Canadian Scientists Cure Cancer... No One Notices?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

I'm not really surprised, you should know how many amazing energy sources are being held back. Soo, yeah, fuck capitalism I guess?

Owyn_Merrilin:
Okay, my BS monitors are going off here. Mitochondria are a structure within the cell, not a type of cell. Further, they're essentially the powerplant of the cell; if cancer patients had non-functioning mitochondria, they'd be dead long before the cancer did anything. I'm going to have to see a more reliable source on this before I believe anything.

I'm gonna have to agree with you on this.

I don't know about the veracity of this method, but I do know that we have known about true regeneration in mammals (mice) for a long time, and the ridiculous excuse for a scientific system we have just did - nothing with it. Advancements in science can't be left to whoever thinks there's profit in it.

Linkys to the original paper and one of the many reports on this now (finally) surfacing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11493713
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4888080.stm

The title of the paper and ultimatly the thread should be changed to:

Canadian Scientists Cure Cancer... For mice.

there is a very large degree of diffrence between the biology of mice and the biology of humans.

ontop of this, questions of toxicity are raised. while DCA is considered naturally occuring and non-toxic, it is a whole diffrent ball game when you start introducing concentrated dosages of the compound at regular intervals.

and if i read the study correctly, i would question possible neurotoxicity.

the drugs inhibits thiamine production...
and thiamine is a critical part of brain function.

chronic usage of this compound may lead to irreversable brain damage.

Yassen:
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.

Mitochondria - the structure inside the cell that causes glycolysis to occur which is essential in enerygy production. If you kill mitochodria the patient will die faster than the cancer would kill them.

That's like saying oh yeah we can fix your car but you'll not have an engine in it

AceAngel:
People, please, stop acting like you know Biology, because half of you don't know two craps of what is written there...

This paper have been proved as fact by the community and many third party supporters are angry about this fact.

Going into third year university level immunology + microbiology - so yes I know about cancer and functions of the cell. This paper is wrong - mitochondria do not posses the ability to directly kill cells, let alone specific ones.

Cancer is just regular cells that can't turn off their division signals and keep proliferating. The only way this idea works is in making less energy available for the cells to divide. But that then means there isn't enough energy available for other essential functions.

They are killing the cancer by malnourishing and putting the patient at risk - that is why it won't be patented

EDIT: Ignore this post it was based of the pretty poor OP source

Owyn_Merrilin:
Okay, my BS monitors are going off here. Mitochondria are a structure within the cell, not a type of cell. Further, they're essentially the powerplant of the cell; if cancer patients had non-functioning mitochondria, they'd be dead long before the cancer did anything. I'm going to have to see a more reliable source on this before I believe anything.

perhaps they are referring to the fact that cancer cells have not completely non-functioning mitochondria, but rather malfunctioning mitochondria which do not process the self-destruct command, which causes the cells to grow out of control. i can see what you mean though. makes the article's legitimacy a little iffy.

OT: if this is true, this is goddamn amazing, and even more amazing that companies are so greedy they won't invest in it. makes me loose faith in Capitalism. though, i guess this is just the old saying of power corrupts in action. its too bad, my fellow americans, and indeed the whole world could benefit from this.
what i find odd is that governments haven't invested in this product to produce/distribute it. the american gvt already has 10 tril in debt, im sure some people would be willing to go a bit further to frigging cure cancer! or perhaps they could raise taxes a wee-bit to pay for it. again, i doubt many sane people would complain. ITS CURING CANCER! The Big Scary Disease of our time!

Edit: ok reading through the replies a little more, im realizing how little i know about biology. thought i at least had the basics down, but i guess not. so ignore my incorrect thoughts regarding the mitochondria.

Owyn_Merrilin:
Okay, my BS monitors are going off here. Mitochondria are a structure within the cell, not a type of cell. Further, they're essentially the powerplant of the cell; if cancer patients had non-functioning mitochondria, they'd be dead long before the cancer did anything. I'm going to have to see a more reliable source on this before I believe anything.

Afaik, mitochondria are disabled in CANCER cells, not all other cells, I vaguely remember that cancer cells perform glycolysis (Alot less energy produced from that pathway) but provides alot of additional materials for growth and such. Also, again afaik, re-enabling the disabled mitochondria does not instantly mean the cancer cells self-destruct, just that they're competiting for the same fuel reserves, if apoptosis's code has been destroyed, cells won't know how to self-d anyway.

Also. first thought went reading this:

"Cancer, eh? What's that aboot?"

