(4) A Weed, a Patent Wall, and a Systemic Failure:
A Weed, a Patent Wall, and a Systemic Failure:
Why Cancer Foundations Must Step In for Dandelion Root Extract Research
Advocacy Brief Prepared for patient advocates, foundation program officers, and research administrators — fourth in the IPCSG dandelion root extract series
The clinical trial gap for dandelion root extract is not a scientific verdict. It is a market failure produced by patent law, supplement industry perverse incentives, and chronic underfunding of non-patentable botanicals. Charitable foundations are uniquely positioned — and arguably uniquely obligated — to fill this void.
Executive Summary
Dandelion root extract (DRE) and its key compound taraxasterol have generated over a decade of compelling preclinical evidence against multiple cancer types, including prostate cancer failing androgen deprivation therapy — where taraxasterol specifically inhibits the PI3K/AKT pathway that drives castration-resistant disease. Canadian regulators approved a Phase I trial in 2013. It failed for want of 30 patients and a few hundred thousand dollars.
The reason no pharma company has funded trials is structural and well-documented: natural products cannot be patented in themselves, eliminating the commercial return on a $50–100M investment. This leaves an evidence-based, low-toxicity, mechanism-matched candidate in limbo — available over the counter without therapeutic claims, while thousands of treatment-refractory prostate cancer patients have no approved options left.
Critically, a Canadian Phase I trial did launch — at the Windsor Regional Cancer Centre in 2015, following Health Canada regulatory approval in 2012. The trial had pharmaceutical-grade extract manufactured, a dedicated company (Windsor Botanical Therapeutics) formed to supply it, a trial site active, and was open to 30 patients with drug-refractory blood cancers. It stalled due to recruitment difficulties and funding exhaustion before publishable results could be generated. The infrastructure, the regulatory approval, the extract formulation, and the clinical team remain in place. What is missing is the funding to restart and expand the program — and to extend it to prostate cancer, where the mechanistic case is now substantially stronger than it was in 2015. Published case reports in peer-reviewed hematology journals, including the journal Blood (American Society of Hematology), document individual patients with leukemia whose disease stabilized or entered remission on dandelion root tea — evidence that generated the original clinical interest and remains unexplained and unexploited a decade later.
Charitable cancer foundations — specifically the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF), the DoD Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP/PCRP), the NIH/NCCIH Natural Products Clinical Trials program, and ZERO — The End of Prostate Cancer — are the appropriate, and perhaps only, institutions capable of correcting this failure. This brief makes the case for why they should, and outlines the specific funding mechanisms available to do so.
The Core Problem: An Evidence-Backed Compound Trapped by Market Logic
The dandelion root extract story is, at its heart, a case study in how the pharmaceutical funding system fails patients with promising non-patentable treatments. The evidence base that has accumulated — reviewed across four IPCSG articles in this series — meets or exceeds the preclinical threshold that typically justifies Phase I human trials for patented compounds.
The Systemic Failure — Five Compounding Barriers
"The gap in the patent system for drugs has created a pervasive problem in the pharmaceutical industry, causing firms to regularly screen through their drugs in R&D and discard ones with weak patent protection. The potential harm to the public from the loss of these drugs is likely significant."— Federal Trade Commission analysis, "Unpatentable Drugs and the Standards of Patentability"
Why the DRE Case Is Unusually Strong — Even by Foundation Standards
Charitable foundations receive many appeals for underfunded research. What distinguishes the DRE case — and specifically the prostate cancer application — from most natural product advocacy is the precision and specificity of the scientific rationale. This is not generic "antioxidant may help cancer" territory. The argument is mechanistically tight and independently validated:
The Five-Point Scientific Case for Foundation Investment
- The mechanism matches the unmet need precisely. Prostate cancer failing enzalutamide escapes primarily via PI3K/AKT pathway activation. Taraxasterol from DRE inhibits PI3K/AKT in androgen-independent prostate cancer cells — the exact biology of treatment-refractory CRPC. This is not a general anticancer mechanism; it targets the specific escape route used by post-enzalutamide disease.
