Cancer cure being ignored by Big Business

[Veritas0Aequitas]

It's more lucrative to keep you sick and on meds the rest of your life. I should know, I have Crohn's disease and my meds are like $4,000 a month. Luckily I have insurance.

[arctic_rogue]

It's more lucrative to keep you sick and on meds the rest of your life. I should know, I have Crohn's disease and my meds are like $4,000 a month. Luckily I have insurance.

Absolutely more lucrative. There's no doubt about that. Even looking at Crohn's from the perspective of the Crohn's and Colitis foundation in interesting. There are many factors that play into thoughts surrounding drugs and cures.

I have friends that are probably on similar drugs to you and they have stated their life would be significantly different if it wasn't for the Crohn's drugs they receive. Hope you get the same benefits!

[Bomm Bastic]

I don't mean to rain on your parade Axeman, but I my opinion the reason the pharmaceutical companies haven't jumped on this is they don't believe it will work. Let's face it, if it was even marginally effective they'd be all over it and leverage it for obscene profits. They want a cure for cancer so they can charge a king's ransom to give you the cure.

Thank you, agreed.

[Bomm Bastic]

You should watch the article before you comment.

It's an old drug which has no patent protection so they cannot protect profits.

If you had any idea how easy it is for pharma to alter a drug simply enough to re-new a patent, you wouldn't be saying that.

[doulos]

This actually came up in an article .... in 2007.

And then again in 2010.

And then again in 2011.

All using the same rehashed versions of old footage and poorly researched articles.

Cancer is not one thing that can be magically cured. DCA is real and it had (and has) interesting things it can do, but having results in rats and having results in humans are almos always two MASSIVELY different things.

To claim that this is a cure that is being covered up is supremely naive and not accurate to the facts at all, but it is headline catching and people don't bother researching things.

The reality is treatments like using DCA is a very complicated thing that needs to be treated with a rigorous scientific treatment. Otherwise you can do more harm than good, or find out it does nothing, or find out that it only works on certain types of people etc etc.

Without actually going through the scientific process you end up with chaos (and then things like homeopathic medicine....yikes!)

The fact that this research takes time and money can be extremely frustrating but it's still the best way we know how to do things, and until another better way comes along it's all we have.

I hope that one day they find a few different treatments that are far more effective than what we have. I lost a friend to cancer just 2 months ago and it's horrible. But going on about conspiracy theories and cover-ups instead of examining the facts doesn't do honour to those who have died or are suffering with cancer. Instead pushing on and doing the right things in the right way (as best as we currently know how) is the most prudent course of action. And hopefully we will find the treatments needed to deal with cancer and other diseases. Who knows, maybe at the end of all of this DCA turns out to be one of those treatments. I would personally be elated if it is!

[blayze]

If you had any idea how easy it is for pharma to alter a drug simply enough to re-new a patent, you wouldn't be saying that.

No offense, but I don't think some of you guys understand the complexities of patents and how they work based on some of the comments I've read in this thread.

On another note, I've invested in two pretty large multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies over the past 8 years (one public and one private) and I can tell you that the last thing the executives of these companies want to see (from a financial standpoint) is a "cure" for any kind of disease affecting the masses.

They make the overwhelming majority of their money on diseases that require expensive "recurring" treatment. I think it's pretty sad, but that is the reality.

[Axeman33]

This actually came up in an article .... in 2007.

And then again in 2010.

And then again in 2011.

All using the same rehashed versions of old footage and poorly researched articles.

Cancer is not one thing that can be magically cured. DCA is real and it had (and has) interesting things it can do, but having results in rats and having results in humans are almos always two MASSIVELY different things.

To claim that this is a cure that is being covered up is supremely naive and not accurate to the facts at all, but it is headline catching and people don't bother researching things.

The reality is treatments like using DCA is a very complicated thing that needs to be treated with a rigorous scientific treatment. Otherwise you can do more harm than good, or find out it does nothing, or find out that it only works on certain types of people etc etc.

Without actually going through the scientific process you end up with chaos (and then things like homeopathic medicine....yikes!)

The fact that this research takes time and money can be extremely frustrating but it's still the best way we know how to do things, and until another better way comes along it's all we have.

I hope that one day they find a few different treatments that are far more effective than what we have. I lost a friend to cancer just 2 months ago and it's horrible. But going on about conspiracy theories and cover-ups instead of examining the facts doesn't do honour to those who have died or are suffering with cancer. Instead pushing on and doing the right things in the right way (as best as we currently know how) is the most prudent course of action. And hopefully we will find the treatments needed to deal with cancer and other diseases. Who knows, maybe at the end of all of this DCA turns out to be one of those treatments. I would personally be elated if it is!

Well said, and I couldnt agree more with your last sentence. I will even elaborate on it a bit. I could care less if its DCA or ABC or any other
3 letters they want to call it; the sooner they find a cure for this ugly disease the world will be a happier place. I can only hope a cure isnt found and hidden/kept from the world simply because a big company is more interested in making a buck then making a difference in the world.

[blayze]

Just for the record, I'm speaking in generalities with respect to the pharmaceutical industry... I'm not debating the truths behind the link in the OP.

[rob2kx]

Didn't want to spend too much time mucking around with this, so I did a few google searches. What I found is that they did a Phase II study at UoA but the results were inconclusive (not enough patients).

