Cancer and Capitalism

Subject: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:48 PM

A fascinating and encouraging article and editorial in this week's New Scientist (20 January 2007)about a very promising new treatment for cancer: Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers

And the reason I put the heading I did on this thread is that New Scientist predicts the drug companies will avoid developing it, because it involves an existing drug that can't be patented, since it's been around for a long time, just not used this way:

"The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can't make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap."

New Scientist predicts in its accompanying editorial - Editorial: No patent? No cancer drug development (which you have to be a subscriber to read) that the companies are likely to put effort into trying to develop other drugs which will be patentable, and therefore more profitable - which implies that one way and another ways will be found to discourage "charities, universities and governments" from doing the necessary work to make the more cost effective drugs available.

Sometimes the assumption that the capitalist profit driven approach is the best way to do everything wears just a little thin...

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:42 PM

Yeah. Watch. Unless the various cancer societies are prepared--and people are prepared--to take on their governments, (most of whom seem to be in bed with the drug companies)this find will become a page 92 item and be made to disappear.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:48 PM

Three minute read here. But worth it.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Scrump
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:54 AM

Shameful state of affairs. But as with everything else, money talks. Remember "The Man In The White Suit"?

Why are we all still driving around polluting the atmosphere with internal combustion engines? Because the oil companies and motor manufacturers have a vested interest in us doing it.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:59 AM

Ya think??

"Hey, I've got a cheap drug to cure cancer but it means we'll lose half our research grants and most of our customers..."

"Shee-it, let's get that drug out there and make ourselves bankrupt!!"

That gonna happen?

I don't think so Tim.

LTS

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 06:55 AM

Some implicit assumptions in this thread I consider nonsense. If somthing is cheap and helpful someone will produce it and make profit from it. The big drug companies may not be interested in this drug but if it is free and cheap any new small business company can make money with it and there is little the big companies can do about it.

The big companies may not fund necessary research but there are enough funds available from other sources:
The University of Alberta has been inundated with offers to raise money for human trials of a drug with anti-cancer properties, as recently discovered by a team of researchers led by local cardiologist Dr. Evangelos Michelakis. (just one such information from a quick search)

That's how capitalism works: If you don't do it someone else will and if he has success he will make money from it. Everything else is a myth.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 06:59 AM

Not just in New Scientist. I typed dichloroacetate + cancer into Google, and and here are the links it came up with.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 07:50 AM

That's how it's supposed to work all right, and often it does. Not necessarily always.

There is a systemic problem - the ultimate purpose (and in fact legal duty) for a company is to make a profit; the ultimate purpose for medical researchers is to find a successful and readily available treatment.

These are purposes which in some circumstances are divergent. A treatment which eliminated a disease at minimal cost would be financially disastrous for a company relying on profits from drugs for dealing with that disease. Research into diseases which primarily affect wealthy populations gets given priority over research into diseases of poor populations. Research efforts are diverted into tweaking existing medicines purely for patent and marketing purposes, for no significant medical benefit.

"If you don't do it someone else will" is fine in theory - but it runs head up against such things as commercial confidentiality.

I would hope that in this case the fact that it is cancer which is involved will mean that public pressure will overcome the systemic problems. That's one reason I used the word "encouraging" in my opening post.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 07:55 AM

Interesting that it apears in chlorinated drinking water. Can anyone point me to discussion as to how (chemically) this occurs?

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 09:10 AM

Another case where the economics/politics of the drug industry appears to have distorted research and development of a potentially enormously important life-saving technology is that of bacteriophages.

These provide an alternative way of dealing with bacterial infections, which had been developed in the Soviet Union, and which could in principle be crucial in face of increasing resistance to antibiotics, but it appears to have been virtually neglected and sidetracked, both in the West and in the former Soviet Union.

Perhaps, in time, someone will indeed come along and find a way to make money out of the technology, and it will take off, probably after a lot of unnecessary suffering and deaths.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Dave Masterson
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 09:17 AM

Thanks McGrath for bringing this to our attention.

"Encouraging" is certainly the word, and surely this is what we should all be doing. Post this on every forum/newsgroup you know, email all your friends/acquaintances, write to your local paper, write to your MP/Senator/whatever (they're not all bent) asking if they are aware of this drug and whether they would support further research.

