Big Data has probably ONE net benefit to humanity: aggregation and distillation of bulk medical data for a voluntary human population.
If free individuals choose to disclose their personal medical, health, and situational data to an aggregator, over time and populations a series of cloud patterns will emerge which signal benefit.
Said during covid that this should have been done, as there were millions of people volunteering information, symptoms, treatment regimens, outcomes, etc., but there was no central or organized repository.
The original safety trials established Mebendazole and Ivermectin as "safe." How can they say they're not established as safe for cancer treatment? Why does safety for a particular indication have to be established if a drug has already been established as safe for other uses?
With global oncology drug sales reaching $110 billion in FY2024, is there any hope of having an honest debate/conversation on re-purposed off-patent drugs with researchers, regulators et al? Don't they all have their snouts in the trough?
Dr. Marik. Once again, I think your voice and leadership and decades of experience shine through. Thank you for this thoughtful discourse which I think will resonate with patients and providers. We need more providers, willing to speak out and not count the cost. You’ve already paid that price which gives you an amazing platform and incredible freedom to help organize and help lead this movement.
The entire foundation of drug approvals only after substantial clinical randomised trials was incinerated/obliterated by mRNA covid vaxxines! The entire industry must be destroyed and rebuilt with not one of the existing criminal parties maintaining a presence!
Spot on article! You sketched the nuanced domain of evidence based medical interventions - And ,implicitely, the huge oppurtunity for oncologists to apply the metabolic approaches in the clinic and genuinly apply the ‘art’ of medicine. Especially in the context of (advanced) cancer, where standard of cancer care has made very modest progression (added in the order of weeks to months of survival) in the last decades, apart from a few niches! I am wondering how such a structural change can be accelerated….
The RCDB trials are designed wonderfully to insure only the big pharma can afford them. If done showing few 100 then that is not acceptable. Thankfully this is only for getting single molecule patent and now only protocols are working once majority ailments in the world are no longer genetically driven. Almost all modern disease is lifestyle driven and all treatment is protocol or formulations driven. The future belongs to small niche treatment centres that handle diet and medicine. and not just drugs.
This is the best written, best thought-out, most logical, best organized summation of scientific research/publication and medicine as practiced that I have ever seen. It applies not only to cancer, which is uniquely complex, but to other chronic conditions as well. Thank you, Dr. Marik! This is a gift. I don't think anyone else could have written this so perfectly.
I appreciate how thoroughly you make this argument and how neatly it overlays with my experience with Stage 4 Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma gone from my lungs in my last two scans. Here’s how the business disincentives for repurposed drugs are playing out for me on the patient level. Early in this decade I participated in three clinical trials for which I was paid. None of them worked well enough to stay in them. The half dozen tumors in my lungs kept growing, albeit slowly for the rare cancer type. I used the more than $2500 in career earnings as a clinical trial guinea pig on the repurposed drug protocol of the Care Oncology Clinic (out of pocket) which I continue to take now. Since I’m now cancer free and all but perfectly healthy, I’m delighted to be able to pay for these meds out of pocket. (Stereotactic radiation and the full metabolic playbook: diet, fasting, etc. all played important roles) But I’m tired of rolling my eyes at my regular oncologist continuing to suggest how the last clinical trial worked better than believed, demonstrating the keen reluctance to acknowledge the repurposed protocol And it seems obvious to connect that reluctance to the fact that I pay for these drugs myself outside insurance and I’ve been taking them for going on five years. I don’t pretend I can attribute my success at any one of the drugs or any other of health strategies I practice but I’ll be damned if the whole metabolic playbook itself didn’t work exactly as planned.
You have missed the point. Far too many authors use far too many abbreviations that are not understood by people outside the particular specialist field. It is jargon and should be avoided when writing or speaking to the wider public. It is unreasonable for an author to expect readers to have to do searches to understand their abbreviations.
Thanks..
Agree
Big Data has probably ONE net benefit to humanity: aggregation and distillation of bulk medical data for a voluntary human population.
