Cancer, Chemotherapy, and Exercise

velvetmarlin17 said:There it is. Or rather, there she is. My mother (65 years old) was admitted to the ER two years ago due to escalating abdominal pain. The doctors saw something on the ultrasound, laid her down, and made an incision. No prep, no biopsy, nothing. They removed a large tumor, though subsequent analysis showed it wasn't primary. A primary site was never found. The report didn't even suggest chemotherapy, so none was administered. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered complicating things. Just go for it!
In the following months, her markers spiked aggressively (they were right on the edge immediately after surgery). Various tests failed to locate the primary source. Then, she started watching her diet and taking various supplements. Since then, her markers have been steadily dropping; currently, two are below the threshold and one is near it.

So there you have it. No chemo, no radiation. Just one botched surgical job. Do you want to see the marker results?

Yes, she went to some charlatans (a famous expert) for alternative therapies. In my opinion, most of them are immoral. Some guy in a small town in the Midwest is selling some kind of liquid for $1000! He refuses to disclose what’s actually in that liquid. I suspect it would be bad for business. Fatal to his profits. 🙂

I don't buy into conspiracy theories either. But I do believe in money and power. Anyone who doesn't is a fool. Power is what drives everything.
Do you know who the leaders at the FDA are, or what industry they spent decades in before joining? Let me help you: they weren't working in academia. 🙂

A conspiracy theory could easily include methods for recruiting new patients—specifically, ways to introduce substances that act as potential generators for malignant growths and other neoplasms (like uterine fibroids).
I am referring directly to the idea that vaccines might be responsible for certain types of malignancies that trigger their "siren song" and explosion according to the vaccination rhythm of the young population, showing a shift in certain diseases over a 10-year period. This same pattern is seen in multiple sclerosis and certain degenerative brain diseases.
However, ordinary people like us on this forum still have no clue what we are eating or drinking, let alone what is contained in vaccines.
We can only look at Africa and what is happening to its population today. Because we could just as easily become like Africa one day, if someone decides we are suitable for experimentation.

velvetmarlin17 said:Well, you found it. Or rather, you found her. Two years ago, my mother, who’s 65, ended up in the ER because her abdominal pain was becoming impossible to ignore. The doctors at the hospital saw something suspicious on the ultrasound, so they didn't waste any time—they just went straight in for surgery. There was no prep work, no biopsy beforehand, nothing. They pulled out this massive tumor, only to discover through testing that it wasn't even primary. They never actually found the primary source. Since the pathology report didn't suggest chemotherapy, they didn't administer any. Otherwise, I doubt they would have made things so complicated. Just get moving!
In the months following her surgery, those markers shot up—they were already hovering right at the threshold immediately after the procedure. We ran all sorts of tests, but nothing could pinpoint a primary source. That’s when she decided to get serious about her diet and started incorporating various supplements into her routine. Since making those changes, the numbers have been steadily dropping; currently, two of them are well below the limit, and only one is sitting near the borderline.

That’s it. No chemotherapy, no radiation—just a total butcher job. You want to see the marker results?

Yeah, she went down that rabbit hole of chasing alternative therapies with some "famous expert." Honestly? I think most of those people are just fundamentally immoral. You’ve got some guy over in Ljubljana selling what basically amounts to overpriced flavored water for... $1000He isn't saying a single word about what's actually in that guide. Honestly, I bet he’s staying quiet because revealing the truth would be bad for business. It would be absolutely catastrophic for his bottom line. 🙂

Look, I’ve heard stories like that hundreds of times before, but honestly, we have no idea what your mother was actually dealing with. Not all cancers are created equal; they aren't all equally aggressive, and they certainly don't follow the same timeline. There is a massive web of variables at play here. Take my uncle, for example—he was 85 when they operated on his prostate cancer. He didn't undergo radiation or chemo. If scar tissue started causing issues again, they would have just gone back in and operated. He lived to be 97, but he didn't die from cancer; he died of old age. Age is a huge factor in this equation. I believe you when you say she wasn't taking anything and that her markers are what they are, but without an actual diagnosis or a PhD's insight, we're really just guessing at what was actually happening to her.
I live with benign endometriosis, which attacks my ovaries and leads to the formation of endometriotic cysts. Because of this, my CA 125 levels have shot through the roof—even though the disease isn't malignant. In fact, I’ve actually had higher marker readings than women dealing with actual ovarian cancer. It just goes to show how incredibly shaky and unreliable that specific test can be. Honestly, it baffles me that my mom never had a PET-CT done. We have imaging technology available now that can tell you exactly what's going on with precision.