If the drug is such a potential panacea at such a low cost, of course the big drug cartels will try to smother it. I remember years ago hearing of a researcher following a particular dietary line of cancer prevention (Vitamin B17 deficiency, I think). He was told if he continued in this direction he would lose his bursary… surprise, surprise. As far as 'they' are concerned if there's no profit in it, we can all die.

If you visit your local high street or shopping mall right now and ask most of the folks there if they have heard of this development, I reckon most would have not, so the more publicity it gets the better.

Despite terrorism and global warming, cancer is probably still the public's worst fear. If they think the possibility of a cancer-free future is being jeopardised by the fat cats in the pharmaceutical industry, the row will be heard in heaven. And don't let the prophets of doom tell you otherwise! As the old proverb says:

"All it needs for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

By the way, a Google search for "A world without cancer" throws up some interesting stuff regarding the B17 deficiency argument.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: jeffp
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 09:21 AM

B17 is just another term for laetrile, which was shown to be totally ineffective against cancer. It is a common scam used by those who prey on desperate cancer patients.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 09:24 AM

It would be interesting to know how much the drug (DCA) presently sells for.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 12:13 PM

First up on the Google page about "dichloroacetate + cancer" is:

"Flintbox - Dichloroacetate: A Pro-Apoptotic Agent for Treatment of ...
University of Alberta researchers have discovered that dichloroacetate (DCA) is an effective pro-apoptotic anti-cancer agent. It is an orally-available..."

But when I click on it, the message comes up "project not available - The project you requested is no longer available."

And Flintbox? This is how it describes itself: "Flintbox is an online platform for marketing and licensing the outcomes of research. It allows organizations to describe and publish research projects online and associate products of this research for online license, purchase and download.

Through a single account, end users can access multiple networks of research, available in a common format through the Flintbox application. Information on research projects is freely distributed, and end users are only required to pay licensing fees for products as specified by each organization. As a result, Flintbox hopes to increase awareness and encourage collaboration between providers and users of innovative research on a global level."

Odd.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 12:44 PM

wolfgang - there is also in implicit assumption about capitalism
in your comment that isnt quite true.

ie. that if theres money to be made someone will come along and do it.

not always true..


and it applies in this case with DCA, in order to test and bring the drug to market the estimated cost is $100 million. However since no one can patent DCA means it would be difficult to make money as other companies can make knockoffs without spending the development costs.
so no interest.

also one of the biggest killers in the world is malaria, and yet few companies are investing in research because the market is in the 3rd world and those people cant afford even a dollar a day for drugs..
etc. I applaud Bill Gates for all his attention to this problem, I think when he donated something like 25$million a few years ago, he was told that he effectively doubled the worldwide malaria research budget.

the same for that matter goes to energy efficiency, Amory Lovins the physicist and consultant - came up with more efficient heating and airconditioning systems, for a large office building but since the builder and the landlord doesnt pay the utility costs there was no interest on their part, and while the tenants would be interested
even if they shared the savings with the landlord - ultimately the project never happened - since the building would be shut down for too long and the sales agents depend on high turnover to make their money.

- or a buildings electrical system would be far more efficient in the long run if the electrician who put it in used heavier gauge wires,
however the electrician would never get the bid since it would be far more expensive to install- but cheaper in the long run - since the benefits belong to the 3rd party (the tenant) it doesnt get done).
see - money that could be made but no one can be bothered.

its like that old joke - with an economist grandfather out strolling with his little granddaughter. She spots a 20 dollar bill on the sidewalk but the grandfather walks right on by. When she asks her grandfather why he didnt pick it up, he laughs and says, oh sweetie if that were a real 20$ bill someone would have picked it up long ago.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: bobad
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 12:54 PM

The investigators and the University of Alberta have applied for a patent on the application of DCA as a cancer treatment.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ia.jsp?IA=CA2006/000548

Some info on DCA

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:04 PM

Flintbox is operated by the University of British Columbia.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:20 PM

It would be nice if it happened to be true...but we have the 100MPG carburetor, magnets in the shoes and cold fusion as examples of wishful thinking.

IF it is really workable, someone will make it work.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:42 PM

The difference is, this seems like real science, not wishful thinking.

There could well be enough pressure from the public to make sure this gets a fair crack of the whip, but cancer is a rather special case, threatening everybody as it does. The episode certainly does raise questions about the drug development industry, and about the systemic clash that is always potentially there between the goal of profit and the goal of utility.

