potential of natural derived drugs. The big problem is that an awful lot of what people go to the doctor is not some major disease, but old age chronic stuff or they just plain feel lousy. Synthetic pharamceuticals are often far too powerful for so so garden variety complaints and cause way too many dire and too often lethal treatment compl;ications. If I were a doctor dealing with mild anxiety I would much rather prescribe kava as a crude botanical extract (no liver toxicity unlike highly purified extracts in Europe) than a benzodiazepine with its serious long term risk of profound mental derangement especially in the elderly. Studies of South Sea Islanders, many who have consumed kava their whole lives and had taken more than a hundred thousand doses failed to find any harmful effects at all; this in a plant drug that has no known lethal dose and no risk of addiction! Even the suspicious European extracts that caused such a furor had a risk of hepatotoxicity 1/50th that of a typical benzodiazipine. The natural plant drug has no detectable risk at all. Ah! But which is going to make big profits for the drug companies?
You guys seriously underestimate the potential value of this stuff for treating less than serious compaints without toxicity. And lots of it really works too! I used a herbal extract based on mytragina speciosa (kratom)to treat the pain of fybromyalgia and it was comparable in effectiveness to the synthetic drug tramadol (in my opinion a really fine drug). I still sometimes use it for its euphoric effect when I am feeling really down. There are a lot of bullshit drugs in the natural medicine market and to find the real stuff you need to know what you are deoing. But i suspect there are a lot of bullshit drugs in the pharmaceutical market too and they seem to kill a lot of people.....

Permalink to Comment

27. machira on June 22, 2011 4:11 AM writes...

“He who does not know food, how can he understand the diseases of men?” – Hippocrates (460–357 B.C.)

Permalink to Comment

28. Cartesian on June 22, 2011 4:21 AM writes...

I hope that Senator Hatch is listening to Werner Heisenberg (in "Physics and Beyond" by W. Heisenberg) :

"I thought sure enough that it had to be recalled all the time to those which will assume in our place the responsibility of the functioning of the State that, in order to govern, it was not enough to assure an equilibrium between some opposite interests ; and that there were frequently some unavoidable necessities, based on the structure of the modern world, in front of which any irrational attitude of evasion toward some sentimental and unrealistic considerations could only lead to some catastrophes.”

Anyway it seems that some French politicians are abusing and can be dangerous for science.

Permalink to Comment

29. patentgeek on June 22, 2011 6:27 AM writes...

JM @ 24:

You are correct; see my post #13. Hatch-Waxman has nothing to do with "nutriceuticals".

Permalink to Comment

30. Virgil on June 22, 2011 8:46 AM writes...

@26 Gerald Smith...

Where to even begin? Well for starters there's your nefarious claim that "herbal medicines probably account for about half a dozen deaths a year". Care to back that up with data? Of course, what you should include in the stats are the people who die not from taking a herbal medicine itself, but the ones who die because they take herbal instead of a regular drug which could have let them live. Self medication results in under- and late-diagnosis of important and really nasty diseases which are perfectly treatable by regular modern drugs.

Of course, the other thing you fail to mention is that when a drug kills someone, there's a mechanism and a regulatory body to deal with it. There's a "target" to bring a suit against. When a herbal medicine or plant causes illness, what are you gonna do? Sue nature? Just because law-suits against big pharma are more heavily documented in the media, doesn't mean herbal meds are without problems. Ever heard of Matrixx (the makers of zicam, that lovely homeopathic med which resulted in loss of smell for thousands of users)?

Then there's your silly notion that pure pharmaceuticals are somehow "too strong" and the raw plants are better. Let me counter with a lovely example... would you rather have the pain-relief and diet effects of a custom-designed cannabinoid receptor agonist that has few side effects, or would you rather smoke medical marijuana and get 1000 other by-products along the way, plus a side dose of lung cancer if you mix it in with tobacco as many users do?

Would you rather have an aspirin pill, with a metered dose of a known active constituent, or go round the back of some Mom&Pop store, have them boil up a batch of willow bark, not knowing when it was harvested, or even if it is real willow, and then maybe it works, maybe it doesn't depending on how long they boiled it for? If it kills you, who is your family going to sue for recompense?

Permalink to Comment

31. Virgil on June 22, 2011 8:48 AM writes...

@26 Gerald Smith...