- The target is independently clinically validated. Multiple pharmaceutical companies are currently conducting human clinical trials combining PI3K/AKT inhibitors with enzalutamide on exactly this rationale (e.g., ipatasertib + enzalutamide, NCT trials active). DRE reaches the same target through a natural, orally bioavailable compound with a dramatically superior toxicity profile.
- In-vivo evidence is robust. Oral administration of DRE reduced prostate cancer xenograft tumor burden in living mice while being well-tolerated across the duration of study. Animal model results were replicated by independent research groups.
- DRE enhanced, not reduced, chemotherapy efficacy. In the 2019 prostate cancer study, DRE enhanced apoptosis induction by taxol and mitoxantrone compared to chemotherapy alone — consistent with an adjuvant role alongside, rather than instead of, standard care. This reduces the regulatory and ethical burden of a trial design.
- A recent head-to-head comparison outperformed docetaxel. A 2025 study found taraxasterol induced significant cytotoxic effects in docetaxel-resistant PC-3 cells where docetaxel itself failed. In a disease stage where chemotherapy resistance is the central clinical problem, this is a finding of direct clinical consequence.
The Funding Landscape: Who Could Act, and How
The following organizations represent the realistic universe of funders capable of supporting a DRE Phase I/II trial in prostate cancer. We assess each for fit, appetite, and specific funding mechanisms available:
| Organization | Relevant Program | Scale | Fit for DRE | Key Contact / URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) | Challenge Awards ($1–1.8M/3yr); Young Investigator Awards ($225K/3yr); Movember-PCF Awards | $16M+ annual (2024) | High PCF explicitly funds "first in field" research; cross-disciplinary teams bringing non-PCa expertise into prostate cancer are specifically encouraged. The PI3K/AKT mechanism aligns with multiple funded projects. PCF funded early-stage PARP inhibitor and PSMA radioligand research before FDA approval. | pcf.org/our-work/open-rfas-rfps |
| DoD CDMRP — Prostate Cancer Research Program (PCRP) | Idea Development Award ($2.1M/4yr); Concept Award; Translational Research Partnership Award | $75M FY25 appropriation; $2.37B cumulative since 1997 | High PCRP explicitly prioritizes "innovative, high-impact research with near-term clinical relevance." Military veteran prostate cancer burden is substantial. The PCRP has funded novel mechanistic approaches. A DRE/taraxasterol Phase I in CRPC meets multiple stated criteria. | cdmrp.health.mil/pcrp |
| NIH / NCCIH Natural Products Clinical Trial Program | R61/R33 Natural Product Early Phase Clinical Trial Phased Innovation Award | $166M total NCCIH budget; natural products subset | Medium-High NCCIH specifically created the R61/R33 mechanism for investigator-initiated early-phase trials of botanicals with "compelling preclinical evidence." DRE meets the published criteria precisely. NCCIH is the correct NIH home for this application, not NCI. Budget competition is intense. | PAR-25-269 (NCCIH R61/R33) |
| NCI — National Cancer Institute | R21 Exploratory/Developmental (PAR-25-139); Small Business Innovation (SBIR); NCI Cancer Centers Program | $7.2B total; fraction available for natural products | Medium NCI's R21 mechanism supports early-stage exploratory clinical research. The FDA's Botanical Drug Guidance creates a regulatory pathway NCI-funded trials could use. Competition is extreme. More viable as co-sponsor or via an NCI-designated Cancer Center (e.g., UCSD Moores) applying with institutional support. | PAR-25-139 (NCI R21) |
| ZERO — The End of Prostate Cancer | Research grants; patient advocacy co-funding; public awareness campaigns | Smaller direct grant capacity; large advocacy reach | Advocacy Role ZERO's strength is patient advocacy and amplification. A ZERO-backed advocacy campaign directed at PCF and CDMRP — framing DRE as a high-value, low-cost, patient-accessible option for treatment-refractory patients — could be highly effective in elevating the priority of this research. | zerocancer.org |
| American Cancer Society (ACS) | Research Scholar Grants; Institutional Research Grants | ~$130M annual research funding | Medium ACS funds basic and translational cancer research across types. Less focused on prostate cancer specifically, but the ACS-PCF Young Investigator co-funding demonstrates partnership capacity. A jointly-submitted ACS application with University of Windsor or a US collaborating institution is plausible. | cancer.org/research/apply-for-a-grant |
| Windsor Botanical Therapeutics (industry) | Private company co-sponsorship; in-kind standardized extract provision | Small company; limited capital | Partner Role Dr. Pandey's company was formed to commercialize DRE. While too small to fund a full trial independently, Windsor Botanical Therapeutics could provide pharmaceutical-grade standardized extract at no cost to a foundation-funded trial — addressing a significant logistical barrier and reducing trial costs substantially. | Contact via University of Windsor, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry |
Historical Precedent: Foundations Have Done This Before — Successfully
The argument that foundations should fund natural product cancer trials is not theoretical. It is well-established practice with landmark precedents. Of 98 new small-molecule anticancer drugs approved by the FDA between 1981 and 2010, only 20 were synthetic. The remaining 78 either were natural products or were derived from natural products — including paclitaxel (Taxol) from yew bark, vincristine and vinblastine from the Madagascar periwinkle, and camptothecin derivatives from a Chinese tree. Each of these required someone to believe in the evidence before commercial return was imaginable.
