Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers

New Scientist ^ | 01/23/2007 | Andy Coghlan

[SirLinksalot]

Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers

What makes cancer cells different - and how to kill them ?

New Scientist has received an unprecedented amount of interest in this story from readers. If you would like up-to-date information on any plans for clinical trials of DCA in patients with cancer, or would like to donate towards a fund for such trials, please visit the site set up by the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board. We will also follow events closely and will report any progress as it happens.

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).

[bahblahbah]

http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/

[netmilsmom]

Lord, I pray this works!

[Abby4116]

If it can't be patented, we will never see it approved for general cancer use.

[knarf]

I want one of those posters in Fox Mulder's office, only with no UFO ....

I Want To Believe

[polymuser]

Kinda like DHEA.

[domenad]

Bump in case I get cancer.

[reagan_fanatic]

So many 'cures' have turned out to be less than advertised. I pray this one does what they're saying it does. A lot of lives depend on it.

[muir_redwoods]

"It sounds almost too good to be true:"

Almost?

[derllak]

Drug companies won't like this a bit if it's true. I hope it is.

[LibKill]

I hope it works.

But nothing, NOTHING, will keep me alive forever.

DAMN! :(

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[gitmogrunt]

If it works, the FDA will ban it.

[gitmogrunt]

If it works, the FDA will ban it.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

Bump in case I get cancer.

Me too ping...

[SirLinksalot]

If it can't be patented, we will never see it approved for general cancer use.

Is something ILLEGAL simply because the FDA has not "approved" it ?

Here is where the real PRO-CHOICE debate should be fought.

[Abby4116]

In today's climate, can you expect a doctor to prescribe an unapproved treatment? If we were talking about an OTC (which we're not), yes the patient would have a choice. With a prescribed medication, however, what is to stop a malpractice suit if it doesn't work? So, while not illegal, non-approved drugs, while they may be effective in treatment, don't stand much of a chance. This is only my opinion - I do not agree with it, but it is how I see it.

[SirLinksalot]

With a prescribed medication, however, what is to stop a malpractice suit if it doesn't work? So, while not illegal, non-approved drugs, while they may be effective in treatment, don't stand much of a chance. This is only my opinion - I do not agree with it, but it is how I see it.

There ought to be a law called : THE PATIENT's FREEDOM OF CHOICE LAW that ABSOLVES doctors and providers of a drug/herb/substance that a patient VOLUNTARILY and WITH FULL MENTAL CAPACITY takes for his own condition from lawsuits or jail.

This is the essence of liberty -- the freedom to take charge of your own health and make your own decisions for yourself. If after much discussions with people ( doctors and researchers included ), I personally conclude that DRUG X, although not legally approved by the FDA, is the best hope for my condition, I would want it available for myself.

I can understand the fear of malpractice suits coming from the provider of such drug. Well, I can sign a legal agreement which BY LAW, ought to be binding, that absolves the person from liabilities should it not work.

BUT IF IT DOES WORK !! That's going to be a boon for people with similar conditions.

I can understand the rigorous, bureaucratic procedures that the FDA has to go through to approve a drug ( costing on average something like 400 Million for a company to get to market ). But sometimes, I if I am desperate, I WANT TO TAKE THE RISK EVEN IF IT MIGHT NOT WORK. Currently, there is little legal recourse for such measure. I want such recourse to exist.

[grjr21]

A few weeks ago I had a friend who is a doctor over for dinner and I asked him if he had heard about a possible diabetes breakthrough I had read about here .
Well he gave me a most pitying look  and said he hadn't but not to worry that there would never be a vaccine to cure diabetes because the drug companies have to much money at stake to ever let one see the light of day.

[RightWhale]

the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell

Is this a known fact, a scientific fact, a true fact, or a marketing fact?