What do you guys think?
What do you guys think?
I wouldn't be surprised major pharmaceuticals would ignore it... there's gold in them thar tumors!
Why cure a disease when treating it makes so much more $$$
There seem to be a few inaccuracies in the article - like for example - calling mitochondria 'cells' when in fact, they're actually organelles within a cell. Hopefully they are only errors introduced by the reporter.
"There is no pain as great as being alive,
no burden heavier than that of conscious life. "
Yeah, I tried going to the site they link to see the research, but the site doesn't show much other than a FAQ.
You don't want to take the DCA unsupervised as high doses causes liver cancer in rats instead of possibly fighting it. It would be nice to see some independent research on it used in a therapeutic setting. That would probably have to be done outside the USA, just like the Australian discovery that mouthwashes containing alcohol appear to be a contributing factor in oral cancers (especially when used by smokers). The FDA said the Australian research was BS but surprise surprise all the mouthwash companies have suddenly started going "alcohol free"...
LOL! I just saw this story today elsewhere. I doubt that pharmaceuticals are against it more than they're just disinterested. It's an old drug so they already understand it pretty well. The places that will really be interested in it will be ones that research cancer treatments and bodily disease. I'm not one to be confident in the medical industry, but I think this article is a bit aggrandizing. It takes time for this stuff to get through the approval process.
Which isn't to say that there aren't a bunch of industries that depend on the prolonged illness of cancer patients.
o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~
While I'm not familiar with the drug and am not interested in spending time researching, I would like to point out a few glaring errors in the article which lead me to believe that many of it's statements are tenuous at best.
1) The author doesn't even seem to have the notion that 'cancer' comprises hundreds of different diseases and no one drug would ever be assumed to treat more than a small portion of these.
2) Mitochondria cells has no actual meaning, as stated previously. Most of what is described to them is wrong in the article as well.
3) "Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can’t make money"
This is actually a boon. If this drug did what the author claims, many, MANY drug companies would all be rushing to produce this and get it to market as quick as possible. As swords pointed out, cancer treatments are expensive. If a company produced this, the customer base willing to pay for a CURE would be enormous. There is NO reason to think that people wouldn't by a cure for cancer.
Along with the obvious already mentioned by others here, I'd like to add:
Do you REALLY think that major pharm. companies, with the opportunity to buy/seize, modify, and patent a cancer cure all, would ALL miss that same business opportunity? If so, I'd really like to know what Clockwork Orange film festival is playing to your forced-open eyelids that's got you that embedded in groundless "conspiracy theories".
as others have pointed out, enough inaccuracies in the article to make one doubtful........also hasnt seen any major human testing which is another red flag.....you can actually kill cancer cells in a test tube near 100% with lil toxicity with a couple extracts from marijuana but once you move to whole organisms the success rate drops off......what this means is various chemicals in marijuana like the above drug are likely helpful in fighting various cancers but they are far from the magic bullet the above article tries to make the drug out to be.....
as others have said though what cancer is, is actually pretty simple to define, basically a form of uncontrolled cell growth, but it covers so many variations the chance of there being a magic bullet drug is near impossible......ppl cure cancer in test tubes and in rats all the time, hell they cure it in humans all the time but there has been no magic bullet found that is even 100% effective on a single type of cancer let alone all types of cancer......