Look, I don't buy into conspiracy theories for a second. But I do believe in money and power. Anyone who doesn't is just being naive. Power is the engine that actually moves the world and pushes things forward.
Ever wonder who actually pulls the strings at the FDA? If you want to know who’s really running the show, look at their track records. They didn't spend their decades climbing the ivory towers of academia or lecturing at universities. Most of these people spent their entire careers deep within the pharmaceutical industry itself. It's a revolving door, plain and simple. 🙂

When it comes to the USA, we probably shouldn't lose too much sleep over what they're doing, but what I know for certain is that things are handled quite differently within the European Union—or at least, there's a massive push to make them that way, especially when you're looking at the approach to malignant diseases. EMEA The leadership within this European organization consists entirely of scientists and doctors who are right at the epicenter of the issue—not to mention the rest of it. ESMU It’s pretty clear that certain players hold massive sway when it comes to shaping how European policy deals with cancer patients.

ruggedscout91 said:You can't look at everything through the lens of glioblastoma. Not every cancer occurs in a vital organ.

😁
Glioblastoma isn't just any cancer; it's a glial cell tumor. That distinction in cellular makeup matters immensely.
Since we fall into the top tier of US spending on oncological drugs, yet our mortality rates remain disproportionately high compared to others, it is blindingly obvious that the failure lies elsewhere—specifically in our organization and infrastructure.
We are short on hospital beds, but more importantly, we are short on specialists. And frankly, we lack a population with common sense, self-awareness, and a sense of responsibility toward their own bodies (prevention response = zero points).
A cancer diagnosis or active bleeding is an emergency, yet here, people face waiting lists for radiation (UNBELIEVABLE!). Successful treatment protocols get interrupted simply because hospitals hit capacity limits, which calls the entire recovery process into question. Palliative care is non-existent, supportive care is a mess, organized psychosocial support is missing, and we lack rehabilitation, nutritionists, and basic access to adequate information. Naturally, to an uneducated layman, it looks like the treatment itself is a coma, or that radiation and chemo are what kill you.

...and this isn't just looking at it from the perspective of glioblastoma, which, as a rare tumor, comes with its own unique set of "perks" compared to more common cancers.
When you have cancer, regardless of where it's located, you're in the same boat. Your thoughts are the same, and if you live in America, you are a victim of the same systemic failures.
In practice, treating cancer shouldn't just be about cutting it out, radiating it, and pumping in chemo. That is merely one crucial chapter in a much larger, far more complex story.
Successful cancer treatment is nearly impossible without a multidisciplinary approach!
I believe I've already touched on this in a previous post.
Take this discussion thread regarding lung cancer, for example, where a woman describes her husband being treated for small cell carcinoma of the bronchi in Australia. He is receiving the exact same treatment and following the identical protocol as patients in America; the difference is that here, people die from that disease within roughly 100 days, whereas her husband beat the odds in just over a year. Why? Because everything happened on time, and beyond the standard chemo and radiation, he received all the supplemental support that is unavailable here—support that is absolutely essential in the fight against cancer.

Viewing cancer treatment solely through the prism of the American healthcare system provides a completely distorted picture of reality.

Click on my signature and educate yourself. 🙂

Ivanica, what you're doing through the obesity prevention association is top-tier. And thanks for the smart replies to me and everyone else—you learn a ton from this.

I'm living in the United Kingdom, I'm 70 years old, and I’m doing alright health-wise, though about ten years ago things were pretty rough. For the last decade, I've stayed in good shape by keeping up with exercise, but just about two months ago, I ended up with a fractured kneecap. Even though they mentioned surgery in the operating room, I decided to get back to training instead: swimming, power walking, and cycling (just 6.2 miles).

