PDA

View Full Version : Cure for cancer?



Some Rogue
01-30-2007, 05:24 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html


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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Very interesting article and an amazing find if it pans out.

Stanley Burrell
01-30-2007, 08:50 PM
Alberta is probably one of the very few institutes in Canada that could cite this age old research and have it be exposed as "groundbreaking" by the tabloids.

Stanley Burrell
01-30-2007, 08:51 PM
Pretty soon they'll have invented penicillin.

Some Rogue
01-31-2007, 09:26 AM
Well, there's been a ton of recent articles on it so apparently not a lot of people knew about it.

I guess we're not all as up on our pharmaceuticals as you are.

Parkbandit
01-31-2007, 10:05 AM
the real cure can be found in stem cells retrieved by aborted fetus material

Skeeter
01-31-2007, 10:12 AM
too much money to be made treating cancer for someone to actually cure it.

Stanley Burrell
01-31-2007, 12:22 PM
Well, there's been a ton of recent articles on it so apparently not a lot of people knew about it.

I guess we're not all as up on our pharmaceuticals as you are.

I can confidently say that I possessed exactly π times the amount of knowledge on this subject that the entire entity of Canada had before, during and after dabbling in chemicals either equal to or more sophisticated than dihydrogen monoxide.

This is also made true through this binding text, dur.

TheEschaton
01-31-2007, 02:51 PM
What if n < 0. Or if n = i or maybe n = e?

What if 0 < n < 1?

-TheE-

Bobmuhthol
01-31-2007, 02:57 PM
What's the logical flaw in n = e?

TheEschaton
01-31-2007, 03:09 PM
Yeah, I guess e is above 1, so it is a knowledge base greater than Canada's. My bad.

-TheE-

Drew2
01-31-2007, 03:18 PM
Jesus christ. Fuck eachother on top of math books or something but keep that shit out of here. Nerds.

Satira
01-31-2007, 03:44 PM
That kind of math makes my brain hurt. More cancer cures plz!

Drew
01-31-2007, 03:46 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php

Tsa`ah
01-31-2007, 06:09 PM
Pretty soon they'll have invented penicillin.

When one considers that there are many drugs out there that treat conditions and diseases they were not intended or researched for, there is no reason to assume that DCA can't be used as treatment for anything other than lactic acidosis.


http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php

Thanks for the blog. I did forget where I first read the article on antiangiogenic treatment ... and it's a perfect example of irresponsible reporting. Hype and false hope by people that make their bread through sensationalism.

DCA could be a viable cancer treatment, though not likely a cure-all or treat-all when it comes to oncology table. It won't happen until proper research is done. As the blog pointed out, promising results in rats ... or a petri dish does not allways (if rarely) result in the same numbers when administered to human patients.

This is just an example of how medical and scientific journals, and their contributors (who are just looking to expand or further their research) are put under the gun ... and sometimes laughed out of their respective circles, when the results don't measure up to the bar the media sets out of sheer ignorance.

The every day Joe doesn't sit down to read a medical or scientific journal. On occasion, a complete dumb ass looking for a story does .. and when that happens ... he/she is completely flabbergasted by preliminary test results. He/she takes the uneducated interpretation to the editor, the editor buys that interpretation because the journals and researchers are credited in the footnotes and it goes to publication.

People read the uneducated interpretation, read the spin (in this case about pharm companies) and we have false hope and a villain who wants nothing more than to put an end to whatever is going to harm their bottom line.

Let's let the guy expand his research, publish the trial results (it it gets that far) and go from there.

The last thing you want to do is tell your cancer ridden relatives that DCA is the miracle cancer cure only to have their doctors tell them that they're not going to administer DCA because there's no valid clinical publication on it referencing it as a cancer treatment.

Stanley Burrell
01-31-2007, 06:54 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php

I have no clue how NIH funding didn't arise once throughout that entire read, especially considering his (the author's) foremost prerogative.