In the real world we don't actually have textbook free markets, we have imperfect markets and managed markets. "Free markets" bear the same relation tom the real world as perpetual motion machines. True enough, without friction a perpetual motion machine would run for ever, but the fact is, the world isn't like that.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: jeffp
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:50 PM

It has been shown to work on cells outside the body, in a laboratory setting. This is something that has happened with many drugs before. Only a very few have been shown to work inside the body in a real-life situation. Then there is toxicity, interactions, and many other factors that all have to fall into line for a drug to be approved for use. Anything that results will be many years down the line, if anything results at all.

This is not a current cure for cancer. Will it be a future cure? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not holding my breath. I've seen too many "miraculous cures" come along. I've been widowed twice by the bastard and nobody has more hope than me that a cure will be found.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 02:19 PM

Clearly it's going to need a lot of work, and even then it may come to litle or nothing. The worry is whether we have the social and economic structure which can be guaranteed to ensure that this work gets done, regardless of issues of profitability.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 12:46 PM

A piece I found which takes a pessimistic attitude towards the possibility that the needed research and development will be possible - Curing Cancer: A Patent Impossibility :

"The FDA will not allow people in the orderly and profitable process of agonizing death by incurable cancers to try non-approved drugs. No drug company, no matter how large, can afford to spend a billion dollars and 19 years getting a non-patentable treatment through the bureaucratic minefield. There is no FDA-approved way to get there from here.

However the writer then goes on to suggest that maybe someday researchers outside the FDA orbit "perhaps in Mainland China" might get their act together. And interestingly I found this piece from a China based news service - Cheap, safe drug could be used to treat different forms of cancer.

Though of course you don't have to go to China to find places which aren't in hoc to the American FDA.

Incidentally here is a page with a rundown of the profit margins of the big drug companies

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Stu
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:40 PM

I think it's worth mentioning that much of the current medical research would not happen if it wasn't for the big drug companies. Governments are far too busy spending tax payers money on wars and nuclear deterrents to fund the research, although I guess this wouldn't get near what the big multinationals spend.

Part of the problem is the way drugs are marketed. Once a drug has been approved and is launched the drug company has a fixed amount of time (I caon't remember the exact amount of time - 10 years-ish anyway) to make a profit from it before it's licence runs out and the drug can be manufactured by anybody - think of all the different types of paracetemol manufactured by hundreds of differnet companies. The company therefore markets aggressively (beginning before licencing - this is a gamble if the drug doesn't perform in the clinical trials) and accordingly the prices for it's wonder drugs are high.

There are manufacturers of generic drugs (those whose licence have expired), especially in the Asia and South America. Our friend monkey boy Bush famously threatened the Indian government with sanctions after the multinationals discovered an AIDs drug (possible a retroviral) they were still making under licence was being manufactured for a tenth of the cost in India after Indian scientists reverse-engineered the drug. The Indian government closed down the factory and so deprived AIDs patients in the poorest parts of the world a chance of a better quality of life - many die needlesy everyday because of the refusal to relax the licencing on retrovirals.

So when Bush had the chance to prove he had some moral integrity and help someone not as fortunate as himself, or American, or white, he failed miserably. Again. What a tosser.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 02:05 PM

Governments only do what we let them get away with.

It always strikes me as odd that the saying "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" never seems to get applied in the context of private enterprises that cream off excess profits for doing stuff we pay them to do.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:20 PM

Stigweard

You rightly say that the drug companies have a limited time to exploit their IP and make a return on what is often a huge investment. You then go on to imply that the indian company making the retrovirals should have been allowed to do so.

Firstly if there was no profit available there would have been no drug to copy, so if the practise was allowed what would be the result for future drugs.

Secondly, India has nuclear weapons. Now they could have spent that money on drugs couldn't they. It's a complicated world.

I am no supporter of drug companies, i find them a necessary evil. It's easy to shout down capitalism (done it myself) but how many drugs have come out of non-capitalist countries.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:57 PM

The real question is which drugs camee out of research establishments, in all countries, which weren't part of the drug industry, and the answer is one hell of a lot. Including penicillin.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Les from Hull
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 05:18 PM

How many drugs have come out of non-capitalist countries? Very few I imagine. But non-capitalist countries tend to be poor countries, not least because capitalist countries have rich people who are prepared to make sure that their country doesn't become non-capitalist.

