This conversation is closed.

A very promising cancer therapy should be explored and established even if it is not patentable and will not make much money for hospitals.

GEIPE (Gentle Electrotherapy to Inhibit a Pivotal Enzyme -- Ribonucleotide Reductase or RR) cancer treatment cannot be patented, but ii should still be explored and established because it is entirely scientific, non-toxic, highly effective and low-cost. Major cancer institutions like MD Anderson Cancer Center & National Cancer Institute have acknowledged the validity of this approach to treat cancer.
For details, please view this 6-minute video:
(The scientific basis of this treatment provides a better insight into why electric fields are effective in halting cancer growth - the topic of the talk below. The two treatments are related.)

  • thumb
    Dec 26 2012: I have been looking at this sort of thing recently. I think vitamin B17 seems to be promising, but has been black-balled by the authorities for the same financial reasons. Folks in the US now have to travel to Mexico to try the therapy.
    Seems to me there many promising avenues that are blocked because of the massive profits generated by the cut & burn technology we've been stuck in for the past 50years.

  • Dec 30 2012: The treatment not being very profitable (assuming we're talking about absolute profitability, not relative profitability) points to it being very expense, in low demand, or both, if either of those are the case then the treatment should not be pursued at all costs. It may sound harsh but in modern societies medicine advances faster than the economy grows so at some point society cannot pay for all possible treatments anymore and the most expensive per added year of live (adjusted for quality of life) are discarded so that there are enough resources left to keep life worth getting cured for.

    In the case of electrotherapy for cancer all sources seem to point to the same single study, suggesting that it might not work as advertised (in medicine a single study doesn't prove anything, unless it's very large and very tightly controlled, which is usually not the case).
    • Dec 30 2012: John,

      You are muddling the issue by talking about very expensive treatments. This GEIPE treatment is in fact extremely low-cost, in additon to being non-patentable.

      And it is not one study but multiple studies -- published in Science in 1959, in Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. in 1977, in Cancer Research in 1985, in Health in 2010, etc. etc. Please watch the video and read the 1997 article that summarizes various studies. Thanks.
  • thumb
    Dec 26 2012: If its not patentable then its unlikely to be considered.
    Unfortunately profit is a necessity in society. Research costs millions and the only current method for funding is to guarantee someone that if they give millions, they will receive millions + more at a later date.

    If you want such research to take place, we need a new funding mechanism.
  • thumb
    Dec 26 2012: When it comes to cancer treatment, the most important thing is effectiveness and results, not money.
    I have no doubt that all scientific possibilities are being explored.
    • Dec 26 2012: Is 98% shrinkage of tumor after 5 hours of treatment over 5 days not 'effective' in your opinion? Initial results of angiogenesis studies were much less promising but it was a sensation in the media about a decade ago. How come no cancer institute is talking about Gentle Electrotherapy? Your lack of doubt "that all scientific possibilities are being explored" is based on some theoretical vision or faith, not reality on the ground.
      Have you watched the video?