OT: UofM-founded company kills cancer using ultrasound
A company founded by UofM engineers and doctors is using ultrasound to treat liver cancer without surgical intervention and virtually no side effects.
The technology works by using high-powered, very precise ultrasound to liquify tumors without damaging the surrounding tissue. Breaking the cancer cell walls exposes the tumor antigens which trigger the immune response, providing a secondary benefit of increased recurrence prevention.
The treatment is currently in limited trials but has proven very successful so far, and received FDA approval to treat liver tumors in humans earlier this week.
October 13th, 2023 at 9:16 PM ^
^This is awesome!!
October 13th, 2023 at 9:20 PM ^
This is awesome news! Big pharma won't like it though.
October 13th, 2023 at 9:50 PM ^
Johnson & Johnson liked it so little that they are the principal investor.
October 14th, 2023 at 2:04 AM ^
Yes, I'm sure "Big Pharma" would hate owning the $400 billion cancer therapeutics market.
October 13th, 2023 at 9:25 PM ^
Fuck cancer. Took my mom 6 years ago.
October 14th, 2023 at 2:40 AM ^
Mine too. January 2017.
October 14th, 2023 at 10:32 AM ^
April 2016 for mine.
October 14th, 2023 at 7:24 AM ^
Yep. My wife is fighting it now.
October 14th, 2023 at 1:43 PM ^
Prayers for her! Best wishes!
October 13th, 2023 at 9:35 PM ^
Cancer feels like the ultimate Lucy pulling the ball away. Every couple of months you hear about a new treatment, and yet cancer persists. I hope this one provides a real path forward.
"between 2008 and 2012 the US Food and Drug Administration approved most uses of cancer drugs without evidence of survival or improved quality of life (67%, 36/54).1 Among the 36 such approvals, only five (14%) uses were shown later to improve survival compared with existing treatments or placebo after a median of 4.4 years on the market.
Firstly, when drugs do offer survival advantages, the gains are often marginal. Fojo and colleagues found that the median improvement in survival among patients treated with 71 drugs for solid tumours was just 2.1 months"
October 13th, 2023 at 10:05 PM ^
It's almost as though its more profitable to simply treat the disease rather than cure it
October 14th, 2023 at 2:06 AM ^
I feel badly for any person who holds this degree of cynicism.
October 14th, 2023 at 5:32 AM ^
I feel badly for anyone dumb enough to believe that pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists who own our politicians would have any interest in anything but lining their pockets.
But you do you
October 14th, 2023 at 7:00 AM ^
Such a statement of our times. Not that Big Parma (or any “big” anything) deserves the benefit of the doubt but the deeply held cynicism is a poison we inflict on ourselves.
October 14th, 2023 at 8:01 AM ^
A cancer curing agent that actually worked (and there's so many different types and subtypes of cancer that a "cure" would likely just be for one specific type) would earn massive $$
October 14th, 2023 at 11:12 AM ^
A cure for cancer like the one in the article, which, apparently doesn’t care about types and subtypes, is truly remarkable and would be wildly more profitable than other cancer treatments that have to target each specific subtype of disease. Also, given the mortality rates of cancer, that industry doesn’t appear to have the same issues that come up when trying to cure a chronic disease.
October 14th, 2023 at 9:06 AM ^
Physician here, and I wish this conspiracy would die.
Science aside, if a catch-all cure was available, you don't think some pharma company wouldn't want to instantly become simultaneously the wealthiest and most celebrated group of all time? That's what a true cancer cure would do.
You think that there is a conspiracy between absurdly wealthy pharma CEOs, struggling scientists, overworked grad students, public health employees, and the oncologists who actually care for dying cancer patients every day to keep a cure secret for the sake of profits? And you think this conspiracy extends not only between competing companies, but across the entire freaking globe?
And you think that their holding this conspiracy despite having discovered and released near-cures for many cancers already? Many childhood lymphomas, for example, were death sentences when I was born. Today, survival rates for some are in the high 90% range.
Remember that cancer affects everyone. That includes even the most miserly pharma higher-ups. We all want cancer cured.
October 14th, 2023 at 9:11 AM ^
I'm just curious, do you get kickbacks from pharmacy reps for prescribing specific medications?
October 14th, 2023 at 9:50 AM ^
You have moved from random nut job into truly despicable human territory with that.
