Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suzy, how did you find that??....It came in zero searches I've done!
Edit found it....Johnson and Johnson is making it...but they do not make it for commercial release...Johnson and Johnson is making it for their donation program for 3rd world countries...
...so you can't buy it and no doctor can prescribe it
So Emverm made by Impax is the only one we can buy...BUT....the FDA did approve Vermox...so Impax may not have the market cornered after all
"The introduction of a chewable formulation of mebendazole meets a recognized global health need and is an important part of Johnson & Johnson’s R&D commitment as a signatory to the 2012 London Declaration on Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs). Following FDA approval and eventual WHO prequalification of the VERMOXTM CHEWABLE tablet, Johnson & Johnson plans to include the chewable version in its donation program to help reduce the burden of intestinal worms, or soil-transmitted helminths (STH), in endemic countries. Presently, there are no plans to make VERMOXTM CHEWABLE commercially available."
Which is also why ketogenic diets possibly can be effective: They reduce the amount of carbohydrates in the diet, and thus, the amount that can be absorbed by cancer cells.
Funny some here belittled the ketogenic diet when the OP's own article suggested the drug under discussion operates by a similar mechanism.
I think you need to read about the Krebs Cycle and cellular respiration.
...I just ate a double fudge brownie....I'm not responsible for anything for at least the next hour!
You were saying "drugs"...the FDA approves "drugs"...a "drug" is submitted to the FDA...
Emverm...the FDA didn't approve a drug....they only approved one "brand name" of a drug
Obviously the FDA couldn't approve a drug off patent that's now generic....in this case, the FDA didn't approve a drug....they approved one brand name, marketed by one company
...the FDA did not approve a drug...they approved one brand name of that drug
Yeah, this just got more confusing. I'm talking about the role of the FDA and not about anything specific beyond that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
Doctors may prescribe drugs that have not been approved by FDA:
"Among the most popular unapproved drugs still available are estrogen-plus-testosterone pills, which are marketed as hot-flash remedies. Doctors wrote 1.8 million prescriptions for these drugs in 2008, despite the FDA's 2003 findings that there wasn't enough evidence the hormonal cocktail works. And it may raise the risk of breast cancer, liver problems, and depression." https://www.oprah.com/health/drug-sa...#ixzz5mbqLfnV4
Then there is off-label prescriptions. For example, a doctor might write a prescription for propranolol, usually used for high blood pressure, to help a patient with performance anxiety. But propranolol has not been approved for performance anxiety, and the manufacturer may not market it as a treatment for that condition.
A similar situation exists for diagnostics. A company may get their kit or device approved for diagnosing a particular disease under either a PMA or 510k submission. Other tests are marketed "For Research Use Only", yet doctors may use results from these tests to aid in diagnosis.
I don't know why you think the above excerpt disproves my point that the FDA is tasked with approving drugs and can keep drugs from consumers. It doesn't.
My wife has been battling stage 4 cancer for over three years. So we've learned a lot, done a lot of reading,had some great drs. Who explained a lot.
First problem is, what kind of cancer did it cure.
Second, what percentage of patients did it cure. No two cancers and no two patients are the same. A medicine that might cure one persons cancer might have no effect on another. It might even kill another. No one cure for all.
Once again, read the link I provided in post 77. It even has a hefty 342 citations! Mostly to other scientific studies.
There is a clear link between obesity and the "western diet" and cancers. That has been established for a number of years.
However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the "keto diet" does anything to cancer. Cancer cells do replicate faster and have increased cellular metabolism. This is the basis for PET scans, in which patients are injected with C14 labeled glucose- the cancer cells "light up" on imagining (but unfortunately the brain and renal system), thus identifying cancer cells. I have ordered thousands of PET scans over my career and have personally had five PET scans myself.
In vivo, the cancer cells preferentially replicate relative to normal cells. Doing anything to blood glucose would have no impact on cancer cell growth as:
1. One would have to kill the organism through starvation before killing any cancer cells
2. When fasting, one mobilizes glycogen to maintain blood sugar levels
3. In starvation, fats and proteins are catabolized to maintain blood sugars
4. "Normal" blood sugar ranges are maintained by relative release of insulin by the pancreas
So diets do impact the incidence of cancer, but have no curative effects once cancer is established. There is absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. The only study to note a difference in active cancer was the consumption of blueberries in childhood lukemias.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mostly to other scientific studies.