I track health info in newspapers and all over the web in English, but there's actually some useful stuff out there—not so much in the US papers, more on American forums where you can see what actual people are going through.

Angela Wright said:It surprises me that Mom never had a PET-CT. These days, there are scans that can tell you exactly what's going on.

She actually did have a PET-CT. She did it in Austria (our insurance covered the cost). The whole abdominal cavity showed inflammation, but nothing specific enough to pinpoint a source. So, basically, zero answers.

Angela Wright said:Regarding the US, we probably shouldn't obsess over it, but from what I know, things are set up differently in the European Union—or at least they're working on it, especially regarding cancer. EMEA is a European organization run by top scientists and doctors who are right in the thick of it, not to mention ESMU, which has massive influence over how European policy handles cancer patients.

Well, alright. That’s a relief. I was starting to worry that money and power were just calling all the shots.
But hold on... why is it still practically impossible to prove that a drug is just some natural substance?

velvetmarlin17 said:She even went through with the PET-CT scan. That happened over in Austria—our insurance actually covered the cost for that one. The results showed widespread inflammation throughout her entire abdominal cavity, but there wasn't any specific, concentrated hot spot to point to. So, the bottom line? Absolutely nothing.

Get your mom to go get an ultrasound of her gallbladder. From what I’ve gathered hanging out with oncologists, I've heard plenty of stories where gallstones and those nagging, long-term inflammatory processes actually triggered malignant cellular changes. It's entirely possible that while the stones themselves might have dissolved, the damage they left behind has already set the stage for something much worse.

Alright, good. I can finally breathe again. I was honestly starting to get paranoid that money and power were just going to bend everything to their will.
But hold on... why is it actually impossible to prove that a drug is just some natural substance in practice?

How can you say that isn't the case?
Take Yondelis, for example. It’s incredibly effective at treating sarcomas and other rare tumors, and get this—the whole thing is actually based on lichen. The real kicker? It isn't even registered here in the States. Big Pharma simply sees zero profit in pushing a drug in a market where only a handful of people could possibly need it every year. It's just basic math for them. Compare that to something like Adriamycin, which is derived from a soil bacterium; that's widely used for treating lymphomas and certain types of sarcomas because there's actually a massive market for it.
I could just keep listing them if you want.
Look, the problem is that this isn't some simple, plug-and-play process. We aren't just making things up on a whim or chasing a quick buck here. There are actual rules in play, grounded in fundamental health principles that didn't just pop out of thin air for the sake of profit.
Look, I’ve been doing this professionally for a few years now, and honestly, it all started because of my mother's illness. Believe me, once you actually start digging into the grit of the subject matter, you realize how things really work.
In my book, the real danger isn't the big pharmaceutical companies—it's the charlatans screaming from the rooftops that they’ve discovered some "universal cure" for cancer. Biologically speaking, that's a total impossibility, but they don't care. They spin these wild conspiracies about how a wicked Big Pharma is suppressing a miracle breakthrough just because it wouldn't be profitable enough. These loudmouths are essentially predatory; they prey on human ignorance and pure desperation to line their own pockets. At least when you're dealing with the pharma industry, you know exactly who you're up against.
Running clinical trials is an absolute nightmare, but don't blame the industry for the red tape. They didn't invent these regulations; if you asked them, they’d probably try to scrap them in a heartbeat just to stop the financial bleeding. These rules were established by scientific circles and experts for a damn good reason. You have to understand that the sheer complexity and the grueling years required to prove a drug is both effective and safe drive prices up—and let’s be real, pharmaceutical companies still need to turn a profit. In the US, we actually have various funds specifically designed to support this process. These exist because of aggressive, proactive policies aimed at fighting cancer. The whole point is to provide funding for small-scale researchers so they can actually finish their clinical trials. Without that help, a brilliant discovery that works perfectly in a petri dish would never actually reach the patient who needs it. To keep everything honest, these processes are overseen by boards made up of scientists and specialists who work closely with the industry, yet they are constantly monitored to ensure there’s no conflict of interest. At the end of the day, the system is built so that someone with nothing but a lie can't just push their junk onto the market.

urbanorca said:Ivanica, what you're doing through the obesity prevention association is fantastic. And thanks for all the smart advice you give me and everyone else; I've learned a ton.