When one considers that there are many drugs out there that treat conditions and diseases they were not intended or researched for, there is no reason to assume that DCA can't be used as treatment for anything other than lactic acidosis.

Yes.

When aforementioned research institutions are squelched, "comparative" progress is made through super flukes to turn up positive data.

I will not even claim the slightest hint of irrational paranoia in stating that our current (North American) economic shitpile and corresponding priorities have a direct effect on the signal to noise ratio, presently, of actual science and what is truly groundbreaking.

Please read into that.

Ignot
01-31-2007, 11:12 PM
too much money to be made treating cancer for someone to actually cure it.

Im sure this is not the case. They could charge a shitload for a cure and it is not like cancer is going to disappear so business would be good. Plus, then we could smoke more cigarretes.

Skeeter
01-31-2007, 11:35 PM
Im sure this is not the case. They could charge a shitload for a cure and it is not like cancer is going to disappear so business would be good. Plus, then we could smoke more cigarretes.

as much as made treating cancer? pharm companies get rich off that shit.

Ignot
01-31-2007, 11:36 PM
And they would not get rich off curing it?

Artha
02-01-2007, 12:49 AM
You can only sell a cure once, with a treatment, you've got them for life.

Hulkein
02-01-2007, 02:00 AM
The thing is, everyone who is a part of the Pharm. community has lost someone or is losing someone due to cancer. I have a hard time believing the entire community would squelch a cure-all just because they make an extra 100k by letting their loved ones die.

Solkern
02-01-2007, 03:44 AM
Well put Tsa'ah

Tsa`ah
02-01-2007, 03:55 AM
Despite the results in the pre-lims, the chances of this being a cure all, let alone a cure is very slim at best.

Let's not read more into this than there actually is. Antiangiogenic research was very promising at the start. The process is still very sound ... but preventing the human body, specifically the cancer clusters, from developing vascular extension in order to keep feeding the clusters doesn't work as well as it did with rats and other lab conditions. This could be no different.

To say big pharm won't fund research is absurd. They're not going to shell out the cash at this stage. We don't even know if the research team or lead filed for a patent making the treatment of any human cancer by DCA exclusive.

The lack of a patent doesn't mean anything. A patent for specific treatment by an unpatented drug is still an option. Outside of that ... even if this turned out to be the cure all of all forms of cancer, that doesn't mean once you're treated you're done for life.

Considering the gambit of cancers out there, one can have a genetic predisposition, sheer stupidity when it comes to personal health, become exposed to environmental carcinogens.

We're not talking about immunity, we're talking about a treatment that has a very slim chance of successfully treating cancer without radiation, chemo, or invasive surgery. Big pharm isn't the only benefactor from treatment costs. And treatment doesn't mean the cancer can't come back ... or development of a completely different or somewhat related cancer down the line.

Pharmaceutical companies could obtain patent rights and charge whatever they wanted. It's not like there's not already an existing line and it's not like this one drug will wipe out cancer all together.


as much as made treating cancer? pharm companies get rich off that shit.

I had to go back and read again, so excuse the edit and late response.

Who's to say that once a patent for DCA as a human treatment for cancer was obtained, any company would not charge a price commiserate of lesser effective treatments. You may as well indite entire oncology sector of the medical field ... after all, invasive surgery and radiation treatments as just as, if not more, costly than pharmaceutical treatments.

If I had cancer, I really wouldn't balk when the monetary price tag was presented.

All that aside, the assumption that the pharm sector wouldn't bother with it due to the bottom line is a poorly formed assumption. Chantix is probably the best way to stop smoking. Despite all of the spin articles and resources put out by hypnotherapist, laser cessation, and natural remedy companies ... Chantix is showing remarkable results. Relapses that occur are not the result of chemical dependence and anxiety related to that dependence, rather it happens out of habit.

Now, if there's a pill out there that's going to cut into revenue generated by dermal patches and creams, inhalers, lozenges, and antidepressants ... and is likely to be a one time sale ... how exactly does that fit into the whole mind set of not doing anything to hinder the bottom line?