If it were as simple as using drugs already in use, doctors would have simply used the ones they use for other things on the cancer patients (similar things have already been done).
As a scientist (University Taught) I am not convinced by the aritcle presented here, nor am I satisfied by their explination of the workings of the alleged cure. As far as I am concerned, at best, they are still testing the teory, at worst, it is just a hoaxs.
No need to get worked up.

Do people have no critical thinking ability or is it just that you're longing to "stick it to the man" sometimes clouds your judgement.

Why would it not being profitable for pharm companies stop the media from reporting it? Unless you believe there's some huge conspiracy going on. In which case congratulations, you're a knob.

It definitely wouldn't stop it from being published in medical journals.

It's a drug already in use. Pharm companies don't need to patent it. Doctors already have it and use it for something else. It would just take one peer reviewed medical journal to print the study and it would start to be used shortly because it''s already in use for other purposes.

There. Three reasons that article is bullshit without even needing to know why their biology is all wrong.

Pity no one who believes the article will read this because they're just going to have their knee-jerk response.

Kukakkau:

Yassen:
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.

Mitochondria - the structure inside the cell that causes glycolysis to occur which is essential in enerygy production. If you kill mitochodria the patient will die faster than the cancer would kill them.

That's like saying oh yeah we can fix your car but you'll not have an engine in it

AceAngel:
People, please, stop acting like you know Biology, because half of you don't know two craps of what is written there...

This paper have been proved as fact by the community and many third party supporters are angry about this fact.

Going into third year university level immunology + microbiology - so yes I know about cancer and functions of the cell. This paper is wrong - mitochondria do not posses the ability to directly kill cells, let alone specific ones.

Cancer is just regular cells that can't turn off their division signals and keep proliferating. The only way this idea works is in making less energy available for the cells to divide. But that then means there isn't enough energy available for other essential functions.

They are killing the cancer by malnourishing and putting the patient at risk - that is why it won't be patented

Here's the actual source http://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/abstract/S1535-6108%2806%2900372-2 . It doesn't say what most people here think it says.

Damn, this is AMAZING. Screw those corporations just wanting to make a profit, someone should sell this.

Capitalists create problems, not only unintentionally but also intentionally. The market economy runs on problems.

I get a laugh out of some of the people that are commenting saying certain cells don't work this way and this doesn't make medical sense.

Do people honestly realize how many things we thought were correct only to be proven wrong over the many, many years that humans have been around?
Especially in medicine?

The egyptians believed the brain was a useless organ, alot of people believed that vaccines did far more harm than good. I won't deny that people have learned in school that treatment A cannot work on illness B but it is possible that what you are learning may not in fact be 100% correct.

When people mention "Oh the media would have told us all about this regardless if it was worth money or not." I just have to shake my head. There have been countless breakthroughs in efficient energy, nanotechnology and synthetic intelligence over the years but we don't hear alot about it do we?

Of course not and because thats due to the information being smothered and the sources being removed before it can become completely public knowledge.

If I told you tomorrow that I found a way to fuel your car and you could produce it in your very own home and that it would be cheaper and run cleaner than fossil fuels...

Do you not think that when word spread about it it would impact those large fuel and energy conglomerates? Think of all the money they would lose.

This really isn't any different.

What the fuck is HubPages? Do you have a better source? Like the New England Journal of Medicine? You'd think they would have posted something this big in a peer reviewed journal. I'd have to read the whole thing (which I don't have time for now) but it does seem worthy of publishing in a peer reviewed journal.

Have other independent groups tested it?
Has it been tested on humans?
Has it been tested on pregnant rats or rats with other diseases?

Do I believe it? No.

Patrick_and_the_ricks:
Pretty sure we can cure Aids too, but a one time cure doesn't make anywhere as much cash as lifetime treatments.

AS: just picking up your quote, the "you" in my responce is general, not necessarily.. you :)

Actually, curing 30m people + everyone who keeps getting infected, and getting 100% marketshare because you're the only one with a cure -- that's VERY profitable. That anticorporate stance of "they don't want to cure, because there's more money in treating" is a very ...naive, and doesn't even come close to the realities of pharmaceutical research.

Treating symptoms is something that can be progressively done as our understanding of diseases increases; finding a lasting cure from an imprefect understanding of a disease is much harder.

That counts double for retroviral diseases (HIV, Hep B), where the virus genome is integrated into your own. Even if we could methylate specific genes to deactivate them (and we really can't, and although we're able to detect DNA methylation, that's fairly recent), there's a whole baggage of legal & ethical questions left unanswered, before you start playing around with the genome of living people.

