Comments on: Nanotechnology delivers lethal dose of drug to prostate cancer cells http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903 examining transformative technology Fri, 03 May 2013 19:22:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903#comment-829496 Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:43:22 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903#comment-829496 I really like this theme. Very Nice. I really like this theme. Very Nice.

]]> By: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903#comment-796233 Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:48:32 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903#comment-796233 Seriously? Prostate cancer? Why not glioblastoma or something more worthwhile. And yeah, before you start, I know there are patients who are hormone-refractory or those that failed conventional surgery/radiotherapy. But survival benefits are notoriously difficult to prove in prostate cancer. Platinum compounds have been used very frequently in other cancers with much poorer survival. Why not try a model that will improve your chance of showing survival benefit? I think it's time we helped out patients with lung cancer - small cell or non-small cell. They've been getting the shaft ever since cancer research began! I guess it's about the stigma of "causing your illness" Seriously? Prostate cancer? Why not glioblastoma or something more worthwhile. And yeah, before you start, I know there are patients who are hormone-refractory or those that failed conventional surgery/radiotherapy. But survival benefits are notoriously difficult to prove in prostate cancer. Platinum compounds have been used very frequently in other cancers with much poorer survival. Why not try a model that will improve your chance of showing survival benefit? I think it’s time we helped out patients with lung cancer – small cell or non-small cell. They’ve been getting the shaft ever since cancer research began! I guess it’s about the stigma of “causing your illness”

]]> By: Gregory Bloom http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903#comment-788565 Gregory Bloom Tue, 09 Dec 2008 02:56:20 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903#comment-788565 Pre-clinical testing on animals takes 1-3 years. Then, assuming it shows promise in animals, anywhere from 2-10+ years for phase I, II and III testing in humans. If all goes well, the drug manufacturer can then apply to the FDA. The FDA can camp on it for 6 months, and can require additional testing if there is some part of the results of the human trials that they don't like. All in all, it takes anywhere from 3 to 13+ years for a drug to trudge through the pipeline. Personally, I wish the FDA would open a category of unapproved drugs with a big fat skull and crossbones on the label that warns the user that this stuff could kill you, or worse! The users would be allowed access to these unapproved drugs on condition that their situation is closely monitored, and that their results are communicated back to a central database which is available to the public. Also, such unapproved drugs would have to be made available free of cost. (That way the manufacturer has to continue getting formal approval before they can turn a profit). There are many people whose circumstances make it a no-brainer for them to be the first to gulp down some promising drug. Those that saw benefit would make it easier for others to follow in their choice, long before formal approval is completed. Sick people would have immediate access to possible cures, fresh from the lab. Drug manufacturers would gain an early 'litmus test' for whether their drugs are dramatically good or bad and could thus be more nimble in their pursuit of approval for winners. Pre-clinical testing on animals takes 1-3 years. Then, assuming it shows promise in animals, anywhere from 2-10+ years for phase I, II and III testing in humans. If all goes well, the drug manufacturer can then apply to the FDA. The FDA can camp on it for 6 months, and can require additional testing if there is some part of the results of the human trials that they don’t like. All in all, it takes anywhere from 3 to 13+ years for a drug to trudge through the pipeline.

Personally, I wish the FDA would open a category of unapproved drugs with a big fat skull and crossbones on the label that warns the user that this stuff could kill you, or worse! The users would be allowed access to these unapproved drugs on condition that their situation is closely monitored, and that their results are communicated back to a central database which is available to the public. Also, such unapproved drugs would have to be made available free of cost. (That way the manufacturer has to continue getting formal approval before they can turn a profit). There are many people whose circumstances make it a no-brainer for them to be the first to gulp down some promising drug. Those that saw benefit would make it easier for others to follow in their choice, long before formal approval is completed. Sick people would have immediate access to possible cures, fresh from the lab. Drug manufacturers would gain an early ‘litmus test’ for whether their drugs are dramatically good or bad and could thus be more nimble in their pursuit of approval for winners.

]]> By: Jim Lewis http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903#comment-786268 Jim Lewis Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:21:26 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903#comment-786268 I don't know, but experiments with cells in the laboratory are generally rather early in the drug development process, so I would guess this is more than a couple years away from becoming available. I don’t know, but experiments with cells in the laboratory are generally rather early in the drug development process, so I would guess this is more than a couple years away from becoming available.

]]> By: Harry L. Cook http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903#comment-786027 Harry L. Cook Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:08:27 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2903#comment-786027 When will this be generally available? When will this be generally available?

]]>