Found this while stumbling at lunch. I can't find (a genuine & definite link to) the original article, but this can't be right, surely?

From here (http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=16715)

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.

Can anyone with a medical background, more experience, or better googling skills verify this through other sources?

StudentPrinz (http://www.studentprintz.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=c7794f20-dfb1-4494-892d-b529895da103)

See the links at the bottom of the article for:

Article In The Economist
New Scientist Article On DCA
Skeptical Entry At Science Blogs
University of Alberta Information on DCA (below)
Wikipedia Entry On DCA

"Investigators at the University of Alberta have recently reported that a drug previously used in humans for the treatment of rare disorders of metabolism is also able to cause tumor regression in a number of human cancers growing in animals. This drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), appears to suppress the growth of cancer cells without affecting normal cells, suggesting that it might not have the dramatic side effects of standard chemotherapies.

At this point, the University of Alberta, the Alberta Cancer Board and Capital Health do not condone or advise the use of dichloroacetate (DCA) in human beings for the treatment of cancer since no human beings have gone through clinical trials using DCA to treat cancer. However, the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board are committed to performing clinical trials in the immediate future in consultation with regulatory agencies such as Health Canada. We believe that because DCA has been used on human beings in Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials of metabolic diseases, the cancer clinical trials timeline for our research will be much shorter than usual."

If it is true theres a sentance in there which explains why the media havn't picked up on it and why no-one cares:

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.

And just to re-iterate:

Here's the big catch. Pharmaceutical companies probably won't invest in research into DCA because they won't profit from it.

Its all about the mighty $

I know that, I read the article. What I 'd like is indepent verification about whether it's a pile of bull.

Sorry but I don't believe a word of it. Smells like someone with a self publicity campaign related to a conspiracy theory.

I found the article in the newscientist:

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

sorry wasn't fast enough!

Thankyou cgk, could you please tell me what numpty mistake I did wrong?

Actually, rogue character in my google search, d'oh! :blush:

Well, if/when I get cancer I'll give it a try and report back. (or not: if I'm dead.):)

Found this while stumbling at lunch. I can't find (a genuine & definite link to) the original article, but this can't be right, surely?

From here (http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=16715)



Can anyone with a medical background, more experience, or better googling skills verify this through other sources?

Plenty of references to this article on Google.

It does seem like a lets ignore it because we can't make much money out of it by the big drug companies

I found the article in the newscientist:

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

Having read about it in that great organ, I am more convinced, but it seems they haven't done any human trials yet. If it did work it could still be a decade away.

I thought that was for new drugs, because of all the testing. This is something that's routinely used for other disorders.

Like a previous poster said, if I get cancer, I know what I'm going looking for, I know people who have been through chemo & I'd prefer anything to that.

And thankyou also Tiger_lillie, yes muddy I was very sceptical until I saw the New Scientist link.

There are plenty of cancers that grow fast and kill quite quickly, and loads of potential experimental subjects who are definitely going to be dead in the next couple of months: why not just offer them the opportunity to try this and see how it goes?

They're goners anyway: what's to lose?

If it is true theres a sentance in there which explains why the media havn't picked up on it and why no-one cares:

[QUOTE=steev;1909711]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. [QUOTE/]

And just to re-iterate:

[QUOTE=steev;1909711]Here's the big catch. Pharmaceutical companies probably won't invest in research into DCA because they won't profit from it. [QUOTE/]

Its all about the mighty $


you are sooo sooo wrong. do you honestly think that scientists who are working to cure cancer aren't interested in things that won't make a profit? dude, you just overstepped the cynical line soooo far. pharmaceutical companies aren't the only places that do research and development. i spent 4 years working at the institute of cancer research as a phd student - living on between 10-15k a year (of which around 5k went on rent) and working on average 70-80hrs per week, and i was relatively slack compared to a lot of people who worked there. do you honestly think that monetary gain is what drives people to do cancer research? one of my housemates was doing a phd there because both her parents had spent years dying painfully and slowly in front of her, and there was nothing she could do to help. she certainly wasn't alone in her motivation for working there.

before you ask, no, i don't know anything about this drug, and i haven't got any answers to why it hasn't made big news. my guess would be that the whole story isn't public, or that people who work directly in that field (i no longer do) know something that means it isn't the 'cure for cancer' that the press release says it might be.

There are plenty of cancers that grow fast and kill quite quickly, and loads of potential experimental subjects who are definitely going to be dead in the next couple of months: why not just offer them the opportunity to try this and see how it goes?

