PDA

View Full Version : Scientists Cure Cancer?


JSUCamel
05-29-2008, 07:09 PM
http://media.www.studentprintz.com/media/storage/paper974/news/2007/01/23/Opinion/Scientists.Cure.Cancer.But.No.One.Takes.Notice-2667600.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriest ab

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. For those visitors, here is a link to the original research: www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca

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 printz@usm.edu

---------------

What do you guys think? I couldn't find anything on Snopes about this.

Prof. Snow? Marie? Yuri? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Rune420
05-29-2008, 07:42 PM
That would be totally awesome if this is true/if the research pans out.

But It seems like I've said that hundreds of times before...

Yuri33
05-30-2008, 12:58 AM
No single drug is ever going to be a universal cure for cancer. Cancer is just too heterogeneous. If DCA gets added to our list of weapons, that's great, but I'm not holding my breath.

It's been a while since I covered cell-biology, but I believe the relation of dysfunctional mitochondria to cancer is called the Warburg effect. It led to the Warburg hypothesis, which states that the cause of cancer is dysfunctional mitochondria. This has proven to be false. The cause of cancer is mutation in the genome. This mutation is often related to mitochondrial dysfunction, but that's not a guarantee.

A quick search on DCA shows that there are some significant side effects as well: neural toxicity (gait disturbance and lethargy) and a possible increase in risk of liver cancer.

All chemotherapies, including DCA, are essentially poisons that we hope hit tumor cells more often than normal cells. Any ultimate cure for cancer is going to have to take a different approach.

Brita
05-30-2008, 09:34 AM
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.

While this is true- there are many non-profit organizations that would (National Cancer Institute of Canada, MD Anderson often does, NCCTG etc)

If a drug really has that potential and is tolerable (as Yuri mentioned) it will get tested.

Right now at work we are studying Selenium, an over the counter mineral, in a huge phase III clinical trial. No drug profits there. We have also participated in a shark cartilage study with no pharmaceutical profits.

It is a common accusation I hear, along with "we already found a cure for cancer, but there is too much money lost if it gets out", but like Yuri said, cancer is one word for many diseases. It's not that simple.

There is a lot of research being done that has nothing to do with money. All Radiation Therapy trials for example.