If there's one thing we know better now that we did 15 years ago, then it's that there are no easy answers. If there were, Huntingtons disease would be one of the first to go.

Don't mistake what you learned in highschool (which corresponds to the state of the art knowledge of 30-40 years ago) with actual scientific knowledge please.

--

As to the article in question: it has been written by someone with either little knowledge of what he's talking about, or little knowledge in the unbiased reporting of actual news items.

DCA shows some promise in reversing abnormal growth of cells, and re-enabling programmed cell death. So far, so good.
It also causes liver cancer in rats, is toxic, and DCA treatements against lactic acidemia may have led to improvements of the condition, but didn't actually cure people, or had to be interrupted due to toxicity.

DCA is entering the next phase of trials, mostly because stage 2 trails have shown some promise. It's not a wonder drug however: It's another possible step in treating tumors - that's far removed from being a magical cure for cancer.

The Moehlinator:

Sad, isn't it? My girlfriend had to go to the ER a while back and she was prescribed 3 or 4 big name drugs (variations of oxycodone and the like). When we went to the pharmacy to pick them up, the tab was over $400 for three weeks worth of pills. Fortunately for me, my uncle is a doctor and took a look at the list of drugs. He rewrote the prescriptions for the generic versions of the drug (same exact drug down to the molecular lvl, just no fancy stamping on the pill) and we picked up everything for under $14. At that point, I lost the tiny tiny shred of hope I had left for modern western medicine.

How so? A company dumps tons of money into research & getting a drug to market; they get to profit from it exclusively for a number of years, and afterwards everyone who can duplicate the process may do so & bring their generic imitation drugs to the market for a lot cheaper.

Seems to me like a system that, while not perfect for early adopters (adopters.... sorry for that word, it's not like they have a choice), ensures researching companies stay in business and keep looking for new drugs, and that a decade down the line, the drug becomes cheap.

Making money by improving quality of life - i understand some people see that as ethically disgusting, but i just can't bend my brain into thinking that someone who gets treated for a disease of off worse than someone who isn't.

Harbinger_:
I get a laugh out of some of the people that are commenting saying certain cells don't work this way and this doesn't make medical sense.

Do people honestly realize how many things we thought were correct only to be proven wrong over the many, many years that humans have been around?
Especially in medicine?

The egyptians believed the brain was a useless organ, alot of people believed that vaccines did far more harm than good. I won't deny that people have learned in school that treatment A cannot work on illness B but it is possible that what you are learning may not in fact be 100% correct.

When people mention "Oh the media would have told us all about this regardless if it was worth money or not." I just have to shake my head. There have been countless breakthroughs in efficient energy, nanotechnology and synthetic intelligence over the years but we don't hear alot about it do we?

Of course not and because thats due to the information being smothered and the sources being removed before it can become completely public knowledge.

If I told you tomorrow that I found a way to fuel your car and you could produce it in your very own home and that it would be cheaper and run cleaner than fossil fuels...

Do you not think that when word spread about it it would impact those large fuel and energy conglomerates? Think of all the money they would lose.

This really isn't any different.

We're not the ones who need to know about them.

As I mentioned, medical journals. All it would need is for this to be tested, proved and it would be printed in medical journals (which are written by doctors) and it would see everyday use.

Also, yes our knowledge of science does change. But mitochondria still aren't cells.

Nobody's losing money by curing cancer, there's just no money to be gained, because no one has bottled a cure for cancer yet. It's not the same as your fuel example (also gas station attendants don't have a peer reviewed journal, but if they did word would get around). Doctors already haveand use this drug for other reasons. They just need to be told about it and they'll start using it. No one needs to patent it and sell it. Doctors already use it.

Until this is proven by other reliable sources, I'll remain skeptical

GraveeKing:
I think the fact it's not been picked up for a few years makes it even worse - they cured cancer a few years ago and we completely ignore it because it's 'not profitable' ?!
This really does perfectly represent the world we live in today doesn't it?
We cure something life-threatening but the second we realize we don't gain anything it's just shrugged off and ignored - It really should speak for itself, if I were to say I've once again completely lost faith in humanity.
I saw similar to do with a shock-wave based engine or something which would (if engineered into a car) make it hugely more fuel efficient, and it was ignored because no car company wanted to implement it into a design simply because fuel would be used so much less in the process they'd lose money.