More directly relevant: PCF Challenge Awards funded the early development stages of PARP inhibitors and PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy, which are now approved treatments for advanced prostate cancer. Both of those programs began as high-risk, novel-mechanism bets. PARP inhibitors were funded when BRCA mutations in prostate cancer were barely characterized. PSMA radioligand therapy was speculative before PCF backed it. Both are now standard of care for appropriate patients.
The DRE/taraxasterol case sits at a comparable stage — compelling mechanistic rationale, solid preclinical data, regulatory approval already granted once (Health Canada, 2013), and a clear target population (mCRPC post-ARSI failure). The risk profile is arguably lower than PARP inhibitors at the same preclinical stage, because the safety profile of dandelion root has centuries of human use data behind it.
The Canadian Trial: What Actually Happened — and Why It Matters
The Windsor Star article referenced in our research confirmed something that significantly strengthens the advocacy case: a genuine Phase I clinical trial of DRE did launch in Canada. Understanding its full history — the evidence that motivated it, the infrastructure that was built, and the specific reasons it stalled — is essential for any foundation program officer evaluating whether to fund a restart or expansion.
What motivated the trial: clinical observations that preceded the science
The trial did not begin with a laboratory discovery. It began when Dr. Caroline Hamm, an oncologist at the Windsor Regional Cancer Centre, noticed something anomalous: cancer patients who had been drinking dandelion root tea appeared to be responding unexpectedly well. She approached Dr. Pandey's laboratory to investigate scientifically — an unusual inversion of the typical drug-development sequence, where human observations preceded and drove the lab work rather than the reverse.
Those clinical observations eventually crystallized into published case reports of striking human responses, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and published in peer-reviewed journals. These represent the closest thing to human clinical evidence currently available for DRE, and they are not anecdotal social-media claims — they are physician-documented cases in the flagship journal of hematology:
Published Human Case Reports — Peer-Reviewed Evidence from Hematology
- Four-year leukemia remission dependent on dandelion root tea (published in Blood, ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts, 2013): A patient with acute monocytic leukemia who did not respond to standard chemotherapy (7+3 regimen or high-dose AraC) has remained in remission for four years from diagnosis as long as he continues dandelion root tea. When he reduces intake below three cups per day, his peripheral blood monocytes begin to rise and testing demonstrates recurrence of CMML. The dose-dependence of the response — with documented relapse signal when the dose drops — is a clinically meaningful observation that goes beyond simple coincidence.
- CMML hematological remission on dandelion root tea alone (same ASH publication): An elderly female with CMML used only dandelion root tea as treatment and experienced a hematological remission for three months prior to eventual relapse. Her initial white blood cell count was 130,000 × 10⁹/L — a severely elevated level.
- AML patient stabilized on dandelion root tea after chemotherapy failure (same ASH publication): A patient with relapsed acute myeloid leukemia, who was not a candidate for more aggressive options, was treated with low-dose AraC and then dandelion root tea. Although remaining transfusion-dependent, she only developed peripheral blasts on the one occasion when she was unable to obtain dandelion root tea for a month — a striking dependency signal.
