[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Cancer cured maybe (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/18/2007 9:25:13 AM EDT
|
www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971 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. You guys know what this means??? We might be able to smoke in bars forever! |
|
if it is simple, cheap, and it works, i have little hope it will ever be available here in the US. i firmly beileve we stifle certain drugs and research avenues so as not to find a "cure" or a vaccination. return "customers" spend more money...  ETA: i say this as a cancer survivor. |
Well if all the cancer patients up in Canada start getting better then I think they'll have a bit of an uprising down here to get the drugs one way or another.  If I was terminally ill with cancer there's not much I'd stop at to get my hands on the cure! |
Laetrile (misspelled I think)? That appricot nonsense that does nothing but give false hope to those who are desparate, and of course makes money for the thieving lying bastards that deserve nothing but a painful death and a special place in hell? Or whatever the fuck that bullshit con artist shit is? Do you have a personal experience with it as a patient, friend, or family member? Or are you selling it? This shit has been proven to not work worht a damn. Sure some people using it have lived, but then some people are going to live no matter what they do. Some percentage of patients will survive. And if I seem a bit sensitive about this, it's because I'm a cancer survivor (so far ;) ) and have a hatred for those who rip off the dying. |
I hope you are wrong but probably not  I would say this though, the millions of Americans who have had someone die of cancer that is close to them would probably (hopefully) string up any fuckheads that would conspire to keep a cure for cancer off the market. |
That's like thanking Germany for the HK416  Or Belgium for the FN SCAR It's still made in America, by an American 
|
You say that as if cancer is some new evil disease that threatens to kill off humanity. The only reason so many people die of cancer is that nothing else kills them first. Cancer is the direct byproduct of modern civilization. |
So your position is cancer is nothing to be concerned about? I'm trying to hold my tongue long enough to hear your attempt to explain your statement there but damn it is hard. |
I believe that too. They want to treat you, not cure you. |
Not at all. I'm all for curing any disease we can get, I'm just saying that cancer is simply what kills people when nothing else does. Cancer, by its very nature cannot be a world endangering epidemic. Besides, if we cure cancer, something else will come along to kill us. Probably just plain organ failure. Then we will figure out how to replace organs thru bionics or grown organs. Then something else will kill us. Nothing lasts forever, but damnit, if I wanna live to 150, I wanna live to 150! Keep the breakthroughs coming! |
Sadly, this was my first thought. But if it's true, this will truely be a wonderful thing for so many people........ -K |
|
All this conspiracy talk about "keeping cures secret" so the drug companies and hospitals make more money is total crap. It's in their best interests to cure cancer. It seems that as time goes on, terminal patients have to spend longer and longer in the hospital for treatment, or just waiting to die. My prediction is that after cancer isn't a problem anymore, the next thing that kills people will require even longer hospital stays and more research to "cure". This will allow the hospitals and drug companies to make even more money. |
Did you ever wonder why cancer was always talked about in whispers prior to the 1950's? That's because it took until then for Halliburton to invent the first cures for cancer. They had invented the Cancer Machine decades before to kill blacks and jews but they screwed up the settings giving most any race/ethnic group cancer. They now kill blacks with Menthol cigarettes and by blowing up levees. |
|
OK, you can say the same for anything that kills.
Who said it is? Cancer is however a leading cause of mortality and a painful prolonged way to go at that.
Of course, but it won't be cancer and that's a worthwhile improvement. One step at a time. I've buried three people I cared about in the last few years thanks to cancer, it's not the way anyone should check out. |
|
So, what are the side effects of DCA in the body? If it's cheap, and no side effects, could this be something that can be put in vitamin pills, or used to fortify staple foods? Prevention at the stage of miniscule tumors would be much much better than trying to kill off something that's already grown and become dangerous. |
Better yet, can they put it in cigarettes? |
|
It would be great "if" it does really work. Too bad my mom missed it as cancer killed her 5 years ago. As an aside it is amazing that so many here are cynical towards the doctors.  Disease is something we humans have to deal with. If they cure one there is sure to be another waiting in the wings to take over.
|
One can hope, but I must admit some skepticism. I await further laboratory research and possibly clinical trials. Not a cancer survivor myself, though we've had a couple of cancer deaths in the family and are likely to have a couple more if my parents keep smoking.
Survey says... Bullshit quackery! Also known as amygdalin and laevomandelonitrile (or laetrile for short and Laetrile as a brand name for a partly synthetic version), it is not a vitamin. It's a glycoside derived from the bitter almond and apricot pits that shows no benefits to cancer patients, and can be harmful due to its hydrogen cyanide content.
Also, seems like a whole lot of people here are conspiracy theorists about the medical industry What, the Kennedy assassination and denying we landed on the moon wasn't fun enough anymore?
|
Now that would be funny as hell. What would those "Truth" assholes say then? |
oh shit, I think I just hurt myself
|
Definitely. Do you think doctors actually like treating cancer patients? Besides, it’s not like doctors are going to be standing in the unemployment line if cancer is cured. People that don’t need treatment for cancer are going to need treatment for something else eventually anyway. Doctors still get paid. Same thing with drug companies. They aren’t likely to fund research on this particular drug since they can’t patent it. But they aren’t likely to fight it’s acceptance. Drug companies will start trying to find a better version of the drug that is patentable too. If they know what mechanism is killing the cancer cells they can probably find other drugs that will do the same thing, maybe with fewer side effects. (I hope this stuff actually works. I think cancer should be the #1 priority for our medical research.) |
|
Sorry if I'm underwhelmed. Apparently this cancer "cure" could help in treatments of cancer according to the article. And, it has never had clinical trials, i.e. they are completely guessing about its effects on cancer in the human body. Also, all referenced studies come out of the UK and Canada, not the U.S. Oh, and all of the medical conspiracy threorists forgot one fact, who pays for all of this? The Government, and Insurance companies pay the billions and billions to the doctors and drug companies. They would not let them get away with covering up an effective cancer drug. Sure, some doctors and hospitals commit fraud, or practice using the slower drug to cause more treatments(and thus income), for a while, but eventually they get caught. |
|
The longer they keep cancer patients alive the more boner drugs and magic hair growth pills they can sell. And, of course, Big Pharma conspiracy theories suffer from the same failing as the rest: how many thousands of evil money grubbing conspirators, willing to see their own Grandma suffer an excrutiating death for profits, are keeping this secrect out of the New York Times? |
+1
|
That has to be the most retarded thing i've read in a long time. |
www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9091f800-ac23-4511-b962-7ed60584b88a
|
I don't think it is retarted at all. All he is saying is that the longer lifespans that we now enjoy, due to modern medicine, are exposing us to a higher probability of developing cancer. I tend to agree. |
|
Here's the article from U. of Alberta's news site: www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8153
|
Absolutely ridiculous. You think that all of the drug companies, which are in hard-fought competition with each other, also cooperate to block the development/release of a cancer cure? Nonsense. Any company that had a cancer cure would release it as soon as they possibly could, because their company would win. Some people in this thread are treating Big Pharma like DU'ers treat Big Oil...
|
actually its not retarded, cancer wasnt that huge of a deal back before the 1900's, when most of the population died before it had a chance to take hold, and kill them before something else did. Longer life spans has allowed cancer to take hold in our society. |