Where to even begin? Well for starters there's your nefarious claim that "herbal medicines probably account for about half a dozen deaths a year". Care to back that up with data? Of course, what you should include in the stats are the people who die not from taking a herbal medicine itself, but the ones who die because they take herbal instead of a regular drug which could have let them live. Self medication results in under- and late-diagnosis of important and really nasty diseases which are perfectly treatable by regular modern drugs.

Of course, the other thing you fail to mention is that when a drug kills someone, there's a mechanism and a regulatory body to deal with it. There's a "target" to bring a suit against. When a herbal medicine or plant causes illness, what are you gonna do? Sue nature? Just because law-suits against big pharma are more heavily documented in the media, doesn't mean herbal meds are without problems. Ever heard of Matrixx (the makers of zicam, that lovely homeopathic med which resulted in loss of smell for thousands of users)?

Then there's your silly notion that pure pharmaceuticals are somehow "too strong" and the raw plants are better. Let me counter with a lovely example... would you rather have the pain-relief and diet effects of a custom-designed cannabinoid receptor agonist that has few side effects, or would you rather smoke medical marijuana and get 1000 other by-products along the way, plus a side dose of lung cancer if you mix it in with tobacco as many users do?

Would you rather have an aspirin pill, with a metered dose of a known active constituent, or go round the back of some Mom&Pop store, have them boil up a batch of willow bark, not knowing when it was harvested, or even if it is real willow, and then maybe it works, maybe it doesn't depending on how long they boiled it for? If it kills you, who is your family going to sue for recompense?

Permalink to Comment

32. Phil on June 22, 2011 10:03 AM writes...

FTA: “How do I know this isn’t just snake oil?” Dr. Johnson, an osteopathic physician, asked. “It’s a really simple answer. A company that is selling snake oil is not going to stay in business for almost 11 years and grow as fast as this company is growing.”

Flawless logic. Snake oil salesman never get rich.

Permalink to Comment

33. Anonymous523 on June 22, 2011 12:56 PM writes...

I vaguely remember the legislation in question came about after some raids on vitamin stores that were handing out publications, in whose production the government was involved somehow (funding studies? actually issuing?), that suggested their products had therapeutic uses. When the government aims to solve a problem, sometimes they overdo it and cause an opposite problem to show up.

Permalink to Comment

34. David Young on June 22, 2011 4:58 PM writes...

Gerald Smith,

If you were cured of advanced testicular cancer rather than APL, you would be boasting about the curative powers of Cisplatin, an inorganic anticancer drug. Look, it's not where the drug comes from, but whether or not it works. Good pharmacy has one foot firmly planted in "natural products" and the other in "synthetics and semi-synthetics."

Permalink to Comment

35. cancer_man on June 22, 2011 7:29 PM writes...

Speaking of snake oil, here is the conclusion of
a recent human study of SRT 501 (resveratrol) out of U. of Leichester:

Cleaved caspase-3, a marker of apoptosis, was significantly increased by 39% in malignant hepatic tissue following SRT501 treatment, compared to tissue from the placebo-treated patients. SRT501 warrants further clinical exploration to assess its potential clinical utility.

Permalink to Comment

36. Wrench on June 22, 2011 9:38 PM writes...

Hey, let's get everyone REALLY fired up and talk about scientology...

Permalink to Comment

37. processchemist on June 23, 2011 1:10 AM writes...

@34

Not impressed at all. 5 g/day dosage, and caspase 3 activation detected in the liver tissue? I wonder what result you can obtain following the same protocol with an antocyanidin of choice (pelargonidin, cyanidin, and so on...)

Permalink to Comment

38. cancer_man on June 23, 2011 3:33 AM writes...

Yeah, I wonder too.

By the way, in terms of toxcicity, how do pelargonidin, cyanidid and so on compare with resveratrol?

I assume about the same price - $5.00 a day for all of the above?

Permalink to Comment

39. processchemist on June 23, 2011 4:27 AM writes...

@cancer man

since pure antocyanidins are much expensive, a standadized red grape extract would probably do the job for 50 cents/days or less. But hardly I'll define this "a cancer therapy".

Permalink to Comment

40. cancer_man on June 23, 2011 7:26 AM writes...

autocyanies are much more expensive and toxic.

"50 cents a day grape extract" is a straw man. SRT 501 is not that cheap nor just a grape extract.

I guess we will know more in 2012 when sirtris reports on its synthetics.

Permalink to Comment

41. epistemology on June 23, 2011 8:06 AM writes...

Caveat emptor, you commies.

