Re-purposing old drugs for cancer: sometimes old ‘uns can be good ‘uns

Today's post is from our chairman Robin Daly who discusses how the re-purposing of drugs could unlock new potentials for treating cancer.

The re-purposing of old drugs for cancer is making headline news this year. So is this really ‘new’? Is it even ‘newsworthy’? Or is it simply yet another of those endless ‘cancer breakthrough’ stories so beloved of the media?

To answer the first question: this is far from a new idea. The incidental positive effects of some old, safe, tried and tested drugs on cancer has been noted for many years. For example, metformin, given to people with diabetes to control their blood sugar levels, has the striking effect of transforming their risk of developing cancer from higher than normal healthy people to lower. The thing that is new is the level of interest around this phenomenon.


You might have expected, given the appalling, runaway cancer statistics and the spiralling cost of treatment, that an observation such as this effect of metformin might have been heralded as potentially another groundbreaking medical breakthrough along the lines of Fleming spotting the mould in his petri dish that led to penicillin. But in the event, this, along with dozens of other similar observations, was noted as ‘interesting’ and relegated to a ‘footnote’ of medical history.

Fortunately, a few pioneering doctors have noticed these medical ‘footnotes’ and begun using these drugs as part of their integrative protocols to control cancer. One of the most instantly striking features of the drugs is their extraordinary diversity. Apart from metformin, they include an anti-parasitic drug called mebendazole; a statin, one of a class of drugs developed to lower the risk of heart attacks but increasingly seen to be ‘barking up the wrong tree’; an old antibiotic, doxycycline; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen. On the face of it, this is a
completely random collection of unconnected medicines. Certainly within the current orthodoxy of cancer as a genetic disease, caused by defects in the genes leading to changes in DNA and cell mutation, it’s hard if not impossible to make sense of it all.

This is where another old idea comes to the rescue: in 1924, the scientist Otto Warburg put forward the notion that cancer has essentially one root cause - damage to the cells’ energy generators, known as mitochondria1 (1).  Again, this looks like one of those breakthrough scientific observations - and indeed Warburg eventually received a Nobel Prize for making it - but all too soon it found itself relegated to the category of  an interesting observation, merely an effect of the basic genetic problem. But if we dust off Warburg’s theory and use it to illuminate these random pieces that appear to come from completely different jigsaws, we can start to see how they do in fact fit together in a way that makes complete sense. We can see how all these drugs have a disruptive effect on the ‘hallmark’ feature of all cancer cells - their damaged metabolism.

The reason for much of the recent media exposure is that a group of scientists and oncologists have launched a low budget trial in London* in which they are enrolling late stage patients with any type of cancer on a programme of four re-purposed drugs. This programme can be added to existing standard treatments. Very unusually, the trial facilitators take an active interest in all the ‘integrative’ approaches a patient may be using such as dietary interventions, oxygen therapies, vitamin C infusions or heat treatment (hyperthermia), and take careful note of these.

Since they are fully signed up to the metabolic theory of cancer, such non-toxic approaches make complete sense as additional ways of targeting cancer’s trademark metabolic features, whilst simultaneously supporting healthy cells. I understand that early results look very promising and that the trial is still open to further applicants.

How could we have overlooked such a potential goldmine of methods to control cancer? The combination of a statin and metformin alone has been observed to reduce cancer risk by a staggering 80% (2). There is a serious danger of the trial results making the best of cutting-edge cancer treatments look ridiculous - not to mention ridiculously expensive. The problem of course is that the main driver for healthcare innovation is business, and sadly health is only a secondary consideration for business. Their interest is in profits, and there are clearly no big bucks for the corporates in this particular goldmine. Out-of-patent drugs are cheap. The four drugs in the trial come in at less than £20 per month, hardly worth mentioning alongside something in the order of £5000-£20,000 per month for targeted gene therapy.

The obvious fact that we cannot afford to entrust the health of our nation to corporations must be assimilated and acted on by our government if we are to turn around the headlong long rush into multiple chronic conditions. For too long the food and pharmaceutical industries have been profiting at the expense of our nation’s health. To begin to turn the tide, we need strong government initiatives to drive unprofitable research into cheap solutions and to control the parameters of what is allowed into our food supply.

