Tech | May 13, 2011 | 36 comments

Scientists Cure Cancer and Nobody Takes Notice

source: http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

Image
justDre
No profit in a cure I guess. Bastards.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Health
  2. tags:
    News and Politics,  Science,  Medicine,  Cancer,  4 more
  3.     
    |

36 comments // Scientists Cure Cancer and Nobody Takes Notice

  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • Image

    • Another article debunking it:

      http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/dichloroacetate_and_cancer.php?utm_so...

      So many people have sent me this sensationalistic article, "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice", that I guess I have to respond. I sure wish it were true, but you should be able to tell from how poorly it is written and the ridiculous inaccuracies (mitochondria are cells that fight cancers?) that you should be suspicious. The radical, exaggerated claims make the truth of the story highly unlikely.

      Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.

      The simple summary is this: that claim is a lie. There have been no clinical trials of dichloroacetate (DCA) in cancer patients, so there is no basis for claiming they have a cure; some, but not all, cancers might respond in promising ways to the drug, while others are likely to be resistant (cancer is not one disease!); and there are potential neurotoxic side effects, especially when used in conjunction with other chemotherapies.

      So we have one popular account that is badly written and makes exaggerated claims. There is also a university press release, the source for the sloppy popular account, that doesn't contain the egregious stupidities but does tend to inflate basic research studies into an unwarranted clinical significance. And then, of course, there are the actual peer reviewed papers that describe the research and rationale, and also the reservations, on DCA. It's like a game of telephone: you can actually trace the account from the sober science paper to the enthusiastic press release to the web account with its extravagant claims of a simple, cheap cure for cancer, and see how the story is gradually corrupted. It would be funny if the final result wasn't going to dupe a lot of desperate people.

      But there is a germ of truth to the story, in that DCA does have potential. Here's how it works.

      (continued at link)

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  

    • This is an Internet rumor that turned into a conspiracy theory.

      Here is the REAL story:

      http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/05/cure-for-cancer-resu...

      Cancer drug resurfaces and threatens false optimism
      17:39 16 May 2011
      Health
      Andy Coghlan, reporter

      So, we hear news of a miraculous treatment for cancer. Disappointingly, the story is an old one which has somehow resurfaced on the blogosphere.

      When we originally published the story four years ago, it created a frenzy on the internet which took us by surprise. Our story reported a new type of treatment that in animal experiments showed promise of potentially being able to tackle most types of human cancer.

      We often report developments in cancer research, but nothing had ever attracted such a wave of interest. The drug involved, a simple molecule called dichloro-acetate, or DCA, appeared to work by blocking the unusual, sugar-gobbling mechanism called glycolysis by which most cancer cells generate their energy, and so which potentially marks them out from healthy cells.

      Exposed to DCA, cancer cells stopped making energy from sugar and resumed making it the way healthy cells do, in chambers called mitochondria. This stopped cancer cells from growing and multiplying, and caused them to wither and die instead.

      What added to the intrigue was that DCA is such a cheap, simple molecule that no-one has ever patented it. Also, it was already being used to treat rare mitochondrial diseases. Within weeks, patients were trying to get their own supplies of DCA, and some entrepreneurs set up websites to sell it, that were subsequently declared illegal and closed down by the US Food and Drug Administration.

      So what happened after the frenzy died down?

      The answer is that it was finally tested in five patients with aggressive brain cancer by Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who had conducted the original experiments in animals.

      The results, published last year in Science Translational Medicine, revealed that it probably extended the lives of four of the patients, while one other died.

      Most importantly, Michelakis demonstrated from brain scans and biopsies that DCA appeared to work as he had predicted, arresting the growth of cancer cells by switching them back to normal energy production in mitochondria. The experiments also showed that beneficial effects took a few months to kick in. Importantly, Michelakis said that despite the small trial, it would be impossible to tell whether DCA works or not until it is tested in a placebo-controlled trial.

      As far as we know, no further trials have been conducted, so the jury is still out on whether it may do any good. We reported the new results in New Scientist and included news of other teams around the world developing treatments targeting glycolysis.

      Some other treatments that disrupt energy metabolism, such as the drug metformin taken by diabetics, were also showing signs of activity against cancer, for example. So for now, we are a little bit wiser about how DCA might work, but until someone does a much larger, well-organised trial, it would be unwise to assume that taking it will be safe or do any good.