But, hang on, couldn't these rich people fund the research? After all, if you've got that much money you could spend some of it trying to make sure that you lived longer to enjoy the money you didn't spend on medical research. But, with a few notable exceptions, they don't. Well, that's how they got rich in the first place!

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 05:52 PM

LfH
Well according to MoH "one hell of a lot" of drugs came out of research establishments so maybe the rich capitalists do spend some of their money on medical research. Why don't you argue that one together because apparently that is the real question.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 07:09 PM

Here is a website set up by the University of Alberta with information about all this, with an FAQ section - DCA RESEARCH INFORMATION

"At this point, the University of Alberta, the Alberta Cancer Board and Capital Health do not condone or advise the use of dichloroacetate (DCA) in human beings for the treatment of cancer since no human beings have gone through clinical trials using DCA to treat cancer.

However, the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board are committed to performing clinical trials in the immediate future in consultation with regulatory agencies such as Health Canada. We believe that because DCA has been used on human beings in Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials of metabolic diseases, the cancer clinical trials timeline for our research will be much shorter than usual.

This website will be updated frequently to reflect progress in our efforts."

I'd suggest anyone interested bookmarks that website.

It seems strange how little mainstream media interest there appears to be about this. I just entered dichloroacetate into Google News, and virtually nothing there. I'm not suggesting conspiracy here, just widespread journalistic incompetence. Of course it is quite a long word, dichloroacetate...

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 04:58 AM

Some might say the title of this thread is tautological!
G.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:53 PM

Id say there are a number of drugs that have come from non-western sources.
eg curare from the Amazon used as a muscle relaxant (did anybody pay royalties to the Amazonian tribes?)

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:55 PM

Still no sign of any mainstream media intererst in this story - here is what Google News threw up for dichloroacetate just now.

Here's a link to a student paper in Mississippi expressing the same thought - Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 08:08 PM

"Most of the press has focused on the particular compounds used in the threads of research (dichloroacetate and capsaicin)"

Now THAT's interesting!

capsaicin is from capsicums/chilis.... :-)

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 08:13 PM

When giving a quote it is advisable to give a source for the quote or a link, to keep the flow.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 08:26 PM

Well that came from a link from the Google link above...

That phrase opened the article... but I have never heard of the "capsaicin cancer link" before...

Hmm, if it fires up the mitichondria, that might explain a lot...

:-)

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 08:04 PM

Here's a good short article from Canada on this, and on the ways in which the present system in the drug business can really screw things up - Editorial: Don't put bottom line above cure :

...It's a lose-lose scenario common in many other countries, reinforced by a policy that some companies engage in called "evergreening." With this system, they make small changes to drug formulas or dosage methods, effectively allowing them to renew expiring patents in perpetuity. But these companies argue that it's necessary to keep prices high outside of Africa in order to fund the reduced prices offered to some African countries that are hardest hit by the pandemic.

These are the harsh economic realities of AIDS/HIV medication and research. That is, for corporations to sustain production and development, a certain amount of profit must be made. We're seeing this unfold in India, where the country's leading pharmaceutical companies have begun abiding by global patent agreements and are poised to start producing drugs for the American market. The industry, potentially worth US $3 billion per year, could provide a huge injection into India's economy, while at the same time removing the world's primary source for low-cost generic drugs.

This is why it's integral that prosperous governments increase funding to make treatments readily available to all regardless of their status. We must also relax patent laws while in turn assuring that research isn't susceptible to the fluctuating budgets of big pharmaceutical companies...

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 09:21 AM

Every couple of years a drug that is already available is declared to be a cure for cancer and that it is suppressed by the establishment for profit purposes. Nothing usually comes out of it if it is tested and it invariably is tested by someone.

Of course, company scientists have to give most times in to pressures and have to make drugs that are hardly better then the old one only because the old one is so cheap. Within a company, profit pressure can destroy nearly anything. But once the idea is published and the drug in question is cheap there is nothing that can prevent testing.

Who cares about FDA on a world wide market. The incentive to win a Nobel prize is too high so if something is in it, it will be found out.

Now, in this process, there will be a lot of disappointment for some person who are involved. Their intitial hopes are not followed by strong results. The initial funds grow smaller when the research has not the hoped for success.

Then someone deeply disappointed comes up with the self-serving theory that he was right but no one wanted to know. There may have been an agreement between profiteering companies not to let him go on, he thinks. Everything is possible in his mind but not that he may have been in error.

