I estimate that cancer can be cured for around ten to fifteen million dollars within a year. Initial reactions to a budget this low and a timeline this fast will be astonishment or disbelief.
Some may wish to call me a “quack,” to which I will reply that I am the exact opposite. The definition of a quack is a simple one to me. I quote John Jackson at Auburn University, who told me: “Your analysis either appeals to the central limit theorem, or you are a quack.”
My analysis appeals the central limit theorem.
There are major differences between my approach and that of the cancer research industry which has combined budgets in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually worldwide, and never cures cancer.
Differences:
Use medication that works.
Do not use the clinical trials model. Instead, let teams of doctors cure cancer in every cancer patient on an individual basis, using any medication or treatment necessary, then analyze the individual and varying data using multiple linear regression.
In addition to my background in econometrics at Auburn, I have experience as a Project Manager for a General Contractor in disaster relief. The general contracting model is one I would like to use.
With a sufficient budget, I would subcontract an assignment to cure cancer to independent medical teams. These teams would record all their data. This data would be available to all medical teams in real time. Teams would be free to communicate with each other on treatment protocols, but use whatever treatments they thought were best according to their medical judgement.
I do not like the words “experiments” or “trials.” This model asks doctors to use their best medical judgement, share their data, and iterate towards a solution. Call it “learning.”
I would like to have 1,000 volunteer cancer patients.
Let’s say it costs $10,000 per patient to pay the medical teams, including doctors and support staff, and provide medication. That’s $10 million. Add on another 5 for any additional costs including research, management, legal, and statisticians.
That’s $15 million, and I think it’s on the high side.
My salary would be the same as I was paid as a project manager for a general contractor, no more and no less. I think medical teams deserve to be paid their standard rates as well.
A budget this low and a timeline this fast assumes that there are safe and effective cures for cancer which are already known, but have been suppressed. Discussions of promising medications for cancer always become a very large discussion with a very large number of medications. The key here is to pick something that you think is most promising and go with it.
The most promising method is up to the medical teams. I am not a doctor and do not have a license to practice medicine.
Currently some very promising protocols are being developed primarily in the Philippines using Ivermectin and Lactoferrin. More information is available in the Viber group “A Prostate Community Trial.”
The medical community has been under the illusion that the only way to demonstrate the relationship between cause and effect of medication and disease is through a clinical trial. This is a statistical falsehood.
Correct statistical theory combined with correct medical theory can cure cancer quickly. What you are reading here is the difference between giving a man a fish and teaching a man how to fish.
Charles Wright
Adding to that, I'll mention a bit of cancer research history.
We have had cures that work fabulously, but were not brought to market because the pharma companies developing them did a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the number of patients would be too small to yield a profit. Therefore, meds that melted glioblastoma (a death-sentence brain tumor) to non-existence were stopped at successful Phase II trials.
What should have happened at this moment?
Any scientists within the company who had enthusiasm for their brilliant work on that project should have been allowed to take that intellectual material and develop it further on their own ... via startup, community-funded philanthropic project, or in affordable pharmaceutical factories who produce generics abroad. Anything to get that recipe out to humanity. There would certainly be talented people and benevolent supporters who were willing to make that happen. And at no harm to the original big pharma company, since they decided not to follow through.
Edit: I'm sharing that story in honor of a wonderful brain surgeon who witnessed those miracles on his own patients, and was unable to save others after the trials were discontinued. This older gentleman worked every single day despite his own terminal illness, helping patients until his death.
I'm a PhD econometrician and have taught and researched econometrics in the health field for over 30 years. I'd be happy to discuss potential collaboration on this with you. I'm also quite sure that such an approach is potentially more successful than the big Pharma/FDA RCT approach. joel.hay@gmail.com