It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cancer may have a cure, Big Pharma says "no profit.. no way"

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


It's called Dichloroacetic Acid and can be purchased by the Liter Here: www.sciencelab.com...




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


i think that might be the case actually...

read Charles' post just before mine.... He makes a comment about Washington... and i stated that washington likely has nothing to do with what the FDA and Big Pharma release




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by elbur2008
reply to post by Akragon
 


It's called Dichloroacetic Acid and can be purchased by the Liter Here: www.sciencelab.com...



Thats awesome man, but i have no need for that chemical...

Others might though considering its application for cancer treatments if its actually true...

As i've stated, im sure many people dying of cancer would volenteer...

Perhaps its time for some independant research and testing




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Are there any issues from the opening post that still need talking about, or are you satisfied with the discussion this has had? What additional issues would you like to see discussed, or what other points are to be made?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Are there any issues from the opening post that still need talking about, or are you satisfied with the discussion this has had? What additional issues would you like to see discussed, or what other points are to be made?


I'd like to know what can be done about such things...

Obviously these companies have enough money and power to prevent actual cures from reaching the general public one way or the other. Clearly anything that interfears with their profit margin will not be released... so what can we do as a society to get this information out there, or even get these drugs tested without spending 100mil in the process...

The monitary value that video stated for these "testing phases" is probably true, but none the less completely rediculious. If this is actually something that cures cancer and is easy to produce while being reletively inexpensive, should there not be a way to get this testing done without costing incredible amounts of money in the process... such as volenteers?

Again, im sure people dying from this disease would be happy to try anything that might offer some hope of being cured...




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
There does not seem to be clinical tests done 'officially', but has been done by individuals. It seems to be pretty harmless stuff, like baking soda and vinegar, so it's acid based.

I found this from Wiki,

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 2-9-2011 by smurfy because: Link.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Dear Akragon,

If you don't mind, I'll ask you some questions largely because I'm not bright enough to have answers myself.

1) Should this drug have further testing? Granted, current American law says it has to, but we can think outside the box. If we think outside the box and say that the law won't apply in this case, then all anybody has to do is put up some fliers or some social media device and say "go out and get drug (whatever it's name is), take a swig, and odds are you cancer will be gone. If you say, well, we should probably have trials then:

2) Who will conduct the trials? I can think of three entities, maybe four; the government, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, or colleges. After you pick one or more, then the question is:

3) Who will pay for the trials? Ok, I'll accept that all the volunteers are free, but we've got bed space, technicians to administer drugs, people to interview the subjects, the machinery for taking pictures of the tumor size, data entry people, report writers, not to mention administrators, lawyers, accountants, etc. And this is not over months, but probably years. So who pays? Well, maybe taxpayers, maybe cancer patients, but the one I don't like is the pharmaceutical company. What do they get for spending millions? Nothing. It just doesn't seem right.

A couple of other thoughts. If you believe that the pharmaceutical companies can prevent it's release, then I'm really confused. They can't prevent it's release, it's already out there. The only thing in their (theoretical) power to do is to persuade the FDA to not approve it. Have some other country do the trials, if you think trials are needed and if you trust the other country's procedures.

Why would the FDA ever approve any drugs if the pharmaceutical companies are that powerful? Actually, that may be a dumb question. Ignore it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   


I remember a guy who used to promote this. Ironically he came down with cancer and the first thing he did was go for conventional treatment.

Don't let this above anecdote imply that it should be disregarded. There are plenty of studies out there on DCA and the benefits. University ones are most common:


A study in mice at the University of Alberta showed that "DCA induces apoptosis, decreases proliferation, and inhibits tumor growth, without apparent toxicity."
1

But if someone thought this was a be-all/end-all cure... It's not.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Very interesting, of course. There's a lot I don't know about it, so please allow me to wander a bit.

I agree with your feeling that something should be done, but isn't it a little hard to tell a company that they have to spend $100,000,000 and up to prove that the drug is useful for some purpose, then get absolutely no benefit from spending that amount? I'd be pretty irritated if my retirement plan had stock in a company that did that.

Sorry, I just can't find it disgusting. But, what to do? How about charging every company that sells drugs in the US to give some tiny percentage of their gross to a fund for orphan drug research. (My first inclination would be to let the industry run it, instead of the government.) Or, since it would help all Americans equally (or Canadians, or wherever), tax everybody in the country $3. Every income level, no exemptions.

Just a thought to start a discussion.


if someone cuold prove that they have a cure for something so big there should be no fees involved in getting it on the market



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Great questions my friend... i'll do my best to give my answers...


Should this drug have further testing?


