3 ms·

Seems like DCA is significantly more toxic than other chemo agents, and wasn't justified at the doses used. It might be good adjunct therapy with neuroprotectan

Seems like DCA is significantly more toxic than other chemo agents, and wasn't justified at the doses used. It might be good adjunct therapy with neuroprotectants or something...but that's an area for serious chemistry research!

Maursault 5y ago
> but that's an area for serious chemistry research! Biology was never my thing, but it stands to reason, even if it is cynical, that if a cancer cure could be developed, except that there was no possible way to profit from the cure, then a cure would not be developed. Studies and research and development of treatments is very expensive, so the results need to be profitable or they will not be pursued.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  There's a good amount of research done without the goal being massive profits, and nobel prizes are pretty nice too.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    That wasn't my claim, and if there is a good amout of research done by BigPharma without the goal being massive profits, they should really tell us about it.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      Big pharma doesn't have to research every drug, especially if it's already easy to make and highly effective.
      - Maursault 5y ago
        My claim is not that BigPhatma spends too much money researching every drug. My claim is that BigPharma doesn't research new drugs or treatments unless they're going to be profitable, which means that BigPharma does not invest in development or research of unpatentable drugs that already exist.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        > My claim is that BigPharma doesn't research new drugs or treatments unless they're going to be profitable If that's your claim then fine, that's pretty true. But what you originally said was that a cure would not be developed. Which means by anyone, not just big pharma (why are you making it one word with intercaps?). And while studies tend to be expensive, the better something works the smaller of a study you can use.
- Khelavaster 5y ago
  You're right--and that's why plenty of therapies aren't properly tested. But something that causes significant nerve damage in 15 out 15 test patients during a study is not a top candidate for chemotherapy.

Maursault 5y ago

> but that's an area for serious chemistry research! Biology was never my thing, but it stands to reason, even if it is cynical, that if a cancer cure could be developed, except that there was no possible way to profit from the cure, then a cure would not be developed. Studies and research and development of treatments is very expensive, so the results need to be profitable or they will not be pursued.

Dylan16807 5y ago
There's a good amount of research done without the goal being massive profits, and nobel prizes are pretty nice too.
- Maursault 5y ago
  That wasn't my claim, and if there is a good amout of research done by BigPharma without the goal being massive profits, they should really tell us about it.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    Big pharma doesn't have to research every drug, especially if it's already easy to make and highly effective.
    - Maursault 5y ago
      My claim is not that BigPhatma spends too much money researching every drug. My claim is that BigPharma doesn't research new drugs or treatments unless they're going to be profitable, which means that BigPharma does not invest in development or research of unpatentable drugs that already exist.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > My claim is that BigPharma doesn't research new drugs or treatments unless they're going to be profitable If that's your claim then fine, that's pretty true. But what you originally said was that a cure would not be developed. Which means by anyone, not just big pharma (why are you making it one word with intercaps?). And while studies tend to be expensive, the better something works the smaller of a study you can use.
Khelavaster 5y ago
You're right--and that's why plenty of therapies aren't properly tested. But something that causes significant nerve damage in 15 out 15 test patients during a study is not a top candidate for chemotherapy.