Alternative Drugs!

[CLTann]

The point is well taken. I certainly agree wholeheartedly. I also believe that to make a difference, we need funding from a major donor or a group of major donors, such as Gates foundation, to lead the crusade. The small, though enthusiastic, grassroot support does not change the tide. We cannot totally blame on the drug companies whose major responsibility is indeed to provide profits for their stockholders. We need to arouse those who are key trend setters to see our objectives. If we would start a letter writing campaign, I would be more than happy to participate.

Thanks Ann,

I agree we can't blame the drug companies. We have to look to ourselves. I never gave much thought to the whole issue of cancer funding (with the exception of universal health care,which I've supported for years), but selfishly I'm now very interested. My own instinct is to focus on one or two possibilitites, the research at the U. of Alberta on DCA is my first interest, and I've already written to them asking how I can help in their fundraising campaign for the projected clinical trials. I'll let you know if anything comes of that. I've written to the Gates Foundation previously about other issues like AIDS funding in Africa but never got a response, so I may let that one go.

[vickie h]

Grace, Drug companies have been trying to discredit Ralph Moss for years. Cancer has become a mega industry for pharmaceutical companies. I think we need to stay pro-active and listen to all sides of the cancer debates. Ralph Moss used to work for Sloan-Kettering and has seen alot of fraud, reporting such facts to those who have ab open mind and a will to change the way our health care choices are run. I. for one, think he has done amazing work and will continue to follow him. There is room for alternative or complimentary medicine right along with allopathic medicine. Some of the top Oncologists are now seeing the need for "alternatives" to the treatment of cancer. Thank you for you message and I would love to be a part of the change. Love, Vickie

Hi Vicky,

As I mention above I never heard of Ralph Moss before reading the article I posted, and honestly have no idea what other positions he may have taken. However, what he says in this article is, I think, difficult to dispute. Drug companies are not philanthropical organizations--their purpose is to make money for their stockholders. Whatever good they do is secondary and, of course, they do lots of good. Thus, I think it's very important that other, primarily non-profit, organizations be involved in developing and testing drugs that offer no profit to drug companies. Obviously, if a drug can't be patented a drug company is not interested. In cancer research and drug development, we need both: the drug companies and the universities and the governmental agencies. I can't do anything for the drug companies but I can for non-profit groups. So that's my goal for the year.

[vickie h]

Grace,

You are exactly right! Ralph Moss has several books and arcticles that he's written over the years. He is quite knowledgable about cancer and has done much good in the way of educating people about alternatives, along with conventional therapies. Pharmaceutical companies have long tried to keep a muzzle on any kind of treatment that they cannot profit from. I am grateful for advances that have been made, but I always keep an open mind and ear to ALL kinds of treatment. Thanks for your input. Ralph Moss has his own web site and you can google lots of info about him. Love, Vickie

[vickie h]

It is always the small, grassroots groups that change the tide, never the Big Guys, etc. All change has been started by people like you and me, people who refuse to wear blinders, who forge ahead in times of change. They are the change! Look back on slavery, women's rights, the Vietnam war, and now cancer. Stand strong and continue to seek the truth. As for the Quackery web sites.....Some of our greatest minds, our greatest scientists and leaders were considered "Quacks" in their time........ Love, Vickie

[heblaj01]

Regarding the private funding of research on unpatentable drugs mentioned in above posts maybe this Forum could follow the example of some other similar organizations who helped fund part of some projects & thus gain some recognition & better access to the progress of the scientific work. One instance I am aware of is the CLL TOPICS web site which at one time funded the purchase of Honokiol in China for the lab work of a US group of researchers seeking a new treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL).
Could this be more effective than individual donations? Any comments?

[Melinda]

FOod for thought
I was just reading about the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. A privately funded non for profit medical research facility and I quote"
"A revolution is taking place in biology, one that promises to transform our understanding of the living world and produce major advances in medical care. Among its leaders is the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).

<!--[[p]] ** INSERT VIDEO HERE ** [[/p]]-->The Institute is a nonprofit medical research organization that employs hundreds of leading biomedical scientists working at the forefront of their fields. In addition, through its grants program and other activities, HHMI is helping to enhance science education at all levels and maintain the vigor of biomedical science worldwide. "

The HHMI web site is quite interesting. As privately held it has the ability to negate the "red tape" often associated with government funding for medical research
The cost of the research being done thru HHMI or should I say lack of cost certainly should eliminate much of the expense that the drug companies say are involved...... unless I am misunderstanding this whole premise???

60 minutes did a feature on this and the link is below
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in584945.shtml
Interesting reading and a smart/rich man for whatever purpose .... what he did and why is now benefiting medical science.

Alas for the rats, most research on them does translate to humans, since that appears to be the research model these days: hypothesis, test tube, rat phase, then if the research shows promise, clinical trials on humans. If there's no money to continue to clinical trial, the research stops and any possible benefit to humans is not realized. Herceptin and many of the drugs we’re taking had their rat/mouse phase. And after six months on herceptin whenever I see a mouse go by, I think there with the grace of God go I.

Melinda,

Thanks for information on the Hughes foundation. I had no idea it existed.

[vickie h]

Thanks Grace for your insight about research. Cancer is affecting humans and animals in epidemic proportions. I have heard that cancer is on the decline (yet there are numerous reports that state just the opposite), I think the survival rates may be a little longer because of drugs like Herceptin, Tykerb, etc for Her2 positive patients, but I cannot speak for other forms of this disease. am glad that this site is funding "alternative" research here in California. And as for that mouse, amen, I feel the same way. Love and Peace, Vickie

[hutchibk]

Grace, I agree that a lot of animal research also does translate to humans... but a lot of it doesn't. Like you said "...hypothesis, test tube, rat phase, then if the research shows promise..." And that is always a big IF.

There has been much that doesn't move forward after the rat/animal phase, and there has been much that has moved forward but has failed in humans.
And of course, there are the successes! All I am saying is that I remain cautious about anything I hear about in the rat phase, since it is too early in the process to know anything about how it will do in humans. I do thank the rats who helped test the stuff that is keeping me alive today, though!