I live in the United Kingdom, I'm 70 years old, and I'm doing pretty well health-wise, though about ten years ago I dealt with some significant medical issues. Over the last decade, I've stayed in decent shape by keeping up with exercise, though just two months ago I suffered a fractured hip. Even though they suggested surgery, I decided to jump straight back into my routine: swimming, power walking, and cycling (just yesterday 6.2 miles).

I stay updated on health info via English-language newspapers and the internet, but there are some gems out there—not so much in the American papers, but more on American forums, especially when it comes to hearing about other people's actual experiences.

Thanks for the support, and I wish you many more high-quality, active years ahead.
My dad actually visited my sister in London last month, and he was blown away by how well the retirement community functions over there. Everyone seems so much more active physically, plus they travel way more and hit up shows... they’re living much more vibrant, fulfilling lives than some young people I know. It's probably just a perk of that Protestant mindset. 🙂

Angela Wright said:How can you say that?
Take Yondelis, for example. It treats sarcomas—rare tumors—really successfully, and it's based on lichen. The problem is it isn't registered here because big pharma sees zero profit selling a drug in a country where only a handful of people need it every year. Or look at Adriamycin; it's derived from a stream, for instance, and used for treating lymphoma and certain sarcomas.
I could go on all day.

My last post was pretty cynical, yeah. Europe isn't the class act they pretend to be (just look at British history). Why on earth would you think they're drastically better than Americans? They’re just more sophisticated about it.

Are you seriously suggesting it's possible to patent a well-known natural substance, grind through the massive cost of proving it works, and then hold an exclusive market monopoly for years just to recoup the investment? Not a chance. To get a patent, the compound has to be completely unknown. Because of that, hundreds of natural substances can't push through the clinical process, even though we know they work. If they were cheaper and safer, there wouldn't even be a debate. Instead, they get stuck without being able to be prescribed or gaining official drug status. That's a tragedy for a lot of people, especially cancer patients. To make matters worse, the white-coat crowd looks down on them. Medicine is a long way from being an exact science. Money flows (and massive egos follow) dictate everything.

Unfortunately, in the US, we don't actually see the level of preventative care people claim to talk about. If you show up to a doctor with something that isn't full-blown cancer yet—just a "simple" growth or lesion—our doctors often just sit on their hands. Instead of acting, they'll just schedule follow-ups for three months, then six months... basically dragging their feet until the diagnosis finally hits: you have cancer. They could have easily just cut it out while it was still a benign tumor. I'm speaking from personal experience here.

restlesslynx20 said:Unfortunately, we don't have much in the way of actual prevention here, despite all the talk. If you go to a doctor when you're at a stage that isn't cancer yet—just a "simple" growth—our doctors don't even react. They just schedule follow-ups for 3 or 6 months later, essentially waiting until the diagnosis hits: you have cancer. They could have just removed it while it was still a benign tumor. I'm speaking from experience.

Isn't that medical negligence? If it is, they should be prosecuted in court.

Take my father's case: appendicitis that went undiagnosed for a week. Four doctors on duty at the local hospital did absolutely nothing ("come back tomorrow"). No ultrasound, no stool tests, nothing. It ended in a rupture and sepsis. He had to undergo six surgeries over eight months and barely made it out alive. Seriously, appendicitis? In the 21st century?

The statistical distribution of white corners is just like professional soccer players. You can watch the top tier on TV, but you see the tragedy in person. 🙂

restlesslynx20 said:Unfortunately, there isn’t nearly as much emphasis on prevention here as people claim. If you show up for an exam at a stage where it isn't cancer yet—just a "simple" growth—our doctors don't really act; they just schedule follow-ups in 3, 6 ... months , essentially waiting until the diagnosis finally hits: you have cancer. And that same cancer could have been removed while it was still a benign tumor. I'm speaking from personal experience.

