Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers
New Scientist ^ | 23 January 2007 | Andy Coghlan

Posted on 02/02/2007 7:33:20 PM PST by alnick

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: alternativemedicine; cancer; cure; cures; healing; health; medicine; nutrition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

1 posted on 02/02/2007 7:33:22 PM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: alnick

Side effects?


2 posted on 02/02/2007 7:35:54 PM PST by RushCrush (Do not stand in a place of danger trusting in miracles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RushCrush

Side effects? Not being dead?

Actually -
Dichloroacetate safety (see http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/treatmts/ebuffer/j4.html)

There is some concern about the toxicity of dichloroacetate. Accumulations of dichloroacetate in groundwater have been described by some reports as a potential health hazard. However, concern about dichloroacetate toxicity is mainly based on data obtained in rats who were administered dichloroacetate at doses thousands of times higher than those to which humans are usually exposed. In these animals, chronic administration of dichloroacetate was found to cause liver problems and tumors. (Stacpoole, 1998.) In contrast, the dosage given to most humans is much lower than that administered to the rats. In clinical trials where dichloroacetate is used as a medical drug, no major side effects have been reported. Dichloroacetate is currently the most effective treatment for a disease known as congenital lactic acidosis (CLA). People with CLA have defective PDC enzymes and are thus unable to efficiently produce energy. In one study, patients with CLA were treated with 25-50 mg of dichloroacetate per 1 kg of body weight. No major complications were observed in the participants. (Stacpoole, 1997.) However, more research is currently being done to study the possible toxicity of dichlororacetate.


3 posted on 02/02/2007 7:40:53 PM PST by ASOC (The phrase "What if" or "If only" are for children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RushCrush
Side effects?

All I know about it is what's in the article, but it does say this: "The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe."

4 posted on 02/02/2007 7:41:32 PM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
In these animals, chronic administration of dichloroacetate was found to cause liver problems and tumors.

It's a carcinogen, lol.

5 posted on 02/02/2007 7:45:08 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alnick

bump for later read.


6 posted on 02/02/2007 7:45:18 PM PST by khnyny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RushCrush

From Wikipedia:

Although dichloroacetate "has actually been used safely in humans for decades" its therapeutic use can cause pain, numbness and gait disturbances in some patients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid


7 posted on 02/02/2007 7:45:18 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alnick
From later in the article:

"....pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines"

Sad, but true.

8 posted on 02/02/2007 7:47:12 PM PST by alicewonders (I like Duncan Hunter for President - 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alnick
DCA (a really simple molecule)

Another article:

Notice the Marxist comment and the conspiracy theorist comment at the bottom...just wow. "OMG teh big pharma did not already discover this 100 years ago!!!"

9 posted on 02/02/2007 7:51:42 PM PST by M203M4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
Side effects? Not being dead?

I thought not being dead was the objective, not a side effect.

10 posted on 02/02/2007 7:52:07 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

Interesting that it says TINY doses work. Perhaps that would reduce the side effects. However, the side effects, if self-limiting in duration, are a small price to pay to kill the cancer cells.


11 posted on 02/02/2007 7:56:01 PM PST by Abby4116
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: alnick

I had a couple of doctors read another article about this a couple of weeks ago.

It is not in the human stage yet from what they read, would take lots of time.
They hope it works, and looks interesting to them.

They think it is a time off for public use though.


12 posted on 02/02/2007 7:57:32 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RushCrush

"Side effects?"


Sleepiness (somnolence)
Dizziness
Dry mouth
Weakness or loss of strength (asthenia)
Raised levels of cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood
Seizures
Persistent painful erection of the penis (priapism)
Raised blood sugar levels (hyperglycaemia)
Explosive diarrhea (caca-poopoo-mia)
Dyslexia
Inflammation of the head (hugeheadism)
Sudden desire to run for political office
Spontaneous Combustion
Death (dropdeadism)


13 posted on 02/02/2007 7:59:31 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

The priapism part doesn't sound too bad...


