No Profit In Ending Cancer

"But because the drug cannot be patented, pharmaceutical companies won't be eager to fund clinical trials to bring it to market, leaving its future in question."

And that is a good thing. These researchers are specifically not asking big pharma to fund these clinical trials, so that the cure can remain cheap, and out of the hands of big pharma.

Do you remeber a name; Sir Frederic Banting? He did something similar with his patent for Insulin. Now, anyone who needs insulin to survive can afford it.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Sorry Doc, not true any more.

Banting's patent was on animal derived insulin which is almost non-existant today. One Big Pharma figured out to make synthetic insulin, they started a smear campaign against animal insulin and managed to scare people (and bribe, err, lobby governments) into not using it any more.

Many people resisted but, since big pharma makes money by NOT using the animal insulin, they simply won't make it.

Another mostly unknown cancer cure came out of Australia back in the 1980s. Researchers trying to cure stomache ulcers discovered that bacteria were the primary cause of ulcers (not overwork/stress). They did a trial where bitumen and two generic antibiotics were used to eliminate the ulcers (with an astounding success rate). Of course, since the treatment contained nothing patentable, big pharma ignored it (not an evil act or conspiracy - they are corporations that exist to create money and this treatment didn't make money for them).

The problem is that Big Pharma is nearly the ONLY conduit for research and new treatment information to doctors. This treatment is still unknown by a large portion of the medical community today (which is why so many patented yet minimally effective ulcer "treatments" are still money makers). A perfect example of how capitalism fails the community at learge.

As to the cancer link, cancer researchers in Italy(?) found out about the treatment and used it to cure ulcers in stomache cancer patients. It was difficult determine cancer treatment effectiveness when the patients were also suffering from ulcers so eliminating the ulcers would help the research. What they found was that after curing the ulcers with the above method a majority of the stomache cancer patients were found to be either completely cancer free or incredibly far into remission.

Again, the findings are not well known and, as soon as word of mouth started up, Big Pharma paid for studies to create "uncertainty" about the findings.

Thanks for the update Pat. I think we all hate big pharma just a liitle more.

"where bitumen and two generic antibiotics were used to eliminate the ulcers"

Bitumen? Is there nothing that the Tar Sands can't accomplish?

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Keep in mind that THOUSANDS of clinical trials are held on cancer and show promise at the stage of tissues. However, tissues are part of a larger organism. That's what clinical trials are for, and this is more of an example of public relations than scientific discovery. I know, I'm married to a molecular biologist who does research at this level and every second month there is a 'eureka'. Cancer is not just one disease, its literally thousands.

It will get funding money though, the government spends so much money on cancer treatments that this won't be ignored, that's probably why there was a big media event on it. It's not like CTV news sits around reading "Cancer Cell" for new developments.

An update: approximately 1% of 'discoveries' that enter clinical trials ever make it to FDA approval-meaning that they work.

For the patent, while DCA cannot be patented, all a scientist has to do is go through the chemical libraries and find a similar chemical that isn't patented, since the patent covers the specific target of the pathway.

More damaging, however, is that this group maintains there is "no evidence of toxicity" which of course is the main problem with most treatments. A quick look at pubmed shows that just four papers down, a clinical trial held in October WITH DCA shows toxic events on neurological pathways. Once again, don't take media's view of science seriously, journals have 50 papers like this a month. Want to cure cancer, stop creating the conditions that cause it.

Curing cancer has the following benefits:

people live.

NOT curing cancer has the following benefits.

Long and costly treatments.

The use of large quantities of expensive drugs.

(Both the above benefit the dug companies.)

Costs of doctors visits.

Cost of hospital stays.

Savings of retirement benefits that would have been aid out HAD the patient lived.

Thousands or researchers will continue to keep their jobs.

Board members of various foundations will be able to milk the cash cow of "looking for a cure".


As you can see, the financial "benefits" of NOT curing cancer outweigh the obvious humanitarian benefits of restoring an ailing loved one to those who care for them.

Cynical, you know it.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

There is no such thing as a cure for cancer because it is not one thing. It is different in every part of the body, and it is often noticeably different even in different people.

However, to combat the cynicism, the idea that people aren't trying to cure it is absurd. For those in the conspiracy camp the benefits easily include being able to pollute as much as possible without worrying about the fallout, namely the numbers of resulting cancer.

However, scientists like this guy are all looking for a cure. There are plenty of other diseases out there, its not like they are only trying haphazardly because it might put them out of a job - it won't. Most have guaranteed jobs at institutions.

Go look at pubmed, you can find research on tons of things that have no 'patent' appeal. Recently was a story about how adding milk to tea negates much of the medical benefits in the tea. That was reported widely, even though milk producers, a hugely powerful lobby, probably would rather it not be widely known, let alone studied.

When a scientist finds something that works, it will get tested and marketed because it works, and the company will make money. That company will make LOTS of money, and it won't be thinking about how much money in cancer research it may be causing, it is thinking of its own well being and that of its shareholders. That's always the fly in the ointment, like Michael Moore says, companies will back him writing bad things about corporations because that corporation will make money. It's the irony, and the potential saving grace.

