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.