From such minds then such ideas as in this thread spring.

Energy from vacuum, cold fusion, perpetual motion, renewable coal and oil fields, etc., are other examples that come up once a decade. Each time anew the person that has the idea cannot be wrong, so it is the world around him that is wrong. Understandable from a human point of view, but nothing to worry about.

If there is something in it we'll hear about it soon, but most likely there will be small progress in cancer treatment like in the last decades which have seen a slow decrease of cancer in each single age group but an overall increase due to us getting much older than before.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:43 AM

I'd guess that in this case the research and testing will get, in the end done, since cancer is involved, and that affects the powerful and the rich as well the weak and poor. But it helps to illustrate how the drug business is structured in ways that are far from satusfactory, and undoubtedly have damaging consequences.

I'm still puzzled by the general media inattention to this bit of research, though - this isn't a case of a nutty "invebntor" with a perpetual motion machine, or even of some way out observation like the cold fusion hoohah. It sounds like well-grounded research from a reputable source with a plausible theoretical basis.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Cluin
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 05:20 PM

There gold in them thar ills!

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: GUEST,John
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 02:58 AM

The only response to these findings we will ever have will be those like "Wolfgang" that this is just cold fusion equivalent non-sense. Money rules. The illusory free market hasn't existed since the paleolithic. Sad really.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Jim Lad
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 03:33 AM

I heard about this drug recently too. Seems those who would put it to good use, feel that they have been persistently blocked. I have long been disappointed in the medical community which has failed to come up with an answer to this disease despite decades of aggressive fund raising.
All it takes is one brave doctor to prove that DCA really works. If there is any truth to what we are being told, I'd expect more than one would be willing to risk her/his career to save a friend.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Bagpuss
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 04:21 AM

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Grab
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 08:48 AM

No drug company, no matter how large, can afford to spend a billion dollars and 19 years getting a non-patentable treatment through the bureaucratic minefield

Interestingly, there are organisations which *can* afford that kind of money and do this kind of thing.

I read a book over Xmas about various Great British contributions to science and engineering. One of those was the Human Genome Project. Turns out that when Craig Ventner's crew were going to do it and patent the whole lot, the Wellcome Foundation injected a whole lot of money into the free alternative project and embarrassed the US government into putting up more to match it. The Wellcome Foundation has a truly amazing amount of money and has no requirement for the results to make a profit for anyone. If they think it's worthwhile, they can throw government-level amounts of money (or more) at a problem.

For an example of a more recent creation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is starting to do a similar job on third-world diseases.

The problem is that the number of such organisations is limited, and so are their budgets. Still, it does mean that if there's a really promising idea which is only stopped by lack of funding by companies, there are other alternatives if the people involved have the wit to go looking.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 03:03 PM

I say again, if that 20$ bill I passed on the sidewalk was real someone would have picked it up long ago.

the free market doesnt always do the most economical or most efficient thing..


the pharmaceutical companies actually spend more money on advertising
than on research.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 04:27 PM

That's because when the bottom line is turning a profit, that is the economical and efficient thing to spend the money on.

Capitalism, both in its private form and its state form, has been good at some things, but the cracks are showing. Someday, if we're spared, we'll find a way of organising things that avoids the kind of distortions that have afflicted us so far.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 07:00 PM

"All it takes is one brave doctor to prove that DCA really works"

... and one sucker brave patient...

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 07:13 PM

I have long been disappointed in the medical community which has failed to come up with an answer to this disease despite decades of aggressive fund raising.

From above. A common mis-understanding...

Cancer is not one disease. It is a group of hundreds of different tumours, which grow at different rates, attack different organs, and respond to different things in the body, such as various hormones. It's why survival rates for some are so different to others.

And we will find the brave patients willing to act as test subjects for this. They're the people with no real chance of any other treatment being successful, so have nothing to lose, and much to gain.

Subject: RE: Cancer and Capitalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 07:34 PM

And if you read the reports and explanations down those links, it's not a question of a magic medicine that just needs passing out, it's about a different and promising method of attacking cancers that needs to be explored.

And no doubt it will be explored, and, if it works, those explorations will come up with valuable results. But the pity is that the massive resources of pharmacological expertise which exists in our society are evidently not going to be applied to bring this about more quickly, because of the way we organise things, and the priorities which we accept.