Permalink to Comment

42. Cellbio on June 23, 2011 10:29 AM writes...

Re comments by #34

Not sure if you were offering a 39% increase as support of SRT 501, or were being sarcastic. But to play it straight, with n's of 3 placebo and 6 treated, it is either noise or a really impressive signal, exactly the kind of early clinical data that fails to provide great justification for either going forward or stopping. And then, how does one interpret 39% more apoptosis at one time point after 14 days of therapy? Does it mean there has been a consistently higher rate still evident at the time of measure? Would a higher rate of apoptosis ultimately lead to an apparent decrease of apoptotic markers because the cells that died are, well, dead and gone? Wondering if this is a useful surrogate measure outside of the initial rise in drug concentration.

Permalink to Comment

43. processchemist on June 23, 2011 10:36 AM writes...

@cancer man

Red grape extract contains many antocyans as well as resveratrol. Only now I remember that the blueberry extract is one of the richest in antocyanidins (and is cheap). Years ago a customer of my shop was investigating cyanidin chloride in oncology, but they dropped the project. Honestly I don't have at hand the tox data, anyway I think that in europe antocyans are labelled "generally regarded as safe" (they're used as pigment in the food industry).

Permalink to Comment

44. cancer_man on June 23, 2011 3:59 PM writes...

@Cellbio

Where did you get 3 placebo and 6 treated from?
I get your general point, but if the number of people in the trial was high enough why wouldn't this be an interesting result?

Permalink to Comment

45. Cellbio on June 24, 2011 12:15 AM writes...

Did I read the paper wrong, thought that was the size of the histology exploration looking at caspase.

My other point was, with small trials, small effect sizes appear, but fail to be confirmed in larger trials. Interesting if true? Maybe. Would a 39 percent elevation of a surrogate marker translate into a meaningful impact on survival? I don't know, it is a small effect size, but one could argue that it could tip the scale enough to make a meaningful difference.

Permalink to Comment

46. Anonymous on June 24, 2011 1:46 AM writes...

"Would a 39 percent elevation of a surrogate marker translate into a meaningful impact on survival?"

Who knows? And this is exactly the point (Am I wrong, or in phase I too, talking about oncology, usually we look for a decrease in tumor growth and so son?),
In my limited experience, with a 39% elevation of Caspase 3, no other markers detected, no clear idea about the mechanism (because of the notorious flaws with the fleur de lys assay for sirtuin activation, dubious results of the animal models and so on), an in house project would have been discontinued, or in other contexts no investor or buyer would have put a dollar on that project. But , as I said, my experience in the field is really limited.

Permalink to Comment

47. Cellbio on June 24, 2011 9:06 AM writes...

@45, in my experience as well, an effect size on a surrogate of 1.4x would be less than impressive and do more harm to project momentum than offer support for a project that also has the challenges you note.

Permalink to Comment

48. cancer_man on June 24, 2011 1:10 PM writes...

@Cellbio

"Did I read the paper wrong, thought that was the size of the histology exploration looking at caspase."

Just copy and paste the part where it said 3 placebo, 6 treated.

I think you made that up.

Permalink to Comment

49. Cellbio on June 25, 2011 2:09 AM writes...

Oh boy, the trolls have infected this site....here it is cancer man. But why would you believe me now?

Figure 2 Apoptosis reflected by cleaved caspase-3 (A, representative
photomicrographs, B, quantitation of photomicrographs) in hepatic normal and
tumor tissue of patients who consumed SRT501 (N=6, black bars) or placebo
(N=3, white bars) daily for 14 days. Values are the mean+/-SD. (a) represents
significant difference between normal and tumour tissue for SRT501 group.
(b) represents significant difference between normal and tumor tissue for
placebo group. (c) represents significant difference between SRT501 and
placebo tumor tissue. (

Permalink to Comment

50. John Thacker on June 25, 2011 8:18 AM writes...

I'll take people wasting their own money on fairly cheap but useless supplements any day over the same people doctor-shopping in order to get expensive but useless-for-their-condition (though efficacious for other things) drugs prescribed. The latter ends up spending insurance and government money, which ends up being the rest of our money.

Consider the situation in the UK, where homeopathy is available for prescription on the NHS. At least in the US, if you want that junk, you pay your own money and not anyone else's.

Permalink to Comment

51. John Thacker on June 25, 2011 8:32 AM writes...

The first comment, still unanswered, asks why real pharma companies don't just sell in the supplement market. I think it's a real question.