The problem of old used to be 'breaking the old ways' like religion, stubbornness and other arrogant things - nowadays the only thing holding back progress is the need to make a profit, it's completely pathetic and really sickens me. The entire thing in itself is an entire threads rant worth.

Well, looking into it more...

Yes, this is a cure to Cancer!
but it also cures this little human condition called 'LIFE'

DCA is naturally occuring and normally non-toxic, however in concentrated levels it acts as a thiamine inhibitor causing potentially irreversable and fatal effects on the human brain, nervious system, and cardiovascular system.

Here is the problem(s) you're having with this.
because the internet gives us access to the wealth of information of the world, we can find innovative ideas which where proposed in the past and bring them back to the lime light. However more often then not, these innovative ideas tend to not get off the ground for very good reasons which is why they are ultimatly forgotten.

Also, you are prone to a problem inherent with this generation. 'If it doesn't happen now, then some one is intentionally keeping it down!'

the Wave Disk Generator (shock-wave engine) for example.
It is a rather solid concept and and could revolutionize the internal combustion engine. So why havn't we seen all our cars outfitted with a Wave Disk engine?

Well because it is still very much so an idea. an ambitious company tried to build a car using this technology... last i checked they spent 24 million dollars building it and it Still doesn't work. Conceptual technology and bright ideas are nice, but until they can be practically applied they are just nice thoughts and little more.

I'm curious and judgemental, do people seriously think they're masses of alt-energy sources and magical medical technology that 'They' (Capitalists, government, Santa) don't want us to have?

Even if you could only make a penny from magical cancer treatments, someone is going to want that penny and will spam it to make money. Like those shitty plastic toys. Or Pokemon.

First I was like YEAH then I was like what? Because there are some serious mistakes in that article considering mitochrondia, as someone already pointed out.

wow. that is the ultimate troll moment

FarleShadow:
I'm curious and judgemental, do people seriously think they're masses of alt-energy sources and magical medical technology that 'They' (Capitalists, government, Santa) don't want us to have?

Even if you could only make a penny from magical cancer treatments, someone is going to want that penny and will spam it to make money. Like those shitty plastic toys. Or Pokemon.

Exactly This.

if this was viable, then some one would sell it.
That is how capitalism works.

This rings BS.Cancer cures swim up every year.Some moron from my country living in Austria tried to patent one just last year even tho he had a record of destroying samples made by official clinics whether the cure works or not.Macedonia patented it I think.Funny same case actually really simple and cheap cure that has never before had effects on cancer growths.Something to do with a camomile extract

If a person invents a cure for cancer he'd likely give it away for humanity.You don't go and market it to pharmaceutical companies because that's just silly.Until those guys win a Nobel prize I call bullcrap.

Oh my god.

Now all those "donate to cancer patients" seem like real assholes now. Why else would they ignore the possible cure for cancer?

This isn't being covered up, this isn't hidden, this isn't a big discovery. It's being researched and studied currently and has entered phase 3 human trials.

So far results have been sort of successful in treating some forms of cancer, but the drug has a demonstrable increase in risk of liver cancer and has really terrible side effects on patients with MELAS syndrome.

In non-clinical trials (read people buying DCA and taking it as a medication for cancer, despite the evidence not being there), there are reports of success. However, as these are non-clinical, and therefore not controlled, these reports are not relevant and should not have any bearing on whether the drug is approved for cancer treatment.

In short, the blog post the OP posted is old, out-of-date, and a bit sensationalist. DCA is being researched and shows a bit of promise, which is more than just about any other study.

Spot1990:

Harbinger_:
I get a laugh out of some of the people that are commenting saying certain cells don't work this way and this doesn't make medical sense.

Do people honestly realize how many things we thought were correct only to be proven wrong over the many, many years that humans have been around?
Especially in medicine?

The egyptians believed the brain was a useless organ, alot of people believed that vaccines did far more harm than good. I won't deny that people have learned in school that treatment A cannot work on illness B but it is possible that what you are learning may not in fact be 100% correct.

When people mention "Oh the media would have told us all about this regardless if it was worth money or not." I just have to shake my head. There have been countless breakthroughs in efficient energy, nanotechnology and synthetic intelligence over the years but we don't hear alot about it do we?

Of course not and because thats due to the information being smothered and the sources being removed before it can become completely public knowledge.

If I told you tomorrow that I found a way to fuel your car and you could produce it in your very own home and that it would be cheaper and run cleaner than fossil fuels...

