Scientists Cure Cancer!

[Aethelwulf]

Ok, ok... I almost didn't believe it myself - you would have thought there would have been major news coverage. After a little investigation, the claims may indeed be true

 

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

[Aethelwulf]

From wiki on Dichloracetic Acid

 

Cancer cells generally express increased glycolysis, because they rely on anaerobic respiration that occurs in the cytosol (lactic acid fermentation) rather than oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria for energy (the Warburg effect), as a result of hypoxia that exists in tumors and malfunctioning mitochondria.[9][10] Usually dangerously damaged cells kill themselves via apoptosis, a mechanism of self-destruction that involves mitochondria, but this mechanism fails in cancer cells.

A phase I study published in January 2007 by researchers at the University of Alberta, who had tested DCA on human[11] cancer cells grown in mice, found that DCA restored mitochondrial function, thus restoring apoptosis, allowing cancer cells to self-destruct and shrink the tumor.[12]

 

These results received extensive media attention, beginning with an article in New Scientist titled "Cheap, ‘safe’ drug kills most cancers".[11] Subsequently, the American Cancer Society and other medical organizations have received a large volume of public interest and questions regarding DCA.[13] Clinical trials in humans with cancer have not been conducted in the USA and are not yet final in Canada, emphasizing the need for caution in interpreting the preliminary results.[13][14]

[belovelife]

interesting, i hope it is real

[Lancewen]

Ok, ok... I almost didn't believe it myself - you would have thought there would have been major news coverage. After a little investigation, the claims may indeed be true

 

http://www.newscient...st-cancers.html

 

Thanks for the link. I like what I read.

[labelwench]

Snopes.com has some cautiously optimistic follow-up on this report.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/cancercure.asp

[JMJones0424]

I followed the link to the New Scientist article and after reading it I followed their recommendation: "Update, 16 May 2011: If you've just heard about this story, please read this recent update too."

 

At the end of that blog post, titled Cancer drug resurfaces and threatens false optimism, there was a link to Dichloroacetate (DCA) and cancer: Deja vu all over again at a blog I read regularly. It's a good read, and it helps to point out why there is cause for optimism but not irrational exuberance.

 

...To boil it down even further, DCA shifts the cell’s metabolism from anaerobic to aerobic metabolism.

 

Why, then, would such an activity be useful as an anticancer therapy?

 

It all boils down to something known as the Warburg effect, which Otto Warburg first described way back in 1928 and reported in Science back in 1956. Over the last five years or so, cancer researchers have been increasingly coming to appreciate the role of abnormalities in metabolism, in particular the mitochondria, in cancer. To put it briefly, many cancers (approximately 60-90%) favor glycolysis, even in the presence of adequate oxygen for oxidative phosphorylation, leading to a voracious appetite for glucose. Indeed, it is this very avidity of cancer cells for glucose that is the basis of the PET scan, which detects the high uptake of a radiolabeled form of glucose by cancer cells relative to the surrounding normal cells.

...

The second part of the study is what most media and blog reports focused on, probably because it is the clinical trial part of the study. Michelakis and colleagues treated five patients with neuroblastoma with oral DCA. However–and this needs to be emphasized–patients were also treated with a chemotherapeutic agent (temozolomide, abbreviated TMZ) and radiation, with DCA added to the mix at different times and in different combination.

...

The problem is, as both our very own David Kroll pointed out, we don’t know for sure if the DCA was responsible for this effect. As a cancer researcher, I can’t say whether the regressions observed were due to DCA, although the regression of paraventricular masses in patient #1 and the regression observed in patient #5 are certainly fairly suggestive (at least to me) of an anti-tumor effect due to DCA alone. The only side effect Michelakis reported was a reversible change in peripheral nerve function.

...

So I did a search of his blog and found this: The DCA zombie arises again, in which Orac goes over a recent study linking severe side effects to DCA and lists all of his 24 posts on the subject for further reading if you are so inclined. I don't have the time or the education to evaluate the issue appropriately, but it seems that this is neither new, nor a wonder treatment for cancer. DCA and its effects do seem to be worth further study, and it does appear that that is taking place.

