Cancer Cured In Canada but Big Pharma says No!

[wuxi]

Many important medicines are kept off the market because they can't be patented by corporations.

[smartpolaero]

Well, I guess there are a lot of possibilities why some drugs are not approved to be on the selves to be consumed by people who really need it. Most of the drugs that claim that can cure cancer don’t have a significant prove that could say that it really works. And most probably the drugs had just gone through testing stage. So it wouldn’t be safe to consume, not knowing the side effects and everything.

[Winston]

Well, I guess there are a lot of possibilities why some drugs are not approved to be on the selves to be consumed by people who really need it. Most of the drugs that claim that can cure cancer don’t have a significant prove that could say that it really works. And most probably the drugs had just gone through testing stage. So it wouldn’t be safe to consume, not knowing the side effects and everything.

How do you know that's not just the cover story? Couldn't it be that a cure for cancer would undermine the power and profit of the pharmaceutical companies and thus be suppressed? Did you consider that?

Did you even watch the video above? Here is a rant about the cancer cure in Canada by Glenn Beck.

[momopi]

There are 2 sides to a coin. On one side the FDA imposes costly requirements to bring a new drug into the market. On average it costs $500 million to $2 billion dollars to get a new drug approved for "on label", plus liability insurance. By "on label", I mean something like advertising Viagra to treat ED. This is done to prevent snake oil labeling. Back in mid 1800's there were few regulations, and chemists would sell all kinds of potions/elixirs/powders that would cure everything from dandruff to cancer, long before the FDA was established to put an end to snake oil labeling. This tonic was advertised as a "soothing syrup" for children. Yes, very soothing... because it contained morphine to dope up your kids:



On the other side of the coin, the FDA has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to regulate the practice of medicine. A doctor (or veterinarian) has the right to prescribe drugs for off-label use, if he/she wished to do so. i.e. Viagra is not approved/labeled to treat pulmonary hypertension, but doctors are free to prescribe it off-label. There are, however, regulations on certain controlled substances. Here in California, the Medical Board of California issued this rule:

"No physician and surgeon shall be subject to disciplinary action by the board for prescribing or administering controlled substances in the course of treatment of a person for intractable pain." -- Business and Professions Code section 2241.5(c)



Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroac ... cal_trials
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/opini ... .html?_r=1

Nobody is going to invest $1 billion in DCA because it's non-patentable, But there is no law that says doctors cannot prescribe it off-label.