Cure for Cancer, but noone cares?

[ROFLBRYCE]

Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human’s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use

Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can’t make money, like they are doing now with their AIDS Patent.
It's just looking like major pharmaceutical companies are completely fine with not picking up this cure, as they won't be making any money off of it. They care more about cash than ending one of the world's worst diseases.. Sad what the world is coming to.


For those of you interested, check out the full story here (http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice)

[Echo]

Simple, curee for cancer= less power and money to major institutions.
Your leaders don't give a damn about your well being.

[Delta]

Simple, curee for cancer= less power and money to major institutions.
Your leaders don't give a damn about your well being.

100% agreeing with Echo

[Jokersvirus]

Some company will pick it up that cares about human existence.

[Saph]

Yeah but how long will that be?

And it seems like all the big companies don't wanna pick it up cause it's none profitable. Yet the biggest companies are the ones best suited for such a huge cure, since they're larger, have more money, and have an easier time spreading the cure to everyone who needs it.

Sure, a smaller company will eventually pick it up, but I doubt they'll do as efficient a job as the bigger ones will.

Money makes power, oppertunity, and efficiency, I'm afraid....

[Havoc]

Set aside from the fact that most of humanity is stupid, greedy and pretty much de-validated itself as human beings...

Dichloroacetate, while it increases the apoptosis in mice, it has the reverse effect in some causes in humans, thus increasing the cancer growth. This has been concluded from a trial in 2010.

So don't worry, DCA is being researched, but human testing requires considerable amounts of time. They at least know that while it can cure some cancers, it can also increase the growth under certain circumstances.

The original article is from 4 years ago, progress has been made since then, despite the initial hesitations.

[LiNuX]

There are no profits in cures. Now if they found a new 5 year long treatment, the companies would be all over that because it's job security.

I'd fund it myself if I was rich.

[Jayhmmz]

Aside from the bad news about the dick head companies, this is an excellent discovery!

[leica]

Dichloroacetate is an extremely simple compound; it can probably be synthesized in your kitchen. Why the hell isn't it already being used if it truly has potential to cure cancer? Even if the douchebaggery of Big Pharma prevents them from investing in it, you'd think the generics producers would be doing something.

[Saph]

4 years and it's still not showing progression enough to hit the news in that time?

To me it sounds like there's something with it they're not telling us. If this cure was truely as amazing as it sounds, then I do not doubt it'd be out in the hospitals in half the time. I mean penicilin was one of those cases.

But 4 years and not a SINGLE news worthy progression? I don't think I trust this one.

[Fr0stByte]

It's just looking like major pharmaceutical companies are completely fine with not picking up this cure, as they won't be making any money off of it. They care more about cash than ending one of the world's worst diseases.. Sad what the world is coming to.


For those of you interested, check out the full story here (http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice)

If those capatilisitc A-hole pharmaceutical companies dont give a dam, its really up to the government to step in

[Havoc]

4 years and it's still not showing progression enough to hit the news in that time?

To me it sounds like there's something with it they're not telling us. If this cure was truely as amazing as it sounds, then I do not doubt it'd be out in the hospitals in half the time. I mean penicilin was one of those cases.

But 4 years and not a SINGLE news worthy progression? I don't think I trust this one.

Because that's not true... I've facepalmed so much reading this thread.

This medication has been discovered in 1864; 2006-2007 it was found to reduce the size of tumors in mice.
Between 2007 and 2009 Clinical trials on humans have been conducted, the 2010 published results brought no conclusion.
The research had been founded by several cancer organizations.

[ROFLBRYCE]

Because that's not true... I've facepalmed so much reading this thread.

This medication has been discovered in 1864; 2006-2007 it was found to reduce the size of tumors in mice.
Between 2007 and 2009 Clinical trials on humans have been conducted, the 2010 published results brought no conclusion.
The research had been founded by several cancer organizations.

And come 2038, maybe our world will become a little better and not a capitalistic wasteland like it probably will be, and we will have a cure for cancer next to the Advil.

