I cannot address the motives a pharmaceutical company would or would not pursue research/production into compounds which may or may not have potential to be patented, but can point to the process on the NIH side of things. NCI, as I have pointed out has a Natural Products Group who is responsible for screening naturally occurring products for anti-tumor and anti-viral properties. Another group will take promising compounds; analyze them and determine their chemical structure. Another group will try to synthesis the compounds and determine if they are still biologically active. If so, a biopharmaceutical pilot plant will develop and streamline production of the compound for both animal and phase 1 human clinical trials. Compounds that successful go through the phase 1 trails are then expanded to other Cancer Clinical Centers. Many successful treatments have been developed by this process and are now used worldwide. All done in the open, with no nefarious motives, peer reviewed scientific and medical publications ensure access to the information.

Yes, patents are pursued, which are generally used to prevent the compounds from being patented by commercial pharmaceutical companies. The government maintains the rights to the patent and companies can obtain the right to produce the material though licensing agreements, which attempts to recoup the costs for developing the compounds. There is a big emphasis on lab to bedside research, making the patient the focus of research.

Pete

Under the current system, I think some NIH/NCI and academia combo is the only alternative for a true cancer cure. At least to get the discovery of the substance "out there" with enough clout and respectability backing it to generate interest for further development (Remember the public outcry for anti-retrovirals in the early years of the AIDS outbreak even though the treatments were still totally experimental?) (Actually, I'm not even sure what I mean by a "cure" when I use the word, which muddies the waters. Testicular cancer responds well to chemo, but that's not a common cancer. I guess I'm thinking of something like taking a course of antibiotics when you first get a cancer diagnosis and that takes care of your cancer and you don't have to do anything else. Cancer is just not a big deal anymore).

Obviously, I'm painting the whole pharma or even cancer treatment industry in very broad brush strokes, something which tends to annoy me when other people do the same thing, so I guess I'm actually annoying myself now, LOL. Maybe I'm just in a very pessimistic mood about how the primacy of the almighty dollar has really taken center stage and really screwed us all over in so many facets of our society. But you read things like this new SEC civil suit against Goldman Sachs and what they were doing--it just reminds me not to put anything past the moral sensibilities big corporations anymore. And money comes into play at NIH or academia, too, of course. I hope the Ivory Tower can withstand the siege.

What were we talking about again? Ah yes, Fenugreek!

If you have a place for a solar panel, it might be a good alternative. If you do your homework, you could make sure you have enough juice to run a small fridge.

Also, my understanding is a small chest style freezer, combined with an external thermostat are very efficient and won't lose as much heat when you open them.

http://mtbest.net/chest_fridge.html

http://www.northernbrewer.com/brewing/br...controller.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000MSCKM6
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000MS8SHM
http://www.amazon.com/Brunton-SOLARIS-Foldable-Solar-Silver/dp/B0018BCYRM

Depending on the over night heat loss, you might not need to even mess with batteries.

Random thought -- if you have power during the day, but not at night, I wonder if some sort of thermal mass might further assist keeping the target temperature.

I'm thinking about solar panels more and more these days instead of a generator. No noise, no gas to run out....

-john

The supply of HFCS would dry up as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU2nWuXsh6Y

A.F.L.M, this isn't directed at you, you were just the last in line.

1. "a cure for cancer" is the biggest medical misnomer around. Cancer is not a single disease, it is not an outside agent attacking your body, it is not something in your body failing. It is MUCH more complex than that. There are many, many types of cancer and the causes can change from person to person. Because of this there is no one cure for cancer. The best scientists can do towards developing a "cure for cancer" a to develop a set of protocols for determining what tests will best ascertain what is the best drug for EACH patient at whatever stage the cancer is currently in. Scientists aren't looking for a "cure for cancer", they are looking for a million cures for a million types of cancer.

Cancer does not arise from a single mutation but rather a whole bunch of independent mutations that eventually allow a cell to:
a. prevent mechanisms from spotting and fixing damaged DNA
b. deactivate preprogrammed lifespans and how many times the cell's DNA can be replicated
c. causes the cell to produce its own growth hormones and ignore growth inhibitors
d. cause a surge in the number of blood vessels bringing nutrients to the cells allowing excessive growth
e. allow the cells to detach themselves from their current location and allow them to migrate to other spots in the body.