You can point out the system sucks, the regulatory process is corrupt, and the there are pharmaceutical companies that have done bad things. I will agree and provide testimony to that.
But, and I say this with personal knowledge of drug development in rare diseases, wanting to treat/cure/help is the driving force for most people in the field.
Money will always be a factor, but to suggest pharmaceutical companies and people intentionally withhold cures is offensive and idiotic.
October 14th, 2023 at 10:37 AM ^
There are many people that want to go and cure diseases for altruistic reasons. The barrier is that in a capitalistic structure a for-profit company has a fiduciary duty to apply capital to the most profitable ideas. Let’s say you have two drugs competing for capital at a large pharmaceutical firm, and one drug needs to be used every day by 20 million people in the United States for the rest of their life to treat their complications where the other drug you can give to 20 million people once and they are cured. It is impossible to charge enough for the cure to where you could even come close to the recurring revenue, business model of maintaining chronic diseases. Now, people will say a new firm can come up with a cure. But, that new firm also has to compete for venture capital and venture capital has to make the same decisions. And venture capital has to raise their investment fund from limited partners, and the only way they raise investment funds from limited partners is by providing the biggest returns. The biggest returns come from recurring revenue businesses.
October 14th, 2023 at 10:44 AM ^
This is some of the most disingenious bullshit I have ever read. The fact is the money is being put into treatments, not just for cancer but for plenty of other diseases as well.
I had a pharm rep come to my house and spend 2 hours convincing me to take Humira years back for my autoimmune. Then I seen how much they bill the insurance for the injection and I realised why.
Acting like he was saying something crazy makes you a despicable human with a clear motive as far as I am concerned.
October 14th, 2023 at 10:21 AM ^
I never have. The days of that happening are mostly gone, though this practice may persist for certain surgical devices.
Some physicians get consulting fees for various companies or device manufacturers. These are not dependent on use or prescriptions. I've made less than $500 doing this, and only in giving market research feedback.
Physician kickback information is actually available publicly following the Sunshine Act. You can use https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/search to find this information. For the most part, you'll find it pretty boring.
EDIT: No need to downvote his question. Many people are suspicious of that physician kickbacks. He's not wrong to ask.
October 14th, 2023 at 10:49 AM ^
Austral,
I am responding to your first post. First, thank you for being a doctor.
As a doctor, though you don’t seem to have any understanding of how companies and investors are required to make decisions. A business model for a cure cannot compete with a business model for treating a chronic disease. There doesn’t have to be a worldwide conspiracy. It doesn’t have to be any conspiracy at all. It’s a legal requirement under a for profit schedule C corporate structure.
Now I do know a doctor who, with degrees from Harvard and another very well known medical school, could tell you how their research for a cure was difficult to fund because of interference from the Pharma industry. I can also tell you that based on a review one year of 200 drugs going through phase 1-3 trials to treat a specific type of disease, all 200 were either treatments or medical devices that maintain the disease and not one was a cure. There certainly are efforts to cure various chronic diseases but they are very difficult to fund.
October 14th, 2023 at 11:27 AM ^
Lets say there was all the money in the world for a cure, no business bullshit.
It is not realistic to expect pharma to develop a complete cure chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, CAD, etc. You're talking like cures to diseases are so easy to come by. We are still trying to figure out how/why these diseases develop.
Doesn't help that many Americans are fat, smoke, and eat like shit. Not really helping themselves here either
October 14th, 2023 at 12:43 PM ^
Who says it is not realistic. Are you a scientist? I am aware of specific cases where this is/was an issue … led by highly credentialed medical scientists.
We know a lot about how many diseases work including many viral, autoimmune, and cancers. I don’t believe we know what causes type 2 diabetes.
pharma loves that many Americans have a shitty diet. They love by about $300 billion.
October 14th, 2023 at 3:19 PM ^
I'm a doctor, who are you?
October 15th, 2023 at 4:03 AM ^
As doctors have explained to me, they focus solely on approved treatments and not basic research. My business background should be clear from my posts.
October 15th, 2023 at 9:39 AM ^
But as a doctor, you are responsible for staying up to date on your field and you work with, especially in the academic setting, many physicians doing research. Performing basic research is a prerequisite to graduating medical school
Btw have you seen big pharma/insurance executives? They are fat as sin. If anyone wants a cure to this shit, wouldn't it be them?