They're goners anyway: what's to lose?

that is what happens with some drug trials for some terminal patients for certain cancers. for a human trial to be useful it has to be incredibly tightly controlled, you can't just give everyone any old drug - all the participants in the trial need to fit certain criteria (ie exact type of cancer, same ontogeny, similar prognosis), all have to be recruited ethically, the trial has to be run appropriately and well-designed, doctors have to be recruited...all the data has to be as close to infallible as possible, and repeatable. it isn't as straightforward as 'give 'em that one, it might help - wait and see', unfortunately.

There is a very simple study here which could be done worldwide and fairly easily - and that is to see if anyone with the "rare metabolic disorders" being treated with this drug has ever died of cancer.

This has been work done 'in vitro' - in glass. Cell cultures in the equivalenmt of test tubes. My first degree was in Biochemistry and we were always warned that what you can do in the lab doesn't always apply to the body. Lab cultures are designed to look at teh effects of one variation in the system; a living organism, with it's varied systems, is not that simple.

DCA is actually formed in the body when certain pollutant materials are metabolised, and is also a byproduct of some water purification / disinfection processes. There have also been some concerns that DCA may be carcinogenic itself in certain doses, and it does appear to be problematic in that it also inhibits it's own destruction in the body.

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/82/2/381

So....not as clearcut as soem folks would like.

I have read the university's website, and the New Scientists article. Somebody else wrote this on another forum elsewhere, and I kind of told him off for doing that. I just cannot believe how much the news have spread across the world. I feel that it is very irresponsible for magazines such as New Scientists to be biased in its publication. They shouldn't encourage Joe Bloggs to contact the university as if it was a miracle cure. Because it isn't.

I think, for those who have had families that had cancer, or those scientists that are working with the industry may know that there is 'no cure' for cancerous cells. It is how best to battle the illness, through stages of strategies. Depending on which organ is affected.

In layman's term, what that article say is that, they have found a new mechanism to how cancer cells behave. There is a new supposed cheap substance which allows the cells to behave in a different way. This method has not been explored in the cancer research world. Cos it is a new mechanism. It does not mean that drinking this substance will cure the cancer within your body. No. It just means that, a different way to look at cancer cells can now be established.

A lot of people did not pick up the fundamental key word 'regression'. i.e. slows down the growth of the cells. Does not mean it is completely cured, and returned back to its normal state. I'm just worried that, a lot of people have high hopes, and be misled with reading titles like 'cancer cure', and think in their minds that it is a total cure.

For patients with cancer, there are several strategies of treatment. Depending on where it is in a person's body.
1) If its localised to that area. The whole organ may be removed. Hoping not to leave any trace of infecting cells.
2) Or radiation or chemotherapy (a poison) tries to target these cells in the localised area, and kill them off entirely.
3) If the cells has spread to other regions in the body and it floats around your body. Then this is an even worst stage. Therefore, slowing down the growth of the main area of cancer cells is important. Hence regression methods are introduced. Prolonging the patient's death.

The article is kind of profound, because it says that, it can target individual cancerous cells, even if they have spread to other areas of the body. Because by stage 3), cells are hard to control, and be identified. Cancerous cells can latch onto a cell of a different organ and affect that area. This is forefront technology. However, there is already something in researching stages, and clinical trial called "Gene Therapy". Which is something that targets the cancerous cells individually too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5304910.stm

This current rumour is very very misleading. Though, I do hope that they can use this cheaper method, to identify cells overall. I'm not sure how long it may take for it to become of use within that current research. Even with that Gene Therapy method. It's been said that, it will take a couple more years before it is introduced into the NHS... Basically, more results needs to be analysed before it is used in a nation-wide scale.

The University of Alberta website says that they're committed to performing phase III human trials 'in the near future'. Doesn't sound much like ignoring it.

Trials can't be skipped and shouldn't be - especially considering that DCA can cause various problems itself (possibly including, ironically, liver cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12127263&dopt=Abstract)

Also, there is a patent relating to this http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ia.jsp?IA=CA2006/000548 (from the University of Alberta).

It's going through phase III (final) human trials now, so shouldn't be more than a few years before it's confirmed one way or another whether it's safe and effective. Not exactly being ignored then?

