You said: > It cures cancer, but it is never prescribed because it is unpatentable. The article I found says: > The occurrence of side effects such as neurot

You said: > It cures cancer, but it is never prescribed because it is unpatentable. The article I found says: > The occurrence of side effects such as neurotoxicity as well as the suspicion of DCA carcinogenicity still restricts the clinical use of DCA. I am thoroughly anti-establishment and particularly anti patent as well. I am a libertarian communist aka an anarchist. But you're not going to win any arguments misrepresenting things like that, saying "the cure for cancer exists but they won't use it because they can't profit". It sounds like what they are trying to do is figure out what mechanism DCA uses to work, so they can find away to do the same thing without the toxicity issues. Of course everything in our world is touched and marred by the profit motive. So perhaps they have not studied DCA enough because of this profit issue in general. But perhaps it does a good profit opportunity since DCA is toxic - they have to invent something new that does the same thing as DCA without the toxicity. Anyway I sympathize with your feelings about the world, but your obvious black and white views and grand claims aren't going to make you very popular in online discussions. The profit motive does suck, but the world is still a very complex place.