Cheap, 'safe' drug kills most cancers

[kiwi_trader]

"So far Dr. Michelakis has demonstrated the effectiveness of DCA against various human cancer cell lines in a cell culture, and against human tumors growing on immune-suppressed rats. The drug has already been tested on human beings for many years as a treatment for a genetic enzyme deficiency. There are millions of terminal cancer victims on this planet. So, logically, the next step would be to find some volunteers and start trying to find the optimum human dose range, combinations of other apoptosis inducers that work synergistically with DCA, supplements to reduce side effects, etc.

Logically in our libertarian minds, perhaps. In the real world, nothing of the kind will happen. The FDA will not allow people in the orderly and profitable process of agonizing death by incurable cancers to try nonapproved drugs. No drug company, no matter how large, can afford to spend a billion dollars and 19 years getting a nonpatentable treatment through the bureaucratic minefield. There is no FDA-approved way to get there from here."

from http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker24.html

 

[ByLoSellHi]

What doesn't make sense about this:

DCA may not be 'patentable,' but an effective drug delivery system utilizing it to treat cancer would most certainly be.

It's analogous to the tree bark and plant matter that is the basis of many of our modern drugs. The natural matter is not 'patentable,' but refining, processing and rearranging the molecular structure of the properties of these substances leads to a 'patentable' "thing."

It's basically a race to the patent office...

 

[atticus]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

What doesn't make sense about this:

DCA may not be 'patentable,' but an effective drug delivery system utilizing it to treat cancer would most certainly be.

It's analogous to the tree bark and plant matter that is the basis of many of our modern drugs. The natural matter is not 'patentable,' but refining, processing and rearranging the molecular structure of the properties of these substances leads to a 'patentable' "thing."

It's basically a race to the patent office...

Acetates are bioavailable. There is nothing to patent here.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from atticus:

Acetates are bioavailable. There is nothing to patent here.

Not in raw form, but after manipulating their molecular structure and doing enough to get them into an efficacious, deliverable form, there would be.

That's the point of my preceding post.

Taxol came from tree bark (Pacific Yew). They managed to patent a cancer drug made from it.

 

[atticus]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Not in raw form, but after manipulating their molecular structure and doing enough to get them into an efficacious, deliverable form, there would be.

That's the point of my preceding post.

Taxol came from tree bark (Pacific Yew). They managed to patent a cancer drug made from it.

I was doing research on Taxol/Taxotere when you were suckin' yer mama's teat.

You're referring to isolation, not org-chemical engineering... there is nothing to add to DCA as it's very active in an oral prep. There are thousands of orals bound to an acetate ester, for good reason.

Your point is pointless. Taxol is a molecule isolated from tree bark. Taxotere is a synthetic derivation made to meet increasing demand for the target molecule. It was found later to be far more potent than its predecessor.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from atticus:

I was doing research on Taxol/Taxotere when you were suckin' yer mama's teat.

You're referring to isolation, not org-chemical engineering... there is nothing to add to DCA as it's very active in an oral prep. There are thousands of orals bound to an acetate ester, for good reason.

Your point is pointless. Taxol is a molecule isolated from tree bark. Taxotere is a synthetic derivation made to meet increasing demand for the target molecule. It was found later to be far more potent than its predecessor.

Very well.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from traderdragon2:

Its your body, not the FDA's, you should have a right to put whatever you want into it.

Damn right!

 

[hels02]

Quote from atticus:

DCA is a potent inhibitor of glycolysis. The drug has merit, but is carcinogenic in large doses. In therapeutic doses it's entirely safe and efficacious.

How can something that kills cancer cells be 'carcinogenic'? Can you explain that better?

This is remarkable... I can't see why they won't just give it to people who are terminal... there are a lot of dying hospices I thought? If it didn't work, how could it hurt?

Thanks for posting that... if true, does that mean that all these drugs coming down the pipe for cancer (DNDN, CEGE, few others come to mind) are coming out with worthless concoctions with no chance at profit because the problem has already been cheaply solved? Hrmm... time to rethink biotech maybe.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Where's the hundreds of billions of profits in that?

We believe in spending hundreds of billions of dollars to cure disease in this country, rather than a few measly million to prevent them.

Big pharma developed pills that they sell for around 35 billion per year (cumulatively) to drop cholesterol levels a few points (and that cause adverse side effects), when dietary changes and exercise would do far more at no cost (and have positive side effects).

And the government is the biggest purchaser of these drugs with your and my tax dollars.

Damnit.

You got it. Follow the money.

 

[hels02]

Quote from Hydroblunt:

Funny,

All you need is keep an alkaline pH and the cancer cells subside because they can only exist in an acidic environment.

Simple prevention, even a cure.

Instead, let's search for drugs.

I don't think that's true. Cancer cells from my understanding are exactly the same as regular cells except they have their self-destruct switched off, and are thus immortal.

Why would they die in an alkaline environment that would not kill regular cells? They only differentiate from regular cells in one small but critical way?

Further, if this were true, why did my Aunt die 3 months ago from lung cancer, doing everything to try to become more 'alkaline'? There are people who give up lifesaving treatments because they believe this lie.

Why does anyone still die from cancer? People are still dying, EVERY SINGLE DAY from cancer... and they just aren't alkaline enough eh?

Where did you read that shit btw?