Cure for Cancer: No profit means no interest in it ?

Question

Cure for cancer: No profit means no interest in it ?

I am somewhat surprised that a research scientest at the University of Alberta believes he will have problems with research money into a simple cancer treatment; because there is not profit in it, it is not a patenable drug.

January 16, 2007 - Edmonton - DCA is an odourless, colourless, inexpensive, relatively non-toxic, small molecule. And researchers at the University of Alberta believe it may soon be used as an effective treatment for many forms of cancer.

Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, professor U of A Department of Medicine, has shown that dichloroacetate (DCA) causes regression in several cancers, including lung, breast and brain tumors.

So do you think the fact that profits cannot be made in a cure, (prevention is the best of cures) renders much of the research money into expensive pharamceutical drugs and treatments that are not the best ?
CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/

This is why we should try to eliminate the profit motive in disease treatment.

The healthier we are the more we can spend on GMC, Ford and Chrysler products.

Like I have said before, in Italy doctors receive a flat fee per patient per year, so they are motivated to keep you healthy and out of their offices.

Cure for cancer....maybe garlic is too simple ?

Answer 1

Please do more investigation into the University of Alberta concerning this hype. All their research is already patented to a company called CardioMetabolics Inc They have exclusive rights to market DCA drugs for cancer:

http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/January2007/23/c8535.html

Please also note that there is more hype than hope going on presently about this drug. My son has a stage IV abdominal sarcoma . . don't you think that we who are suffering have more at stake than the rest of you who are just playing political games.

Let this DCA go through the Clinical Trials, if it works on even one type of cancer . . than good . . but I doubt that it will cover the over 200 types of cancers, the stages and grades, and be suitable for all ages and people who are currently suffering from cancer.

And, if any of you have any compassion, please read what the American Cancer Society says about this hyped up product:

DCA: Cancer Breakthrough Or Urban Legend?
http://www.cancer.org/aspx/blog/Comments.aspx?id=130

Incidentally, this is just one in a long parade of . . . new cancer 'cures' . . . that have yet to undergo human Clinical Trials. The Koreans have also developed what they call 'a cancer killing virus' . . . which probably holds more promise than this:

SKorean scientists say cancer-killing virus developed
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/19/061019102114.ms2asupj.html

Answer 2

I disagree. Cancer afffects many families, and probably more than a few researchers have gone into cancer research as a result of having lost someone to the disease.

There is also a lot of funding to cancer foundations for research into the causes of (and looking for a cure for) cancer. It's not a simple thing to find a cure for, but there are plenty of people looking. And I'm sure there'd be profit somewhere, and there's lots of other things to make profit from once cancer is off the table.

Now I'm sure there are SOME companies that say "well, we only have $X to spend on research" and decide to look at stuff other than cancer, since they figure (and perhaps rightly so) that their chances of finding a cure are minimal, and so they focus on something that they can get their money back in (otherwise they'd ultimately be out of business).

But what's true for some companies isn't true for the whole industry.

Answer 3

I agree with you. Follow the money. With all the money they spend on cancer you would think they would come up with a cure by now, but no. There were cures for cancer back in the 1930's that were destroyed by the AMA. Why ruin a good thing? A group of healers completely eliminated cancer in a liver, for free. Would the American Cancer Society care? Hell no. I've seen people pray away cancer. This is the sacred cow of the pharmaceutical companies. Don't try to fix something that works.

Answer 4

Flash back to 1998:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,988347,00.html

On the cover of Time magazine, Dr. Judah Folkman of Children's Hospital in Boston announced the results of test in lab animals and cell cultures where he cured cancer with no major side effects. The mechanism was early anti-angiogenesis drugs: Angiostatin and Endostatin. People were declaring cancer would cured in 20 years.

What came of that was a new approach to combat cancer: attacking a tumor's blood supply. Research on anti-angiogenesis continues to this day. Some drugs using this principle have made it to market: Avastin, Erbitux, Tarceva, Iressa. They have extended the survival rates and times of patients with only minor side effects. For the most part, they are NOT cures.

This was prior to Internet forums such as this.

My point is cancer has been cured in the laboratory many times. To jump to a conclusion because of a preliminary report has proven wrong in the past and more than likely do so aagin.

My opinion is treatments like anti-angiogenesis drugs and possibly DCA work on the support mechanisms of cancer and not the cancer itself (genetic mutations). Therefore, such therapies are unlikely to produce a cure.

As for DCA specifically, the drug is not ready for human use. Read Dr. Evangelos own words on his website:

http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/

The University of Alberta is continuing with its research and is planning on conducting clinical trials. If the results of those trials are promising, I am all for promoting DCA as a treatment. Right now, it's much too early.

There has been alot of questions recently posted on this forum by users such as yourself hyping DCA as a cancer cure. All these account profiles have little history (points). I must assume that these posters are the same person or an associated group of people who have some (financial) motivation to promote DCA.

Answer 5

There are two problems.

Noone seems to think there can be a cure, so they start to think that throwing money at a cure is a waste.

If someone did find a cure, all the money that IS being used to work towards that cure would be cut off.

We need to find a cure for cancer, but at the same time it will require people to start caring more about their health in the first place and taking precautionary measures, as well as determining a way to catch it earlier, before it gets to the point where it is untreatable.

Answer 6

Most organizations that fund scientific research do so with the expectation of a return on their investment. If there is insufficient risk-return ratio, then they usually withhold money. This stems from a long series of abuses and usurpations all pursuing invariably as direct object the researcher's own carrier without regard for end-user application. Research is chosen based on the marginal propensity to enhance the researcher, without regard for feasible future application. So, much money gets squandered in fishing expeditions which produce little if any return for the funding agency. Nowadays, aware of this, benefactors only warily invest, fearing future hoodwinking from the unscrupled in academia.