Cancers are still manmade illnesses. There were hardly any cancers when I was kid and no children ever had them. The excuse. that the diagnostic systems weren't existing, is pure hogwash.

In my 11 years of schooling in the Great Depression and war years, I can remember 2 kids dying among the hundreds in my schools, neither of them from cancers. Nobody heard of leukemia, because it didn't exist, for all practical purposes

The first time we've heard of breast cancers we were in our 40s, in Vancouver. My wife's 5th and my 4th country.

In my humble opinion, cancers are mostly the results us exposure to chemicals and pollution.

Ed Deak.

<a href="http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Dandilion+root+cure+for+cancer&meta">http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Dandilion+root+cure+for+cancer&meta</a>=<br />
&btnG=Google+Search<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=rJO&q=+Who+is+Hulda+Clarke%3F&btnG=Search&meta">http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=rJO&q=+Who+is+Hulda+Clarke%3F&btnG=Search&meta</a>=<br />
<p>---<br> [juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]<br />
<br />
it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights" <br />
<br />
lex ferenda

You're right Ed. In your day, people were dropping dead from small pox. Back then, cholera, the flu and tuberculosis were the main killers. Back in 1930, life expectancy (in the US) was around 60... where it is approaching 80 now. Ahh... the good ol' days!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html</a><br />
<br />

Update:<br />
<br />
"The University of Alberta has been inundated with offers to raise money for human trials of a drug with anti-cancer properties, as recently discovered by a team of researchers led by local cardiologist Dr. Evangelos Michelakis."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2007/01/20/3413039-sun.html">http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2007/01/20/3413039-sun.html</a><p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

There is something to what Ed says, in The Corporation a leading oncologist makes a similar claim that environmental factors play a leading role. Anybody that thinks 'back in the day' that coal miners didn't die of lung cancer is quite mistaken though. Minerals and gases of all kinds, particularly radon and asbestos are linked heavily to cancers-once again, all environmental but for around a lot longer than anybody posting here. However, because of ones own personal experience as a child is hardly grounds for saying that cancer never existed. In the literature you can find references to cancer even in societies where little literature is available. Even ancient greek culture and hippocrates makes reference to it. Keep in mind that WE are part of the environment so its tough to define terms. We breathe, eat, shoot out stuff, absorb stuff constantly, we are literally a medium of the environment so its tough to isolate.

There is also evidence that cancers are not always terminal and can even be combated simply by the body's own mechanisms. Many tumours have been found to shrink and disappear inexplicably, this isn't true just of cancers but of other diseases as well. In breast cancer this was found to be quite predominant, leading many to ask whether they should seek treatment at all. Trouble is, not being able to see into the future means its all a crapshoot.

But to return to this, I'd hold onto my dollars, its not the first time tumours have shrunk in tissues. Its a weekly occurance. You can't even access his study, which would show how much treatment was given. The old adage seems best, if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. IF its found to be kosher then the government and Cancer Society will pick it up I assure you.

Being well acquanted with the scientific field I can tell you that media attention and science are not a good mix. Ironically, in the same magazine is an article on a lab which completely fabricated all of their results. Like I said, toxicity is a factor, and I found this two papers down from the one in question:

Dichloroacetate causes toxic neuropathy in MELAS: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.


That's NOT good news. It may not be bad news, however, funding should go through official channels. I've got some green clover, yellow moons, and orange stars that will cure you if you're that desperate to part with your money.

All the cynics should keep in mind that childhood leukemia was basically turned from an almost terminal disease where most kids died to one where relatively few do. And people made money off it, and a lot of kids lived because of it.

Michael, TB was a big killer, I have known at least 1 person who died from it. None in my schools, or any other that I've known of. There was no cholera, or smallpox. Those things have been wiped out long before I was even born. \

Noether did anybody have cancers. 50 years ago the rate was 2% of the population. Now look at the chemicals in all vegetables, meats in the supermarkets and all the huge collections in the breads, canned and packaged foods.

Do you ever read what's in them ? Perhaps you should. Of the 200,000 chamicals in use today about 12 to 15,000 have been tested for human health effects. Does anybody know the health effects of GM seeds and foods ? No bloody way, because wouldn't be "business friendly"

The one thing that was big, was alcoholism and the associated illnesses.

Try to get off your ideology warped ideas.

I'm almost 80, my wife almost 79 and we take no medications whatsoever, but we watch what we eat.

Ed Deak.

It isn't ideology, because I wasn't defending the toxic environment we live in. I'm saying that every person on this earth is going to die of something. And every time we eliminate one source of death, the remaining ones will up their percentage. When the average life expectancy approaches 80, the causes of death that will increase will be those associated with old age. Heart disease, cancers, etc... are diseases that take time to kill. Unlike cholera, influenza, small pox, measles, etc... which have been wiped out or controlled to a large degree and which traditionally kill younger people and kill them relatively quickly.

The single largest killer in Canada today of young people is car accidents. I'd be willing to bet that wasn't the largest killer of teenagers when you were a kid.