[Jayhmmz]

I just think that all major news stations and newspapers would have picked up on this by now, just for the chance to berate the companies who dismiss the cure, etc...

The more I think about it, the more I think this story isn't all true, to some extents. The media are like hungry wolves, and this, you would think, would be the perfect meat.

[Havoc]

If we survive that long xD But we probably will...
Eventually we'll have Aspirin -C - "For your occasional headache and brain tumor"

[Fr0stByte]

If we survive that long xD But we probably will...
Eventually we'll have Aspirin -C - "For your occasional headache and brain tumor"


I couldnt help but laugh at this xD

[ROFLBRYCE]

If we survive that long xD But we probably will...
Eventually we'll have Aspirin -C - "For your occasional headache and brain tumor"

I actually laughed so hard at this man

[BobTD]

Set aside from the fact that most of humanity is stupid, greedy and pretty much de-validated itself as human beings...

Dichloroacetate, while it increases the apoptosis in mice, it has the reverse effect in some causes in humans, thus increasing the cancer growth. This has been concluded from a trial in 2010.

So don't worry, DCA is being researched, but human testing requires considerable amounts of time. They at least know that while it can cure some cancers, it can also increase the growth under certain circumstances.

The original article is from 4 years ago, progress has been made since then, despite the initial hesitations.


Wait what? A chemical compound that has a random reaction to cancer cells? I didnt think chemistry worked that way... odd.


Should I just take their word on it? Nope, research time:

There is no evidence that this drug can somehow reverse and aid cancer cell growth at all:

Wikimedia Error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid)

The fact of the matter is, that prolonged high doses have a carcinogenic effect by increasing the risck of liver cancer. Its due to liver damage however and just like a thousand over the counter drugs its perfectly safe unless you take to much:


Long term use (a year or more) of high doses (> 77 mg/kg/day) of DCA has been shown to increase risk of liver cancer in mice.[43] Studies of the trichloroethylene (TCE) metabolites dichloroacetic acid (DCA), trichloroacetic acid (TCA), and chloral hydrate suggest that both DCA and TCA are involved in TCE-induced liver tumorigenesis and that many DCA effects are consistent with conditions that increase the risk of liver cancer in humans.[52]

Interestingly enough DCA is considered safe in small doses even for children. However any chemical compound can start to have negative effects if to much is taken. This is true for every drug. However, DCA has never been shown to "increase the cancer growth".

funding:


Concerns have been raised that without strong intellectual property protection, the financial incentive for drug development is reduced, and therefore clinical trials of DCA may not be funded.[15][16][17][27] However, other sources of funding exist; previous studies of DCA have been funded by government organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and by private charities (e.g. the Muscular Dystrophy Association). Recognizing anticipated funding challenges, Michelakis's lab took the unorthodox step of directly soliciting online donations to fund the research.[28] After 6 months, his lab had raised over $800,000, enough to fund a small Clinical Phase 2 study.

On the other hand, it should not be said that no one cares. Obviously like any important matter, such as a new method for treating cancer there will be extreme opinions. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

I also want to point out that its been been pretty effective:


Akbar and Humaira Khan have since March 2007 treated cancer patients using DCA off-label at their private clinic, Medicor Cancer Centres, in Toronto.[20] They have treated several types of cancer and said on their web site that some patients "are showing varied positive responses to DCA including tumor shrinkage, reduction in tumor markers, symptom control, and improvement in lab tests".[21] Although they have not published their results nor reported it at medical conferences, they have uploaded details of patient responses and overall statistics on their web site.[22] They report that two patients who had DCA added to traditional chemotherapy had complete remission of metastatic cancer. Medicor states that the clinical results they have been getting are in agreement with clinical trials.[23]

So while it is a new tool in fighting cancer, its not a miracle drug. Its more or less a new type of medicine that really has to be researched before we know how to make it work the way we want it to.

[Havoc]

Wait what? A chemical compound that has a random reaction to cancer cells? I didnt think chemistry worked that way... odd.
(...)


Interestingly enough DCA is considered safe in small doses even for children. However any chemical compound can start to have negative effects if to much is taken. This is true for every drug. However, DCA has never been shown to "increase the cancer growth".