I sign this wholeheartedly; I’ve seen this exact pattern happen with my partner's skin, with my own family, and even a spot on myself. Exactly this! It’s unbelievable how pervasive it is across almost every field. What infuriates me most is how every single year, there’s this massive media push about how vital prevention is regarding breast cancer—how regular screenings matter, how important it is to go when everything feels fine and stay on top of checkups. But in practice, it’s a completely different story. They basically brush you off unless you already have a palpable lump, and the wait times for an appointment are absolutely insane. If they do find something that could potentially lead to cancer, they'll just tell you they'll "monitor" it—essentially watching it until it turns into something "harder" on the forum. Take HPV, for example. 👎

velvetmarlin17 said:Isn't that medical negligence? If it is, it should be prosecuted in court.

Oh, and which doctor actually admits to negligence or a mistake, or even takes responsibility for one? It's all just a circle of mutual protection. Personally, I know at least ten cases—catastrophic errors, some of them an open secret—stemming from the Mayo Clinic. Did anyone face consequences, even after lawsuits? No.

My partner also intended to sue because some doctors (based on a mere 30-second physical exam) told him he had a lump and suggested he come back in 5-6 months just to have it removed so it wouldn't bother him. Then, after some half-baked testing, they arrived at a totally different diagnosis. As a layman, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. The tests they performed were nothing like the standard procedures; there wasn't even a trace of a biopsy, let alone an ultrasound or anything else. Thank God he didn't listen to them, or he would be six feet under right now. We immediately sought out other specialists (several, in fact), and the urgency of the situation is best illustrated by the fact that he ended up on the operating table the very next second. At the last possible moment. Yes, it was cancer.

And what hurts most is watching how they treat the elderly. I've had so many opportunities to witness this in various places, and I simply cannot wrap my head around it. The theory presented to the public is one thing, but the reality is something else entirely. All respect to the exceptions, of course! But that's a whole other conversation that probably deserves its own thread.

Angela Wright said:Thanks for the support. I really hope you get plenty more high-quality, active years ahead of you.
My old man headed over to visit my sister in London last month, and honestly? He was blown away by how much life those retirees actually have. It’s wild. They aren't just sitting around waiting for the clock to run out; they're active, they're traveling, hitting up shows—you name it. They’re living more fulfilling lives than half the twenty-somethings I know. Is that just that Protestant work ethic mindset bleeding into retirement? Maybe. Who knows? 🙂

Thanks, Ivanica. Honestly, I’m way too young to be hanging out with a bunch of retirees, and between work and everything else, I barely have any free time anyway. Maybe give me another ten years.

velvetmarlin17 said:My previous post was pretty cynical. Europe isn't the class act they pretend to be (just look at British history). Why on earth would you think they’re drastically better than Americans? They’re just more sophisticated about it.

Are you seriously suggesting it's possible to patent a well-known natural substance, grind through an expensive clinical trial process, and then hold an exclusive market monopoly for years just to recoup the investment? Not a chance. To get a patent, a compound has to be something entirely unknown. Because of that, hundreds of natural substances can't push through the validation process, even though we know perfectly well they work. And if they happen to be cheaper and safer, there’s no debate—they simply stay stuck without being able to be prescribed or gaining official drug status. It’s a tragedy for countless people, especially cancer patients. On top of that, the white-coat establishment looks down their noses at them. Medicine is far from an exact science; the flow of money (and massive egos) plays a heavy hand.

I already explained that things aren't that black and white, and it isn't true that a patented compound has to be completely unknown. The issue isn't really about whether you can patent something; the real nightmare is proving efficacy, building up that evidence-based foundation, and surviving every single regulatory approval board.
The difference between the US and Europe is that America is a more homogenous society compared to the European Union, which is composed of several powerful individual nations. In the EU, each country makes its own autonomous decisions regarding drugs and research funding, even though general guidelines are set at the EU level. If everyone follows a certain standard and one person doesn't, the whole group can pressure that outlier to change their mind.
Medicine is an exact science that is constantly being built and upgraded. Forty years ago, we declared war on cancer, but today our understanding has evolved to the point where we realize you can't fight cancer as a single entity; you have to fight every specific malignancy and its unique subtypes individually.
And that right there is the core issue—the fundamental misunderstanding that trips everyone up.

