RSS

Dichloroacetate

26 Jul

A pill and a profit for every symptom  (courtesy Google Images)

A pill and a profit for every symptom
(courtesy Google Images)

As I bounced about the internet I ran into a story about a new cure for cancer that’s been discovered in Canada but largely ignored by the medical industry. The new drug is called “dichloroacetate”. It’s not a new substance, but has already been used for some time in other contexts and appears to be readily available. You can read an introductory article at “Dichloroacetate: University of Alberta Doctors Discover A Cure For Cancer“.

Unfortunately, dichloroacetate has a significant intrinsic problem:  it was researched and discovered by means of public funding.  That means no major pharmaceutical enterprise can claim a patent on dichloroacetate and use that patent to generate massive profits.

If no major corporation can get rich off selling dichloroacetate, that medicine will probably not be manufactured or sold.  People will die from cancer who might otherwise be saved, but no one in the pharmaceutical industry gives a damn.

Kimberly Carter Gamble explains in her 00:01:35 video:

For major pharmaceutical corporations, it’s all about the money.  And I understand that.  Corporations aren’t here to make the world a better place.  They’re here to make profits. That’s “natural”.

From a profit perspective, creating cures for diseases is bad business.  A better business model is based on discovering substances that reduce disease symptoms but never, ever actually cure that disease.  That way, customers who have the disease are compelled to come back month after month, year after year, to buy whatever medicine they need to suppress symptoms–but never effect a cure.

Again, the logic of that business model is natural and  hard to deny.

What’s unnatural is our government’s determination to support pharmaceutical corporations and protect their profits.  Why th’ hell should American taxpayers subsidize those greedy, self-serving corporations?  Why not subsidize independent researchers with public funds so as to leave the ownership of any newly-discovered drug that actually cures a disease to the people?

If we’re going to have government-sponsored health care, why not also have government-sponsored pharmaceutical research by private researchers?  Government doesn’t have to manufacture the drugs that our tax dollars might help to discover.  Government could license the production of those drugs to existing pharmaceutical manufacturers–but do so under terms that guaranteed that the drugs would be sold at fair (rather than exorbitant) prices.

I understand that it typically requires a massive research capability to discover, create and test a new drug.  I understand that the costs of such research aren’t easily granted to independent researchers.  But I also know that CBS recently reported that 16-year old Jack Andraka had found a new way to detect cancer.  17-year-old Angela Zhang recently discovered a possible cure for cancer.  A Canadian teenager recently discovered a possible cure for cystic fibrosis.

How do I know these things?  I know because I typed “Teen finds cure for” into my search engine, and Google brought back 6.5 million hits.  It appears that impoverished teenagers may be finding more cures than billion-dollar pharmaceutical corporations.  But that’s hardly surprising since big pharma isn’t looking for cures, are they?  In fact, it’s likely that, in order to ensure their profits, big pharma secretly suppresses any cure they accidentally discover.

Not all successful research requires billions of dollars.  Not every researcher is in it only for the money.  I know it may be unlikely, but it’s still possible for ordinary people to find new cures (not just ways to endlessly treat symptoms) for current diseases.

So, let’s suppose that thanks to public funding–or merely a reduction in massive government regulations that prevent private scientists from researching cures on their own–that we found a way to cure cancer in five years.  Let’s suppose that five years later, and another private researcher found a cure for diabetes.  How ’bout another five years and we cure cystic fibrosis?  If each step forward actually cured a disease, how long would it be before we’d effectively wiped out the vast majority of current diseases?  How long would it be before the costs of American health care almost disappeared?

The issue is not the cost of research.  The issue is who owns the patents on whatever cures are found by that research.  Insofar as we relied on public taxes to subsidize the discovery of cures for disease (not just drugs that suppressed symptoms) we the people would own those cures and they could be made available to all of us at minimal costs.

If we could get government regulations and big pharmaceutical corporations off our backs, we might extend our lives for another 10 to 20 years and see our health care costs cut to less than our auto insurance.

Anyone who’s serious about reducing American health care costs should start by eliminating all subsidies and regulations that favor major pharmaceutical firms that seek only profits of drugs that alleviate symptoms–and start supporting those Americans (even teenagers) who are actually seeking cures.

