Possible Cure for Cancer Found (DCA)...but Nobody Cares

Started by PVS3 pages

Possible Cure for Cancer Found (DCA)...but Nobody Cares

thats right. it seems the media has determined that a possible cure for most if not all cancers is not really newsworthy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

New Scientist has received an unprecedented amount of interest in this story from readers. If you would like up-to-date information on any plans for clinical trials of DCA in patients with cancer, or would like to donate towards a fund for such trials, please visit the site set up by the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board. We will also follow events closely and will report any progress as it happens.

It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their “immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.

It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.

Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.

DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.

Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis’s experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020).

Michelakis suggests that the switch to glycolysis as an energy source occurs when cells in the middle of an abnormal but benign lump don’t get enough oxygen for their mitochondria to work properly (see diagram). In order to survive, they switch off their mitochondria and start producing energy through glycolysis.

Crucially, though, mitochondria do another job in cells: they activate apoptosis, the process by which abnormal cells self-destruct. When cells switch mitochondria off, they become “immortal”, outliving other cells in the tumour and so becoming dominant. Once reawakened by DCA, mitochondria reactivate apoptosis and order the abnormal cells to die.

“The results are intriguing because they point to a critical role that mitochondria play:

they impart a unique trait to cancer cells that can be exploited for cancer therapy,” says Dario Altieri, director of the University of Massachusetts Cancer Center in Worcester.

The phenomenon might also explain how secondary cancers form. Glycolysis generates lactic acid, which can break down the collagen matrix holding cells together. This means abnormal cells can be released and float to other parts of the body, where they seed new tumours.

DCA can cause pain, numbness and gait disturbances in some patients, but this may be a price worth paying if it turns out to

be effective against all cancers. The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap.

Paul Clarke, a cancer cell biologist at the University of Dundee in the UK, says the findings challenge the current assumption that mutations, not metabolism, spark off cancers. “The question is: which comes first?” he says.

http://media.www.studentprintz.com/media/storage/paper974/news/2007/01/23/Opinion/Scientists.Cure.Cancer.But.No.One.Takes.Notice-2667600.shtml

EDITORS NOTE:

Since the original publication of this article we have been inundated with responses from the public at all walks of life. It is important to note that research is ongoing with DCA, and not everyone is convinced it will turn out to be a miracle drug. There have been many therapies that were promising in vitro and in animal models that did not work for one reason or another in humans. To provide false hope is not our intention. There is a lot of information on DCA available on the web, and this column is but one opinion on the topic. We hope you will do your own research into the situation. So, we have added links to resources at the end of this column. If you are arriving here form a linking website like Fark, then those links will not appear because they tend to grab only the text.

END NOTE

Scientists may have cured cancer last week.

Yep.

So, why haven't the media picked up on it?

Here's the deal. Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada found a cheap and easy to produce drug that kills almost all cancers. The drug is dichloroacetate, and since it is already used to treat metabolic disorders, we know it should be no problem to use it for other purposes.

Doesn't this sound like the kind of news you see on the front page of every paper?

The drug also has no patent, which means it could be produced for bargain basement prices in comparison to what drug companies research and develop.

Scientists tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body where it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but left healthy cells alone. Rats plump with tumors shrank when they were fed water supplemented with DCA.

Again, this seems like it should be at the top of the nightly news, right?

Cancer cells don't use the little power stations found in most human cells - the mitochondria. Instead, they use glycolysis, which is less effective and more wasteful.

Doctors have long believed the reason for this is because the mitochondria were damaged somehow. But, it turns out the mitochondria were just dormant, and DCA starts them back up again.

The side effect of this is it also reactivates a process called apoptosis. You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that can't be pressed in cancer cells. Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished. Fully functioning mitochondria, thanks to DCA, can once again die.

With glycolysis turned off, the body produces less lactic acid, so the bad tissue around cancer cells doesn't break down and seed new tumors.

Here's the big catch. Pharmaceutical companies probably won't invest in research into DCA because they won't profit from it. It's easy to make, unpatented and could be added to drinking water. Imagine, Gatorade with cancer control.

So, the groundwork will have to be done at universities and independently funded laboratories. But, how are they supposed to drum up support if the media aren't even talking about it?

All I can do is write this and hope Google News picks it up. In the meantime, tell everyone you know and do your own research.