      The more encouraging news is that other teams are now investigating the scope for targeting glycolysis, and although it could be a long haul to demonstrate whether any work, it does provide another avenue of attack against a disease which continues to push medicine to its limits.

      Any readers wanting to find out more about DCA may find this blog useful, posted by Cancer Research UK.

      There's also an excellent blog by National Geographic which goes into even more detail.

    • 1 year ago
  • corndog67
    • 0
      corndog67  

    • How can anyone possibly believe this bullshit? Every cancer researcher, every member of the boards of Big Pharma, Big Medical, Big anything to do with this, has members of their own family suffering or dying from cancer. To suggest that there is some big conspiracy about keeping the cures secret is ludicrous at best, paranoia more like it. Get real. Someone letting their family members die for some big money is just fucking stupid. Not everyone in Corporate America is a heartless, thoughtless, unfeeling asshole, no matter how much some people want to believe that they are.

    • 1 year ago
  • Saladin
    • +2
      Saladin  

    • You guys don't really believe this shit, do you?

      Also, my housemate is a bio major and is studying this, and she facepalmed over how dumb this was.

      Let's set aside for a moment that there are dozens of different kinds of cancer, radically different from one another. Think about how dumb this is from a non-science perspective.

      The world would rejoice over a cure for cancer and the demand for one is so high that it would be impossible to keep under wraps. Especially if it was as easy as just taking a pill.

      Who benefits from keeping it under wraps? NO ONE. Not even big insurance companies because taking care of cancer patients is a huge drain on their resources, which is why most of them DENY care rather than PROVIDE it.

      All of that is assuming that the scientists themselves would keep it under wraps, which is asinine? Why? Even if they were working for some major biotech lab who just wanted to make money by denying the cure (which makes no fucking sense, they'd make hand-over-fist doing the opposite), why would the SCIENTISTS stay silent? EVERYONE would want to know about this.

      Not everything is a god damn conspiracy. Especially when NO ONE would benefit from attempting one, why would you suspect it?

      There are so many holes in this it is absurd that any of you would believe it, and I'm disappointed in those of you who do. You make the whole site look bad to have this shit on the front page.

      Stop being so gullible.

      Voted down.

    • 1 year ago
  • pukemnukem
    • +1
      pukemnukem  
    • Saladin:

      Don't even bother dude. As a mechanical engineering student, I have just given up trying to explain stuff to people with regards to stuff involving my field. No amount of correct information is going to change what people want to believe...and then they just start either accusing you of being part of the conspiracy or they just shut you down with more and more nonsense. 9-11, the moon landing, nuclear energy...no point in even trying to help. People like to be ignorant.

    • 1 year ago
  • Angeliron
  • Saladin
  • pollie_graff
  • rodstradamus
  • Persecuted
    • 0
      Persecuted  
    • rodstradamus:

      or

      In 2002, according to its Web site, the North Carolina Institute of Technology was founded in 1993 and provided "an effective scientific method for shutting down the cancer process FOREVER through proper management of the body's cells with cell optimizers developed by the Institute." The estimated cost for 4 to 6 months of "cell optimization" was $5,000 to $10,000. The Institute's goal was said to be to "eradicate cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and all degenerative diseases through prevention or correction" by the year 2010. However, the site focused only on treatment for cancer.

    • 1 year ago
  • irie_ojo
  • KB723
  • TasteHi
    • +1
      TasteHi  

    • It doesn't say anything about how they are targeting the cancerous growths. If it regulates the aging process of a cell I would be concerned as to what it can do to other tissues in "vital organs". However this has great potential in other applications, I wonder if the FDA would approve this just to see what the other benefits are as well...

    • 1 year ago
  • warman1138
  • Mark701
    • +2
      Mark701  

    • "The University of Alberta's DCA Research Team is set to launch clinical trials on humans in the spring of 2007 pending government approval.
      This preliminary research is encouraging and offers hope to thousands of Canadians and all others around the world who are afflicted by cancer, as it accelerates our understanding of and action around targeted cancer treatments," said Dr. Philip Branton, Scientific Director of the CIHR Institute of Cancer. "

      To be fair, this is a good hypothesis on an approach to cure certain cancers. I would hesitate at this point to call it a cure. To that end I'm sure drug manufacturers are taking notice. If the treatment works in clinical trials I have no doubt it will become another tool to combat cancer with.