(...)

Chemistry doesn't... Biochemistry does.
Not "random" but variable.

From your link:

"In 2010 it was found that for human colorectal tumours grown in mice, under hypoxic conditions, DCA decreased rather than increased apoptosis, resulting in enhanced growth of the tumours.[25] These findings suggest that at least in some cancer types DCA treatment could be detrimental to patient health, highlighting the need for further testing before it can be considered a safe and effective cancer treatment.[25]"

[BobTD]

Chemistry doesn't... Biochemistry does.
Not "random" but variable.

From your link:

"In 2010 it was found that for human colorectal tumours grown in mice, under hypoxic conditions, DCA decreased rather than increased apoptosis, resulting in enhanced growth of the tumours.[25] These findings suggest that at least in some cancer types DCA treatment could be detrimental to patient health, highlighting the need for further testing before it can be considered a safe and effective cancer treatment.[25]"

Hypoxia is when the blood fails to deliver oxygen to target tissues. So already we see that it affects the body on a cellular level. Im not really surprised to hear the programmed cellular death fails to trigger in oxygen starved tissue. You might also be interested to know that cancer cells, like healthy cells, must have a blood supply in order to live.

And really? They had to deprive mice (with grafted on cancer) of oxygen to find a situation where DCA would not work.

But one thing I would like to know, and Im going out on a limb here becasue im no scientist, is weather or not they found a relevant fear. Well I have to admit I already looked into this as well because you always have to read your sources, especially with Wikipedia:

Elsevier (http://www.cancerletters.info/article/S0304-3835(10)00251-X/abstract)


Abstract
We examined the effect of hypoxia on apoptosis of human colorectal cancer (CRC) cells in vitro and in vivo. All cell lines tested were susceptible to hypoxia-induced apoptosis. DCA treatment caused significant apoptosis under normoxia in SW480 and Caco-2 cells, but these cells displayed decreased apoptosis when treated with DCA combined with hypoxia, possibly through HIF-1α dependent pathways. DCA treatment also induced significantly increased growth of SW480 tumor xenografts, and a decrease in TUNEL positive nuclei in hypoxic but not normoxic regions of treated tumors. Thus DCA is cytoprotective to some CRC cells under hypoxic conditions, highlighting the need for further investigation before DCA can be used as a reliable apoptosis-inducing agent in cancer therapy.

A quick scan of this article and you might only notice the single alarming word combo highlighted above "significantly increased". But this is actually offset by my favorite combo breaker: "DCA treatment caused significant apoptosis". Apoptosis: the process of programmed cell death that we want to trigger in cancer.

This increase in cancer growth seems only "increased" in comparison to its already decreased function due to the benefits of the DCA treatment.

We can conclude this with simple scientific procedure:

1) Monitor the cancer growth with DCA treatments
2) Administer Apoxia
3) Monitor the cancer growth with this combination
4) Draw a comparison

Fear mongers want you to believe that this "significantly increased growth" is in relation to the normal growth of cancer when that is clearly not what this study shows.

Also hypoxia is a short term condition normally. And the time length required to produce an adverse effect is not stated. This really might only be a concern to astronauts and the elderly on breathing machines. But then again thats why further research is required.

In lamens terms, what this means to me is that under hypoxic conditions there is a beneficial (to cancer) side effect that prevents triggered apoptosis allowing cancer to grow at an unimpeded rate. What would be alarming is if the cancer continued to benefit from this state after normal blood flow was restored, or if the cancerous growth exceed its natural levels.

As the report did not detect either of those potential problems, and was designed to specifically monitor those conditions if the report is to be reputable, we assume that this is not the case. (Also it clearly states there is no benefit to "normoxic regions of treated tumors" or tissue with normal oxygen levels)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, biochemistry is a form of chemistry. And does not make my statement in any way inaccurate.

Btw you still haven't supported your claim here:


it has the reverse effect in some causes in humans, thus increasing the cancer growth. This has been concluded from a trial in 2010.