PLEASE READ THE EDITOR'S NOTE AT THE TOP OF THIS COLUMN, AND PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINKS TO OTHER DCA RESOURCES LISTED DIRECTLY UNDER THIS COLUMN.

This is a column of opinion written by Printz Executive Editor David McRaney. Comments can be sent to [email protected]

i dont get it at all. how is this not news? not sexy enough? doesnt reach a marketable target audience? nothing to put a spin on and get people blood boiling?

Re: Possible Cure for Cancer Found (DCA)...but Nobody Cares

Originally posted by PVS
i dont get it at all. how is this not news? not sexy enough? doesnt reach a marketable target audience? nothing to put a spin on and get people blood boiling?
Here's the big catch. Pharmaceutical companies probably won't invest in research into DCA because they won't profit from it. It's easy to make, unpatented and could be added to drinking water. Imagine, Gatorade with cancer control.

I guess that's your answer. It really is too bad. I know I'd appreciate a cure for cancer. Even more, I'd appreciate not having to go bankrupt to pay for it. News like this get's buried because there's no profit to be made.

Originally posted by PVS
thats right. it seems the media has determined that a possible cure for most if not all cancers is not really newsworthy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

http://media.www.studentprintz.com/media/storage/paper974/news/2007/01/23/Opinion/Scientists.Cure.Cancer.But.No.One.Takes.Notice-2667600.shtml

i dont get it at all. how is this not news? not sexy enough? doesnt reach a marketable target audience? nothing to put a spin on and get people blood boiling?

Say its secret ingredient comes from kittens.😊

Don't be silly, the patent reason is not the problem. If it WAS the problem, someone would brand name an off-shoot, market it and make a killing. A true anti-cancer drug would be worth a fortune to the first company to market it right.

Don't blame corporate greed- such greed would flog this thing like mad if it really worked.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't blame corporate greed- such greed would flog this thing like mad if it really worked.

Does it cost more to be sick? Or does it cost more to be healthy?

There never WILL be a 'cure' for cancer. Until society stops giving a damn about profit and actually starts caring about the fellow man.

Of course this will never happen.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Does it cost more to be sick? Or does it cosy more to be healthy?

It cost much more to be sick. If they had a cure for Chronic Kidney Failure I'd pay anything for it, and people with cancer would proably pay what ever to cure there cancer.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't be silly, the patent reason is not the problem. If it WAS the problem, someone would brand name an off-shoot, market it and make a killing. A true anti-cancer drug would be worth a fortune to the first company to market it right.

Don't blame corporate greed- such greed would flog this thing like mad if it really worked.

There's more money to be made off of expensive treatments.

Originally posted by Strangelove
There's more money to be made off of expensive treatments.

That screams of something false... This thing is cheap to produce... With correct marketing they could be huge profit margins.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
That screams of something false... This thing is cheap to produce... With correct marketing they could be huge profit margins.

Sure there could. Just like the "cure" might work. With a little more research, we'd find that out. But I doubt it would stay cheap for very long if it proved to be useful.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
That screams of something false... This thing is cheap to produce... With correct marketing they could be huge profit margins.
True

The drug also has no patent

It's not a drug... DCA is an acid. After reaseach and development it may become a drug.

however the patent would be superficial considering the active ingrdient is easily and cheaply obtainable. it would be like trying to patent vitamin c.

Why would the media care? I'm sure that Mel Gibson's rambling about Jews or that Kramer's going off on black people somewhere.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Why would the media care? I'm sure that Mel Gibson's rambling about Jews or that Kramer's going off on black people somewhere.

*suddenly loses interest in topic and turns on cnn*

Originally posted by PVS
however the patent would be superficial considering the active ingrdient is easily and cheaply obtainable. it would be like trying to patent vitamin c.

Not saying they'll ever be able to patent it. This doesn't prevent someone from racking in though.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Not saying they'll ever be able to patent it. This doesn't prevent someone from racking in though.

it prevents sole ownership of a cure or treatment and could also eliminate lengthy and expensive treatments like chemotherapy. that would be a dent in the industry wouldnt it?

Originally posted by PVS
it prevents sole ownership of a cure or treatment and could also eliminate lengthy and expensive treatments like chemotherapy. that would be a dent in the industry wouldnt it?

Of course, not a particular recipe of an effective drug though.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Of course, not a particular recipe of an effective drug though.

you cant possibly tell me that pharmacutical companies and the medical industry would welcome such a disasterous dent in profit just to rake in some change for some pill that can easily be released in generic form by any company?