New ALS drug
(`Motor Neuron Disease` or `MND` also known as `Lou Gehrig's disease`)
You can edit text on your website by double clicking on a text box on your website. Alternatively, when you select a 
A previously unknown problem protein has been discovered
A specifically designed new ALS drug, RCH4, successfully suppresses it
 ​RCH4 is available free of charge on compassionate basis depending on availability and location

RCH4: Publication in the scientific journals

For a number of years scientific papers were submitted to many scientific journals for peer rewiew.
However these were always declined.

It must be understood that in the global research Establishment, the key opinion leaders who comprise the peer review committees are persuing their own projects and therefore have conflicting vested interests in their own work. It is natural that they do not necessarily welcome any new disruptive technology or major discovery which may render their own work outdated. This is understandable as their professional status which took a lifetime to build could be at stake.
In this instance, RCH4 is a completely new drug (an IND), a specifically engineered new molecule that does not exist in nature.

The classic example (see below) is perhaps the greatest scientist in modern times, Albert Einstein, whose scientific papers were initiallly always refused and no scientific journal would publish his revolutionary equation E=MC2 which transformed the understanding of physics by Humankind.

What is more acceptable to the research Establishment are small advances in the understanding of their own specality field. Minor developments do not threaten anyones status or academic career.
Incremental improvements to current understandings pass peer review and are readily accepted and readily gain publication – but this is not the case for major breakthroughs. Typically, scientists with significant discoveries are either vilified, or ignored, and they frequently experience wilful obstruction or malice from the research entities and professions.

We could see that we were wasting our effort trying to get published, so we stopped trying and made a strategic decision to take a different path, that of trying to get our papers accepted for oral presentation at conferences. Again, we were always refused and met with silence.

In essence, the academic obsession about "How it works" is misplaced.
In the final analysis, what matters to the patient are three things:
1/ Does it work better than anything else? 
2/ Is it safe?
3/ Does the clinical data stand up to forensic due diligence? (i.e., can the data proven beyond doubt).

In the case of RCH4, the answer to all three questions is "Yes".

From the `About us` page:

In 1905 Albert Einstein drafted probably the greatest and best known equation of all time: E=MC​2.
He expected (and deserved) excitement and euphoria from the scientific community but was met with a hostile silence.
All the scientific journals refused to publish his paper until Max Plank, the greatest theoretical physicist at the time and editor of the journal Annalen der Physik eventually took notice, gave in, and published. The rest is history.  
Cambridge University refused to teach Isaac Newton’s Laws for 40 years after he developed them - at Cambridge ! 
On reading his book Philosophiæ Naturalis , the academics rebelled as he rationalised the physical laws other than what they believed in. They had been teaching the wholly incorrect `Heliocentric model` for years.
To avoid damaged professional egos, the work of Newton was suppressed within the University. After 40 years, those academics in opposition had died and Newton`s laws were finally accepted. In the 330 years since, little in the ego of human nature has changed.

Medical science is not the co-operative, collegiate forum that non academics assume it is.
In fact it is intensly competitive.