14 posted on 02/02/2007 8:07:59 PM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast ([Hunter/Rumsfeld 2008!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
Yeah, but calling your doctor every four hours could cramp your style.
15 posted on 02/02/2007 8:09:50 PM PST by msnimje (You simply cannot be Christian and Pro-Abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Especially if that is combined with the "explosive diarrhea".


16 posted on 02/02/2007 8:11:26 PM PST by alicewonders (I like Duncan Hunter for President - 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: alnick

I got to sit in on a cancer talk last year.... It seems that promising drugs tested recently (ones that shrink tumors) were not shown to benefit patients. People just died with smaller tumors.


17 posted on 02/02/2007 8:23:09 PM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
Side effects, try 6 weeks of chemo.
18 posted on 02/02/2007 8:28:10 PM PST by neverhillorat (IF THE RATS WIN, WE ALL LOSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
Accumulations of dichloroacetate in groundwater have been described by some reports as a potential health hazard.

Interesting ... one of the tests was to "cure" mice by giving them DCA via their drinking water. Potentially, areas with contaminated groundwater might actually be the anthesis of cancer clusters like the one in Woburn, Mass. featured in that John Travolta movie or, of course, Erin Brockovitch. I wonder if anyone is doing the research to find the cancer voids as well as the clusters.

19 posted on 02/02/2007 8:31:39 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Pelosi, the call was for Comity, not Comedy. But thanks for the laughs. StarKisses, NVA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alnick
Geeze; I thought this was going to be about Laetrile or mistletoe extracts.

Really does sound promising.
20 posted on 02/02/2007 8:34:08 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

LOL!


21 posted on 02/02/2007 8:40:57 PM PST by capt. norm (Liberalism = cowardice disguised as tolerance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RushCrush
Side effects?

Neurotoxicity at 25 mg/kg/day:

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/3/324

22 posted on 02/02/2007 8:48:02 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: M203M4

OH MY GOD! It's got CHLORINE on it!!! (I know a bunch of folks here in CA who'd respond exactly that way...)


23 posted on 02/02/2007 8:48:36 PM PST by Axenolith ("pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels – bring home for Emma")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: msnimje; RightOnTheLeftCoast
Yeah, but calling your doctor every four hours could cramp your style.

I probably call mine more often than that, but not for erections.

ME: Yeah, hey Doc, I just so another commercial and they said to ask you if - hold on, let me get my notes - (insert drug name) is right for me?

DOCTOR: No Jason, that's to help menopausal women.

24 posted on 02/02/2007 8:55:37 PM PST by Jaysun (I've never paid for sex in my life. And that's really pissed off a lot of prostitutes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
I wonder if anyone is doing the research to find the cancer voids as well as the clusters.

Probably not - no potential lawsuits there.

25 posted on 02/02/2007 9:37:24 PM PST by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
I think the previous image could show the hydrogen atoms for the sake of clarity, so here you go:

I'm a quite skeptical about how effective this will be, but I look forward to the trial results, and hopefully it will turn out well.

26 posted on 02/02/2007 10:41:04 PM PST by NMR Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: alnick

Very interesting. Thanks for the post.


27 posted on 02/02/2007 10:43:46 PM PST by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alnick

Is this an infomercial?


28 posted on 02/02/2007 10:45:52 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

= = = marker = = =


29 posted on 02/02/2007 11:10:46 PM PST by JockoManning (http://www.klove.com - - > listen online)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

(hugeheadism)(caca-poopoo-mia) & (dropdeadism) all sound terrible. I know I am going to have bad dreams tonight.


30 posted on 02/02/2007 11:52:20 PM PST by pandoraou812 ( zero tolerance to the will of Allah ...... dilligaf? with an efg.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: alnick

read tomorrow ... ;-)


31 posted on 02/02/2007 11:54:01 PM PST by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
But, that extra time that we are having with our loved ones is worth is worth the terrible expense and whatever side effects might come along with the new meds.