To return to the other two questions I asked at the outset: I’d say re-purposing of drugs  certainly is newsworthy. In fact I’d say it needs as much exposure as it can get to alert the public to the realities of 21st century ‘cancer research’. And as news, I think - I sincerely hope - it just might be a real ‘cancer breakthrough’ this time.

Read more blogs from Robin here

* Care Oncology Clinic: http://careoncologyclinic.com

1. Warburg, O. (1956) On the origin of cancer cells. Science 123 (3191), 309-314.
Warburg, O., Posener, K, and Negelein, E. (1924) Ueber den stoffwechsel der tumoren. Biochem Z 152, 319-344. OpenURL

2. Khurana, V., Sheth, A., Caldito, G. and Barkin, J.S. (2007) Statins reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer in humans: a case-constrol study of half a million veterans. Pancreas 34 (2), 260-265.
DeCensi, A. et al. (2010) Metformin and cancer risk in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Prevention Research 3 (11), 1451-1461.

Those 3 words: "You have cancer" - Dr Nasha Winters

This week's blog is written by Dr Nasha Winters who we interviewed on our radio show in June about her book “The Metabolic Approach To Cancer” which she wrote with Jess Higgins Kelley.

Coming up to my 26^th year out from a terminal cancer diagnosis, I am no stranger to the stigma, fear, overwhelm, confusion and paralysis that can accompany such a life-changing phrase: “You have cancer”. 

I am also hypersensitive to the impetus to jump immediately into treatment with no regard to the individual or to the origins of this process. The real medical emergency of a cancer diagnosis IS the diagnosis itself. How you respond and react to those three words can profoundly impact your therapeutic outcome. 

Rushing blindly in to a surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, targeted therapy, alternative therapy, dietary intervention, etc. is a dangerous and slippery slope. There is no reason why you shouldn’t take a moment and breath. 

Those 3 words - “You have cancer”- are simply a light switch coming on. This is an opportunity to start using that light to illuminate what is happening in, on and around you.  What is this diagnosis trying to tell you? This is NOT the time to dive headfirst into any particular treatment approach. It is the time to start your detective work. 

A few life saving and life changing recommendations I would make for anyone on this journey - whether it is your first time or a recurrence, is this:

1)   Stop. Be still. Breath. Turn off the computer. Don’t immediately talk to everyone you know.  This is YOUR body. This is YOUR process. It is a sacred moment to get really clear on how you got here and where you need to go next.

2)   Get a second opinion. Even a third. And from different institutions. You will find, for the most part, the recommendations will vary. Find what resonates with you.

3)   TEST.  BEFORE someone starts any form of treatment get the following:

a.   If you had a biopsy that led to this diagnosis, have it sent off for molecular profiling to a company like Caris, Foundation One, Rational Therapeutics, etc.

b.   If you didn’t have a biopsy, and you want/need one, perhaps meet with an integrative oncology practitioner who can prepare your body for the biopsy to help keep the cells intact with things like modified citrus pectin or scheduling biopsy/surgery and scans around menstrual cycle as your hormonal levels will impact results, and the likelihood of metastasis is higher if biopsy/surgery done during the estrogenic phase. 

                                               i.     Example:  Breast MRI, ultrasound, mammography or thermography is best between day 5 and 15 of menstrual cycle (day 1 is the first day of your period) https://www.itnonline.com/article/breast-mri-all-about-timing

                                              ii.     Same holds true for any other biopsies or surgeries in menstruating women for any form of cancer http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014067369192927T

c.   Get a liquid biopsy www.biocept.com to determine circulating tumor cell count and circulating fragmented cancer DNA along with molecular profile on actionable targets.  And use it often to assess your response to therapy and to monitor you AFTER completion of therapy.  This is an FDA approved, insurance covered test and validated for the following tumor types:

                                               i.     Lung

                                              ii.     Breast

                                             iii.     Gastric

                                             iv.     Colorectal

                                              v.     Prostate

                                             vi.     Melanoma

                                            vii.     Renal Cell (kidney)