restlesslynx20 said:Unfortunately, we don't actually have much preventative care here compared to how much people talk about it. If you go to a doctor when you're at a stage that isn't cancer yet—just a "simple" growth—our doctors often don't act. Instead, they just schedule follow-ups for 3, 6... months down the line, essentially waiting until the diagnosis is officially: you have cancer. They could have just removed that cancer while it was still a benign tumor. I'm speaking from experience.

Why didn't you just exercise your right to get a second opinion?

In America, we have prevention and screening programs, but the real issue is that most people simply don't show up for them because they're terrified of finding out something might be wrong.
Lung, breast, and colorectal cancers—in that order—remain the most statistically common types of cancer, and all three are preventable. In the US, roughly 24,000 people are diagnosed with cancer annually, with about 13,000 deaths. If people would just quit smoking, that number would drop by a quarter, and that’s without even touching other methods of prevention and screening.
The problem lies with individuals who focus solely on their rights while completely ignoring their responsibilities—both to their own health and to the society they live in. By the time someone develops metastatic disease, which is usually when they finally seek help because symptoms have finally surfaced, the wheels have already come off the wagon. The amount of money poured into treatments with uncertain outcomes is astronomical. On the flip side, we have children who typically suffer from rare tumors that are impossible to prevent or detect early, and whose medications are often unavailable because they aren't even registered in the US, or if they are, the costs are absolutely astronomical.

If grandparents, moms, and dads were more diligent about regular checkups and mindful of their lifestyle choices, how many more children could get access to their medicine and a fighting chance at life?

Spot on, Angela Wright, hats off to you—prevention is everything.

Angela Wright said:I explained that things aren't just that simple. It’s not true that a combination being patented has to be completely unknown. The issue isn't really about whether you can patent something; the real headache is proving it actually works, building up that evidence base, and getting through all those endless approval boards.
...
Medicine is an exact science that’s constantly evolving. Forty years ago, we declared war on cancer. Today, we realize you can't fight cancer like it's one single thing—you have to tackle every specific malignancy and its unique subtypes individually.
And honestly, that misunderstanding right there is the biggest stumbling block.

There is no way you can protect a well-known natural substance from being copied.

Medicine isn't an exact science. In fact, medicine isn't even a hard science—it’s more like a mix of science, skill, and pure guesswork. I remember someone at a medical school lecture once saying: "We have bad news and really bad news. Bad news is that half of what we have told you is wrong. Really bad news is that we don't know which half."

🙂

velvetmarlin17 said:There’s no way to protect a well-known natural substance from being copied.

Look, anything widely known was patented years ago, and the money from those patents has already been made and spent.
Here’s an example—not from medicine or pharmacology, but from commerce (though they overlap enough that the comparison holds water):
Some smart guy decided to check if the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle was actually patented. It wasn't. So, he designed his own version, and eventually, Coca-Cola had to cut him a massive check for infringing on his design. If you recall, we're talking about those iconic bottles with the white lettering.
In the pharmaceutical world, there's this concept called generics. Once a patent expires, companies can churn out copies of the drug—which often work just as well—but at a much lower price point. In oncology, it’s a tougher game because companies usually hold onto their patents just long enough to develop and refine a newer, superior treatment.

Medicine isn't an exact science. In fact, it's barely a science at all; it’s more like a blend of scientific data, clinical skill, and educated guesswork. I remember hearing someone at a medical school lecture say: "We have bad news and really bad news. The bad news is that half of what we've taught you is wrong. The really bad news is that we don't know which half."

🙂

Medicine is an exact science within its specific professional parameters, but it isn't "exact" in the sense that knowledge is constantly expanding. I won't go along with your "guesswork" argument—that sounds more like the realm of alternative medicine. You start with a hypothesis, and then it has to be validated through rigorous research and study—evidence-based practice.
Doctors study for a lifetime, but they don't learn it from textbooks; they learn it in the field.