 

Tags: , , , ,

14 responses to “Dichloroacetate

  1. Jetlag

    July 26, 2013 at 3:36 AM

    Posting articles like this is an excellent way to do good for the readers of your blog.

    As to what drives Big Pharma to destroy so many lives, you will find the “profit motive” assumption (which is all it is) to be unsupportable once you discover that control of these companies was purchased long ago by the owners of the inexhaustible money supply know as the central banking cartel.

    “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

    – Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and billionaire errand boy for the New World Order

    Thanks for the article.

     
  2. tim

    July 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM

    Not the first time I have heard stories similar to this. You better believe it, because this is true!

     
  3. Martens

    July 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM

    @Adask

    The history of suppressed cures like the one you describe goes back to the early 20th century, which is about the time deep-pocket oil tycoon and financier John D. Rockefeller Jr. decided he should own the American medical establishment.

    @Jetlag

    I’m reminded of the line about selling ice to Eskimos.

    Once you find there’s a class of people who can print all the money they want out of thin air – i.e. the fiat money problem often discussed on this very blog – a few easy steps of logical reasoning leads you to conclude that the highest levels of the commercial world are controlled by people whose motivation is unlikely to be the accumulation of even more money.

    Similar to how an Eskimo’s motivation is unlikely to be the accumulation of even more ice.

     
  4. Yartap

    July 26, 2013 at 6:09 PM

    Alfred! Hello ALFRED! What am I reading from you? That isn’t YOU -Alfred; is it?

    [“W]e the people” will own the patients? Don’t you mean gov-co will own the patients? Then gov-co will license the manufactory to make the cures? Public money given to private researchers? Are you talking about gov-co the collective or communal control (communism)? Are you serious?

    By our Constitution, We the People are to give a set time patient for works of inventors, and that is all government is suppose to do, period. Right?

    As I see it, public money should not be given for research, but rather, public money should be given towards “proven” ventures for the public good (if there exist a need for public money) with the inventors receiving rewards for their creations by patient. Private money and expense is the best route. Do you agree?

    Please explain yourself.

     
    • Adask

      July 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM

      I’d rather that the government spent money on researchers who discovered CURES that resulted in government owning the patents on behalf of all the people, than have government spend money and adopt masses of regulations that resulted in private corporations who owned the patents on drugs that merely suppressed symptoms and enriched the pharmaceutical firms.

      If the people’s money is going to be spent on health, then the the people should be the principle beneficiaries of that funding.

       
      • Yartap

        July 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM

        Al,

        I’d rather have the government tax all the commercially produced products and goods that are truly harmful to humans, and use that tax to create a healthcare plan for all of the people.

        But, the problem with my plan and your’s is: Who decides what products are good and bad; and who gets research money and who does not. Politics of big money destroys our plans.

        Here is where a truly free-market will succeed, and the need for restricting government’s intervention, except in Constitutional patients for creators.

         
  5. homelessholocaust

    July 26, 2013 at 10:53 PM

    Such Drugs are Manufactored, and Used in Clinics in Mexico. I Lived in TIJUANA 2 Years. I had Medical treatmwnts, bought NEW Tri Focals, $80.00 + $10.00 for RX. Approx 1,000 Pesos.
    Do Not Believe LIES about living in Mexico. I Was Homeless In America, got a Sponser (Manager of Ham Radio Outlet, San Diego, Jose de La Cruz) who Facilated my Renting a Nice Apartment (Studio) for $100 AMdlls per month. My Pais ELECTRIC & CABLE ISP. that never more than $75. a month. I lived in a COLANIO ALEMAN, on CALLE MAR NEGRO
    (Avenue of the Black Sea) I NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS, I NEVER LEARNED TO SPEAK SPANISH except for Basic Words.

    CUBAN Doctors are the BEST in the World. CANADIAN Health Care is also EXCELLENT!

    I rode into Toronto on a Freight Train in 2000. I wasn’t sure where I was, but stayed until Winter made Living ROugh impossable. I could get Treatment with NO Problem, even though I was a “ILLEGAL ALIEN!”

    My GOD, People, are you all BRAIN DEAD? Do you actually think this FAILED, ROGUE, TERRORIST State..America, will survive? Haw Haw Haw. TURN OFF YOUR BRAIN WASHING TREATMENT…TV.

