Cancer cured again.

Talk E

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

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

Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.

This drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies.

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, why the major drug companies are not involved? Or the Media interested in this find?

In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective. Scientists used to think that these mitochondria cells were damaged and thus ineffective against cancer. So they used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in curing cancer and more wasteful. The drug manufacturers focused on this glycolysis method to fight cancer. This DCA on the other hand doesn’t rely on glycolysis instead on mitochondria; it triggers the mitochondria which in turn fights the cancer cells.

The side effect of this is it also reactivates a process called apoptosis. You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that can't be pressed in cancer cells. Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished. Fully functioning mitochondria, thanks to DCA, can once again die.

With glycolysis turned off, the body produces less lactic acid, so the bad tissue around cancer cells doesn't break down and seed new tumors.

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. Since the pharmaceutical companies won’t develop this, the article says other independent laboratories should start producing this drug and do more research to confirm all the above findings and produce drugs. All the groundwork can be done in collaboration with the Universities, who will be glad to assist in such research and can develop an effective drug for curing cancer.

You can access the original research for this cancer here.

This article wants to raise awareness for this study, hope some independent companies and small startup will pick up this idea and produce these drugs, because the big companies won’t touch it for a long time.

shedweller

Extract from your wiki link:

Potential cancer applications

Cancer cells generally use glycolysis rather than respiration (oxidative phosphorylation) for energy (the Warburg effect), as a result of hypoxia that exists in tumors and damaged mitochondria.[13] Usually dangerously damaged cells kill themselves via apoptosis, a mechanism of self-destruction that involves mitochondria, but this mechanism fails in cancer cells.
A phase one study published in January 2007 by researchers at the University of Alberta, who had tested DCA on cancer cells grown in mice, found that DCA restored mitochondrial function, thus restoring apoptosis, killing cancer cells and shrinking the tumors.[14]
These results received extensive media attention, beginning with an article in New Scientist titled "Cheap, ‘safe’ drug kills most cancers".[15] Subsequently, the American Cancer Society and other medical organizations have received a large volume of public interest and questions regarding DCA.[16] Clinical trials in humans with cancer have not been conducted in the USA and are not yet final in Canada, emphasizing the need for caution in interpreting the preliminary results.[16][17]

Looks promising but i'm sure there will be many nay sayers on here shortly.

paky

fasting cures cancer also. some people have starved their bodies for 3-4 weeks and the tumours are eaten along with the fat and muscle by the body. its dangerous but so are most cancer treatments.

paky

people are just too stupid and afraid to find out for themselves, and follow the herd, who are following the pharmaceutical companies who dont give a **** about curing cancer, but only about making money

Di0genes

Talk E wrote: »

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

Incorrect. From the wiki artcle people are paying attention.

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

It's not that they're not interested. It's just that there's no way the pharmaceutical companies can make money from this treatment.

The trials for a new cancer treatment can take years and cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

Are you expecting pharmaceutical companies to invest this time and energy into research that isn't financially viable.

their shareholders would go ape****!

Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV.

Probably because they haven'ts

from the wiki link wrote:

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.[29] 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 is considered a safe cancer treatment.[29]

Not exactly cured is it TALK E

Talk E

Di0genes wrote: »

Not exactly cured is it TALK E

I dont have time to give this the attention is deserves at the moment DIOGENES !!

humanji

I'm no expert in cancers, but isn't there no one "cancer" but lots of different types of cancers that come under an umbrella title, and the causes and treatments are different for each one?

paky

humanji wrote: »

I'm no expert in cancers, but isn't there no one "cancer" but lots of different types of cancers that come under an umbrella title, and the causes and treatments are different for each one?

from the little i know, cancer would be regarded as cells which continue to multiply and cease to die like normal cells, so i would assume that they would have somewhat similar features.

RoboClam

paky wrote: »

from the little i know, cancer would be regarded as cells which continue to multiply and cease to die like normal cells, so i would assume that they would have somewhat similar features.

While this is true, each cancer does have different triggers and genetic basis. Each cancer has its own specific characteristics. This means that treatments vary in success due to a number of different reasons, for example:


- Molecular biology of the transformed cells (The particular pattern of genetic mutations which can vary between different cancers and even cancers of the same types)

- Nature of the tumor (e.g. melanoma v Lymohoma)

- Location

- Solid v dispersed

- Metastatic potential

- Stage of disease

- Patient variation


Some tumors are more resistant to drug treatments also.

So while cancer is strictly the unchecked proliferation of cells, there is still great variations.

Monty Burnz

Talk E wrote: »

This article wants to raise awareness for this study, hope some independent companies and small startup will pick up this idea and produce these drugs, because the big companies won’t touch it for a long time.

This is fantastic news if true. But bear in mind that pharma companies (like any company) only exist to make a profit - don't act surprised if they are not interested in doing things that are not profitable. They are actually legally forbidden to act in ways harmful to the owners of the company (shareholders: mostly pension funds). So they are not going to invest money in researching something if there is no money in it - that's just common sense.

So what we have here is called a 'market failure'. The free market won't reward anyone who invests in this, so it's really up to indiviuals, organisations or governments to pick up the ball and run with it, or else to make it profitable for the pharma companies somehow.

If this technique is actually viable and no people or organisations invest in making it work, that will be the real scandal.