Depends on your goals.

Personally I believe the entrenched medical establishment with the pharma industry and government will fight you tooth and nail on any naturally occurring remedy that doesn’t require massive industrial processes to produce and refine.

So personally, I’d keep it as a supplement to get minimal regulation, cut Dr. Oz and Oprah in, and let them pimp the benefits and look at this person who’s cancer is gone, while adamantly claiming that we’re not selling this as a cancer cure.

There won’t be a cure for cancer. Too many things cause cancers and there are so many different cancers.

Just eat whole products and very little processed food, exercise and stay thin. I have one auntie who is 100 and another who is 95. They still of sound mind, live independently and cook their own meals. The 95 yo aunt still manually balances her checkbook every month and uses the Internet. The husbands ate junk, smoked and drunk, They are long gone.

My dad is 86. He changed his diet at about age 60. Never too late.

[quote=moneymaker]OT: While in the amazon I discover a natural cure for cancer. It’s herbal and therefore not patentable, [/quote]

This is not true. Patentability does not have to do with whether it came from a natural source – it is whether the specific claimed invention is a product of nature. If I isolate something from a plant (i.e. taxol from pacific yew or vinca alkaloids from vinca plants, like the ground cover you use) and formulate it in a way that is therapeutic, it can be patentable because the formulation is not a product of nature.

[quote=moneymaker] cost to produce 1 pill is approximately 25¢ and it takes 3-5 pills to effect a cure. FDA does not regulate herbs (and no the herb is not weed). [/quote]

This is also not true. The FDA regulates herbal products if they are sold using a claim of therapeutic benefit. That’s why the supplement companies use all of the weasel words like “supports immune health” to avoid therapeutic claims.

[quote=moneymaker]
The only succesful company that started this way that I can think of is coca-cola but back then they did advertise it as being a cure for some sort of malady, which today would land you in court/jail today. So question in short is what to do with a cure for cancer that is cheap, not patentable, yet theoretically worth Billions? [/quote]

If it’s not patentable, no commercial company can afford $500 million to $1 billion to do the clinical trial that would allow it to be sold to address a therapeutic purpose. So it isn’t worth billions unless it’s patentable. Generally speaking, only patented drugs (including drugs for which the patent has expired) are worth billions.

What is supposed to get done is the NIH is supposed to investigate these sorts of things but they have a long history of not doing much in terms of development. So the answer is, if it’s not patentable it will probably never be developed.

[quote=moneymaker]
Selling it to a pharmaceutical company for money might seem like the thing to do but they would probably just steal it as there own idea.P.S.- one part of the above story is a lie.[/quote]

If it is not patentable, there is no property (that’s where the intellectual property thing comes in) to steal. You can’t steal something that someone can’t own. In other words it’s in the public domain. But, generally speaking, pharmaceutical companies won’t develop something that isn’t patentable. The generics do try to jump on the band wagon at the time of patent expiration – their strategy is to get in early and get some of the profits resulting from the former exclusivity before the priced falls.

Since your hypo is based on (at least one) false premise, it’s hard to answer your question. Of course, this is not intended to be legal advice.

[quote=moneymaker] It is only when the immune system is asleep at the wheel that cancer gets a foot hold and puts up barriers to the immune system. Removing those barriers is the secret.[/quote]

You realize that people have been working on this for a long time, right? If you’re interested, look up P53, checkpoint inhibitors, etc.

I’m sorry, am I on Piggington or NatrualNews?

[quote=Hatfield]I’m sorry, am I on Piggington or NatrualNews?[/quote]

Should have been OT, now that I look at it.