Why has the FDA not approved any drugs like MMS,vitamin B17 or DCA for cancer?
Is it because no profits can be made or it can harm people?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
MMS, B17 and DCA are all unpatentable. The FDA drug approval process is patent-based. Without a full patent and full ownership no pharmaceutical company will invest in drug development as they do not own the rights to the drug. The costs of drug testing are very high, with figures running from several hundred million to over a billion dollars. The FDA expects drug companies to have patent protection to allow them the ability to recover the high drug research and testing costs. Even orphan drugs need patent protection and the FDA often goes one step further by granting marketing exclusivity to compensate for the smaller markets those drugs serve.
There is no system in place for the development of unpatentable drugs, materials currently in the public domain. These potential therapies do not qualify as generic drugs either, as generics were patented drugs for which the research data has been submitted and the patents have expired. No data is in place for drugs that are not patentable.
All three of the materials are being used by large numbers of people currently, around the world, with great effect and safety, and at very low cost.
Drugs in the pharmaceutical pipeline are supported by large budgets and eager champions pushing hard to get an FDA approval that becomes a financial homerun for the company. No such arrangement exists for unpatentables. There are no champions, no funding, no lobbyists.
There are many other great unpatentable therapies available. However, without a system in place to allow research on public domain drug candidates, these therapies have no future. We cannot expect or demand private money be used to finance the research. And using public money to finance drugs that compete with those from private companies is a difficult road to take as well.
The money involved in medicine is enormous, the political pressures extreme. The drug companies, medical associations and insurance companies all profit greatly from the current system and have no incentive to change it. Just think of what might happen if a drug to treat cancer that costs $20 a month was brought up before an FDA review panel for approval. Can you imagine the behind-the-scenes battle that would occur? The money will win. And we will lose.
Are these unpatentable items safe? Almost all of the medical establishment would say no, as there are no large-scale studies. But keep in mind the devastating health effects of conventional cancer treatment, the bankruptcies and the often ultimate failures of FDA-approved therapies and the fact that thousands upon thousands of people are using these unpatentable drugs now.
Is it fair and just that we are denied access to these materials because there is no process in place for their approval? Should we be denied access, even allowed to die, without the chance to use them?
The medical establishment will say "they may make it worse". The alternative is a 100 percent chance of death, which I think is much worse. We face a choice: the risk of additional harm from using one of these unapproved drugs or dying without trying.
This should be a decision the individual makes. The right to live is the most fundamental human right. If a person has a terminal illness, I personally think they have the right to try to save their life. The government should not block access, especially when they have no system in place for the approval of these drugs. A failure on the part of the government to deal with the issue is not sufficient reason to deny our right to try and save our own lives.
We need to solve this problem. If a person is terminally ill, that person should be allowed, by law, to try whatever they want to save their life.
- 1 decade ago
DCA is a common chemical compound that has been shown to be extremely effective in killing tumors especially in glioblastoma multiforme (a type of brain cancer). The reason the FDA hasnt approved DCA is because big pharm companies do not want to pay the 1 billion dollar price tag to the FDA to allow clinical trials in this country to get a patent. Because it is a chemical compound used for other things, the patent that drug companies may obtain for it will expire fast and they wont be able to make a decent profit off of it. That is the REAL reason why DCA is not being FDA approved. Because anybody can buy it online for $78.21 for a 250cc bag (granted it is a caustic acid and needs buffering before you can actually ingest it). The other two drugs im not sure about but its probably along the same lines as the story of DCA.
- Anonymous5 years ago
LMFAO! Yay, our government at work against big bad Cheerios. Trying to control everything. I haven't read a Cheerios box, but they don't put "Statements not approved by FDA", or something to that effect? I know places like GNC put that on all their products and the products they sell. I see these supplement companies always making claims like that. Why single out Cheerios? Down the road, most of these FDA approved drugs end up being bad for your health anyways. I'd pick Cheerios over an FDA approved drug anyday.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
DCA is still in clinical trials. It takes a lot of research and testing before the FDA lets something loose on the public. As for MMS and B17 for cancer treatment, not enough evidence yet.
"But it is too soon to say whether it will provide an effective treatment against cancer in humans, says lead author Evangelos Michelakis, a cardiologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton."Source(s): http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/dichloro... http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100512/full/news.2...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous4 years ago
Mms FdaSource(s): https://shrinkurl.im/baFIc
- TarkarriLv 71 decade ago
Vitamin B17 (Laetrile) have not been scientifically shown to provide any benefit in cancer treatment.
Dichloroacetic acid is currently undergoing clinical trials before approval.
Methyl Methanesulfonate has been tested as a chemotheraputic agent and anticipated to prove carcinogenic.Source(s): http://www.cancer.gov/search/ResultsClinicalTrials... http://ncit.nci.nih.gov/ncitbrowser/pages/concept_... http://ncim.nci.nih.gov/ncimbrowser/pages/concept_... http://ncim.nci.nih.gov/ncimbrowser/ConceptReport....
- .Lv 71 decade ago
Have you read the studies on some of those?
Besides, I would NEVER pay for a drug that has to lie about being a vitamin in order to be sold.
Chemo is certainly not without risk, but in some cancers it has actually been shown to improve the long term condition. I havent researched every single one of those, but the ones I do know have not shown any improvement.
- aprilLv 71 decade ago
Because it can and has harmed people, because they aren't real drugs, nor real vitamins.
@Comicbook Reader, stick with what you know!!
- Anonymous6 years ago