A lobby needs to be created to educate the public that each cancer is its own disease, and there can never be a cure for all cancers in one magical formula.
DCA: A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?
21–29 of 29 posts
Re: DCA: A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?
#22The DCA is a promising drug and there's many people working on it, on many kind of tumors. Be aware that this "it's unpatentable" thing is bullshit. You don't patent a drug, you patent the use of the drug for a certain purpose. In fact, Michelakis himself appears to have patented DCA for several cancer forms. http://www.google.com/patents?q=Michelakis&btnG=Search+P... http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=RErGAAAAEB…
Be aware that this "it's unpatentable" thing is bullshit.
If there is a huge market for X, there is an economically feasible "unpatentable" enabler of X, then someone is going to make money doing X, and even the law won't be able to stop them.
Re: DCA: A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?
#23The DCA is a promising drug and there's many people working on it, on many kind of tumors. Be aware that this "it's unpatentable" thing is bullshit. You don't patent a drug, you patent the use of the drug for a certain purpose. In fact, Michelakis himself appears to have patented DCA for several cancer forms. http://www.google.com/patents?q=Michelakis&btnG=Search+P... http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=RErGAAAAEB…
Be aware that this "it's unpatentable" thing is bullshit. If there is a huge market for X, there is an economically feasible "unpatentable" enabler of X, then someone is going to make money doing X, and even the law won't be able to stop them.
But that's not really different for any other drug.
Re: DCA: A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?
#24scienceblogs had a great piece on this: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_... quoting: What is most pernicious about the conspiracy-mongering stories being spread about DCA is that it builds false hope. People with cancer hear about this drug, and they think there's an amazing cure out there that's being withheld from them because of the greed of big pharma.
"Big Pharma" have to invest a lot of R&D in cancer drugs. Do they really make profits in the "greedy" realm on this effort overall? I'd think they rake in the $$$ on stuff like Viagra and Rogaine.
"Big Pharma" invest more in marketing and advertising than in R&D.
Even though some drugs are indeed more lucrative for them than others, they would not develop cancer drugs if they were not profitable.
Re: DCA: A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?
#25A lobby needs to be created to educate the public that each cancer is its own disease, and there can never be a cure for all cancers in one magical formula.
I can 100% guarantee that I have a cheap and successful way of killing all cancerous cells of any type with one simple and effective treatment, with only one side effect. I call the treatment plumbum-therapy.
(Note: reported side effect to therapy includes death by gunshot wound)
I think people would prefer to opt for a more expensive treatment plan.
Re: DCA: A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?
#26http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5166 This is a great article from the sciencebasedmedicine guys about the state of dichloroacetate as a cancer treatment. A bit long-winded, but totally realistic about the current prospects. The links at the bottom are all great too.
Great article. Here's a summary (or at least how I understood it) for those that don't read it (which I recommend you do): * Mitochondrias (an organele in our cells that is considered the battery of a cell) in cancer patients typically don't function as they normally should. * In 2007, University of Alberta researchers led by Evangelos Michelakis, announced a non-human trial that showed promising signs of stopping an…
Oops, I said DMC instead of DCA.
Re: DCA: A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Big Pharma" have to invest a lot of R&D in cancer drugs. Do they really make profits in the "greedy" realm on this effort overall? I'd think they rake in the $$$ on stuff like Viagra and Rogaine.
"Big Pharma" invest more in marketing and advertising than in R&D. Even though some drugs are indeed more lucrative for them than others, they would not develop cancer drugs if they were not profitable.
> Big Pharma" invest more in marketing and advertising than in R&D.
That marketing and advertising spending is dominated by free and discounted drugs for folks who can't afford list price.
Are you opposed to that spending?
Re: DCA: A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?
#28DCA doesn't cure cancer, you dopes. http://www.cancer.org/AboutUs/DrLensBlog/post/2010/05/14/Mor...
Re: DCA: A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Big Pharma" have to invest a lot of R&D in cancer drugs. Do they really make profits in the "greedy" realm on this effort overall? I'd think they rake in the $$$ on stuff like Viagra and Rogaine.
"Big Pharma" invest more in marketing and advertising than in R&D. Even though some drugs are indeed more lucrative for them than others, they would not develop cancer drugs if they were not profitable.
"marketing and advertising" also means informing doctors about new drugs and therapies. Outside of "miracle" drugs or new drug categories (e.g. ED or the low side effecting SSRIs like Prozac) that get "promoted" by the media etc. a new drug will do few any good if doctors don't know enough about it.
This is especially true for cancer drugs marketed to oncologists (which I suspect are never marketed directly to consumers...). The field is very complex ... and I recall that one of the major factors in the difference in outcomes between your local medical system and the major cancer centers is the better current knowledge of the practitioners in the latter.