If such testing has already been done, and this chemical is practically harmless... i don't see the point of testing it for numerous years when people are dying of this disease NOW... i think "they" should just make some attempts to use it on a trial bases in people who chose to volenteer for testing... and of course record and report their results. IF it works on people... use it regardless of the possible lack of profit. Considering the affects that radiation and chemotherapy has on the body, what do they have to lose?


Granted, current American law says it has to, but we can think outside the box. If we think outside the box and say that the law won't apply in this case, then all anybody has to do is put up some fliers or some social media device and say "go out and get drug (whatever it's name is), take a swig, and odds are you cancer will be gone.


Unfortunatly they didn't give specifics on how the drug is administered, it may be more complicated then just taking a drink of said substance.


Who will conduct the trials? I can think of three entities, maybe four; the government, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, or colleges.


All it would take is one brave doctor to set up a clinical study on the drug. Find these volenteers ( im sure there would be plenty) and get er done. A brave doctor being important because who knows the lengths these companies might go to protect their profits.


Who will pay for the trials?


The better question is, why should such life saving drugs not be free... When did human life and those we love that are dying of such diseases become rationalized by a monitary value? Its insanity! I mean..."oh you can afford it? Alright you get to suffer and die because of your lack of funding" Ask yourself if that is "right"


Ok, I'll accept that all the volunteers are free, but we've got bed space, technicians to administer drugs, people to interview the subjects, the machinery for taking pictures of the tumor size, data entry people, report writers, not to mention administrators, lawyers, accountants, etc. And this is not over months, but probably years. So who pays?


Again if this is found to be a cure for cancer, all of those things are just reasons to raise the cost of the drug. Excuses if you will, made by politicians... If its as simple as an injection it would take one nurse... And the only reason this "testing" would take years would probably be so they could find some way to charge people an arm and a leg to get the drug. Its been around for quite some time already, its pointless for anything to take years unless a lawyer gets involved... thats when things get complicated


Well, maybe taxpayers, maybe cancer patients, but the one I don't like is the pharmaceutical company. What do they get for spending millions? Nothing. It just doesn't seem right.


That litterally hurt my eyes to read... check the profits of any pharmaceutical company... Then rethink that question. A few million is a drop in the ocean compared to what they make per year... No company should be allowed to make the kind of money they make from the sick and dying... not to mention the fact that theres a pill released every 2 second for every single symptom going... from an itch on your head to a spot on your shoulder or an ingrown hair. If you have any issue, they have a pill for it.


A couple of other thoughts. If you believe that the pharmaceutical companies can prevent it's release, then I'm really confused. They can't prevent it's release, it's already out there. The only thing in their (theoretical) power to do is to persuade the FDA to not approve it. Have some other country do the trials, if you think trials are needed and if you trust the other country's procedures.


Its out there but no one knows how its administered. Do patients need an injection, a pill, topical cream?

there are some issues with other countries testing as well though. Medical standards are not always the same in every country... for example there is "technically" a theoretical cure for multiple sclerosis called liberation therapy... it has had alot of success in sweden i believe and only by one doctor. This procedure is not approved in Canada or the US but its going though "testing"....meanwhile people are suffering even though if the procedure is done correctly there is a 95% sucess rate. Testing is absolutely necessary in many cases, but in this case the chemical is harmless...

I say they should just use it and see how it goes.... but again they can't make a profit from this drug, so it won't happen untill they figure out how to do so...


edit on 2-9-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenobserva

Originally posted by charles1952
Very interesting, of course. There's a lot I don't know about it, so please allow me to wander a bit.

I agree with your feeling that something should be done, but isn't it a little hard to tell a company that they have to spend $100,000,000 and up to prove that the drug is useful for some purpose, then get absolutely no benefit from spending that amount? I'd be pretty irritated if my retirement plan had stock in a company that did that.

Sorry, I just can't find it disgusting. But, what to do? How about charging every company that sells drugs in the US to give some tiny percentage of their gross to a fund for orphan drug research. (My first inclination would be to let the industry run it, instead of the government.) Or, since it would help all Americans equally (or Canadians, or wherever), tax everybody in the country $3. Every income level, no exemptions.

Just a thought to start a discussion.


if someone cuold prove that they have a cure for something so big there should be no fees involved in getting it on the market


I agree but, cancer is a huge money maker for many huge companies....

I believe if there is/was/might be a cure, it would be hidden or destroyed to prevent profit loss on the drugs that already cost people an arm and a leg to get.

Its got nothing to do with peoples well being....

Its about money


edit on 2-9-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
and MIT has found a way to CURE all viral infections


web.mit.edu...