[maddog]

So I did a search of his blog and found this: The DCA zombie arises again, in which Orac goes over a recent study linking severe side effects to DCA and lists all of his 24 posts on the subject for further reading if you are so inclined. I don't have the time or the education to evaluate the issue appropriately, but it seems that this is neither new, nor a wonder treatment for cancer. DCA and its effects do seem to be worth further study, and it does appear that that is taking place.

I have read all the links, including yours. What I have concluded is this. That Dichloroacetate (DCA) has not proven to be harmful nor helpful in "curing" cancer. I like the doctor's idea from Canada on what is going on when DCA gets to the tumor cells. I mean it is plausible that DCA does switch back on the Mitochondria to produce apoptosis for the cell and die. I do find it interesting that since no patent can be created no drug company wants to do a study. I don't see why not a doctor does not do a study on his/her own. I guess it is because of liabilities and no insurance (malpractice) wants to guarantee in case something might go wrong (also a big payoff from big pharma...).

 

maddog

[maddog]

On another note, I heard (from NPR radio) that a doctor being interviewed had discovered that lemon juice (obviously not patentable) helps to limit cancer growth. A full double-blind study with a control group was not used, yet a number of patients of pancreatic, colon, uterine cancers were given fresh squeezed lemons with their medications. In a few weeks more that two thirds of the cancers had reduced in size. I heard this interview on the radio a couple of months ago and have since been trying to find out more (corroborate the story to more than hype and ratings -- I am not even sure it was a doctor being interviewed).

 

maddog

Edited August 8, 2012 by maddog

[lawcat]

Where are the communist countries to cut the red tape and get on it, when you need them?

[CraigD]

What I have concluded is this. That Dichloroacetate (DCA) has not proven to be harmful nor helpful in "curing" cancer.

While it’s true that no study has yet shown Dichloroacetic acid to improve or worsen cancer treatment outcomes (when used to complement usual treatments – for ethical reasons, it’s not been tested as a replacement treatment, because no ethical medical professional should intentionally withhold a known effective treatment), I think it’s important to note that DCA is not “safe” in the same sense as some other complementary therapies with unproven efficacies, such as homeopathic remedies.

 

The toxicity of salt of DCA (the molecule itself is strongly corrosive), which has been used infrequently since the 1990s as an experimental treatment of lactic acidosis, is well understood. In therapeutic doses, it often causes neuropathy, though this condition cease shortly after dosing does. In roughly 3 times this does, it has been show to be carcinogenic in mice, and some theoretical pharmocology studies have suggested it worsens some kinds of cancer in humans.

 

I do find it interesting that since no patent can be created no drug company wants to do a study.

I don’t find this surprising. Drug companies, large, well self-financed ones and small startups alike, public and privately owned, are as a rule concerned with (and in the case of public companies, legally required to attempt to) make profits. Even if a drug is clearly likely to be beneficial, they are not inclined to spend money inventing it if this costs more than they will make from it over a fairly short (5 years or so) period.

 

Though drug companies do spend some money on philanthropic pursuits, this usually involved making drugs of well-established efficacy available to underserved populations (ie poor people) and education, and can cynically/realistically be considered investments in improving their public images.

 

Also, while it’s true the Dichloroacetic acid molecule itself can’t be patented in most countries, the use of it and similar drugs as a cancer treatment can and has been, in the US, by some MDs and biologist who appear to me unrelated to Evangelos Michelakis (“the doctor's from Canada”) or other well-known DCA researchers.

 

I don't see why not a doctor does not do a study on his/her own.

As a rule, clinicians are in poor positions to conduct drug studies. It’s practically necessary to be a member of an academic or private research enterprise, like Dr Michelakis is (University of Alberta)

 

Several other research organizations, including the US NIH, have studied and/or plan to further study DCA.

 

Michelakis is unusual among these researchers in that he and his lab have raised money (nearly US$1 million) through direct solicitation of individual donations. He’s been criticized for this by people who believe this soliciting targets desperate cancer patients and their friends and families.

 

All of this is sourced at Dichloroacetic acid’s wikipedia article.