FAQ
The iontophoretic tumor therapy (ITT) is an innovative oncological
method. This form of therapy did not find broad clinical application
yet. The selective and tumor destroying medicine which has been developed
for this method has not been licensed until today and cannot be found
on the market so far. Licensing, sale of patent to the pharmaceutical
industry, or to a special research institute has not been realized
yet.
These facts raise questions as to the reasons. Subsequently we try
to answer upcoming questions in note form.
1.
The ITT has been developed at the clinic of a public hospital by
its inaugurator as a “lone fighter” in his every day
professional life without financial borrowings and without support
of a research institute or media. The beginnings of his invention
trace back to his years of study. The development includes fundamental
research, animal experiment, the entire clinical and technical
know how, the conception and production of the medicine as well
as the formulation of the meticulous concept of therapy, and its
successive clinical application during the years. Parallel to this,
patent applications were running for the production of the medicine.
Likewise, lectures were given and papers published.
2.
On the apex of the development of the ITT, the inaugurator finished
his professional activity for reasons of age. This was at a time
where intensive practical application and promulgation of the method
should have been started. At the same time, association was made
with a company in form of a concession agreement, which aimed at
the readiness for marketing of medicine and method.
3.
The inaugurator was forced to terminate the concession agreement
due to serious violation of the agreement. The licensee had tried
to appropriate patents and trademark of the inaugurator through
own registration, and, although still being in a sound contractual
relationship, to strike his own path behind the inaugurator’s
back. Following this, the licensee sued the inaugurator for damages,
the lawsuit being delayed for five years, and finally lost by the
licensee / plaintiff at both instances. During this time – for
understandable reasons - it was not possible to socialize with
other companies. Furthermore, the lawsuit concentrated all energy
and paralysed any other activities.
4.
After the end of the lawsuit, contact to the pharmaceutical industry
was sought. Reasons for rejections were manifold and can be summarized
as follows: It is difficult to break new ground. ITT demands courage,
revision of opinions, investment, and commitment. It goes beyond
the scope of present conventional therapies. There is a conflict
of interest concerning sales that figure billions when it comes
to problematical and to a large extent ineffective chemotherapeutics.
The oncological opinion leaders hold the corridors of power at
universities, institutions, and organizations. It is a worldwide
and powerful establishment with diverse and parallel operating
pressure groups (Frederic Vester). A scientist not belonging to
this circle and a practitioner without lobby has little chance
here. Ways of research that do not match trend and system are not
being taken up and are ignored. In this context, we refer to the
extensive and widely known critical literature.
5.
The inaugurator of the ITT – for humanitarian reasons – is
not willing to accept the given facts described in point 4 and wants
to try again to give interested circles an understanding of his method
especially as he managed in 2003 to transfer the selective antineoplastic
principle with a new iontophoretic concept to some other organs.
Evidence of his idea, however, can only be supplied by medical tests
whose risks and exposures lie far below those of conventional therapies
and which are not comparable to any chemotherapy or heroic surgery.
The problem-free clinical application for the bladder carcinoma is
already granted at this stage.
|