                                           viii.     Ovarian

d.   You can also look into liquid assays to check for chemosensitivity and response to non-conventional therapies with RGCC out of Greece www.rgcc-group.com or BioFocus out of Germany www.biofocus.de

e.    I would also strongly consider the following tests to have as a baseline to assess your overall terrain and to bring to light triggers to your cancering process:  CBC with diff, CMP, GGT, Ferritin, CRP, Sedrate, LDH, Fibrinogen, Homocysteine, TSH, Total T4, Free T3, T3 Uptake, Thyroid Antibodies, 25-OH D3, HbA1C, Insulin, IGF-1, Serum Copper, Ceruloplasmin, Serum Zinc and any tumor marker testing appropriate to the cancer type.  This information will be useful to understand what patterns you carried prior to embarking on any treatment so you may start to address these drivers from the get go with other means like diet, lifestyle, supplements, etc. To learn more about testing I recommend Jenny Hrbacek, RN book:  “Cancer Free!  Are You Sure?”

f.     Assemble your team!  Your oncologist has likely had ZERO training in nutrition so VERY important to get a therapeutic nutritionist, who is well-versed in metabolic therapies/treatment with diet of cancer (this is often NOT a Registered Dietician RD).  You need someone to support your emotional body as well---a therapist, life coach, support group, or church.  And someone who can navigate the world of both conventional and alternative or integrative approaches such as an integrative naturopathic oncologist or someone well versed in how these paradigms should be woven together.

g.    And, take the Terrain Ten^TM Questionnaire at the front of our new book:  “The Metabolic Approach To Cancer” (available on Amazon here) to assess your terrain with regards to other exposures contributing to a cancering process.  The book can then guide you on how to make the changes necessary to support your whole terrain.

4)    And, once you have collected all the data, work with someone who can pull it all together and help create a focused plan of action that is specific to YOU! That might include conventional, non-conventional or combination treatments along with diet, herbs, supplements and lifestyle interventions to boost immune function, drive a cytotoxic (cancer cell death) process, encourage a metabolic overhaul, create better response to therapy and with less side effects while enhancing quality of life. 

Please know you are far more powerful than you are led to believe on this journey. Do your due diligence to take a thoughtful, researched approach to your wellbeing.  Know you are a divinely unique individual with particular epigenetic hiccups, biochemical processes and life circumstances that impact how you will respond to any given treatment and adjust accordingly.  And may you thrive, not just survive!

You can listen to Nasha being interviewed on our radio show here.

Re-purposing old drugs for cancer: sometimes old ‘uns can be good ‘uns

Today's post is from our chairman Robin Daly who discusses how the re-purposing of drugs could unlock new potentials for treating cancer.

The re-purposing of old drugs for cancer is making headline news this year. So is this really ‘new’? Is it even ‘newsworthy’? Or is it simply yet another of those endless ‘cancer breakthrough’ stories so beloved of the media?

To answer the first question: this is far from a new idea. The incidental positive effects of some old, safe, tried and tested drugs on cancer has been noted for many years. For example, metformin, given to people with diabetes to control their blood sugar levels, has the striking effect of transforming their risk of developing cancer from higher than normal healthy people to lower. The thing that is new is the level of interest around this phenomenon.

'Tripping Over the Truth' - a discussion on the origins of cancer

Today's post, from our chairman Robin Daly, is a review of the recently published 'Tripping Over the Truth: the Metabolic Theory of Cancer' by Travis Christofferson.

In 2012 Thomas Seyfried’s game-changing book ‘Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer’ hit the bookstore shelves with a thud. At £90 or so, this heavy duty science book was clearly not aimed at the ‘man in the street’, however strong his interest in cancer.

Seyfried wanted to make the scientific community aware that a fundamental feature of cancer, known about for almost a century, has been systematically ignored to the detriment of the growing number of people with cancer. He wanted to put forward the radical suggestion that simply targeting an ever increasing number of cancer causing genes was not going provide the long sought for solutions. He went on to put forward a plausible and novel strategy of targeting cancer’s energy supply, its metabolism, through a specialised dietary regime - the ketogenic diet.

The task of communicating Seyfried’s crucial messages to a wider audience was picked up by Travis Christofferson, who published ‘Tripping Over the Truth: the Metabolic Theory of Cancer’ late last year. Written, in the most part, in very accessible English, and priced at around £10 this new offering hits the spot for readers like me.