Singularity Health Law Blog

Peter W. Huber. The Cure in the Code.

Book Review: Peter W. Huber. The Cure in the Code: How 20th Century Law is undermining 21st Century Medicine.Basic Books (Nov. 2013).

Mr. Huber provides an intense guide to the exploding scientific developments in molecular medicine and the legal and regulatory impediments that threaten to cripple its promise of cheaper and more effective medicine through individualized treatment applications. Modern molecular and genomic advances in medicine, coupled with the exponential increases in computing power and attendant increase in algorithmic data analysis capability opens up the potential for great leaps in medical knowledge and treatment effectiveness.

Standing in the way, however, is the federal Food and Drug Administration with an antiquated system of approvals for new developments in medicine. Mr. Huber argues that the gold standard for FDA approval, the double blind based studies of broad effectiveness against a placebo, are too expensive, too time consuming, too unethical and too narrow. They are too narrow in the sense that they are too broad, requiring a demonstration of effectiveness in a large population, dealing with a specific medical issue, without focusing on the drugs applicability to specific molecular potential in individual cases.

The author refers to this as the “old magic bullet” model, with a single simple cause directly linked to a single effect. He asserts,

 

[A] high level of complex and statistically elusive biochemical diversity likewise makes it impossible to judge a drug’s efficacy or most of its potential side effects using a conventional, one dimensional statistical analysis of data in biochemically indiscriminate Trials.

 

Mr. Huber notes that the FDA relaxed the reins somewhat in dealing with the multi-virus issues inherent in HIV treatment, speeding drugs to market like AZT and the creation of “drug cocktails” for attacking the virus, when one drug alone was insufficient.  Since then, the FDA has retreated to a more regressive pattern of focus on testing large scale applications of individual drugs to broad populations rather than providing support for wider experimentation by doctors and patients based upon biomarkers and molecular diversity to generate the type of success and failure information that can provide meaningful advances in medical knowledge. The answer he suggests requires a radical reorientation of the FDA, with the focus of Baysean statistical analysis on a broad range of evidence.

 

CAN THE FDA REGULATE YOUR STEM CELLS?

In July, 2012, Rosemary N, Collyer, a United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, ruled that autologous stem cells re-injected into a person’ body following a acculturation of the cells with the use of another drug product shipped in interstate commerce is a “drug” subject to regulation by the U.S, Food and Drug Administration. The purpose of the re-injection is to stimulate the regrowth of bone, cartilage and other human tissue to regenerate them in lieu of joint transplants and other orthopedic surgical procedures.

 

WHEN WILL COMPUTERS THINK?

The Obama Administration recently announced the formation of the “Brain Activity Map Project” to be funded by the National Institutes of Health and other public and private foundations and organizations to undertake a ten year study of the human brain. The effort, which is similar to the organized effort to map the human genome is expected to cost at least 300 million dollars a year over the ten years. It is anticipated by scientists that it will be much for complex and difficult to undertake than the genome project. The hope is to develop a complete model of brain activity and the process of neuron firings that lead to cognition.

 

ARE GENE’S PATENTABLE?

The United States Supreme Court will decide the question of whether genes are patentable in the coming term. The decisions has broad implications for the biotechnology industry, for researchers and for patients.  The case at hand is Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation.  The object of the case is to challenge a number of patents granted to Myriad, a Utah biotechnology company, by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The patents granted were on DNA isolated from two human genes that increase the risk to women for breast and ovarian cancer.

 

CHILD NOT A “CHILD” UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY ACT?

Modern biotechnology now makes possible issues that were not contemplated by Congress in the adoption of the Social Security Act.  One of those issues is whether a child conceived by artificial insemination a year after her father’s death is a “child” of her father entitled to survivor benefits under the Social Security Act.  The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals earlier ruled “yes.”  In the recent ruling in Beeler v. Astrue,  the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “no”, overturning a lower, trial court decisions and affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.

PARSING PARTS: COMPENSATION FOR BONE MARROW

Yesterday, a panel of the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considered a challenge to the constitutionality of the National Organ Transplant Act (the “Act”) as it relates to restricting compensation to bone marrow cell donors whose cells are extracted through apherisis. The Act prohibits the compensation of donors of body organs including specifically, bone marrow, but permits compensation for blood, sperm,  and eggs. In Flynn et al v. Eric Holder, No. 10-55643 (9th Cir. 2011), the Plaintiffs, who included a variety of persons and entities adversely affected by the difficulty of obtaining donations of bone marrow, argued that there was no rational basis for distinguishing between the donation of blood plasma and the donation of hematopoietic stem cells which are excreted from the bone marrow itself into the blood stream in thus implicating the “equal protection clause” of the Constitution.

 

THE END OF MEDICINE: How Silicon Valley (and Naked Mice) Will Reboot Your Doctor by Andy Kessler, Collins 2007.

    Andy Kessler is an irreverent, flip and highly readable writer who poses an interesting single question and than doggedly pursues an answer, with a lot of biting asides to entertain the reader. The question is, given the exponential decline in cost of technology in Silicon Valley and its exponential increase in power and effectiveness, why hasn’t medical technology turned over the same returns to deliver more effective health care at a cheaper cost. There are a number of reasons including the inherent slowness of the treatment and study process, the FDA, entrenched economic interests and the focus on treatment rather than prevention.

    

DSM –V: THE NEXT FRONTIER OF MENTAL ILLNESS (IF IT IS ILLNESS).

There is much anticipation over the soon to be released new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders  (DSM –V) by the American Psychiatric Association (“APA.)  It is due in 2012. There are many interests involved in the development and recognition of categories of mental disorders. (There is still controversy over whether there is mental “illness,” but there is more congruence over the existence of “disorders.”  The late poet, Theodore Roethke, once wrote, “What is mental illness, but nobility of soul at odds with circumstance?”  The APA, the psychiatric profession, the pharmaceutical industry and other groups have a much bigger and more complex investment in the definition of categories of mental illness.

Internet Medicine Part IV: “Health 2.0.”

“Health 2.0” or “Medicare 2.0” relates to a new paradigm in the relationship between patients and physicians, in particular the application of Web 2.0 interconnectivity tools or social media technology to the provision of health care.  One of the ironies of this movement is the emphasis on sharing rather than protecting or hiding health care information.  The www.patientslikeme.com  website sponsors  patients as partners with their physicians in assembling and sharing information related to specific diseases.  Patientslikeme assembles and aggregates patient information related to 5 chronic illness categories: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS); Parkinson’s Disease, HIV/AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis and Mood Disorders.  Participants share treatment experiences, drug side effects, new treatment regimens and even organize and participate in their own clinical trials. 

BOOK REVIEW: Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman, M.D., FANTASTIC VOYAGE: LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO LIVE FOREVER, Rodale 2004.

Aubrey de Grey, the British biomedical gerontologist who recently appeared on 60 Minutes and gave a lecture on “Why We Age and How We Can Avoid It” on TED is convinced that we now have the resources to repair metabolically damaged tissue so as to be able to live for 1000 years.  He believes that it is possible for a 50 year old to “pull out of the dive” of aging based on current and immediately anticipated technology.