There are thousands of different ways these abilities can occur which makes correcting the problem nigh impossible. The most effective treatment is to just kill off the cancer cells. The trick there is limiting cell death to just the cancer cells.

2. When anyone talks about how medical research should not make money what they are saying is scientists working on medicines should work as slaves. You may not realize this, but that is the only way such a system could work. Medicinal science is the hardest, most frustrating career path one can take and requires true geniuses. If such effort is not rewarded these scientists will jump ship to something that does pay them for the work they do (like oilfield chemistry!). The only way to keep them working in medicine would be to make them slaves...but I suspect the results from these slaves would not be to your satisfaction. If you want "the government" to pay for it then the government has to take your money and give it to the scientists. How can this be any more efficient than you giving your money to the scientists through paying for your medicines?

3. Medicines from plants aren't avoided because there's no way to make money from them, medicines aren't made from plants because we have a much better way of doing it rather than separating every single compound from a plant and testing it in every single dosage on every single disease. The current way to treat diseases medicinally is to isolate the biochemical processes of the disease which lead to the symptom/effects of the disease. We use molecular modeling to determine the shape, isoelectric surface, and binding characteristics of a molecule that can "screw up" this aforementioned biochemical process. We then synthetically create this molecule in real life and test its ability to screw up the biochemical process, thereby eliminating the symptom of the disease. "Curing" a disease is much like curing a cancer in that you would have to completely reprogram a persons genetic code. Removing the symptom is all we are currently capable of doing. To think it's just a money thing shows you don't understand the process. if you don't understand the process then any opinion you have on the subject isn't worth spit.

-Blast

The Welcome Trust is a charity. There are other ways to fund important medical research which is not funded by corporate (for profit) or governmental interests.

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/index.htm

World leading medical research is also carried out within the UK NHS teaching Universities and hospitals as well. Many of the drugs, surgical and medical imaging physics techniques available today were the result of medical research carried out within the NHS.

Drug companies have invested zillions of dollars into developing, testing and documenting the different drugs before they hit the market. It is only fair and square that they have some revenue on that investment. The dynamics of capitalism creates an opportunistic playing field where the bright guys make a lot of money. I'm happy with that. I think it is hard to find someone who actually disagree with this...


But capitalism needs boundaries and regulations. If you don't enforce fair, but strict rules the same opportunistic dynamics encourages finding sneaky and dirty ways of increasing revenue. To stop that you need independent institutions capable of calling any bluff the big corporations care to make. If you don't you are entirely on the mercy of big corporations and their marketing departments.


So, it's not about stopping big medical firms from making money. It is about funding a sufficient amount of medical research outside those firms. Benefits include

a) An independent source of information.

b) Lots of interesting results into topics and areas that the big med corps won't touch because they lack money making potential. I don't blame big corps for not using resources on stuff with zero revenue... which means someone else must do it for the benefit of all humankind.

c) EDIT: It offers an alternative carrier path for those bright heads who would like to do medical research outside of the big companies. They won't work for slave contracts thought, hence the need for some independent funding.



P.s. I highly recommend Ben Goldacre's book and blog
bad science . Being a medical doctor, most of his examples are medical, but the principles of science are universal. Although Goldacre has some pretty bad examples of drug companies trying to design trials in a way that make them look good and obfuscates side effects, the most hilarious examples are from the "alternative" side of medicine...

Blast, no one is saying that medical researchers shouldn't make money. Even though the scientists are employees just like every other employee. The scientists aren't the ones making the big bucks -- YOU know that! A decent living maybe, but that's all.

What I am saying is that drug companies (and others) shouldn't be able to squash the research of others, control independent testing and studies, and manipulate product test results just to further their own interests and control the market. Large drug companies DO control research in the academic field because they BLACKMAIL the schools: Take our money and do as we say, or we're gone. That isn't opinion, that is fact, and it's been going on for many, many years.

It isn't the making of the money as much as it's the Total Control, the money is just the result. The big drug company only wants ONE drug company. The big seed company only wants ONE seed company. The big chemical company only wants ONE chemical company. WalMart only wants ONE cheap-junko store chain.

Anti-trust? Don't make me laugh! It's ALWAYS about the money at the top!

Sue