Dr. Hancock, that link is to the Patent Application by Dr. Michelakis (the researcher at UofA).
It is an application. An application is not a Patent.
Unless the applicant has followed through and entered the National Phase, that is, declared in which of the PCT states the patent is desired (and of course, paid the fees), then that application is not worth the paper it's written on.

If the National Phase has been entered, then I would say that any Patent which might result from it, would be worth next to nothing because (a) a "method patent" cannot stop the manufacture of the product, nor can it control its distribution/sale; and (b) it's impossible to enforce it, because it would require to place someone in the medical practitioner's office to detect any infringement. That, if it were possible, would in itself, infringe on the practitioner's right to practice medicine.

This is nothing but a dumb exercise in futility, a waste of money and resources, and worst of all, a waste of precious time for those who are dying.

In the matter of conducting Clinical Trials, it is another waste of dying patients' time.

If DCA were a new drug, about which nothing is known, then it would be more than justified in demanding clinical trials.
But DCA is not a new drug. It has been around for nearly 40 years, and everything about its toxicity and side-effects is well-known and documented. Thus, it should be up to the physician to determine whether or not it is suitable to treat a cancer patient.

In this particular case, I am against the requirement of any prior approval by the FDA (in Canada, by Health Canada) for physicians to treat their patients as they see fit.

By CJohn Zammit on March 24, 2007 2:26 AM