TED Conversations

Kuls Jay

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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: http://youtu.be/hpO62HgXvsw.
(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.)

Related Talks:
Topics: languishing cancer therapy low-cost cancer treatment promising cancer treatment unpatentabl cancer therapy
+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • John Smith 30+

    • 0
    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).

    • Kuls Jay

      • 0
      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

      Kate Blake 50+

      • 0
      Jan 24 2013: John your idea of how the health funds are allocated is most naive!

      I worked for many years in the health field in my country - and charming handsome transplant surgeons ensure this research and surgery is carried out on those 'they' deem worthy. Have you any idea of those costs???

      Whilst anyone working in community health, mental health, addictions, etc will tell you that they scramble for basic resources .... And we all know these numbers are much greater than the few who get transplants - should add that two dear friends have received transplants and I rejoice for them.

      But the real costs per patient, and the effectiveness of what we could have done in the community with only the cost of ONE transplant. Allocation of health resources is highly discriminatory!

      Please get a fuller perspective?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.