Do you have a link or any more details about the name of this trial or the trial sponsor?
thanks

what I got from the New Scientist article were as follows


it might work, it might not we don't actually know as it's not been trialled in humans as a cancer curing drug
it does show promise in test tubes and some animal tests but big pharma isn't going to fund clinical trials in humans as the drug is 50 years old and not patentable so they won't profit from the research, well they are businesses and not charities after all
the drug is already approved for human use just not for treating cancer and there are known possible side effects although if it does cure cancer I daresay the patient will be happy to put up with any side effects
charities and universities may perform the human trials but that depends on their available funding
unless some organisation trials this drug in humans as a cancer cure and demonstrates that it is actually effective then no doctor will prescribe it, needless to say if it's trialled and proves to be useless or worse dangerous then no doctor will prescribe it either


there is a response from one of the researchers pointing out the toxicity and carcinogenic properties of DCA in the latest NS who feels that this information should have been included in the original article and may have prevented his department from being deluged with enquiries from cancer sufferers seeking a potential miracle cure

in short it isn't a miracle cure it just shows some promise and needs trialling

...carcinogenic properties of DCA...

Oh the irony...

Do you have a link or any more details about the name of this trial or the trial sponsor?
thanks

Apologies, I skim read this

'the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board are committed to performing clinical trials in the immediate future in consultation with regulatory agencies such as Health Canada. We believe that because DCA has been used on human beings in Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials of metabolic diseases, the cancer clinical trials timeline for our research will be much shorter than usual.'

and drew the wrong conclusion. Still doesn't look like they're ignoring it though...

I've also edited my original post to remove the inaccuracy

Having read about it in that great organ, I am more convinced, but it seems they haven't done any human trials yet. If it did work it could still be a decade away.

Well this is the main point."Human Trials" .They have been flogging wonder drugs for cancer for years, but they cant show the literature on recent trials.There are all sorts of complications like : Side Effects : Does it only cure one type of cancer, more than another : if they have done trials, how many people were on the trials.Some people call a trial 100 people.You need thousands, and the trial should last for years & not months.Too many ifs & buts.

Well this is the main point."Human Trials" .They have been flogging wonder drugs for cancer for years, but they cant show the literature on recent trials.There are all sorts of complications like : Side Effects : Does it only cure one type of cancer, more than another : if they have done trials, how many people were on the trials.Some people call a trial 100 people.You need thousands, and the trial should last for years & not months.Too many ifs & buts.

It's difficult to run long term trials with people who are dying.
The phrase "grasping at any straw" is not what suffers are doing they are looking for hope and a chance of a normal life.
If any member of my family were suffering (pray to God never) I would not refuse them the slightest chance of a cure or a remission to their cancer, and I don't thing there are many on this forum would, even you.

It's a bit of a non thread really. There are many potentially very important drugs and discoveries reported in scientific publications, they rarely make it to the mainstream press until they are in human trials.

I kept wondering why this kind of scientific news is making its way round the globe. Maybe it is because cancer is number 1 killer in modern day society. Maybe many families or patients are perpetuating and grasping at such news.

I read a few articles on cancer on several hospital's and research centre's websites. It mentions that, cancer can be avoided by what we eat, and how we live. I guess in everyday's stressful living, we've overlooked the importance of healthy living, and eating fresh veg and meat.

I kept wondering why this kind of scientific news is making its way round the globe. Maybe it is because cancer is number 1 killer in modern day society. Maybe many families or patients are perpetuating and grasping at such news.

I read a few articles on cancer on several hospital's and research centre's websites. It mentions that, cancer can be avoided by what we eat, and how we live. I guess in everyday's stressful living, we've overlooked the importance of healthy living, and eating fresh veg and meat.

Cancer can't be 'avoided' by living a healthy life and eating fresh veg- but the risk of developing a tumour can be reduced.

When I was diagnosed I was a 26 year old non-smoking, non-drinking, non-gambling vegan who took 10 hours a week exercise, and who came from a family with no known genetic predisposition to any tumours.

I think their has always been scientific research which could prove to be useful in the future but the problem is it has to throughly tested for numerous years & patented by someone before it can be used by the NHS.

Cancer can't be 'avoided' by living a healthy life and eating fresh veg- but the risk of developing a tumour can be reduced.

When I was diagnosed I was a 26 year old non-smoking, non-drinking, non-gambling vegan who took 10 hours a week exercise, and who came from a family with no known genetic predisposition to any tumours.

No ,cancer cannot be avoided by living a healthy life. Only one type of cancer can though. Cancer of the lung by stopping smoking. On saying that I personally know someone with cancer of the lung, who has never smoked a cigarette in his life.

Cancer can't be 'avoided' by living a healthy life and eating fresh veg- but the risk of developing a tumour can be reduced.

