Skip to comments.The University of Alberta Discovery (possible cure for Big C)
Posted on 08/04/2012 1:13:46 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
DCA is an odourless, colourless, inexpensive, relatively non-toxic, small molecule. And researchers at the University of Alberta believe it may soon be used as an effective treatment for many forms of cancer.
Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a professor at the U of A Department of Medicine, has shown that dichloroacetate (DCA) causes regression in several cancers, including lung, breast, and brain tumors.
Michelakis and his colleagues, including post-doctoral fellow Dr. Sebastien Bonnet, have published the results of their research in the journal Cancer Cell.
Until recently, researchers believed that cancer-affected mitochondria are permanently damaged and that this damage is the result, not the cause, of the cancer. But Michelakis, a cardiologist, questioned this belief and began testing DCA, which activates a critical mitochondrial enzyme, as a way to "revive" cancer-affected mitochondria.
The results astounded him.
Michelakis and his colleagues found that DCA normalized the mitochondrial function in many cancers, showing that their function was actively suppressed by the cancer but was not permanently damaged by it.
More importantly, they found that the normalization of mitochondrial function resulted in a significant decrease in tumor growth both in test tubes and in animal models. Also, they noted that DCA, unlike most currently used chemotherapies, did not have any effects on normal, non-cancerous tissues.
"I think DCA can be selective for cancer because it attacks a fundamental process in cancer development that is unique to cancer cells," Michelakis said. "One of the really exciting things about this compound is that it might be able to treat many different forms of cancer".
Another encouraging thing about DCA is that, being so small, it is easily absorbed in the body, and, after oral intake, it can reach areas in the body that other drugs cannot, making it possible to treat brain cancers, for example.
(Excerpt) Read more at dca.med.ualberta.ca ...
On the political side, I note that finding a cure for the Big C is an industry, and a great many people would be upset for pecuniary reasons if the cure were not only easy and safe, but also cheap and unpatentable, as it well might be according to this article. The private sector has apparently balked on funding the necessary research, and the public sector has moved in instead, and is allegedly working at warp speed. I have philosophical problems with that, but facts are stubborn things, and can't be ignored. Anyone care to comment?
My wife has survived Stage IV lung cancer for 2 years now. I doubt that this development will come in time.
Drug companies fund research on things they develop and can patent, but they are not the only people in the private sector. There are many cancer charities that can fund research from donations, and “open source” the cure. So can churches, private foundations, and even wealthy individuals. Research can be crowd sourced by social networks. There are a million ways to fund something that cannot be patentable.
There have been no clinical trials of dichloroacetate (DCA) in cancer patients, so there is no basis for claiming they have a cure; some, but not all, cancers might respond in promising ways to the drug, while others are likely to be resistant (cancer is not one disease!); and there are potential neurotoxic side effects, especially when used in conjunction with other chemotherapies."
Interesting development.. Should be noised about..
A silver bullet would be nice for fighting this monster of a disease..
Might not work in every case but what does?..
On the otherhand- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s0UURBihH8
"Simply stated, the science is intriguing and I believe is something to be pursued both in the lab and in the clinic. BUT, and this is a big but, it is not a cure for glioblastoma or any other cancer based on these results.
"My concern is that this paper is going to be transformedlike the last oneinto something that it is not, namely that this is definitive evidence that DCA is the magic bullet for cancer treatment, particularly in glioblastoma (which is a cancer that has a very poor prognosis).
"This research still needs lots of work before we know whether it works or doesnt work, and whether it is really safe or not when given to patients with cancer under a variety of circumstances."
But they said five years ago in the article that they are doing the research with help from the government. By now, I’d suppose they’ve either put up or shut up, but am not read up on current state of the claim. Nothing has been done?
No way will they let this happen. It would put too many out of business. Cancer makes too much money.
Read this article carefully.
It’s the last, and only, time you’ll hear of this cure.
There's a lot of paranoia out there about Big Pharma losing out on vast profits from their anti-cancer medications if this stuff works.
One thing you won't hear much about is how little profit there is in the business of curing cancer ~ on the other hand a lot of marginally useful medications are very costly.
What's going on with this particular drug is it works inside the cell ~ as does glipizide and glucophage (two common diabetic medications). Since this particular drug was first found to have an effect on a process that takes place in some cancers a whole new science of intracellular drugs has grown up. It's not just that some of them work inside the cell, they actually work inside the cell nucleus. So anything like this drug ~ that is known to work on processes in the mitochondria, is going to be studied extensively to determine everywhere it works and what it does.
There are shills on the net offering to sell folks large quantities of his material for oral ingestion. There are plenty of websites telling you all about thiamine sources so you can treat the neurological disorder brought about by OD'ing on this drug.
What a correct dose might be is unknown, and how it might interact with diabetic drugs or blood pressure medications has not been reported on authoritatively. Still, I'd probably buy a brick of it to try if i were diagnosed with any of the cancers for which some report some degree of change.
What I say, "toke up". It ain't gonna' kill you, unless, of course, it does ~ maybe it makes cancer grow eh!
OK. Have the results been published yet? If so, where? If not, when?