    Read My Great Uncle’s Books, Propaganda(1928) by Edward L. Bernays. Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Public Relations (1952), and The Engineering of Consent (1955).
    Bernays retired in the early 1960s but continued as an consultant and advocate of public relations into his 100th year. He also, quite ironically in light of his work for Lucky Strike cigarettes in the 1930s, worked as an anti-smoking crusader. He died on March 9, 1995 in Cambridge, Massachusetts at the age of 103

    Hey, Stupid, He Lived 103 Years, He smoked, drank, and was a Little Old Bald Head with Big Spots on his Head. He was Uncomfortable around People, Did not like Women, although he was married.

    WILL YOU LIVE 103 YEARS? Study Uncle Eddie! Shit, WHY did he Live 103 Years?

    SIMPLE. He wrote PROPAGANDA, He Was The MASTER! So He KNEW what was GOOD, because his Clients ALL PUSHED PEOPLE to EAT DRINK & SMOKE POISON.

    The CFR, the EUGENICS people, the Big Drug Companies ALL HIRED Uncle Eddie!

    But HE KNEW THE TRUTH, although his Business was Gloss Over Truth.

    STUDY these people. DON’T BELIEVE PATROIT BULL SHIT! There is NO Republic of America.
    IT IS A CORPORATE ENTITY. The SUPREME COURT has now RULED that a CORPORATION is a HUMAN, with ALL THE RIGHTS of a HUMAN. But WITH OUT a SOUL, a CONSCIOUSNESS, or EMPATHY, PITY or CHARITY- the Paul Charity, from Corinthions.

     
  6. Michael

    July 27, 2013 at 1:46 AM

    A quick search found this widely available for purchase. It is BS to claim that no one will make it.

     
    • Adask

      July 27, 2013 at 2:38 AM

      Yes, it will be widely available for purchase–but not for the PURPOSE of curing cancer. Doctor’s may prescribe the substance for some purposes, but not for the PURPOSE of curing cancer.

      Drugs are not simply made and marketed as a “substance”. By law, they are made, marketed and prescribed for particular purposes. If the medical establishment does not expressly make, market and prescribe the substance for the PURPOSE of curing cancer, most Americans will be less likely to hear of or trust reports that the substance will work for that particular purpose. Why? Because those reports won’t be validated by mainstream medicine.

      The internet will help to overcome this “restriction” by means of articles that communicate what the doctors et al won’t tell us. But even so, while the substance will continue to be made and marketed, even the makers and marketers will almost certainly not claim that the substance can cure cancer.

       
      • Michael

        July 27, 2013 at 4:10 AM

        On Amazon, it is advertized and sold to cure cancer in dogs. It is just hype that no one will make it. That claim is easily refuted and makes the video less credible. It makes the claimant look foolish and a “conspiracy nut”, so so speak. Sure doctors won’t prescribe it because it is not FDA approved. But, the claim was it will probably “not be manufactured or sold”. That’s exaggeration. Never the less, thanks for the information. I sent the info. to a couple of my friends who are biologists.

         
  7. mike

    July 27, 2013 at 7:28 AM

    You have been reported for promoting drugs to the public, You FEMA camp and trailer will be assigned shortly. You don’t even get a hearing. ROFL

     
  8. kennywally

    July 29, 2013 at 3:17 PM

    Well, according to Dr Wilburn Ferguson, the real “medicine men” that sean connery played. Come back from the jungle with a jar of liquid that was found to be effective on 16 different types of cancers, but nobody wanted it. Cuz it would kill their business of “treating” patients. That gimmick has brought in the chiropractors who now give you 14-days of “treatments” instead of giving you an affordable adjustment and it holding you til you mess up again. Those days are almost gone. I fortunately got worked on by two really good chiros, long before the treatment gimmicks started so I have personal knowledge they can can fix up folks properly in one visit.

     
    • Mark Ferguson

      June 8, 2015 at 7:21 AM

      Thank you for mentioning my grandfather!

       
  9. David Merrill

    August 5, 2013 at 10:44 AM

    It is great to mix with neosporin ointment, apply it to skin blemishes with a Band-Aid.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s