Angela Wright said:Most stuff was patented years ago, and plenty of money has already been made off it.
Take this example—not from medicine or pharma, but from retail (though they overlap enough, so the logic holds):
Some smart guy in the US decided to check if the Coca-Cola bottle shape itself was patented. It wasn't. So he made his own version, and then Coca-Cola had to pay him massive amounts for infringing on his design. If you recall, we’re talking about those bottles with the white lettering.
In pharmacology, there’s this thing called generics. Once a patent expires, anyone can make a copy of the drug, which is often just as good but much cheaper. In oncology, it’s harder to pull off because companies usually hold patents long enough to develop and perfect a newer, better drug before the old one loses protection.

You can't protect a naturally occurring substance isn't possible to patent.
Your bottle design example isn't about a patent; it's about design protection. That's a completely different category that doesn't apply to chemical substances.

Angela Wright said:Medicine is an exact science within its professional boundaries, but it's not "exact" in the sense that knowledge and understanding are constantly expanding. I wouldn't agree with your speculation—that's more in the realm of alternative medicine. There's a hypothesis that eventually has to be proven through research and study—evidence-based.
Doctors learn for a lifetime, but not just from textbooks; they learn through practice.

Medicine isn't an exact science. Not even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_science

velvetmarlin17 said:You can't just go around patenting a natural chemical substance found in nature; it's not legally possible to protect it from being copied via patents.
Your little comparison about bottle design doesn't apply to patent protection—that’s design protection. Those are two entirely different legal animals, and one absolutely does not apply to chemical compounds.

I think you're wrong, but let's not get into a massive brawl right now. Why don't you actually name one of these "impossible to patent" natural substances and back it up with some actual scientific evidence?
Take Myko-san, for instance. They use mushrooms containing the AHCC (active hexose correlated compound) complex and/or beta-d-glucans, which have been used in Japan for ages to help treat malignant diseases. There are plenty of studies proving they work; their immunomodulatory effects are incredibly well-documented, whether you're looking at infections or cancer patients, through clinical trials, in vivo animal studies, and even in vitro research. Yet, Myko-san went ahead and patented and packaged the whole thing, and now they're raking it in selling 50 $0.00/mo doses 😉.
Meanwhile, you'll find various other companies offering the exact same beta glucan compound in different packaging or combinations, usually at a slightly lower price point.
And guess what? People buy both like there's no tomorrow.

Medicine isn't an exact science. Not even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_science

I think we're fundamentally on the same page here. I was simply clarifying my definition of what constitutes "exact."

velvetmarlin17 said:So, we're talking about that one well-known substance—you know, that specific chemical compound pulled straight from nature... Not really... It’s totally possible to protect it from being ripped off—you can actually patent it...

This just isn't true...

So, I was falling down a bit of a rabbit hole earlier—you know how it goes—looking up some info on Paclitaxel... and man, there is a lot to unpack there. It’s one of those heavy-duty drugs that basically changed the game for cancer treatment back in the day. It originally comes from the Pacific yew tree, which sounds almost poetic if you think about it, but the reality of what it does is pretty intense. It works by messing with how cells divide—basically freezing the cell's internal scaffolding so they can't multiply. It’s super effective for certain types of cancer, like breast or ovarian, but it definitely comes with its own set of baggage in terms of side effects. The big players in the industry, like Bristol Myers Squibb, have been heavily involved with this stuff through various versions and formulations over the years. It’s wild to think how much research went into turning something found in a tree into a standardized medical tool used in hospitals all over the US... it really makes you realize how far science has come, even if the process is pretty heavy.

So, Paclitaxel—better known as Taxol, which you've probably heard popping up more often lately as a treatment for various types of cancer—actually comes from a plant that only grows out in the Pacific Northwest. Bristol Myers Squibb managed to snag some specific patent protections on it, and man, they made a killing... If you start digging through the links on this page, though, you'll see how this tiny biotech firm actually developed a totally new, original, and super innovative formulation based on Paclitaxel, and they ended up making some serious bank back in 2009 too...