Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    04 Dec '12 00:35
    VIDEO: Scientists have found what looks like a sure cure for cancer, but drug companies see no profit in it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ifXxbxhZc
  2. 04 Dec '12 00:44
    Originally posted by vivify
    VIDEO: Scientists have found what looks like a sure cure for cancer, but drug companies see no profit in it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ifXxbxhZc
    The question is as usual "who will pay"?

    Is the problem too much regulations? Or is the problem greed? What if, despite the early promise, the clinical testing reveals the drug to be either ineffective or dangerous? Then the company that took the risk without any chance of reward stands where?
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Dec '12 01:11
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The question is as usual "who will pay"?
    If there were a sure cure for cancer but drug companies saw no profit in it, would you support the government funding it, developing it and making it available to cancer sufferers for free or at a nominal cost?
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    04 Dec '12 01:17
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The question is as usual "who will pay"?

    Is the problem too much regulations? Or is the problem greed? What if, despite the early promise, the clinical testing reveals the drug to be either ineffective or dangerous? Then the company that took the risk without any chance of reward stands where?
    Based on the testing done by scientists, according to the video, there've been no side-effects found, even on the humans that it's been tested on. So right now, there's no known risk involved.
  5. 04 Dec '12 01:57
    Originally posted by FMF
    If there were a sure cure for cancer but drug companies saw no profit in it, would you support the government funding it, developing it and making it available to cancer sufferers for free or at a nominal cost?
    Apparently Canada's answer is yes. The nanny state strikes again.

    "Fortunately, both the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board have promised to conduct clinical trials on DCA. They?ll share their results with Health Canada, the agency that helps Canadians improve their health. If it works, it will benefit people with cancer all over the world."

    http://www.womenshealthletter.com/Health-Alert-Archive/View-Archive/2140/Cheap-anticancer-drug-being-tested-in-Canada.htm
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Dec '12 02:14
    Originally posted by JS357
    Apparently Canada's answer is yes. The nanny state strikes again.

    "Fortunately, both the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board have promised to conduct clinical trials on DCA. They?ll share their results with Health Canada, the agency that helps Canadians improve their health. If it works, it will benefit people with cancer all over the world." ...[text shortened]... r.com/Health-Alert-Archive/View-Archive/2140/Cheap-anticancer-drug-being-tested-in-Canada.htm
    I would have thought "a sure cure for cancer" is a societal and medical "reward" in and of itself, even if it is not the kind of reward a commercial entity is motivated or sustained by. Seems to make perfect sense for the government to fund it and develop it. Who would seriously advocate leaving the advent of something like "a sure cure for cancer" to the financial mechanisms of a marketplace?
  7. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    04 Dec '12 02:37
    I agree with FMF. This deserves to be in the world and is in the public interest.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Dec '12 03:15
    Originally posted by FMF
    If there were a sure cure for cancer but drug companies saw no profit in it, would you support the government funding it, developing it and making it available to cancer sufferers for free or at a nominal cost?
    That would just be the moochers and parasites stealing from the producers. If someone wants to pay for some cure for cancer, they should voluntarily donate for it rather than reaching into norm's pocket.
  9. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    04 Dec '12 03:58
    Originally posted by FMF
    If there were a sure cure for cancer but drug companies saw no profit in it, would you support the government funding it, developing it and making it available to cancer sufferers for free or at a nominal cost?
    Sigma-Aldrich makes DCA, for one. Anybody can make it. Anyone can buy it and drink it if they so choose.

    But the FDA holds that no one can make a claim about DCA as an oncology treatment because no one has submitted a drug application for that indication for use. Under current government regulations, that will take about 10 years and several hundred million dollars of clinical testing in everything from rats to humans.

    Based on what you could potentially make selling DCA, of course no one will invest that kind of money -- forget about drug companies, the chemical companies that make the stuff right now won't do it either.

    So having stifled a potentially break-through therapy with excessive regulation, of course the government are perfectly free to follow their own rules for getting a cancer treatment approved. Of course, it will take the government twice as long and cost twice as much -- but fine.

    Ah! Don't you LOVE government regulation!!!
  10. 04 Dec '12 05:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Sigma-Aldrich makes DCA, for one. Anybody can make it. Anyone can buy it and drink it if they so choose.

    But the FDA holds that no one can make a claim about DCA as an oncology treatment because no one has submitted a drug application for that indication for use. Under current government regulations, that will take about 10 years and several hundred ice as long and cost twice as much -- but fine.

    Ah! Don't you LOVE government regulation!!!
    Yes. This is all such BS, from the usual knee jerk anti-government idiots. As a chemist and worker in pharma research, I say there is no government repression of the manufacture sale distribution or use of DCA. I can buy it, You can buy it. GO BUY IT. At:

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=pd_sl_4hpqvnu4j0_b?rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Adichloroacetate&keywords=dichloroacetate&ie=UTF8&psrk=Dichloroacetic+acid
  11. Subscriber Kewpieonline
    since 1-Feb-07
    04 Dec '12 05:18
    I doubt that I'd even think of buying it, after reading this:

    http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/436-a-dangerous-pharmaceutical-espoused-as-alternative-medicine-dichloroacetic-acid-dca.html
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Dec '12 05:35
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Sigma-Aldrich makes DCA, for one. Anybody can make it. Anyone can buy it and drink it if they so choose.

    But the FDA holds that no one can make a claim about DCA as an oncology treatment because no one has submitted a drug application for that indication for use. Under current government regulations, that will take about 10 years and several hundred ...[text shortened]... ice as long and cost twice as much -- but fine.

    Ah! Don't you LOVE government regulation!!!
    So, "a sure cure for cancer", that was safe and had been tested, available in about ten years from now. Good. I would settle for that.
  13. 04 Dec '12 05:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    I doubt that I'd even think of buying it, after reading this:

    http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/436-a-dangerous-pharmaceutical-espoused-as-alternative-medicine-dichloroacetic-acid-dca.html
    This site is pure bs. I don't advise using DCA but... Geesh the things people outside the fields of chemistry and pharmaceuticals will say and believe. The idiot at your site says "it bears strong structural similarities to M.M.S" which is pure out of his a$$ bs. Is it "chlorine dioxide" which the site's link says M.M.S. is?? No, not. ClO2 is not CHCl2COOH.
  14. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    04 Dec '12 18:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    So, "a sure cure for cancer", that was safe and had been tested, available in about ten years from now. Good. I would settle for that.
    No, 20 years. The government is doing it. They need a lot more meetings.
  15. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    04 Dec '12 18:04
    I wish we could cure cancer with chemicals from high school chemistry sets.