You stated it had that effect on humans when it was only observed in mice, I could find no published results on human testing concerning hypoxia combined with DCA treatments.



I just want to go out of way to say thanks to anyone participating in this brutal one sided argument. =D

But all joking aside the intelligent arguments presented on both sides really are stimulating and I respect healthy debate, and in relation those willing to argue a point of view.

[Havoc]

Good lord, I wasn't expecting a scientific debate here, really. I was just trying to appease the general public without including anything that may have sounded too confusing.

If you're going into depth then yes, of course my statement that DCA causes reverse effect in human tumors is rather pointless, I was referencing the human cancer, grown in mice. (Because you know... I doubt any human would want to breed a tumor just for science. Or maybe I'm wrong.)
They conducted the test under hypoxic conditions because some(most/few, I don't know...) kinds of cancer work with glucose synthesis rather than the more common... oxygen way of surviving.
So hypoxia is not necessarily just a short term condition in a tumor. And if DCA dosn't restore Apoptosis in hypoxic cancer cells, it won't be of much use in some cases.


And the bio... chemi.... something doesn't indeed make your statement inaccurate, I was just pointing out that there are no "random" reactions between substances and living cells, and I really just don't like putting plain chemistry under the same blanket with biochemistry. I don't have the same hard on for all that dead elements stuff that I have for the element stuff working within a living organism.

And while I love me some good debate, I'm just no particularly eager to obfuscate this conversation for others too much. Sorry if I'm too vague and unspecific in my formulations. My original point was that this stuff wasn't forgotten just because pharma-industries decided its no-profit. Not everything on the internet is true or accurate. (Like the link from the original post)

[BobTD]

For the cancer graphs on the mice, we know what kinds of cancer they are if we are testing it, but Im sure I dont know where the samples are from, human or otherwise.

The reason it is not the same as human testing is because the cardiovascular system and any number of other variables could be different. It would not matter if it was human cancer graphed onto a mouse.


kinds of cancer work with glucose synthesis rather than the more common... oxygen way of surviving.

I stated that cancer needs a blood flow to survive. But cancer actually does not require oxygen.

In fact its believed that starving the body of oxygen actually can cause cancer. Some believe that if a cell is starved of 60% of its oxygen is will become cancerous.

Oxygen is generally thought to be bad for cancer, you can read all about it on the web. But the impression I get is that hypoxia itself promotes the growth of cancer

But back to your thought on hypoxia:


So hypoxia is not necessarily just a short term condition in a tumor. And if DCA dosn't restore Apoptosis in hypoxic cancer cells, it won't be of much use in some cases.

Hypoxia is not applied on a cellular level of course, and it cant be applied to a tumor. Its a state of being the entire organism suffers. But if it could be, there is still basically 0 chance of hypoxia lasting longer in a cancer cell, because cancer cells do not use oxygen to begin with.

The fear that non .. er xyegeny parts of the body will grow more cancer would not be a problem. The problem is that is a part of your body isn't getting oxygen. Last I checked pretty much all cells other than cancer cells need oxygen.

But it is true that DCA wont be much use in some cases. And Im not arguing its a wonder drug, we know it does not work on all forms of cancer.

My whole argument is that it cant be said that it "sometimes increases cancer growth". That would be absurd.

[Havoc]

Yea that's why I mean it increases cancer growth under certain conditions.
Cancer grafts on mice under hypoxic conditions...

I agree with the rest. Basically.

And as for cancer being caused by oxygen starvation is partially right, but not complete.
Under o2 starvation, single oxygen radicals occur more often. Those have a bad habit to get drunk and walk into the nucleus. There they vomit all over the dna.
this not being a big problem as we have protection against free radicals in our cells. But should they get too numerous, or should the protection fail, they can damage the dna.

That still not being a problem, because we have a system that checks the dna and repairs faulty ssegments. But of course that can fail too. Then there still is the apoptosis. It detects damaged dna that can cause a cell to reproduce in a cancerous way, and basically destroy the entire dna with shuriken_proteins.(that's a thing, look it up) So biologically speaking you must be a very unlucky bastard to actually get cancer by yourself.