October 16th, 2023 at 1:18 AM ^
I have known doctors that are very up to date and some that only are up to date on what’s approved. I am not saying one or the other is right or wrong. I think there are some specialties where you have to be up to date on the latest developments. I can imagine it’s tough to stay up to date after you graduate.
I am also not defending big pharma and i am definitely not defending healthcare rebillers (they used to be insurance companies). Quite the opposite. The rebillers take from providers. But pharmaceutical companies do act based on the incentives and laws they must currently follow. That is a problem.
October 14th, 2023 at 12:07 PM ^
I disagree with nothing you said. As I said previously, my experience is in the rare disease space.
I understand that the economics and return on investment may favor the treatment of chronic and prevalent conditions. However, there is significant investment in other areas also. I lament the competition for talent and capital, but that is far from the position that pharma is keeping us sick.
The system is deeply flawed, but ascribing malevolence to the entire industry is nonsense.
Think of this for a moment. The value of a 'fast track' pass to expedite regulatory review is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. There should be enough capacity to get any treatment that might help treat or cure timely. Instead, the price to play that game is ghastly. I suspect that the exorbitant cost of new drug development drives choices to unfavorable results too often.
And now on to football. GO BLUE
October 14th, 2023 at 12:52 PM ^
I didn’t think anyone was saying Pharma is keeping us sick or that there is some big conspiracy.
October 15th, 2023 at 12:10 PM ^
BoFan,
I'm not sure what your qualifications are, nor precisely how you arrived at the conclusion that I "don't have any understanding of how companies and investors are required to make decisions" from my post. This is especially surprising since in addition to my clinical work, I co-lead a med-tech company and, well, make those decisions, albeit on a relatively small scale. This isn't unfamiliar territory to me.
I believe your anecdote about your Harvard-trained friend. There are instances of staged therapeutic deployment, unfortunately. Examples I could list include various medications and (I suspect) at least one case with vascular stents. I'm certain there are many others. Yes, this leads to unnecessary morbidity and mortality. No, it's not the same as withholding development of a sweeping cure for cancer. It's also lightyears from the scope of the clearly-conspiratorial comment I replied to and reflects a nuance that would not have distracted from my point.
The 200 drugs you mention (or devices as stated later--which were they?) for an unspecified disease is too vague to mean anything, but I'll buy that too; the nature of chronic disease specifies lack of a current or anticipated cure. We focus on mitigating damage, slowing progression, minimizing suffering, etc., and our advances reflect those goals. Yes, I'd love a cure for peripheral arterial disease. My vascular surgery colleagues would be happily out of work. Precisely zero of them expect this to happen.
Your writing suggests you're an intelligent person, and perhaps someone with experience in corporate management, finance, or legal work. Unfortunately, it also suggests you may believe at least some of the conspiratorial elements I was responding to, if perhaps not by label. I hope that is not the case. Be well and go blue.
EDIT: I just saw your post, "As doctors have explained to me, they focus solely on approved treatments and not basic research." This suggests a staggering lack of insight into how medical advances are developed. I have numerous colleagues who are very accomplished basic science researchers as well as clinicians. I'm less of a researcher these days, but still maintain some involvement in basic and translational science. This is the case for perhaps the majority of us at academic centers.
October 14th, 2023 at 10:25 AM ^
I think it's less binary than that. I think it's more of the allocation of resources in that big pharma may not have an immediate financial incentive to cure it because treating it is profitable. As such, proper R&D budgets are not driven at a cure whereas they may be in a more altruistic environment.
October 13th, 2023 at 10:20 PM ^
A few things:
1) There are hundreds of ‘cancer subtypes’, and every single cancer is unique regarding the mutations it has, etc. There is never going to be a ‘cure-all’ for cancer, however certain cancers are highly treatable, and some even do have cures.
2) Cancer treatment is radically different and always evolving, especially since 2008-2012. All types of new target therapies are available that prolong life often in the years range compared to previous standard chemotherapy, with far less side effects.
3) If you want to look at it from a purely economic standpoint, yes not worth 2.1mo as you quoted above. See how you feel about that when you/your loved one has cancer.
4) The annual cost of diabetes and its complications is far higher than the cost of cancer related spending in America, and that’s a much more preventable disease.