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I remember finding this info a couple months back. I saved a link at that time (if I ever got cancer) with dosage instructions and more info:

www.thedcasite.com...
edit on 2-9-2011 by adraves because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Greetings,

I don't know why every one is so surprised by this.

The FDA trumped up some charges against Tom Folsom and sent him to Fed prison for distributing rife machines which can also cure cancer plus God knows how many other things.. That technology goes back over 70 years.

Not only do you have the predatory FDA you also have the DOE preventing zero energy devices from going on the market.

And who runs these depts? The street walkers of big business.

Long live the USA: Inc



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Dear Akragon,

Thank you so much for responding so seriously, other threads have made me scream. Your answers are quite good, I think my questions are at fault.

By asking about testing, I didn't mean for safety. Let's assume that the stuff is as safe as, well, whatever is safe nowadays. The FDA won't approve it unless its safe AND effective. The FDA has fairly strict rules on how a drug is tested for effectiveness. I'm sad too, but the testing procedure is time consuming and expensive. That's why I brought up outside the box thinking.

Just on the edge of the box would be requesting some kind of emergency experimental permission to administer the stuff. It won't get to many people that way, but its a start.

Granted, current American law says it has to, but if we think outside the box and say that the law won't apply in this case, then all anybody has to do is put up some fliers or some social media device and say "go out and get drug (whatever it's name is), take a swig, and odds are you cancer will be gone.
Ok, get a shot, or an inhaler or whatever. If the law doesn't forbid it, then any doctor can administer it. (Of course, if anything goes wrong he'll have had you sign a release to protect himself.)


All it would take is one brave doctor to set up a clinical study on the drug. Find these volenteers ( im sure there would be plenty) and get er done. A brave doctor being important because who knows the lengths these companies might go to protect their profits.
Here's something I'm not sure about. But, I don't think I've ever heard of a modern, full clinical trial conducted by anything smaller than a team with access to a pretty spiffy lab.


The better question is, why should such life saving drugs not be free... When did human life and those we love that are dying of such diseases become rationalized by a monitary value? Its insanity! I mean..."oh you can afford it? Alright you get to suffer and die because of your lack of funding" Ask yourself if that is "right"
I'm not thinking about the price of the drug, I'm assuming it would be $10 a dose or less. Why? I don't know, just a useful guess.


So who pays?
I suppose I should have said that there will be costs in getting through the testing procedures. Large costs. And there is no way to raise the price of the drug by one company to cover the price of getting approval from the FDA. THE DRUG ITSELF WILL BE CHEAP.


And the only reason this "testing" would take years would probably be so they could find some way to charge people an arm and a leg to get the drug. Its been around for quite some time already, its pointless for anything to take years unless a lawyer gets involved... thats when things get complicated
It's going to take years to run the tests to show 1) its not a slow poison, 2) that after the tumor shrinks, it stays shrunk and 3) yeah, lawyers are involved all over the place.


Well, maybe taxpayers, maybe cancer patients, but the one I don't like is the pharmaceutical company. What do they get for spending millions? Nothing. It just doesn't seem right.

That litterally hurt my eyes to read... check the profits of any pharmaceutical company... Then rethink that question. A few million is a drop in the ocean compared to what they make per year... No company should be allowed to make the kind of money they make from the sick and dying... not to mention the fact that theres a pill released every 2 second for every single symptom going... from an itch on your head to a spot on your shoulder or an ingrown hair. If you have any issue, they have a pill for it.
You're going to hate me for this and I understand, but I don't know what else to say. Shall we have drugs produced by private companies? If so, they have to spend tons to set up shop, tons to research drugs, and tons to test, only to find out that their new drug doesn't pass FDA tests and has to be thrown out. Where do they get the money for these things? They have to make at least as much money as most other businesses or nobody will invest in them. They have to make profits in order to keep searching for drugs, unless the government gives it to them. I don't know how to fix that.


Its out there but no one knows how its administered. Do patients need an injection, a pill, topical cream?
If the scientist in the video knows how to administer the stuff, then I'm sure its in his published reports.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



The FDA won't approve it unless its safe AND effective. The FDA has fairly strict rules on how a drug is tested for effectiveness.


Correct me if im wrong about this but, didn't the FDA outlaw herbal remedies in the US.... or at least they're trying to do so. Somehow i don't believe they're worried about the safty or effectiveness of their drugs. Its about money not cures. Then again im Canadian, i don't know how your laws or Alphabet agencies work.


I'm not thinking about the price of the drug, I'm assuming it would be $10 a dose or less. Why? I don't know, just a useful guess.


That would not be my assumption. Considering this drug would eliminate many other drugs currently being used to slow the spread of cancer. That represents a monsterous loss! Its profit would have to make up for those losses... My assumption is that the FDA would not release such a "cure" unless they could charge the money it would take to make up for that loss.


I suppose I should have said that there will be costs in getting through the testing procedures. Large costs. And there is no way to raise the price of the drug by one company to cover the price of getting approval from the FDA. THE DRUG ITSELF WILL BE CHEAP


Why is there no way to raise the costs of such drugs. Who regulates the costs of these drugs?


It's going to take years to run the tests to show 1) its not a slow poison, 2) that after the tumor shrinks, it stays shrunk and 3) yeah, lawyers are involved all over the place.


Why not skip the testing and jump right into clinical trials? Why? Because "they" want to make money off of anything they can to keep their investors happy. These tests are pointless if said drug is already being used in human medicine, regardless of the application at the moment. And meanwhile people are still dying...

If this drug per chance extended the life of some people by even a few years, would you not want to take that chance if it was you?


You're going to hate me for this and I understand, but I don't know what else to say.


Hate doesn't exist in me my friend....its a useless emotion.


Shall we have drugs produced by private companies? If so, they have to spend tons to set up shop, tons to research drugs, and tons to test, only to find out that their new drug doesn't pass FDA tests and has to be thrown out.


Do you believe its possible some of these drugs may actually work and the only reason they don't pass FDA tests is because the profit is too low and the losses are too great on such a drug? Personally...i do.


Where do they get the money for these things? They have to make at least as much money as most other businesses or nobody will invest in them. They have to make profits in order to keep searching for drugs, unless the government gives it to them. I don't know how to fix that.


People would invest in cures. The problem is these companies do not produce cures for anything... they produce relief producing agents that you need to take over and over for years...if not the rest of your life. These companies are not in the cure business, its about money not cures. Notice no company produces a "cure" for anything...simply because its not profitable.

Things like this are easy to fix though, but its something that will never happen because its big business, big money. The fix is simple... stop putting a monitary value on peoples lives. Instead of looking for drugs to provide relief of symptoms, they should be looking for cures...but they don't.




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Everything you say is quite spot on. Many people only think of the profits accrued by Big Pharma, and forget or just ignore the costs and risks involved in creating these drugs. These companies are for profit just like any other company on the face of this earth. To demonized them because they won't give up hundreds of millions of dollars for the sake of curing cancer is preposterous. Just because they have billions of dollars doesn't mean the common man is entitled to any of it.

If these companies were forcibly and intentionally suppressing the discovery or knowledge of cures, then it becomes a problem. But that's not the case here, they are deciding not to pursue it.

There are tons of safeguards and red tape when diving into research of a new drug that is to be marketed to humans. All of this costs hundreds of millions of dollars for each drug that is presented to the FDA for approval. These companies do deserved their money back plus profits as do any other company.

Cancer is a horrible disease, and it should be countered by any means possible. But to force companies to take major losses to save lives is just as repulsive forcing the average Joe to yield his salary to save a total stranger. The amount of money is not the issue here, its forcing someone against their will to take losses. Whether its done to a average household or a billionaire makes no difference the principle is the still same.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
A study done in 1976 and published in a Cancer journal found cannibinoids (yes, THC) reduced tumor growth. Lack of patentability and the fact that it is a medicine that anyone can grow in their home caused it to be buried. Besides, what would Susan Komen due if they actually found a cure?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 



If these companies were forcibly and intentionally suppressing the discovery or knowledge of cures, then it becomes a problem. But that's not the case here, they are deciding not to pursue it.


How do you know this isn't the case here?

It seems to me this is exactly the case...


There are tons of safeguards and red tape when diving into research of a new drug that is to be marketed to humans.


Check the stats on the amount of research that goes into some of the drugs the FDA releases for various acute illnesses. They don't do as much testing as you'd think when they can charge out the ass for these pills. You'll telling me that they've extensively tested pills that are made for various issues when many times the side effects are worse then the condition that the pill is made for?


The amount of money is not the issue here, its forcing someone against their will to take losses.


This isn't forcing anyone to lose anything... these are huge companies that make not millions but BILLIONS of dollars each year from peoples illnesses. IF it saves peoples lives... they should suck it up and take the frickin loss.


Whether its done to a average household or a billionaire makes no difference the principle is the still same.


Its not the same. If we were forcing a person to give his money to research that is one thing. If we're forcing a company that makes billions upon billions of dollars EVERY YEAR.... screw them they can take the loss. And should for the sake of humanity.




posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by elbur2008
 
Not so much, friend - check out the MSDS for that. The straight acid is pretty hardcode caustic and not for consumption.

Need to get one of the salt forms, mainly sodium or potassium...please don't ever try to dose yourself with straight DCA, for your own good.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join