If free individuals choose to disclose their personal medical, health, and situational data to an aggregator, over time and populations a series of cloud patterns will emerge which signal benefit.
Said during covid that this should have been done, as there were millions of people volunteering information, symptoms, treatment regimens, outcomes, etc., but there was no central or organized repository.
The original safety trials established Mebendazole and Ivermectin as "safe." How can they say they're not established as safe for cancer treatment? Why does safety for a particular indication have to be established if a drug has already been established as safe for other uses?
With global oncology drug sales reaching $110 billion in FY2024, is there any hope of having an honest debate/conversation on re-purposed off-patent drugs with researchers, regulators et al? Don't they all have their snouts in the trough?
I think you are right, there is too much money involved for change to occur. In addition, eugenics is not served through curing cancer.
Money, not love, conquers all.
Thank you Terri.. i really appreciate your comment.
Tim thanks for this. Very encouraging.
Thanks...
Dr. Marik. Once again, I think your voice and leadership and decades of experience shine through. Thank you for this thoughtful discourse which I think will resonate with patients and providers. We need more providers, willing to speak out and not count the cost. You’ve already paid that price which gives you an amazing platform and incredible freedom to help organize and help lead this movement.
The entire foundation of drug approvals only after substantial clinical randomised trials was incinerated/obliterated by mRNA covid vaxxines! The entire industry must be destroyed and rebuilt with not one of the existing criminal parties maintaining a presence!
Spot on article! You sketched the nuanced domain of evidence based medical interventions - And ,implicitely, the huge oppurtunity for oncologists to apply the metabolic approaches in the clinic and genuinly apply the ‘art’ of medicine. Especially in the context of (advanced) cancer, where standard of cancer care has made very modest progression (added in the order of weeks to months of survival) in the last decades, apart from a few niches! I am wondering how such a structural change can be accelerated….
The RCDB trials are designed wonderfully to insure only the big pharma can afford them. If done showing few 100 then that is not acceptable. Thankfully this is only for getting single molecule patent and now only protocols are working once majority ailments in the world are no longer genetically driven. Almost all modern disease is lifestyle driven and all treatment is protocol or formulations driven. The future belongs to small niche treatment centres that handle diet and medicine. and not just drugs.
Thank you, Dr. Marik. Very thoughtful and well researched and written.
This is the best written, best thought-out, most logical, best organized summation of scientific research/publication and medicine as practiced that I have ever seen. It applies not only to cancer, which is uniquely complex, but to other chronic conditions as well. Thank you, Dr. Marik! This is a gift. I don't think anyone else could have written this so perfectly.
I appreciate how thoroughly you make this argument and how neatly it overlays with my experience with Stage 4 Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma gone from my lungs in my last two scans. Here’s how the business disincentives for repurposed drugs are playing out for me on the patient level. Early in this decade I participated in three clinical trials for which I was paid. None of them worked well enough to stay in them. The half dozen tumors in my lungs kept growing, albeit slowly for the rare cancer type. I used the more than $2500 in career earnings as a clinical trial guinea pig on the repurposed drug protocol of the Care Oncology Clinic (out of pocket) which I continue to take now. Since I’m now cancer free and all but perfectly healthy, I’m delighted to be able to pay for these meds out of pocket. (Stereotactic radiation and the full metabolic playbook: diet, fasting, etc. all played important roles) But I’m tired of rolling my eyes at my regular oncologist continuing to suggest how the last clinical trial worked better than believed, demonstrating the keen reluctance to acknowledge the repurposed protocol And it seems obvious to connect that reluctance to the fact that I pay for these drugs myself outside insurance and I’ve been taking them for going on five years. I don’t pretend I can attribute my success at any one of the drugs or any other of health strategies I practice but I’ll be damned if the whole metabolic playbook itself didn’t work exactly as planned.
You have missed the point. Far too many authors use far too many abbreviations that are not understood by people outside the particular specialist field. It is jargon and should be avoided when writing or speaking to the wider public. It is unreasonable for an author to expect readers to have to do searches to understand their abbreviations.
Richard Moore