October 14th, 2023 at 12:10 AM ^
I've been a type one diabetic for 30 years. If you had the nerve to tell me that my diabetes was preventable I'd bite your fucking ear off
Take that bullshit somewhere else
October 14th, 2023 at 1:57 AM ^
I think he’s saying diabetic compilations are easier to prevent (strictly medically speaking).
October 14th, 2023 at 5:20 AM ^
I know he said
4) The annual cost of diabetes and its complications is far higher than the cost of cancer related spending in America, and that’s a much more preventable disease.
October 14th, 2023 at 9:59 AM ^
As a type 1, you also know that your diabetes is very different from type 2. Regarding type 2, all of the things said are demonstrably true. Given that type 2 accounts for upwards of 90% of diabetes, the point is absolutely spot on. The issue you have is diabetes is the common name for both and your experience as someone with the rare one does not invalidate the truth for the vast majority.
October 14th, 2023 at 10:26 AM ^
That understanding of the difference is true for somebody that’s knowledgeable, but you and I both know that the vast majority of people have no idea that type one and type two are completely different diseases. So that assumption of not being aware of the difference should also apply to this poster’s statement about preventable complications since he didn’t specify the type of diabetes.
By not specifying which type of diabetes, his statement became inflammatory. And, given that he didn’t read the original article, his first statement about cancer also comes across as uninformed. So if his first statement is uninformed, you have to assume the last statement is also uninformed.
October 14th, 2023 at 5:05 AM ^
Sorry to hear that, but you know damn well he was talking about Type 2 diabetes, which I have and could have prevented if I had been more careful with my diet and more diligent about exercise.
October 14th, 2023 at 5:25 AM ^
Then he should have said type 2 diabetes
Quick question. I was taking metformin to help with insulin resistance, but jfc all it made me do was poop.
My doc wants me to try some other type 2 med (janumet) but I'm scared since it's still metformin.
Will my underwear be safe?
October 14th, 2023 at 9:37 AM ^
I am not a doctor, but I am 99% confident that any diabetic endocrinologist would tell you Type 1 diabetics should not be taking type 2 drugs. What type of doctor gave you that advice? Maybe you should get a different doctor.
The best thing right now for type 1 is the latest medtronic real time pump. Of course every patient has their unique circumstances.
October 14th, 2023 at 10:04 AM ^
Odd thing. There is such a thing as type 1.5 and other variants that make one insulin resistant as well as unable to produce. Some people are truly blessed.
Metformin and shitting is a known thing. Often gets less of a problem over time and strict adherence to regime, but it would have to worth it to live that way.
October 14th, 2023 at 10:07 AM ^
I think it would be called type 3. Because 1+2 = 3.
That would be a pretty shitty thing if somebody actually had both. It would seem like something very difficult to control.
I was told quite definitively that the answer is no. You can’t have both. But that doesn’t mean the medical community can’t be wrong.
October 14th, 2023 at 11:03 AM ^
No, you can’t have both. Type 1, your pancreas makes no insulin. To process glucose you need an outside source of insulin and have to regulate it yourself.
Type 2, you still make insulin but either not enough or your body can’t regulate how much it makes.
Type ones can develop insulin resistance, where they can’t absorb it and they need more and more to do the same job. Type 2 drugs like Metformin and Symlin can help make Type ones more sensitive to insulin and make it more effective.
I suppose in theory you could develop type 2 and then by way of injury or illness lose the function of your pancreas, but they would never say you had both.
It’d be like you were paraplegic and then lost your legs in a car accident. Are you still paraplegic?
October 14th, 2023 at 10:55 AM ^
This is absolutely false. Many times metformin is prescribed to type 1 diabetics for insulin resistance
October 14th, 2023 at 11:24 AM ^
It depends on the Dr giving the advice it seems. Also, to play to your big pharma sensibilities, they are always trying to pitch new indications for an existing drug. And as I understand it, it’s a much lower bar to fund and get approval for a new indication for an existing drug than it is to fund a new drug.
I’ll state again that I am not a doctor and am not qualified to give medical advice.
October 14th, 2023 at 9:44 AM ^
My wife was on metformin for a bit; I think it was kind of a chicken/egg scenario but around that time she started having terrible pain & gastroparesis. Lost over 20% of her body weight in about 9 months and developed gi complications all the way up to her esophagus. Now she goes to “swallow school”.
Moral of the story: T1D is an a absolute bitch and outrageously expensive.
October 14th, 2023 at 8:30 AM ^
I loathe patients like you