U of Guelph is looking at DCA as well:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2010/11/...rcher_fin.html

But the concensus I'm seeing is that DCA may be able to help with some cancers, but makes others worse (the UoG study is looking at how DCA protects some cancer cells).

Doing full clinical drug studies requires a lot of money and time commitment, as well as personell. But at the end of the day no company is going to forego being the one to "cure cancer" at any cost regardless of whether they make money on the drug or not. The goodwill that comes with being "The company that cured cancer" is invaluable.

So I don't think it's realistic to say that there's anyone hiding this drug, it's just that organizations have to pick and choose research avenues. We saw no real details on the study that was done at UoA, so while the head of research may be very enthusiastic about it, the results may not be as compelling as he is indicating (not that he's lying, but it is his project after all).

It reminds me of the guy who was cured of HIV about 5 years ago through a bone marrow transplant (first person ever cured). There was a lot of sensationalism around it, but from I read (and I don't recall details now), most scientists said it wasn't a practical as cure for various reasons, but the CURE FOR AIDS headlines were all over the place.

[Bomm Bastic]

No offense, but I don't think some of you guys understand the complexities of patents and how they work based on some of the comments I've read in this thread.

On another note, I've invested in two pretty large multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies over the past 8 years (one public and one private) and I can tell you that the last thing the executives of these companies want to see (from a financial standpoint) is a "cure" for any kind of disease affecting the masses.

They make the overwhelming majority of their money on diseases that require expensive "recurring" treatment. I think it's pretty sad, but that is the reality.

Paxil to Paxil CR is a new patent. 'Tis but a tweak, and often done to extend patent rights. My counter-point to your assertion was merely that, if pharma really wanted to a little thing like an expired patent is no high hurdle to jump.

As far as the oft used canard that it is more profitable for pharma to hide the cure, is false.

Stop looking at it from a sale of the drug per se/revenue perspective. Imagine for a moment you are the CEO of Pfizer. Any idea what a discovery of the cure for cancer would do to you, your fellow execs and shareholders stock portfolio?? The subsequent bonuses? Shares would split and rise again to levels that would make Google look like penny-stock.

Not to mention the residual effect from the (over)exposure of your company's name all over the media, interviews...etc.

A cure for cancer would reap unheard of sums of $$$, extending well, well, beyond annual sales revenue. And thaat's not even considering huge sums for future research.

[blayze]

I think you guys need to distinguish between your own personal values (which are noble and decent) and those of corporations which have no feelings and are largely (if not solely) driven to profit.

What's so profitable about a one-and-done cure? So a company gets a few months of positive press and then one subsequent year of record sales and earnings. And then what? How is that more profitable than the recurring profit stream from the LITANY of expensive, largely government-funded drugs, therapies and treatments that have been existence for the last several decades that patients continually have to rely on to survive?

I'm not arguing with you guys about what's right or wrong here... this is not an ethical discussion. Just pointing out the economic realities. I've interviewed the executives of these firms as part of our extensive due diligence on their companies before we invested hundreds of millions... I'm simply telling you guys how it is.

[Bomm Bastic]

blayze this isn't some OTC acne med we're talking about. This is the big C.

I appreciate your perspective, but you need to realize that some of us may also have jobs that require due diligence and vetting of board execs. The ripple effect of benefits such a discovery would reap are unimaginable.

[rob2kx]

I think you guys need to distinguish between your own personal values (which are noble and decent) and those of corporations which have no feelings and are largely (if not solely) driven to profit.

What's so profitable about a one-and-done cure? So a company gets a few months of positive press and then one subsequent year of record sales and earnings. And then what? How is that more profitable than the recurring profit stream from the LITANY of expensive, largely government-funded drugs, therapies and treatments that have been existence for the last several decades that patients continually have to rely on to survive?

I'm not arguing with you guys about what's right or wrong here... this is not an ethical discussion. Just pointing out the economic realities. I've interviewed the executives of these firms as part of our extensive due diligence on their companies before we invested hundreds of millions... I'm simply telling you guys how it is.

Because everything is relative. Not only will they not be able to sell the expensive every day use drugs, but neither will the competitors. Instead they get a massive amount of sales short term, and are forever known as the company that cured cancer. Worth it.

Either way, it's a moot point, as I would conservatively say that there is a 99.9% chance that there will be a magical cure all cancer drug, and it certainly won't be DCA as it has been shown to be useless and even detrimental for certain types of cancers.

[doulos]

The thing is I have full belief that a big company can find a way to make money off of a cure. In fact I am GLAD that money is one of the big motivating factors in all of this because as a human race we seem to get a heck of a lot more done when we get paid well to do it - even if the action itself is a good one.


And, even if there were some within a big corporation who are willing to watch people die from cancer while they rake in the cash, keeping that hidden for long would be near impossible. Not everyone on this earth is a completely heartless piece of crap

[blayze]

And, even if there were some within a big corporation who are willing to watch people die from cancer while they rake in the cash, keeping that hidden for long would be near impossible. Not everyone on this earth is a completely heartless piece of crap

As far as I know, it is not illegal for a deep-pocketed corporation or investor to simply buy out a cure from an inventor and then bury it forever for their own self-interest.

It would only be illegal if a government intervened.