Note that there is one thing that supplement companies are absolutely forbidden to do-- mention real science. (See cf. the Cheerios box label issue.) They can say anything they like, so long as they say nothing at all. That goes for even nutritional supplements where there are legitimate studies suggesting benefits for some people, like Vitamin D. Of course this leaves the ground open for supplement makers to advocate even legitimate things without any kind of reference or science moderating its use.

It would thus be illegal for a pharma company to try to do a middle way of selling real drugs as supplements, with rigorous peer-reviewed studies of efficacy cited but without going through the full FDA process. That is definitely not allowed, and the FDA will crack down. But as long as you totally avoid all mention of science, you're okay.

Permalink to Comment

52. cancer_man on June 27, 2011 12:32 AM writes...

I believe you now because you posted it.

Permalink to Comment

53. Cellbio on June 27, 2011 3:06 PM writes...

Glad to hear you believe me now. So what do you think of the results now? A 39% improvement in a histological assessment of apoptosis in a study of 9 total patients; perhaps "SRT501 warrants further clinical exploration to assess its potential clinical utility..." because its potential utility has not yet been assessed.

Permalink to Comment

54. cancer_man on June 28, 2011 3:02 AM writes...

I'm not sure. I agree that its potential utility hasn't been assessed outside of GSK which just said it wasn't effective without releasing any data.

I take it you don't think any further SRT501 cancer research is warrented?

Permalink to Comment

55. Cellbio on June 28, 2011 10:38 AM writes...

I am all for people and companies advancing ideas that stretch the convention, but if I were in charge of the budget, I'd not launch into clinical trials of SRT501 based upon the limited data I have seen, but would listen to a full argument about the merits of continued research at the bench. If someone presented a cogent plan, then I would allow the work to continue. In cases like this, projects based upon promise, hype or perhaps a bit of fraud, sometimes the fundamental rationale disappears totally, sometimes the base case remains to be further explored, even if later developments have to be reconsidered.

Permalink to Comment

56. cancer_man on June 29, 2011 2:33 AM writes...

But what makes SRT501 unusual is that GSK was testing it on cancer patients and then pulled the plug obviously because it couldn't make much money even if it helped against cancer. We should waent to know if this resveratrol does anything agaisnt cancer. If not, then case closed. But the case isn't closed.

By the way, what is your evidence to claim " a bit of fraud."

Not to be hostile, but why not post with your real name and make that accusation against Sinclair?

Permalink to Comment

57. MoMo on June 29, 2011 10:42 AM writes...

IMPORTANT NEWS UPDATE!

Listen up! Nutraceuticals can be toxic! I repeat! Can be toxic!

Just heard the case of a 30 yo female taking safe supplements that had to be rushed to the hospital with CV distress. Almost died of a record BP spike.

So where is the FDA now?

Permalink to Comment

58. Cellbio on June 29, 2011 7:36 PM writes...

I am making no accusation. "In cases like this" indicates similar scenarios I have seen, not referencing this specific instance, in which the justification for a project was based on hopeful hype at best, but crossed to "a bit of fraud" when clear contrary evidence is not shared honestly.

How about you try to apply your standards for reason and justification for arguemnts you put forth. GSK pulled plug for what obvious reasons? Really? WTF?

Permalink to Comment

59. cancer_man on June 29, 2011 9:17 PM writes...

What cases "like this" have you seen that you know to have involved "a little fraud"?

Resveratrol has been shown to be effective against different cancers in mice. Several studies have shown that SRT 501 at large 5g doses were well tolerated in humans yet GSK claims that half way through the multiple meyloma study, they quit SRT 501 because some taking it had kidney problems. But the number with kidney problems was no higher than for those cancer patients not taking SRT 501. That seems a little strange.

GSK reported that since some patients wanted to keep taking SRT 501, they would continue under a "suspended study." That lasted a few weeks before the study was terminated.

We know that GSK is testing two patented drugs that they think will be more bioavailable and unlike SRT 501, a nice source of revenue if they show effectiveness against cancer.

If GSK released the data of its two cancer studies, it would help to determine if more SRT 501 cancer studies are worth starting.

Since they won't release that data, it seems reasonable to start a larger trial.

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Gitcher SF5 Groups Right Here
Changing A Broken Science System
One and Done
The Latest Protein-Protein Compounds
Professor Fukuyama's Solvent Peaks
Novartis Gets Out of RNAi
Total Synthesis in Flow
Sweet Reason Lands On Its Face