Man of Honour
Possible simple cure for cancer, pharmaceutical companies not interested
- Thread starter jak731
- Start date
Soldato
Which companies would they be?
Surely the companies that currently make anti-cancer drugs, etc, would stand to lose out significantly?
they'd probably be the ones with "the cure" though, and cancer is constantly occurring in people so the cure isn't a one use deal it's still a long term product.
Associate
What Tefal said, the companies that choose to patent their own anti-cancer drug stand to make the biggest profits because cancer isn't going away any time soon, it simply means that no one will die from it should they get the appropriate treatment.
Soldato
Drug companies aren't one trick ponies, even smaller pharma companies hold diverse IP.
No they use what they think will work guided by evidence from a variety of sources. And you are allowed to give a drug that is non-licensed if this was not the case the children would never be treated as most drugs are not tested for use in children. And you give a drug for the effects you want from it - the bad ones you call side effects the good ones the desired effect. If say for example you wanted someone to lose fluid you may give them furosemide but the side effect would be then they would lose potassium - if however you wanted them to lose potassium then the side effect would be for them to lose fluid (yes for all the medical boffins I know you would most likely give calcium resononium or short term salbutamol or insulin + dextrose etc but you get point I am sure).
So despite what you think the medical profession is not beholden to the drugs companies whim so conspiracy theorists my deepest apologies you need to look somewhere else this time.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 423
The contention that pharmaceutical companies aren't interested in cures because there's no money in them is a load of nonsense. If this really was a cure for cancer then the said companies would be all over it. These stories about a single cure for cancer are pathetic and so ill informed it's beyond belief. The conspiricists on the net thrive on this junk.
Cancer is not one disease, it is many. Even if a cure was found for one type of cancer, it wouldn't cure them all. The fact is, there will probably never be a cure for cancer and definitely not a one hit cure all wonder drug!
Cancer is not one disease, it is many. Even if a cure was found for one type of cancer, it wouldn't cure them all. The fact is, there will probably never be a cure for cancer and definitely not a one hit cure all wonder drug!
Soldato
EDIT: Seems some sense has been posted on this page, finally!
I'm pretty blown away by some of the opinions in this thread, and knowing the industry a lot, it just doesn't make sense.
"Big" pharma is on its arse. GSK are closing 3 UK sites, AZ have closed a couple, Pfizer is closing the town of sandwich pretty much, and novartis are shedding staff. Eisai are small in europe, and struggling to gain ground. There just isn't the money and profits in "big" pharma any more, and a lot of that is drugs expiring off patent with no new ones to fill the pipeline.
If they had these miracle products on the shelves they would have reached for them approx 16 months ago, believe me - they are my customers and their budgets have been slashed.
Also, cancer is a collective name for a multitude of different illnesses, to think a single small molecule could cure of them of them is a fallacy of the highest order.
I'd go into significantly more detail as to why it just isn't true, but it would be dismissed by people who know significantly more, without any knowledge on the topic, disease or pharma industry, so I wont bother.
I will just add that LOTS of academics (independent from pharma) who do their own research - some funded by dead cancer patients estates (not pharma) - determine the efficacy of a multitude of different agents which have a long-shot of being a treatment. When these academics get a sniff of an effect they bring these "remedies" to market themselves. What I'm saying is we wouldn't need pharma to determine whether this drug works or not, or to get it to market - pre-clinical & clinical research would take care of it for us, side-stepping the big evil pharma bosses...
I'm pretty blown away by some of the opinions in this thread, and knowing the industry a lot, it just doesn't make sense.
"Big" pharma is on its arse. GSK are closing 3 UK sites, AZ have closed a couple, Pfizer is closing the town of sandwich pretty much, and novartis are shedding staff. Eisai are small in europe, and struggling to gain ground. There just isn't the money and profits in "big" pharma any more, and a lot of that is drugs expiring off patent with no new ones to fill the pipeline.
If they had these miracle products on the shelves they would have reached for them approx 16 months ago, believe me - they are my customers and their budgets have been slashed.
Also, cancer is a collective name for a multitude of different illnesses, to think a single small molecule could cure of them of them is a fallacy of the highest order.
I'd go into significantly more detail as to why it just isn't true, but it would be dismissed by people who know significantly more, without any knowledge on the topic, disease or pharma industry, so I wont bother.
I will just add that LOTS of academics (independent from pharma) who do their own research - some funded by dead cancer patients estates (not pharma) - determine the efficacy of a multitude of different agents which have a long-shot of being a treatment. When these academics get a sniff of an effect they bring these "remedies" to market themselves. What I'm saying is we wouldn't need pharma to determine whether this drug works or not, or to get it to market - pre-clinical & clinical research would take care of it for us, side-stepping the big evil pharma bosses...
This was originally reported by New Scientist and whilst it caused a sensation in 2007 the hype died down fairly quickly afterwards.
A study was carried out in 5 patients with aggressive brain cancer, 4 lived slightly longer than expected whilst one died. No further studies have been carried out with it.
One thing that makes me despair is peoples reactions to pharmaceutical companies supposedly not supporting ‘easy to make miracle cures’ because they’re too cheap and therefore not profitable.
DCA was/is unpatented, leaving it open for anyone to apply for a patent and instantly produce it, making huge amounts of money for little or no work. The problem is that research in DCA is lacking (an n=5 number is far too small to call it a success) and no big company is going to stake their reputation on something that ‘may’ work in the greater population.
What most don’t realise is it regularly costs between $1 and $2 billion for every drug developed, taking it through all of the early screening tests, through to animal models and right up to human patients. The reason medication costs so much for the patient is that the initial payout needs to be recouped, profit is then pumped back into the company to research more drugs and the cycle continues.
I think a company will pick up DCA fairly soon, considering these initial results were published in 2007 it’s ridiculous to claim no progress is being made (it typically takes 10+ years to see a drug fully developed). DCA may regain interest and come well inside this window, just give it time people.
A study was carried out in 5 patients with aggressive brain cancer, 4 lived slightly longer than expected whilst one died. No further studies have been carried out with it.
One thing that makes me despair is peoples reactions to pharmaceutical companies supposedly not supporting ‘easy to make miracle cures’ because they’re too cheap and therefore not profitable.
DCA was/is unpatented, leaving it open for anyone to apply for a patent and instantly produce it, making huge amounts of money for little or no work. The problem is that research in DCA is lacking (an n=5 number is far too small to call it a success) and no big company is going to stake their reputation on something that ‘may’ work in the greater population.
What most don’t realise is it regularly costs between $1 and $2 billion for every drug developed, taking it through all of the early screening tests, through to animal models and right up to human patients. The reason medication costs so much for the patient is that the initial payout needs to be recouped, profit is then pumped back into the company to research more drugs and the cycle continues.
I think a company will pick up DCA fairly soon, considering these initial results were published in 2007 it’s ridiculous to claim no progress is being made (it typically takes 10+ years to see a drug fully developed). DCA may regain interest and come well inside this window, just give it time people.
Soldato
as well as paying for the other 100's of failed trialled drugs...
And this
Far too many people complain about "big pharma" without realising how much everything costs to get done. If they picked up this (supposed) miracle cure and ran with it and it turns out that the research behind it wasn't solid enough, they'd end up footing the bill for the damage caused.
At the end of the day, it's a business decision. If it really is such a ubiquitous cure that it's being touted as (and without patent) then a smaller company would have picked up on it. It's difficult to tell if there are any groups out there studying it right now as it doesn't become apparent until after papers are submitted/published.