It is costing 20,000.00 every three weeks just to keep my husband alive and a relative decent life. We have to pay 700 of that out of pocket. Not easy on an income of less than 25,000 a year.
32 posted on 02/03/2007 4:05:57 AM PST by Coldwater Creek (The TERRORIST are the ones who won the midterm elections!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mariabush

So sorry to hear that. I do pray he stays well for you longer.


33 posted on 02/03/2007 5:49:12 AM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
"It is not in the human stage yet from what they read, would take lots of time. They hope it works, and looks interesting to them."

This kind of logic has always escaped me. The people that need this kind of drug are already dieing. What do they have to loose? Get them to sign off on it and use it!

34 posted on 02/03/2007 9:15:14 AM PST by Desron13 (If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TChad
"Neurotoxicity at 25 mg/kg/day:"

As opposed to an excruciatingly painful death from cancer. Hmmm...

35 posted on 02/03/2007 9:22:05 AM PST by Desron13 (If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: alnick

To read later.


36 posted on 02/03/2007 9:22:33 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Desron13

The problem is your logic is illegal according to the FDA and these companies are open to false lawsuits as it is.

I agree, let some dying folks try it if they wish, but they don't like to let them do that in the governing regulating bodies. That is the big problem for many IMO.


37 posted on 02/03/2007 5:43:29 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Desron13

Some may be on cancer drugs already and it could be they do not know yet the way this interacts with those issues for starters and that is another avenue to get sued over.

When someone dies, there is always these days a relative looking for a lottery sized pay day in court.


38 posted on 02/03/2007 5:44:38 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RushCrush
Survival?

Chemo drugs generally aren't judged by their side effects.

39 posted on 02/03/2007 5:47:08 PM PST by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
From the January 20, 2007 Science News article by Janet Raloff:

"For decades, researchers largely assumed that a poison's effects increase as the dose rises and diminish as it falls. However, scientists are increasingly documenting unexpected effects—sometimes disproportionately adverse, sometimes beneficial—at extremely low doses of radiation and toxic chemicals."

Read it at Counterintuitive Toxicity .

40 posted on 02/03/2007 8:30:28 PM PST by StopGlobalWhining (Only 3 1/2-5% of atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. 95-96.5% is from natural sources)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Desron13
This kind of logic has always escaped me. The people that need this kind of drug are already dieing. What do they have to loose? Get them to sign off on it and use it!

Not all cancer patients are dying. These days, many cancers can be successfully treated. Would you pull someone off a potentially successful treatment regimen to test this drug?

This is not the only experimental treatment available for cancers. For every type of cancer, there are dozens of studies using promising new meds. This is just another promising new med.

While the drug companies might not pursue this research, there are certain to be university/non-profit/government studies. Who knows, DCA might even live up to its hype. Unlikely, but possible.

What I find interesting here is the anti-pharmaceutical company spin in most of the reporting on DCA chemotherapy. The leftist fantasy operating here is that people are dying because evil capitalist Big Pharma won't invest in an unpatentable product. As though all drug research was carried out by drug companies, and none by other institutions. This is trivially false, but hatred of capitalism blinds leftists to the obvious.

One finds a similar meme in the left's revisionist reporting of Big Tobacco's culpability in cancer deaths. Tobacco companies lied, millions died! As though tobacco companies were the only source of information about the health hazards of tobacco, or were somehow a more credible source of information that the many independent medical researchers who repeatedly showed tobacco to be a carcinogen, as far back as the 1940s. As though the popular press had never reported on the dangers of tobacco. As though what obviously happened, never happened.

Here's another example. Some leftists blames Ronald Reagan for increasing the number of AIDS deaths, because he took too long to mention the disease in his speeches. As though there were thousands of gay males who listened closely to Reagan's every word, who would have stopped having unprotected anal sex if Ron had only asked. As though all the warnings from the Centers for Disease Control and other health authorities meant nothing, all the media publicity meant nothing, but a few words from Reagan would have caused gays to change their behavior.

