SemBioSys Bankrupcy

www.intlcorn.com...

Plant-produced pharmaceuticals have been consistently controversial. The idea of producing pharmaceutical proteins in plants spans pharmaceutical production where biotechnology is less controversial for the public, and agricultural biotechnology where biotechnology where it has been more controversial. But the controversy seems to have abated since 2003-2006 when it hit a peak. In the early 2000’s there were a larger number of new products in stage I clinical trials. This was perhaps spillover from investments made during the life sciences phase. As the first group of produces got weeded out in clinical trials, the numbers became less threatening. Publication of new USDA regulations on the handling of non-food genetically modified plants may have lessened fears about mishandling. The draft guidance for Field Testing of Plants Engineered To Produce Pharmaceutical and Industrial Compounds was published in 2003.

This was pretty sad to read cause i think the benefits could have outweighed the negative effects. They modified a flower that produced insulin and the world rejected it while citing concerns over gmo crops taking over. Here we are yrs later and gmo crops are more popular than ever and insulin is still extremely hard to procure.

It would be great to give an exception to this single modification and just make rules about the spread of such or even better would be to create a breed that does not reproduce except in a lab.

a reply to: howtonhawky

It is the same sad issue as plant-produced cancer cures.

And it all stems from the fact that they cannot patent a plant, so nobody makes money off of it.

Who cares about the patients, right?

a reply to: Lumenari

How much money would you invest with no chance of return?
$1 million?
$100 million?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Lumenari

How much money would you invest with no chance of return?
$1 million?
$100 million?

If something has been proven to cure most types of cancer but you can't make money off it, how much would you pay to silence the research if you had a product that you spent $100 million on developing a synthetic version of that isn't as effective but you could patent it so you are the only supplier?

Or... why not share the information about the plant so more people could live?

Oh right... we're back to how much money you could make for a less effective alternative if you just shut up the people who point out that a plant-based pharmaceutical works better.

I understand the business side of it that you are pointing out.

"Treating" cancer is a multi-billion dollar business, after all.

"Curing" cancer with something the patient could just grow?

Where is the profit in that?

So why bother?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Lumenari

How much money would you invest with no chance of return?
$1 million?
$100 million?

If something has been proven to cure most types of cancer but you can't make money off it, how much would you pay to silence the research if you had a product that you spent $100 million on developing a synthetic version of that isn't as effective but you could patent it so you are the only supplier?

Or... why not share the information about the plant so more people could live?

Oh right... we're back to how much money you could make for a less effective alternative if you just shut up the people who point out that a plant-based pharmaceutical works better.

I understand the business side of it that you are pointing out.

"Treating" cancer is a multi-billion dollar business, after all.

"Curing" cancer with something the patient could just grow?

Where is the profit in that?

So why bother?

I would love to hear of these cures.

Perhaps that turn away from funding such research is due to the frequency of such trials showing limited effectiveness?

a reply to: chr0naut

The two big ones from the pharmaceutical companies that have been done in the US were both terminated before they completed.

They were not getting the test results they liked so they tanked them. according to the patients.

You should probably research cancer 5 year studies and why America doesn't do a ten year study.

Because the only good ten year study (done by Australia) shows that besides lung, colon. breast and testicular cancer, the end results of patients that did chemo verses not taking chemo, the death rates were worse among the chemo patients.

There is no 15 and 20 year study of people who have done chemo and radiation... a cancer success in America is if you don't die in 5 years and your tumor didn't grow bigger.

Again, this is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Cancer is the result of a lot of things that compromise the immune system until abnormal cell growth happens.

In America, we fix that by destroying the immune system through chemo and radiation, or compromise it through surgery.

Seems kinda counterproductive, does it not?

a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, pretty much.

Bob Marley died of cancer....hmmm

connect.mayoclinic.org...

Stacy Erholtz battled multiple myeloma for 10 years, undergoing multiple chemotherapies and two stem-cell transplants only to relapse each time. Just as she ran out of treatment options, her doctors at Mayo Clinic suggested a radical treatment, a single high dose of the measles virus.