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.
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...
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?
1
A study in mice at the University of Alberta showed that "DCA induces apoptosis, decreases proliferation, and inhibits tumor growth, without apparent toxicity."
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.
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.
Who will conduct the trials? I can think of three entities, maybe four; the government, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, or colleges.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
So who pays?
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.
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
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.
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.
If the scientist in the video knows how to administer the stuff, then I'm sure its in his published reports.
Its out there but no one knows how its administered. Do patients need an injection, a pill, topical cream?
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.