Pathologically delusional.

41 posted on 02/04/2007 5:32:28 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TChad
Would you pull someone off a potentially successful treatment regimen to test this drug?

I'd think more like adding this drug on a trial basis to other treatments, especially when the other treatments are not known to work very well, or offering it in cases where the patient simply does not want the other treatments due to side effects.

42 posted on 02/04/2007 8:42:31 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: alnick
This is the second article published this week I have read about this drug that interrupts cancer cells' glycosis.

I'm praying that there is something to this and if so, the FDA gets behind it and fast tracks the trials.

43 posted on 02/04/2007 8:45:33 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Res firma mitescere nescit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

But you must remember that the amount of DCA that was used in these animals to cause liver problems and tumors was many times more than a human medicine controlled dose would be. In fact, more than would be used in a human life time.
Wasn't it science that told us that water causes cancer a few years ago?


44 posted on 02/04/2007 9:25:16 PM PST by coincheck (Pray for my Brother, he just went to Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast

Your wife would beg to differ.


45 posted on 02/04/2007 9:31:07 PM PST by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Edmonton Global News television report on dichloroacetate cancer cure and interview with discoverer Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta.

Click here to watch :

http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/videos/New%20Movies/Global_news.wmv

It shrunk the cancer by 70% in three weeks in mouse trials. If DCA works in humans as well it worked in rats with intractible human cancers then many insanely expensive cancer therapies and the uncounted thousands (possibly millions) of high paying jobs financed from the life savings of cancer patients is going to suffer an insanely big decrease because DCA is cost-free in comparison to anything else, twice (or more times) as effective, and virtually free of uncomfortable side effects (no nausea, no hair loss, no coronary stress).


46 posted on 02/05/2007 9:58:51 AM PST by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TChad
Some leftists blames Ronald Reagan for increasing the number of AIDS deaths, because he took too long to mention the disease in his speeches. As though there were thousands of gay males who listened closely to Reagan's every word, who would have stopped having unprotected anal sex if Ron had only asked. As though all the warnings from the Centers for Disease Control and other health authorities meant nothing, all the media publicity meant nothing, but a few words from Reagan would have caused gays to change their behavior.

You make a good point. And the real pathological irony here is that throughout all of this (and continuing to the present) the gay lobby has vehemently denied AIDS is a primarily gay disease. So how can Reagan or anyone else be complicit in gay AIDS deaths if it is not a gay disease in the first place?

IMO, the group MOST responsible for gay AIDS deaths is the gay lobby. They have blocked any (preventative) action that would reduce the spread of the disease. Talk about dying for a politcal cause.

47 posted on 02/05/2007 10:12:34 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
"IMO, the group MOST responsible for gay AIDS deaths is the gay lobby. They have blocked any (preventative) action that would reduce the spread of the disease."

One word: Quarantine.
48 posted on 02/05/2007 11:05:11 AM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast ([Hunter/Rumsfeld 2008!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: alnick
pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines"

Sounds like a simple enough molecule.
Bet Sherwin-Williams or (gasp) Exxon could manufacture it.

49 posted on 02/05/2007 11:34:15 AM PST by Vinnie (You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Jihads You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I'd think more like adding this drug on a trial basis to other treatments

Sure, why not.

I tried briefly to locate a source of DCA on the Internet, to see what restrictions were applied to its sale. I didn't come up with much, but one guy said that the drug could be purchased without a prescription by businesses. Some docs are sure to be be willing to write prescriptions for it to those in need, after the patients sign the appropriate consent forms.

I'm sure that given the press it has received, there is now a substantial black market for the drug. Also, I bet that DCA, or something labeled as DCA, is now flying off the shelves of Mexican pharmacies.

50 posted on 02/05/2007 6:12:37 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson