Most trials for new cancer agents start by adding the treatment/placebo to standard treatment. You can't forego treatment in a serious or fatal disease as part of a trial (it wouldn't pass ethical review).
Linda
Cheap, safe cure for most cancers?
- Thread starter a_unique_person
- Start date
Most trials for new cancer agents start by adding the treatment/placebo to standard treatment. You can't forego treatment in a serious or fatal disease as part of a trial (it wouldn't pass ethical review).
Linda
Quite the phenomenon...
It looks like DCA is being sold worldwide over the Net, Using Pet DCA as the workaround, Doctors are prescribing it for patients with no chance of surviving their late stage cancers, other Doctors are trying to stop this, Government agencies are also trying to stop DCA from being used, sold, or given away. Someone has found a cheaper way to make it, and the DCA forums are abuzz with people talking about it.
Some links -
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=7875b934-48e4-4cb4-b9d0-7be687157b10
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=23109
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2221140§ionid=105
It isn't hard to see, that unofficial trials are being conducted, without any guidelines, oversight, or scientific procedures. As in, people with cancer are trying to use DCA to stop or reduce cancer. Shame that DCA isn't a new drug, with huge profit potential. If it really works, (we should know soon enough, with the numbers of people trying it), it would make billions for some drug company in about 10 years.
Maybe.
It looks like DCA is being sold worldwide over the Net, Using Pet DCA as the workaround, Doctors are prescribing it for patients with no chance of surviving their late stage cancers, other Doctors are trying to stop this, Government agencies are also trying to stop DCA from being used, sold, or given away. Someone has found a cheaper way to make it, and the DCA forums are abuzz with people talking about it.
Some links -
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=7875b934-48e4-4cb4-b9d0-7be687157b10
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=23109
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2221140§ionid=105
It isn't hard to see, that unofficial trials are being conducted, without any guidelines, oversight, or scientific procedures. As in, people with cancer are trying to use DCA to stop or reduce cancer. Shame that DCA isn't a new drug, with huge profit potential. If it really works, (we should know soon enough, with the numbers of people trying it), it would make billions for some drug company in about 10 years.
Maybe.
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
We interviewed Marcinkoski a few weeks ago. He had never heard of the Warburg Effect, and was unaware that it did not apply to most cancers. ie: he didn't know (or denied knowing) that the proposed mechanism of action meant that most of his customers that bought the product were getting 0% benefit with 100% side effect.
Rather than actually refuting Michelakis' concern that Marcinkoski is selling a drug to customers for whom it cannot possibly work, Marcinkoski instead accuses Michelakis of being "uncompasionate" for trying to educate and warn the public.
This proved to me that Marcinkoski is a heartless profiteer, preying on the desperately ill. He is misrepresenting the product by witholding critical information, which is just plain fraud. He is practicing medicine without a licence and should be charged with battery.
What difference would that make? The clinical testings for DCA's effectiveness against Lactic Acidosis was paid for by the NIH, FDA, and the CIHR. These organizations have invested billions in exploring treatments for cancer, and this chemical has moved up on their funding list. This is what they do. Michelakis' research was done on a government grant, which has been extended.
I spoke to one of the directors of the BCCA two weeks ago, and they have already earmarked funding for two trials. They want to coordinate with U of A, though, to avoid redundancy. I wouldn't be surprised if the NIH is revving up Orphan Drug trials as we speak.
Not this way. One-offs are unsuitable for revealing efficacy for several reasons. Not the least of which is that we require drug trials to be pre-registered. This prevents a claimant from doing a clinical trial 300 times to get the 'right' results by chance, and just suppressing the undesireable results. Another reason is that there are no baselines or control groups in such an anecdotal approach.
There will absolutely be real clinical trials for DCA and the specific types of cancer it is expected to be effective against. It shouldn't take more than a couple of years to determine if there's an effect.
The cost of delaying breakthrough medicines is not a new concern. There is a process for accelerated approval in the US and Canada called "Fast-Track" that was developed in the 1980s. In no small way, this was developed in response to ACTUP's civil disobedience campaigns.
Thanks for the information. I notice there is still pretty much a Media blackout in the US about any and all issues around DCA. (If I am wrong, I'm sure somebody will point this out, with links and everything).
I wonder which story will break first, Cancer cured with DCA, or Cancer patient dies after using DCA. Experience shows the latter is far more likely.
I wonder which story will break first, Cancer cured with DCA, or Cancer patient dies after using DCA. Experience shows the latter is far more likely.
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
I doubt anybody can dissuade you about the "blackout" thing - this is a conspiracy theory, and pretty much non-disprovable by nature.
The reality is more mundane: DCA has joined the other ten thousand potential cancer cures that are in "wait and see" mode, and not really newsworthy. If clinical trials produce promising results, we'll see a brief flurry of news for a few days, and it'll be on to Phase II, Phase III, and so on, each with its own short burst of news. Be mindful that only about one in a hundred substances that pass Phase I trials actually pass Phase II trials.
Should DCA pass Phase II trials, that will actually be what I call news, since at this point it will show it has effects in humans.
Obviously.
This is because 0.0000000001% of "Cancer Cure?" stories ever turn into "Cancer Cure!" stories.
Just to give you an insider's view on this: my experience as a medical researcher is that virtually nothing that works in a petri dish or on lab animals actually turns out to work on people. It's those rare exceptions that make the process worthwhile, of course, but going directly from in vitro results to selling product is fraudulently misrepresenting the product's potential.
We've been here before a hundred times.
Locally, for me here in Vancouver, the big "cancer cure" in the 1980s was a substance found in Pacific Yew called "taxol". Poacher naturopaths traipsing off into the forest to chop down these trees - nearly making them extinct - and selling their formulations at criminally high markups to the desperately ill. A few years of research later, and we know it's effective against one type of cancer, provided it's in a certain stage of progression.
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
Hello blutoski!
Thanks for the link, I was rushed the other day when I posted or I would have included a link about Dr. Burgh, though he is mentioned in one of the stories I linked to. I'm not sure how to put this, but the part where it says-
Time is short at the moment, so I'm not going to type a lot of stuff right now. But I want to thank you, and tell you that is really is helpful to hear from someone in the research field, and a skeptic, on these matters.
Thanks for the link, I was rushed the other day when I posted or I would have included a link about Dr. Burgh, though he is mentioned in one of the stories I linked to. I'm not sure how to put this, but the part where it says-
- is far from a new "trend" or activity. This has been going on for cancer and other "incurable" diseases for a very long time. The Net has made it faster and more public, so perhaps the reporters really think it is something new.
Time is short at the moment, so I'm not going to type a lot of stuff right now. But I want to thank you, and tell you that is really is helpful to hear from someone in the research field, and a skeptic, on these matters.
Hmm...
From what I have read in the Conspiracy section of the JREF boards, I doubt your statement.
While it is easy to declare something "conspiracy theory", then not have to think about it, the fact that researchers have discovered Mitochondria can be turned back on in cancer cells, and this causes the cells to die, is nothing less than a new discovery in science. That story is huge. IMNSHO of course.
That people are not waiting to see, is another story. Because DCA is cheap and easy to make and use, even Doctors are trying it. (What have you got to lose? It won't kill you, even the worse side effects are nothing compared to chemo). While the few news articles so far are critical (of course), this will change to viscous attacks as soon as someone dies of cancer, not DCA. Claims will be made that DCA is killing people, and another war on drugs will begin.
heh
Probably with the same results as the current one.
Can you imagine any other course the Media would take?
- Nature Reviews Drug Development, August 2004
Not true. Using your example of the Yew will show this.
From:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a698035.html
Paclitaxel was discovered because of the Pacific Yew. A story that turned out to be true. According to Medical reports.
Didn't almost everything that is used on people started out with petri dishes and animal studies? How can it be virtually nothing? By your account, the hundreds of substances that are used to fight cancer means that hundreds of thousands were tried in labs first. That doesn't make any sense. Can you back that up with any evidence?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a skeptic. I don't just believe stuff, I want to see the evidence.
From what I have read in the Conspiracy section of the JREF boards, I doubt your statement.
While it is easy to declare something "conspiracy theory", then not have to think about it, the fact that researchers have discovered Mitochondria can be turned back on in cancer cells, and this causes the cells to die, is nothing less than a new discovery in science. That story is huge. IMNSHO of course.That people are not waiting to see, is another story. Because DCA is cheap and easy to make and use, even Doctors are trying it. (What have you got to lose? It won't kill you, even the worse side effects are nothing compared to chemo). While the few news articles so far are critical (of course), this will change to viscous attacks as soon as someone dies of cancer, not DCA. Claims will be made that DCA is killing people, and another war on drugs will begin.
heh
Probably with the same results as the current one.
Can you imagine any other course the Media would take?
-Food&Drug Packaging, August, 2004
- Nature Reviews Drug Development, August 2004
Not true. Using your example of the Yew will show this.
From:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a698035.html
Paclitaxel was discovered because of the Pacific Yew. A story that turned out to be true. According to Medical reports.
Didn't almost everything that is used on people started out with petri dishes and animal studies? How can it be virtually nothing? By your account, the hundreds of substances that are used to fight cancer means that hundreds of thousands were tried in labs first. That doesn't make any sense. Can you back that up with any evidence?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a skeptic. I don't just believe stuff, I want to see the evidence.
http://www.filecabi.net/video/file-166524224.html
The point about Insurance Companies (who would benefit from a Cancer cure, even a small one), not being allowed to fund clinical trials, is interesting. Anyone know if that is true?
The point about Insurance Companies (who would benefit from a Cancer cure, even a small one), not being allowed to fund clinical trials, is interesting. Anyone know if that is true?
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
robinson asks:
Short answer: no.
Medical insurers already pay a hefty sum for medical educational costs through reimbursement plans with academic and teaching hospitals. No doubt indirect support for research finds its way into the budgets of such institutions.
In addition here is an interesting account of what happened to the profits of a Wisconsin Blue Cross Cross Association which was formerly a non-profit and decided to become a for profit organization. They not only coudn't keep their surpluses, they were ordered to disburse them for medical research.
http://www.med.wisc.edu/alumni/quarterly/art_3.php
Here is another account from Philadelphia:
http://www.temple.edu/medicine/IBX.htm
And here’s an account of the Overholt-Blue Cross Emphysema Surgery Trial from Massachusetts:
http://www.ctsnet.org/doc/2375
I can find more, tons more, but this should give you an idea that the so-called "point" is incorrect. It is done all the time and is not technically illegal except.....insurers are constrained to maintaining reserves and funding their primary purpose first but if there are surpluses they can use them for research if they want to.
Short answer: no.
Medical insurers already pay a hefty sum for medical educational costs through reimbursement plans with academic and teaching hospitals. No doubt indirect support for research finds its way into the budgets of such institutions.
In addition here is an interesting account of what happened to the profits of a Wisconsin Blue Cross Cross Association which was formerly a non-profit and decided to become a for profit organization. They not only coudn't keep their surpluses, they were ordered to disburse them for medical research.
http://www.med.wisc.edu/alumni/quarterly/art_3.php
Here is another account from Philadelphia:
http://www.temple.edu/medicine/IBX.htm
And here’s an account of the Overholt-Blue Cross Emphysema Surgery Trial from Massachusetts:
http://www.ctsnet.org/doc/2375
I can find more, tons more, but this should give you an idea that the so-called "point" is incorrect. It is done all the time and is not technically illegal except.....insurers are constrained to maintaining reserves and funding their primary purpose first but if there are surpluses they can use them for research if they want to.
Last edited:
Didn't take them long either.
News blackout still in effect
Google News - Cancer Results - 65,918
Google News - sodium dichloroacetate DCA Results - 1
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12369-illegal-cancer-drug-website-shut-down.html
News blackout still in effect
Google News - Cancer Results - 65,918
Google News - sodium dichloroacetate DCA Results - 1
Elsewhere there is a thread about Natural cures "They" don't want you to know about. While it sounds crazy, saying drug companies don't want their customers to use cheap, natural cures, because it would cut their profits, one has to wonder.
Does any drug dealer ever want the customer to stop using the product? Has there been any cheap, safe, natural remedy for any Medical condition? Ever? Can a Doctor even prescribe a natural treatment for any condition?
Here in sunny Florida, almost every local knows that Aloe Vera, fresh cut from the plant, applied to sunburn, is the best remedy. Science knows this too. But no Doctor can tell a patient suffering sunburn to go cut some fresh aloe and smear it on the skin.
Its safe, cheap, and effective. I'm skeptical of anybody who is making millions off of drugs or other expensive treatments. Why would they research, suggest or approve something that is better, and basically free?
From a business point of view, it makes no sense.
Does any drug dealer ever want the customer to stop using the product? Has there been any cheap, safe, natural remedy for any Medical condition? Ever? Can a Doctor even prescribe a natural treatment for any condition?
Here in sunny Florida, almost every local knows that Aloe Vera, fresh cut from the plant, applied to sunburn, is the best remedy. Science knows this too. But no Doctor can tell a patient suffering sunburn to go cut some fresh aloe and smear it on the skin.
Its safe, cheap, and effective. I'm skeptical of anybody who is making millions off of drugs or other expensive treatments. Why would they research, suggest or approve something that is better, and basically free?
From a business point of view, it makes no sense.
Miss Anthrope
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,575
While I agree with much of what you've said, I'm nitpicking this. My pediatrician not four days ago was thrilled I was using Aloe from my plants to treat sunburns on the kids after a week hitting the beach and on a boat. She noted the alcohol in the bottled variety of "Aloe" had an unpleasant sting to it, and was more dilute.
Also, most pediatricians are now recommending garlic oil for ear infections, after realizing the over prescribing of antibiotics for this was causing far too many problems with no extraordinary benefit.
So while I do worry about the influence "Big Pharma" may have over doctors, sometimes the right treatment is "natural", and I've met plenty of doctors who will recommend it when appropriate.
I used the sunburn example to make a point. An AMA Doctor can't prescribe Aloe. Period. It isn't approved. He can't write a prescription for it, you can't go get it at the Pharmacy, and you sure as hell can't take it for any Medical condition.
Correct? Of course an aware Doc knows there is nothing better, but that isn't the issue. Even with overwhelming evidence of all of the other Aloe benefits, it is illegal to prescribe, treat, or even claim any benefit from Aloe, that has not been FDA approved.
It doesn't matter that it has been used since before recorded history, or that there is no doubt at all of the very real effects, overwhelming evidence, a Doctor couldn't prescribe it even if your life depended on it.
Correct? Of course an aware Doc knows there is nothing better, but that isn't the issue. Even with overwhelming evidence of all of the other Aloe benefits, it is illegal to prescribe, treat, or even claim any benefit from Aloe, that has not been FDA approved.
It doesn't matter that it has been used since before recorded history, or that there is no doubt at all of the very real effects, overwhelming evidence, a Doctor couldn't prescribe it even if your life depended on it.
I am not an American, and I do not know much about how the FDA works, but what youare saying is that despite overwhelming evidence for the workings of Aloe, the FDA has never approved it, and will probably never do.
Why is it so? You make it sound like the FDA is staffed by morons, or that they are determined to let people suffer from sunburn.
This evidence for the benefits of Aloe, is that real, medical evidence, or is it evidence of the same kind that is used to prove that homoeopathy is effective?
Not only is it not FDA approved, you can be arrested and put in prison for selling it, if you make any claim at all that it has medical value. You can even be arrested and jailed for just making a claim.
I hope that isn't how it sounds, because it is not that simple at all. As to why this is so, and Aloe of course is just an example, it is because of how America works. Profit is the motive of a health care industry, as well as the many industries that injure your health. The bottom line is making money, not preventing health problems. No conspiracy needed.
I don't know of any evidence to prove homeopathy. But the overwhelming evidence for Aloe is the same kind as cleaning out a dirty wound, or removing a stinging insect from your flesh, before going further with treatment. You don't need FDA approval for those types of procedures, no test or studies need to be done. To say so, is the height of folly and unscientific on such a level it beggars belief. There is a common knowledge dictum, in which common things are accepted as harm free, based on 10,000 years of use. Drinking fresh water, eating food, cooking with fire, bathing, avoiding poisons, all kinds of procedures and methods that don't need to be proved, accepted, studied or FDA controlled.
If a substance is known to be risk free, you might think it would fall under the umbrella of "do no harm", and no rational person would insist it needs to be regulated. Of course all kinds of things we once thought were safe turned out to be dangerous, so it gets complicated quick. Food, water, fire, bathing and poisons are now indeed regulated.
How did this happen? Another topic.
In the case of Aloe, it would cost maybe 25 Million to get approved as safe for use, in a very limited fashion. For economic reasons, this will not occur. There is limited allowance made for products containing aloe extracts to be sold, but not to be used in any way as medicine.
Lets make the leap and come back on topic. A free thinker does repeated experiments, double blind, all first rate quality science, and finds without fail, certain incurable cancers respond or are eliminated by the use of fresh aloe. Not any chemical derivative, not an extract, but fresh right off the living plant, 100% Aloe gel.
Nobody can use Aloe to treat cancer until the FDA/AMA whatever bureaucracy approves it, and nobody will fund the approval, because it will cost 50 million dollars, take 10 years, and after all is said and done, the product is free to anyone who plants an Aloe. There is no profit in it.
So even if a cheap safe cure was found, the very mechanism of Medicine would not only prevent research on it, but actively resist and arrest any who would attempt to treat with it. This is how the world works. You can witness this with the Cancer patients attempting to try DCA. Even if you can prove, 100%, no doubt at all, that you have late stage lung cancer, no chance of survival, and less than two months to live, the last month of which will be spent in unbelievable suffering, you would be arrested or prevented from drinking DCA by the law of the land. If said law enforcement knew you were doing it.
It is an untested treatment, an unapproved drug, so it is a Felony.
The same goes for Aloe Vera.
I apologize to those skeptics in Germany or other countries that have a different health care system and different laws. But that is how it is in the United States of America. Evidence provided upon request.