Originally posted by FMFSure, but that would create a conflict of interest between FDA and whatever agency was created to get through the maze of getting a drug approved. Could government bureaucrats do better at that? Or would they shortcut the safe and effective tests that for profits must endure?
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?
Hundreds of promising drugs are rejected annually. Each rejection costs big pharma big bucks. Who is going to fund the rejections?
Originally posted by FMFAnd, what if in the end, this promising drug turns out in the long run to be a killer? Lots of drugs that go through the entire FDA song and dance end up having severe, even lethal side effects.
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?
Originally posted by JS357Anyone watch TV ads these days. All kinds of approved wonder drugs are advertised every day. The lists of side effects and contraindications are staggering.
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
Originally posted by normbenignShouldn't that read: "Hundreds of drugs, which big pharma's PR departments claim are promising are rejected annually. They are rejected because they can not proven to be effective or are actually harmful."
Hundreds of promising drugs are rejected annually. Each rejection costs big pharma big bucks. Who is going to fund the rejections?
Originally posted by BartsThey can't claim they work -- they can claim they are "promising."
Shouldn't that read: "Hundreds of drugs, which big pharma's PR departments claim are promising are rejected annually. They are rejected because they can not proven to be effective or are actually harmful."
Gosh darn this free speech thing!
Originally posted by normbenignDo you understand that there is such a thing as the subjunctive? If there were a sure cure for cancer but drug companies saw no profit in it, I would support the government funding it, developing it and making it available to cancer sufferers for free or at a nominal cost.
Do you understand that there are no sure fire cures.
Originally posted by normbenignNorm, gotta tell you, I looked into this some more, and I'll take the chance. There are lots of projects that are in the public interest, and I agree with FMF here, this is one of them. With results that promising, it's worth a shot, drug company profits be damned. Use public money for the trials (I'm sure the FDA pads its bottom line the same way the NRC does), let the rest figure itself out.
And, what if in the end, this promising drug turns out in the long run to be a killer? Lots of drugs that go through the entire FDA song and dance end up having severe, even lethal side effects.
Originally posted by normbenignThose drug warnings are only there because the FDA requires it. Anyone resistant to such government regulation should bring themselves up to date on the history of drug regulation in the US. The wikipedia article on the FDA has a decent historical overview. Two links from it that are worth following are for incidents that caused increased regulation: elixer sulfanilimide and thalidomide.
Anyone watch TV ads these days. All kinds of approved wonder drugs are advertised every day. The lists of side effects and contraindications are staggering.
If and when DCA is filed with FDA for cancer treatment, its side effects will come under scrutiny. Check out
https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/psych527_nbb420-720/student2008/esb37/sideeffects.html
for a hint about them.