      For more information about the uses of DCA you can go here: http://www.thedcasite.com/

    • 1 year ago
  • artemis6
  • Poluchi
  • JStation
    • +1
      JStation  

    • Each time I see an article like this, I feel I understand more and more why some would opt for suicide and choose not to live in this world.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • +1
      Gravity_Man  
    • JStation:

      OK, but if you can resist the suicidal urge til you get older & weaker => THE URGES ALL GO AWAY!!! So you see, soon as the thyroid slows down, and the DHEA production slows up, all those urges, they miraculously disappear!!!

      Your mind & body, no longer subject to those nasty urges, reach a new level, kinda like turning into Mr. Spock. Hey you guys, not there! Over there.

      Parts for the Enterprise just arrived. Gotta go.

    • 1 year ago
  • Milieu
  • Clevelandchick
  • sammykatz
    • +4
      sammykatz  

    • It was reported several weeks ago that a male birth control pill made from a plant called gandyrubus was being developed in Thailand that, while increasing libido, renders the sperm less able to penetrate and fertilize an egg, thereby preventing pregnancy. This, too, is not profitable and is being ignored by big pharma.

    • 1 year ago
  • pukemnukem
  • sammykatz
    • 0
      sammykatz  
    • pukemnukem:

      Yes. raising children is very expensive. The article I read stated that neither European nor American pharma was interested in further researching and/or producing the male birth control pill: not ENOUGH profit. Have a good day.

    • 1 year ago
  • Thethingis
  • ArchDruid
  • Milieu
    • +3
      Milieu  
    • ArchDruid:

      I like the idea, but there aren't enough Primary Care Physicians to go around now. PCP and ObGyns are priced out of practice. Fewer and fewer drs. go into real patient care, most go where the "Free Market" drives them, into specialties.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ricky84
  • artemis6
  • Milieu
    • +3
      Milieu  

    • hey, I'm more eager than most to get rid of cancer. I lost parents to different forms of it.

      When I went to that site and got the quote:

      "Medical Researchers at the University of Alberta reported today evidence that the orphan generic drug Dichloroacetate (DCA) may hold promise as potential therapy for perhaps the deadliest of all human cancers: a form of brain cancer called glioblastoma"

      1) ---May hold---
      2) ---potential therapy---

      when I googled it

      3) First site that came up was >>>Glen Beck
      4) Second site that came up was >>>Glen Beck

      I don't think it's time to hold one's breath just yet

    • 1 year ago
  • shanklinmike
  • Milieu
    • +1
      Milieu  
    • shanklinmike:

      "Michelakis and his colleagues found that DCA normalized the mitochondrial function in many cancers, showing that their function was actively suppressed by the cancer but was not permanently damaged by it.

      More importantly, they found that the normalization of mitochondrial function resulted in a significant decrease in tumor growth both in test tubes and in animal models. Also, they noted that DCA, unlike most currently used chemotherapies, did not have any effects on normal, non-cancerous tissues."

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

      There's hope that it might work, so I'm not blowing it completely off either just 'cause Beckerhead talked about it.

      After all everyone knows that an Insane clock can still be correct twice a day.

    • 1 year ago
  • August_K
    • +1
      August_K  

    • Followed some links and end up on this page.....

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

      Interesting to read who funded this......"largely by public donations"....

      "One of the intriguing features of this work was that it was funded largely by public donations, including philanthropic foundations and individuals.

      In addition, it received support by Alberta public institutions, both the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Sciences. The multidisciplinary team that performed this challenging translational research included members of the Departments of Medicine, Diagnostic Imaging and Biomedical Engineering, Oncology and Neurosurgery. Clinicians, scientists, nurses and graduate students worked together for 2 years and express their gratitude to the people of Alberta, philanthropists, the patients and their families. "

    • 1 year ago
  • August_K
    • +2
      August_K  

    • You are right, there is no profit in a cure or in helping people get well.
      Today's Doctors are taught surgery and to prescribe drugs that ultimately cause more problems (side effects). There's more money it both of those.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ricky84
  • shanklinmike
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos