SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Anonymous Coward writes in with a story on the misuse of a drug based on Bromopyruvic acid:
The drug in question, 3-Bromopyruvate (3BP), has been hailed by some researchers as a potential breakthrough, but so far the only human data about its efficacy and safety are anecdotal. Many scientists say the drug should not be administered to patients except in carefully controlled experimental settings. If the link to the three deaths is confirmed, that could cloud 3BP's commercial prospects.
[...] Media reports suggest that cancer patients often sought Ross's help after they ran out of conventional therapy options, or to avoid aggressive chemotherapy. He offered a 10-week "basic therapy" against cancer for €9900 ($11,057).
On his website, Ross touted 3BP as "currently the best compound to treat tumors."
[...] 3BP has yet to undergo formal clinical trials. PreScience Labs, a U.S. company founded by Geschwind, received approval for a phase I study from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2013. Geschwind says the trial has yet to start because the company needs partners to finance it.
[...] Eugen Brysch, head of the German Foundation for Patient Rights in Dortmund, says that the government should regulate practitioners of alternative medicine more strictly. "Creativity in therapy must not negatively affect patent safety,"
Additional links for the story:
Commentary from Dr. Lowe - http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/08/17/3-bromopyruvate-what-a-mess
Lots of extra information from Science-Based Medicine:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by butthurt on Friday August 19 2016, @10:41PM
I do understand the distinction you make. However, the possibility of error is inherent to any action we take. Medical errors are always a possibility when undertaking medical treatment. A medical provider has the ability to prevent errors; a patient has less agency in the matter--short of declining to seek treatment.
The traditional treatments for cancer--surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation--all have significant harmful effects, as do many other medical techniques (I doubt that practices such as giving antibiotics to people who have flu-like symptoms qualify as "science-based medicine"). Feel free to quantify that harm.
What was being discussed is analogous to the possibility of a gun accidentally discharging during a game of Russian roulette. I mainly wanted to point out that the James article had given a somewhat higher upper limit: 440,000 rather than 400,000 as the previous poster wrote.