Do you not think that when word spread about it it would impact those large fuel and energy conglomerates? Think of all the money they would lose.

This really isn't any different.

We're not the ones who need to know about them.

As I mentioned, medical journals. All it would need is for this to be tested, proved and it would be printed in medical journals (which are written by doctors) and it would see everyday use.

Also, yes our knowledge of science does change. But mitochondria still aren't cells.

Nobody's losing money by curing cancer, there's just no money to be gained, because no one has bottled a cure for cancer yet. It's not the same as your fuel example (also gas station attendants don't have a peer reviewed journal, but if they did word would get around). Doctors already haveand use this drug for other reasons. They just need to be told about it and they'll start using it. No one needs to patent it and sell it. Doctors already use it.

But do you not agree that more money changes hands when a disease is simply treated rather than cured? Thats what I meant by the fuel example.

Harbinger_:

Spot1990:

Harbinger_:
I get a laugh out of some of the people that are commenting saying certain cells don't work this way and this doesn't make medical sense.

Do people honestly realize how many things we thought were correct only to be proven wrong over the many, many years that humans have been around?
Especially in medicine?

The egyptians believed the brain was a useless organ, alot of people believed that vaccines did far more harm than good. I won't deny that people have learned in school that treatment A cannot work on illness B but it is possible that what you are learning may not in fact be 100% correct.

When people mention "Oh the media would have told us all about this regardless if it was worth money or not." I just have to shake my head. There have been countless breakthroughs in efficient energy, nanotechnology and synthetic intelligence over the years but we don't hear alot about it do we?

Of course not and because thats due to the information being smothered and the sources being removed before it can become completely public knowledge.

If I told you tomorrow that I found a way to fuel your car and you could produce it in your very own home and that it would be cheaper and run cleaner than fossil fuels...

Do you not think that when word spread about it it would impact those large fuel and energy conglomerates? Think of all the money they would lose.

This really isn't any different.

We're not the ones who need to know about them.

As I mentioned, medical journals. All it would need is for this to be tested, proved and it would be printed in medical journals (which are written by doctors) and it would see everyday use.

Also, yes our knowledge of science does change. But mitochondria still aren't cells.

Nobody's losing money by curing cancer, there's just no money to be gained, because no one has bottled a cure for cancer yet. It's not the same as your fuel example (also gas station attendants don't have a peer reviewed journal, but if they did word would get around). Doctors already haveand use this drug for other reasons. They just need to be told about it and they'll start using it. No one needs to patent it and sell it. Doctors already use it.

But do you not agree that more money changes hands when a disease is simply treated rather than cured? Thats what I meant by the fuel example.

Well yeah obviously... But that doesn't apply to anything I've said.

Medical journals are not controlled by the mainstream media. It would be printed in those.
Doctors already use the drug for other things. They don't need the pharm companies to patent it, bottle it and sell it. Doctors already have it and use it. It just takes doctors telling other doctors.
The media doesn't cover these things up. Y'know why? Profit. "Canadians Cure Cancer" would shift a lot of newspapers (not least of all for the snappy alliteration).

As another poster said these things don't get covered up. They go in to testing, usually cost millions, provide no benefits and fade into obscurity.

It's all about money for pharmaceutical companies, they're getting tons of money from their current treatments and cancer research donations, and don't want to lose it to an actual cure.

That's what I'm thinking anyways.

In any case, if I ever get cancer, I'm going straight to these guys.

WhizEd:
Yeah, as a third year science student, what that first post says about mitochondria makes absolutely no sense.
Also, there are a huge variety of cancers, like one for every tissue, and are a wide range of effective treatments for many of them. So there is no real guarantee this will work on all cancer types, so they haven't really cured it.
Also, glycolysis is the metabolising of glucose to produce energy, and not part of the immune response. Some of that stuff makes no sense, as I said.

I only took bio up to grade 12, but correct me if I'm wrong. The mitochondria organelle is what provides the energy for the cell via the breaking of ATP bonds from glucose inside the cell.

Now here's where I might be wrong, but don't machrophages (the front-line white blood cells) eat or absorb infectious bacteria? As opposed to blasting them with protein missiles like the B cells?

On that basis, wouldn't the lysosomes within the machrophage destroy the invader and then use it's remains to fuel itself?

Again it's been a little while since I went over this, but by this theory, wouldn't attacking the cancer cells have some connection to the mitochondria?

Note: I admit that the way they're using it in the OP sounds like crap, and I'm pretty sure it's the Lysosomes within a cell that induce apoptosis (The self-destruction of a cell) I'm just curious if my understanding of this part of the cells is correct.

OT: Unless I'm misreading (besides the part about the mitochondria, anyone with a Grade 8 science background can tell you they're BSing) It sounds more like they're talking about the Lysosomes, or "suicide sacs" that all cells have within them, and activating them to kill off tumours and other mutated cancer cells.
What does that have to do with Glycosis? I call Shenanigans!!

What's disturbing about this is that I'm Canadian and I support our cancer research (which I didn't know was going on until 10 minutes ago)

Yassen:
snip

The medical journal sourced by your link stated in 2007...

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2007-03-15_Update.cfm

...that DCA may prove to be a cure for many forms of cancer, and then, in 2010...

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm

...stated that the drug may be an effective alternative to chemotherapy in treating specific brain tumors, and that "in some cases" the tumors either regressed or did not grow within the patients as a result.

It is not an instant cure for all, or even many, forms of cancer. Still an exciting find, however, and the study cited notes that they were able to get funding from other sources in spite of the drug not being attractive as a patent.

Hmm, well, the OP's source is BS, but the study is on PubMed and reviewed in Cell - several studies I've flicked through also back it up (I have free access to most journals through my Uni). It's actually a very clever bit of science - increased free radical (reactive oxygen species) generation by changing the metabolic pathway back to something much more like a normal cell.

We have a large number of metabolic pathways, but one of our main ones is the Krebs cycle. According to one of the followup studies on the original work, cancer cells have been shown to often suppress the Krebs cycle (oxidative metabolism) and switch to Glycolysis, an anaerobic system. This means that fewer free radicals are produced, increasing the potential for the cell to survive, and removing one of the means by which cells commit "suicide" or Apoptosis.

Also, Drugs companies, whilst greedy, are a necessary evil.

Eggsnham:
It's all about money for pharmaceutical companies, they're getting tons of money from their current treatments and cancer research donations, and don't want to lose it to an actual cure.

That's what I'm thinking anyways.

In any case, if I ever get cancer, I'm going straight to these guys.

You do that. It'll probably kill you though. It seems the general consensus among biologists and anyone thinking about this critically that the blog is bullshit you see.

I'll say it again though. The drug is already used by doctors for other reasons. If this was tested and peer reviewed it would be published in medical journals. Because doctors already have and use the drug they don't need anyone to patent it, bottle it and sell it. The pharm companies don't come into it at all. Basically it boils down to just simply doctors saying to other doctors "Hey you know that one drug you have? Well it cures cancer. Use it for that now."

Nice to see skepticism about this. These DCA trials are at the earliest of stages, almost a proof of concept point. The problem is that any potential cancer treatments are pushed out into the public eye before they are fit to withstand proper scrutiny.

My opinion is that this is not a cure for cancer. DCA has the potential to be a very effective treatment which may reduce reliance on chemotherapies. The reason I claim is this is because cancer has a large genetic involvement and medical research has a long way to go before it can rectify genetic mutations on a large scale.

Some points on the article quoted from my standpoint as a molecular biologist:

Major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

They are not interested as the research is at an early stage and no were near a marketable state.

No concern of side effects or about their long term effects.

There is, and there will be. Toxicity is all about dosage.

This drug doesn't require a patent.

It will when it is finished the clinical trials. Its unlikely the final version would be released without adjuvants (think enhancers) that would make the drug patentable.

It was tested on Rats.

Well mice. Mitochondria have genetic differences between species but in regards to apoptosis the mechanisms are pretty much universal in animals and the majority of eukaryotes.

In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective.

As many have said, mitochondria are not cells but organelles which are found in eukaryotic cells. This mistake tears through the credibility of the article.

You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that can't be pressed in cancer cells.

Apoptosis is initiated by a number of different processes. The mitochondria are not the only way.

Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished.

This is true. Failure of apoptosis is a key part of tumour malignancy.

gellert1984:

zehydra:
we're going to need a better source.

Wish Granted!
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2007-03-15_Update.cfm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526171.600
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article736333.ece
http://www.archives.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article/2007/01/8153.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/opinion/01moss.html

Basically; DCA does something to the damaged mitochrondria in some cancer cells that causes them to self destruct/metabolise (however you want to put it). Its not a cure but it does limit and possibly reduce the size of potentially fatal cancer. Human drugs trials are not underway. Some people have been self-medicating but there are issues with liver failure due to excessive use. Wikipedia is your friend.

awesome thank you.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked