Alzheimer's cure may have been found by Timperley scientist

Messenger Newspapers: Dr Farid Khan Dr Farid Khan

THE cure for Alzheimer’s could be within reach for a Timperley scientist.


Although the drug being piloted by Dr Farid Khan and his company, PharmaKure, is more than 20-years-old and was originally discovered as a candidate for treating Parkinson’s, the University of Manchester research scientist believes finding new uses for old drugs is the future.


“There is a huge problem for humanity in that there are not going to be many new future blockbuster medicines,” said Dr Khan.


The PharmaKure Chief Executive Officer, who is married with two children, said over the past 15 years, drugs companies have primarily been screening drugs with synthetic compounds, which will never work in the human body.


‘“To have active medicines you need either nature’s inspired drugs or those drugs which are already known to function in human beings – old drugs are known to be safe in humans, so they can be fast tracked as treatments for patients,” Dr Khan explained.


“Each drug has around two or three side effects, for example, Viagra was originally used for pulomonary hypertension, but it has another side effect which is very well known,” said Dr Khan.


“This is probably the only way forward so a the moment there’s a gold rush to find new uses for old drugs for a variety of diseases.”


Therefore, the past five years has seen a swathe of companies testing old drugs in order to determine if they have any unknown side effects which could bring about new cures.


PharmaKure launched its patented PK-048 drug the World Drug Repositioning Congress in Washington in December and is now looking for investors.


Dr Khan, who co-founded PharmaKure with business partner, Andrew Doig, said: “The potential for PK-048 to help alleviate the symptoms and potentially to cure Alzheimer’s disease is really exciting.


“It is fantastic to now be in a position with the company to move towards commercialisation phase with a view to licensing and forging investment partnerships.”


For further information visit pharmakure.com.
 

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:37pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Graham Cliff says...

Research in Mexico City in 2006 attributed dementia to air pollution - much caused by traffic infrastructure (giving rise to the likes of asthma) but an increase was attributed to what was then called "garbage" incineration. Poor air quality exists as a result of inadequate air quality controls - we keep buildings clean but we do not protect public health. Air pollution regulation is bad - it has been "arbitrary" and "without" medical rationale for asbestos since 1959, so how much worse is it for everything else?
Research in Mexico City in 2006 attributed dementia to air pollution - much caused by traffic infrastructure (giving rise to the likes of asthma) but an increase was attributed to what was then called "garbage" incineration. Poor air quality exists as a result of inadequate air quality controls - we keep buildings clean but we do not protect public health. Air pollution regulation is bad - it has been "arbitrary" and "without" medical rationale for asbestos since 1959, so how much worse is it for everything else? Graham Cliff
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Sun 24 Feb 13

shirley_ jones says...

Inadequate and/or virtually non existent controls and authorities that lack the backbone to enforce the scant and inadequate regulations that already exist, are to blame for air pollution and other toxic and carcinogenic exposures causing the public harm. Surely prevention is better than cure? Whatever happened to the 'Precautionary Principle'?

I do fully understand that for those who have already sadly become victims to the inadequacies and failings of the Government to protect the public, that they will require, and possibly be reliant on drugs/medication for life, to assist them with the ill health caused by their exposures, which by the way are mostly avoidable and unecessary it's sad to say, and so treatments are vital. However, if the authorities, the Government and the public listened to the many very eminent, knowledgable and immensley qualified scientists that have been raising awareness for many years now, as Mr Cliff and others have, instead of listening to those who can shout the loudest due to huge amounts of funding from companies with a vested interested in increased drug/medication use not less, new or old, whose credentials go largely unchecked, then there would be less victims requiring drug intervention in the first place. Therefore saving many lives, preventing sickness and disability in those exposed, whose lives are devastated and who are lucky to survive, and will save the Government many millions and will also place less burden on our equally failing NHS. Everyone wins - except the drug/chemical companies of course. Oh well, can't have everything can we!
Inadequate and/or virtually non existent controls and authorities that lack the backbone to enforce the scant and inadequate regulations that already exist, are to blame for air pollution and other toxic and carcinogenic exposures causing the public harm. Surely prevention is better than cure? Whatever happened to the 'Precautionary Principle'? I do fully understand that for those who have already sadly become victims to the inadequacies and failings of the Government to protect the public, that they will require, and possibly be reliant on drugs/medication for life, to assist them with the ill health caused by their exposures, which by the way are mostly avoidable and unecessary it's sad to say, and so treatments are vital. However, if the authorities, the Government and the public listened to the many very eminent, knowledgable and immensley qualified scientists that have been raising awareness for many years now, as Mr Cliff and others have, instead of listening to those who can shout the loudest due to huge amounts of funding from companies with a vested interested in increased drug/medication use not less, new or old, whose credentials go largely unchecked, then there would be less victims requiring drug intervention in the first place. Therefore saving many lives, preventing sickness and disability in those exposed, whose lives are devastated and who are lucky to survive, and will save the Government many millions and will also place less burden on our equally failing NHS. Everyone wins - except the drug/chemical companies of course. Oh well, can't have everything can we! shirley_ jones
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree