Possible Cancer Cure - Pharmaceutical Companies Uninterested

<p>Not sure how accurate this article itself is, but with a link to the University of Alberta page, it seems legitimate.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.</p>

<p>This drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies. </p>

<p>...</p>

<p>Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can’t make money, like they are doing now with their AIDS Patent. Since the pharmaceutical companies won’t develop this, the article says other independent laboratories should start producing this drug and do more research to confirm all the above findings and produce drugs. All the groundwork can be done in collaboration with the Universities, who will be glad to assist in such research and can develop an effective drug for curing cancer. </p>

<p>...</p>

<p>This article wants to raise awareness for this study, hope some independent companies and small startup will pick up this idea and produce these drugs, because the big companies won’t touch it for a long time.

[/quote]

Read more: Scientists</a> cure cancer, but no one takes notice</p>

<p>It links to the research pages, but they seem to be from 2010, so I'm not sure where the "last week" research is. There is a donate link on the page for the University of Alberta research.</p>

<p>If this is legitimate, it could be a major breakthrough. Pharmaceutical companies may not be able to patent it, but generics might make some money, though I imagine chemotherapy drugs make more of a profit. Regardless, I hope this drug and the people it can save don't die because businessmen don't think they can make enough cotton-fiber paper from saving lives.</p>

<p>If the Uni "cured cancer" with a "simple technique" using a "very basic drug" "which is currently used" then there's no research or investment needed to be done by the drug companies.</p>

<p>The 'article', really just something written by someone blogging on a blogging website, makes no sense and looks like it's just some unqualified individual's opinion.</p>

<p>Maybe I should write a piece and post it there about how one can use tap water rather than gasoline to power our existing engines but Detroit has the technique locked away in a safe.</p>

<p>From the U Alberta website, dated 2007. You'd think someone might have been able to confirm these "findings" in the last 4 years.....</p>

<p>News</a> & Updates - DCA Research Information</p>

<p>Cancer is not a single disease state. Even within a single organ, the variety of different cancers often each act and grow and spread differently. There will never be a simple or single "cure." Genetics and gene therapy likely will be key.</p>

<p>Hm, so this doesn't seem legitimate? What I read on the UA website sounded like it had something.</p>

<p>Cancer is a complex disease and is as individualized as each person affected by it. I do not want to get into technical details here, but I see so many possibilities why it simply would not be a cancer panacea.</p>

<p>Yes, I would like to reiterate what previous posters have said. Cancer is such a broad name for a disease that is so multi dimensional in nature. For the layman, finding a cure for cancer seems like the pinnacle of research, but it isn't and is a misleading, overused term. There are so many subtypes and causes, and individual disease history needs to be taken into account before making a decision about treatment. Cancer type diseases will have great individualized medicine in the future, but a cure all is misleading, something I feel the general population that isn't very science based latches onto too often.</p>

<p>Sent from my SGH-T959V using CC App</p>

<p>I saw the article some years ago. I am active in a group of an uncommon children's cancer and a lot of these things arise. All of them do show a lot of promise but getting them in a form that it will eradicate enough cancer cells for a long term remission is the challenge.</p>

<p>It is not true that research is not being done and drugs are not being used that don't make huge profits for the pharmaceudical companies, though there have been some situations where parties in interest have gotten funds going their way. That's just the way it works in terms of research grants, and the competition is stiff among the researchers even among the drugs and products that are profitable. But a lot of the chemo and directed immuno therapy used are not patented and are inexpensive. </p>

<p>There are a number of agents out there that have anti cancer properties, but they have to be tested against what else is available in clinical trials and in conjunction with other drugs to where they would fit in a protocol. I watched a wide spread trial that was done in just changing some sequencing and some meds for one phase of a protocol to try to see if this teeny change would be beneficial. Every one of the drugs used have anti cancer properties but the one that gets used for the standard protocol is the one that performs best in those trials. </p>

<p>I regularly see parents of kids whose cancer is not in remission and they go through, not only all of the regiments available in trials, some of them Phase 1 and 2, but they start hitting those meds that didn't make the cuts in hopes of getting some relief. Also any number of non traditional methods are tried</p>

<p>It was a young college student who brought that same information to our attention several years ago. I think of him often still as his mother is very active in looking for new trials for his particular form of cancer. He passed away within the year of bring up that article so it brings back memories that I did not expect to revisit on this forum.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can’t make money, like they are doing now with their AIDS Patent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolute nonsence! First of all, what is the "AIDS patent"? There are dozens of AIDS drugs on the market, covered by many more dozens of patents. </p>

<p>Second, if someone discovers a novel and non-obvious use for an exisitng compound, s/he may be entitled to patent protection for the method of use of this compound, but there is a caveat. Many countries will not issue a patent on an invention if it had been disclosed to the public prior to the filing of the patent. US is more lenient, it gives inventors a year to dog and pony show their invention prior to patent filing. It is up to the inventors what they decide to do. Guess someone missed the boat in this case?</p>

<p>Jeez! Here I thought my son's university found the cancer cure.</p>

<p>News</a> on the battle to cure cancer</p>