Just do a google search and start reading ~ huge amount of stuff on this particular compound ~ including one reported test on it's use in a brain cancer. Then, too, it's been used for a long time for metabolic disorders.
“whether it is really safe or not when given to patients with cancer under a variety of circumstances.””
So,,,, say you’re 75, and the doc says you have 6 months to live, which really means 2 or 3 months, why not give it to these people with no other hope?
I was a resident in a major cancer center in the 1970s. Then, as now, the two most interesting things about chemotherapy are 1) That it works at all, and 2) That it doesn’t work better.
Shrinking tumors with new molecules is trivial. There have been hundreds, maybe thousands, of these “discoveries”. Articles like this give false hope to vulnerable people at a very bad time in their lives.
There is something, something we don’t get yet, about the cancer phenomenon. Something important is either turned on incorrectly or turned off incorrectly, so normal cell regulation stops working.
The chemo drugs address the effects of cancer (masses of poorly differentiated cells), but they obviously don’t deal with the (so far unknown) cause.
And yet - childhood ALL, some Hodgkins Disease, certain types of testicular cancer are, in fact, cured by chemotherapy. It remains very, very puzzling, with not a lot of progress in the fundamental realm over the past 40 years.
Oh, yeah - DCA? My best guess is it’s another “molecule of the month”.
Thank you. I knew there was a medical man here somewhere. But what of the possibility that mitochondrial dysfunction is the cause of cells going malignant, rather than the result, as it states in the article? Might that not be the thing that’s turned “off” for which, as you say, oncologists have been searching?
Because a whole industries survival depends on NOT finding a cheap easy cure. The government is also involved with those big juicy tax dollars too. Also, if a company could make a super cancer that kills everyone unless you have the special anti-toxin, well that would make some politicians absolutely pee in their pants with glee. But maybe I'm a cynic.
“Because a whole industries survival depends on NOT finding a cheap easy cure.”
Irresponsible reporting that is more likely to get people killed than it is to cure cancer.
I suppose it’s easier for people to believe in the communist myth of evil multinational robber barons engaged in a vast conspiracy to kill us all and charge us trillions of dollars while so doing than it is to believe that millions upon millions of private individuals, non-profit organizations, and for-profit corporations are furiously engaged in studying the hell out of the many and varied forms of cancer that afflict us in the hope of finding ANYTHING that may help extend the human lifespan and combat human suffering.
As for this most recent magic bullet, you’re only seeing the press coverage you are because the story appeals to a certain mythos.
Case in point, a 2010 study found that DCA actually PROTECTED human colorectal tumors. The chemical appeared to actually reduce apoptosis (programmed cell death, an essential mechanism for regulating cell growth and preventing cancer) which naturally caused the tumors being studied to grow FASTER. In the studies that have already been done on this chemical, we’ve seen one case where it actually caused cancer to grow faster. Top this off with the fact that the drug can cause extreme neurological damage and you’ve got a recipe for more harm, not less.
Further, do you know what the LD50 dose is? Do you know what the therapeutic dose is? Do you know what the possible drug interactions are? Without knowing any of those things you’d likely end up doing far more harm than good by randomly ingesting chemicals.
There's nothing stopping you from buying DCA yourself right now. Mix up your own brew and take it, if you are persuaded that it will help. Why would a patient who is motivated to do so wait in doing so?
But, you say, I want my doctor to prescribe it to me.
OK then. On the flip side why would a doctor take the professional risk entirely to himself to prescribe something which has not been clinically established as safe and effective only to have a patient or patient's surviving family possibly take him to court for prescribing something that failed in practice, which was also not demonstrated to be clinically safe and effective in the first place?
Back to the first point, if you are so confident that it will work, why not just take it yourself and as a patient (presumably with nothing else to lose by doing so) self administer?
Why must your decision to do so be someone else's professional liability for advising you to do so?
Well, that’s what I’m asking. What research has been done? The article wasn’t “reporting” per se, but a five-year-old university bulletin promising future research on the therapeutic possibilities of DCA.
I’m a layman with passing interest in science, not a sufferer looking to buy crap on line and start guzzling it. Previously, I’ve been payed to blog cerebral palsy issues, and in that capacity acquired a scientific yen. That’s all.
“Why must your decision to do so be someone else’s professional liability for advising you to do so?”
Patients sign waivers quite frequently.
And the law suits still happen in spite of them.
Like I said, nothing stops that hypothetical 75 year old from going out today and obtaining DCA on his own, reasearching the internet to find what "somebody-or-other" out there says is a safe and effective dose and self- administering it.
~40 Years ago you may remember a substance which is known as laetrile (aka vitamin B-17), a cyano-releasing compound which one could obtain from apricot pits. It was billed at that time as cure for cancer.
No one is stopping anyone from obtaining apricot pits for one's personal purposes of comsuming them to obtain a source of laetrile, despite what largely proved to be specious claims surrounding the laetrile therapy derived from them.
There is no incentive for any physician or drug manufacturing company to assume the risks and obligations of compounding, manufacturing, marketing and prescribing a substance for which no credible well-controlled clinical study data exists.