- CMML bone marrow improvement in previously untreated patient (published in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2018, PMID 30662779): A 76-year-old male with previously untreated CMML whose hematological parameters remained stable and whose bone marrow blast counts vastly improved while taking papaya leaf extract and dandelion root extract — an independently reported case by a different clinical team (Rahmat and Damon, UCSF).
These cases are hypothesis-generating, not hypothesis-confirming — they cannot control for other variables and do not constitute proof of efficacy. But they are the reason Dr. Hamm made the Health Canada application, the reason the trial was approved, and the reason the research program deserves to continue. They represent a signal in humans that is consistent with the preclinical laboratory and animal data and deserves rigorous investigation.
What was built for the trial — infrastructure that already exists
Between 2012 and 2015, the Windsor team constructed a substantial trial infrastructure that has never been formally decommissioned and could be reactivated:
Health Canada approved the Phase I protocol in November 2012 for use of DRE in human patients with drug-refractory hematological malignancies. Windsor Botanical Therapeutics Inc. was incorporated as a company specifically to contract a licensed Health Canada drug manufacturer to produce the extract for clinical use — solving the pharmaceutical-grade standardization problem that bedevils most natural product trials. Advanced Orthomolecular Research (AOR), a Calgary-based supplement formulator, spent eighteen months developing and validating a dandelion tea powder formulation six to ten times more potent than commercial products. The Windsor Regional Cancer Centre was designated as the trial site, with Dr. Hamm as the clinical investigator. Six thousand doses of the pharmaceutical-grade tea were produced for the trial.
The trial enrolled patients, but never reached the thirty-patient target needed to generate statistically meaningful safety and dosing data. Funding dried up before completion. No peer-reviewed results paper has been published from the trial — not because the results were negative, but because there were insufficient resources to enroll enough patients to reach a publishable conclusion.
What this means for foundation funders specifically
A foundation considering DRE funding is not being asked to start from zero. The regulatory approval pathway has been walked. The pharmaceutical manufacturing challenge has been solved. The clinical trial site and investigator team have prior experience. The extract formulation exists and can be reproduced. The human case reports provide the biological prior probability that motivated the trial in the first place. What is needed is the funding to finish what the evidence demanded be started — and to expand the program into prostate cancer, where the mechanistic evidence (PI3K/AKT inhibition in CRPC) has become substantially more compelling in the decade since the leukemia trial launched.
In grant-making terms: this is not a high-risk exploratory proposal. The infrastructure exists. The regulatory precedent exists. The human signal exists. The ask is for completion funding and disease expansion — a fundamentally lower-risk investment than a trial starting entirely from scratch.
What the research extract actually was — and why it matters for patients seeking access now
The 2019 prostate cancer paper by Nguyen, Mehaidli, Baskaran, and Pandey (University of Windsor, published in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, doi: 10.1155/2019/2951428) — the primary study demonstrating DRE's efficacy against androgen-independent prostate cancer in living animals — provides a precise technical description of the extract used in all the research. This is directly relevant both to foundation funders evaluating reproducibility and to patients seeking access while trials remain unavailable.
The extract used was not a commercial product. It was prepared in the university laboratory from dried dandelion root obtained from Premier Herbal Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada using a specific hot-water extraction method: the dried root was ground to fine powder, extracted in boiled double-distilled water at 60°C for three hours at a 1g:10mL ratio, filtered through cheesecloth and then through a 0.45 μm vacuum filter, then freeze-dried using a lyophilizer to concentrate it, then reconstituted in water to 100 mg/mL stock concentration, and finally passed through a sterile 0.22 μm filter before use. In the animal studies, mice received this extract orally at 40 mg/kg/day in their drinking water for eight weeks — with significant tumor burden reduction in both DU-145 and PC-3 prostate cancer xenograft models and no observed toxicity.
| Parameter | Research Extract Specification (Nguyen et al., 2019) |
|---|---|
| Raw material source | Premier Herbal Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada — Asian dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) dried root |
| Extraction method | Hot water (60°C, 3 hours), 1g powder per 10mL distilled water |
| Processing | Cheesecloth filter → 0.45 μm vacuum filter → freeze-dried (lyophilized) → reconstituted in water at 100 mg/mL |
| Sterility | Final 0.22 μm sterile filter in biosafety cabinet before use |
| In vivo dose (mice) | 40 mg/kg/day orally in drinking water for 8 weeks |
| Effective in vitro dose | Significant apoptosis from 4 mg/mL at 96 hours in DU-145 and PC-3 cells |
| Normal cell effect | No significant apoptosis in normal colon mucosa (NCM) cells at effective cancer doses |
| Chemo interaction | Enhanced mitoxantrone efficacy; no interference with taxol; protected normal cells from taxol toxicity |
| Funding | Prostate Cancer Fight Foundation (Ride for Dad); Knights of Columbus; Lotte & John Hecht Memorial Foundation; 100 Who Care Windsor; Rasch Foundation; Couvillon family |
Two findings from this paper deserve special emphasis. First, the study explicitly demonstrates that DRE — when added to mitoxantrone chemotherapy — significantly reduced the apoptosis of normal healthy cells caused by taxol, suggesting a potentially protective effect on non-cancerous tissue alongside its cancer-killing activity. This is directly relevant for patients considering DRE alongside existing treatments. Second, the paper confirmed that the extracts "must have been absorbed and stable upon systematic consumption" when given orally — validating that the active compounds survive gastrointestinal absorption and reach the tumor site, a critical question for any orally administered botanical.
Guidance for Patients — Obtaining the Right DRE While Trials Remain Unavailable
This section is written directly for patients with advanced prostate cancer who, after discussion with their oncologist, wish to pursue DRE while formal trials are not yet accessible. The fundamental challenge is that the research extract — prepared by a university laboratory under sterile pharmaceutical conditions from a specific raw material — is not commercially available. What follows is an honest, prioritized guide to the closest achievable alternatives, in order of preference.
All of the following steps should be undertaken with your oncologist's knowledge and involvement. DRE is not a replacement for any approved therapy. Its potential role, based on current evidence, is adjuvant — alongside, not instead of, standard care.
1 Contact Dr. Pandey's Laboratory Directly — First and Most Important Step
Dr. Siyaram Pandey is the corresponding author on every major DRE research paper and the founder of Windsor Botanical Therapeutics. He has worked with patients seeking compassionate access before. With your oncologist's involvement and a specific mCRPC clinical situation, you have the strongest possible case for a compassionate use or named-patient request.
Distinguished University Professor, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry
University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
Email: spandey@uwindsor.ca
Dandelion Root Project: uwindsor.ca/dandelionrootproject
Windsor Botanical Therapeutics: contact via University of Windsor directory
What to ask: Is the pharmaceutical-grade DRE available for compassionate use? Is the Health Canada Phase I trial open to new patients? Can you advise on the closest available preparation for a supervised prostate cancer patient?
2 Advanced Orthomolecular Research (AOR) — The Trial Manufacturer
AOR is the Calgary-based supplement company that actually manufactured the pharmaceutical-grade dandelion tea powder used in the Windsor clinical trial. They spent 18 months developing the clinical formulation and achieved a product six to ten times more potent than standard commercial products. Their commercial dandelion root products are the closest available approximation to the research extract from any company involved in the actual research program.
Website: aor.ca
Look for: Standardized dandelion root products — confirm with AOR customer service whether any product is derived from or related to their clinical trial formulation work
What to ask AOR: Do you still produce any formulation related to the Windsor Clinical Trial dandelion root program? What is the taraxasterol standardization of your current products?
3 The Raw Material Source — Premier Herbal Inc., Toronto
Premier Herbal Inc. in Toronto is the raw material supplier used in both the 2019 prostate cancer paper and earlier DRE research papers. Their dried dandelion root is the actual starting material of record for the published research. For patients whose oncologists or integrative medicine teams wish to prepare a concentrated extract following the published method, this is the most research-consistent source of raw material. The extraction method is fully described in the 2019 paper's Methods section and is technically achievable with laboratory equipment.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Product: Asian dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) dried root — the exact material used in the published prostate cancer study
Note: Home preparation of simple dandelion tea will not achieve the concentrations used in research. The research extract required freeze-drying (lyophilization) to reach 100 mg/mL stock concentration — this is laboratory equipment, not a kitchen appliance. Simple dandelion tea, while possibly beneficial at lower concentrations, is not equivalent to the research preparation.
4 If Purchasing Commercial Supplements — What to Look For
If none of the above options are accessible and your oncologist agrees to supervised supplementation, the following criteria identify the most research-relevant commercial products:
- Products specifying standardized taraxasterol content — this is the primary pharmacologically active compound identified in the research, and standardization means consistent dosing
- Ethanolic or hydroalcoholic extraction methods more closely approximate the research extracts than simple water infusion or capsules of dried powder
- Third-party tested products carrying NSF International, USP, or ConsumerLab certification — these provide the strongest assurance of label accuracy and absence of contaminants
- Products manufactured under pharmaceutical GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) standards, not merely dietary supplement GMP
- Avoid products that list dandelion root as a minor ingredient in a multi-herb blend — the research used pure dandelion root extract, not combination products
5 Health Canada Special Access Program (SAP) — For Canadian Patients
Canadian patients have an additional pathway: Health Canada's Special Access Program allows physicians to request access to drugs not yet commercially approved for individual patients with serious conditions who have exhausted conventional options. Given that Health Canada already approved the DRE Phase I trial protocol, your oncologist may be able to request access to the Windsor Botanical Therapeutics pharmaceutical-grade extract through this channel. Your oncologist would need to sponsor the application. Contact Health Canada's Health Products and Food Branch for current SAP procedures at canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/special-access.html
6 FDA Expanded Access — For US-Based Patients
For patients in the United States, the FDA's Expanded Access (Compassionate Use) program allows individual patients with serious conditions to access investigational agents outside a clinical trial when no comparable alternatives exist. Your oncologist would need to sponsor the application, and a US Investigational New Drug (IND) application would ideally exist. Contact the FDA's Office of Oncology Products or ask your oncologist to consult FDA guidance at fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access
What a Trial Would Actually Cost — and Why It Is Manageable
A key insight often missed in discussions of natural product trial funding is that a well-designed Phase I/IIa trial for DRE could be conducted at dramatically lower cost than a typical pharmaceutical oncology trial — and lower still because key infrastructure already exists from the Windsor trial program:
The compound itself is inexpensive to produce at scale — dandelion root is a common agricultural product. Windsor Botanical Therapeutics has already developed a pharmaceutical-grade standardized extract six to ten times more concentrated than consumer products, and the manufacturing relationship with AOR in Calgary is established. There is no need to develop a new formulation from scratch.
The regulatory pathway is clarified. Health Canada already approved a Phase I protocol in 2013 — that groundwork does not need to be rebuilt from scratch. The FDA's Botanical Drug Guidance provides a US regulatory pathway for complex botanical mixtures without requiring identification of a single active ingredient.
The trial design for a Phase I/IIa in treatment-refractory mCRPC is relatively straightforward: dose escalation for safety in a defined population (post-ADT, post-ARSI, not yet on chemotherapy), with PSA kinetics, PI3K/AKT pathway biomarkers, circulating tumor DNA, and quality of life measures as endpoints. This does not require a massive randomized controlled trial at the outset — it requires a rigorous, well-designed signal-finding study.
A realistic budget for a 30–50 patient Phase I/IIa trial at a single NCI-designated Cancer Center (the size of the original Health Canada–approved trial) would be in the range of $1–3 million over 3–4 years — well within the range of a single PCF Challenge Award or a DoD PCRP Idea Development Award.
A Note on Current Federal Funding Uncertainty
It is important to acknowledge the current funding environment. The NIH has experienced significant budget pressures and grant disruptions in 2025–2026, with NCCIH particularly vulnerable to priority re-alignments. The DoD CDMRP programs have been more stable, as they receive congressional appropriations separate from the NIH budget. This makes the PCF Challenge Award and DoD PCRP mechanisms the most resilient near-term funding targets, as both are insulated from NIH budget volatility by their independent funding structures. Charitable foundation funding is, paradoxically, more reliable than federal funding in the current environment.
What the IPCSG Community Can Do — Concrete Actions
| Action | Target | How | Timeframe |
|---|---|---|---|
| Write to PCF | Prostate Cancer Foundation Program Officers | Contact PCF's Chief Science Officer directly. Present the three-article IPCSG series and the PI3K/AKT mechanistic case. Request consideration of a DRE/taraxasterol Challenge Award application from University of Windsor + a US prostate cancer research center. | Immediate |
| Engage ZERO — The End of Prostate Cancer | ZERO advocacy team | Ask ZERO to add DRE clinical trial advocacy to its platform — specifically the "treatment gap" for patients who have exhausted ARSI options before chemotherapy. ZERO's patient voice carries weight with PCF and CDMRP program officers. | 1–3 months |
| Contact University of Windsor | Dr. Siyaram Pandey / Windsor Botanical Therapeutics | Determine the current status of their clinical trial plans. Offer IPCSG as a patient recruitment network for any future approved trial. Ask what specific funding gap they face. Connect them directly with PCF program officers. | Immediate |
| Approach a US Cancer Center | UCSD Moores Cancer Center; City of Hope; MD Anderson | A US NCI-designated Cancer Center co-applicant dramatically strengthens a PCF or CDMRP application. UCSD Moores (local to IPCSG) has active PSMA/radioligand programs — an institution already doing innovative CRPC work. A formal introduction connecting Windsor with UCSD investigators could initiate the cross-institutional team PCF Challenge Awards specifically require. | 3–6 months |
| Advocate for NCCIH Natural Products funding | Congressional representatives; NIH NCCIH | Contact your congressional representative's office to support NCCIH budget protection and to mention DRE as a specific unmet research need. The PAR-25-269 NCCIH R61/R33 mechanism is purpose-built for this scenario and should be highlighted in any congressional outreach. | Ongoing |
| Distribute this brief | Other patient support groups; oncologists; cancer center researchers | Share this four-article series with other prostate cancer patient groups (Us TOO, Malecare, PCRI), with integrative oncology programs, and with any prostate cancer researcher who has PI3K/AKT work in their portfolio. The goal is to create the multi-institutional team a PCF Challenge Award requires. | Immediate |
Conclusion: The Mission of Charitable Science
Charitable cancer foundations exist precisely because markets fail patients. The patent system creates a rational economic logic that produces irrational public health outcomes — abandoning promising compounds because they cannot be monopolized. The DRE case illustrates this failure with unusual clarity: a compound with over a decade of published preclinical evidence, regulatory trial approval in hand, a mechanism directly relevant to one of the largest unmet needs in oncology, and no pharmaceutical champion because any investor's return would immediately be competed away.
The Prostate Cancer Foundation has previously funded the early development of PARP inhibitors and PSMA radioligand therapy — both now standard of care. Neither looked commercially certain at the time PCF funded them. What PCF provided was the conviction that patient need, not patent viability, should determine research priority.
We ask the PCF, the DoD PCRP, the NCCIH, and the broader charitable research community to apply that same conviction to dandelion root extract and taraxasterol. The science is ready. The patients are waiting. The regulatory approval was granted in Canada in 2012. The clinical trial launched in 2015. The case reports from the Windsor oncology clinic documented patients holding leukemia at bay for years on dandelion root tea. And then the funding ran out — not because the science failed, but because no institution with sufficient resources believed the mission of serving patients, rather than markets, extended this far.
That trial is still waiting for a champion. The IPCSG stands ready to support patient recruitment, community education, and advocacy for any organization willing to step forward.
Sources & References
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8521639/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11435428/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36336805/
https://www.pcf.org/prostate-cancer-foundation-funds-over-16-million-for-2024-annual-challenge-awards-program/
https://www.pcf.org/our-work/open-rfas-rfps/
https://cdmrp.health.mil/pubs/press/2025/25pcrppreann
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-25-269.html
https://www.uwindsor.ca/dailynews/2015-02-18/human-clinical-trials-cancer-killing-dandelion-extract
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40344-w
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31391857/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394242142
https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget/fact-book/data/research-funding
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/...
https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/118/21/4288/68625
https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/122/21/5216/12219/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30662779/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/30-patients-to-test-dandelion-s-cancer-killing-potential-1.2959815
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-anti-cancer-tea-1.3370691
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3281857/
https://www.uwindsor.ca/dandelionrootproject/5/research
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31391857/ • doi: 10.1155/2019/2951428
https://www.aor.ca
Comments
Post a Comment