When I was diagnosed I was a 26 year old non-smoking, non-drinking, non-gambling vegan who took 10 hours a week exercise, and who came from a family with no known genetic predisposition to any tumours.
No... you're right. It cannot be avoided entirely, and be a cancerous-free life. It just lowers the risk. I guess I quoted wrongly, because I was reading this a little while back for my father.
http://www.prostatecancertreatment.co.uk/about-prostate-cancer/causes-of-prostate-cancer/diet

I think their has always been scientific research which could prove to be useful in the future but the problem is it has to throughly tested for numerous years & patented by someone before it can be used by the NHS.

There's certainly no requirement for anything to be patented before it can be used.

There's certainly no requirement for anything to be patented before it can be used.

I always thought this was the case for all new products before their allowed to be used or sold prescribed etc?

The chemical entity would have been subject to patent when it was first developed, since it's a drug currently already used in various conditions. There is no requirement for a patent for a new dosage regime or presentation of the drug for a newly licensed condition, only clinical research to show its safety and efficacy in that condition.

The chemical entity would have been subject to patent when it was first developed, since it's a drug currently already used in various conditions. There is no requirement for a patent for a new dosage regime or presentation of the drug for a newly licensed condition, only clinical research to show its safety and efficacy in that condition.


woooops Yes thats what i meant, sorry used the wrong word, patentency is stopping anyone else from using, making, or profiting from your invention isn't it?

woooops Yes thats what i meant, sorry used the wrong word, patentency is stopping anyone else from using, making, or profiting from your invention isn't it?

It is, but with prescription drugs the patent is only for a certain number of years from the development of the molecule, and this includes the years when the initial and pre- and post-marketing clinical trials are being performed.

There are usually 5-10 years left to run on the patent when the drug comes to the market, which is seen as the time allowed for the company that paid for the drug to be developed to recoup the development costs before anybody then becomes allowed to produce that molecule as a generic medicine, to compete at a discounted price against the more expensive brand (eg. generic ranitidine vs. branded Zantac).

After this time, the only way in which a new patent would be awarded on that molecule is if there was a novel delivery system or controlled release presentation.

It is, but with prescription drugs the patent is only for a certain number of years from the development of the molecule, and this includes the years when the initial and pre- and post-marketing clinical trials are being performed.

There are usually 5-10 years left to run on the patent when the drug comes to the market, which is seen as the time allowed for the company that paid for the drug to be developed to recoup the development costs before anybody then becomes allowed to produce that molecule as a generic medicine, to compete at a discounted price against the more expensive brand (eg. generic ranitidine vs. branded Zantac).

After this time, the only way in which a new patent would be awarded on that molecule is if there was a novel delivery system or controlled release presentation.

Thanks for clarifying that.

The chemical entity would have been subject to patent when it was first developed, since it's a drug currently already used in various conditions. There is no requirement for a patent for a new dosage regime or presentation of the drug for a newly licensed condition, only clinical research to show its safety and efficacy in that condition.

Even this isn't correct.
A patent is something that can be taken out in order to allow the inventor to gain commercial benefits from the patented thing.
If they choose to wave that right then it has no effect on legislative issues about drug safety.

Of course it's unlikely that many new drugs won't be patented, but still, it's possible.

Oh the irony...

yep there are treatments for cancer that are in themselves carcinogenic already in use. I guess if you already have cancer though it's the case of this treatment has X% chance of curing or improving the existing condition and Y% chance of adding to it, as long as X is bigger than Y then the odds are in your favour, as with all treatments they need monitoring for contraindications just in case you win this particular lottery and get worse instead of better

yep there are treatments for cancer that are in themselves carcinogenic already in use. I guess if you already have cancer though it's the case of this treatment has X% chance of curing or improving the existing condition and Y% chance of adding to it, as long as X is bigger than Y then the odds are in your favour, as with all treatments they need monitoring for contraindications just in case you win this particular lottery and get worse instead of better

Indeed. Anybody who's ever been through a course of radiotherapy will recall the irony of going through the little talk and consent form about radiotherapy causing sarcomas later in life.

Tamoxifen may be a wonder drug in terms of reducing the deaths from breast cancer, but is associated with a higher risk of patients developing endometrial cancer too.

This is one of the basic premises of chemotherapy and radiotherapy- they work on the basis that the cancer cells are more active than the rest of the cells in your body, so whatever poison you put into your body, the cancer cells will absorb more than the rest of your body, and so it will (hopefully) fully kill the cancer cells before it half kills the rest of you.