Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

stuar

This has been posted on boards before, but hasn't gone away, an old drug DCA (dichloroacetic acid) seems to be showing very positive results but big pharma don't want to know about it, simply because they cant make and will lose billions, it's all about money, not cure.
These criminal corporations need sick people, and DCA can't be patented and nobody want's to pay billions to test it.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeA84udy7hY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWLrfNJICeM

http://www.google.ie/#q=scientist+cure+cancer+but+nobody+takes+notice&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=tQBuT4iEOMOohAfYnPSKBw&ved=0CA0QpwUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=78bb2a94aedf3678&biw=1024&bih=587

The Unpatentable Drug Issue

There is a gap in the FDA drug approval process that costs lives around the world

The Federal Drug Administration drug approval process is patent-based. FDA drug approval usually takes 10 to 12 years and 100 to 500 million dollars ref. Without a full patent and full ownership of the drug candidate, no pharmaceutical company will invest in drug development as they do not own the rights to the drug. The FDA expects drug companies to have patent protection to allow them the ability to recover the high drug research and testing costs. Even orphan drugs need patent protection and the FDA often goes one step further by granting marketing exclusivity to compensate for the smaller markets those drugs serve.
DCA is unpatentable. It is so unpatentable that Dr. Michelakis could not even get a trivial 'method of use' patent for it. ref. And DCA is just one of a growing number of materials known to have great anti-cancer effects, but do not fit into the system ref.
http://www.thedcasite.com/Unpatentable_drugs_and_the_FDA.html

I'll return to discuss this further when I have a little more time.

This story isn't new and had cropped up a couple of separate times in the media.

Except as usual the reality is a lot more complex than Stuar and other alternative news sources would like to pretend.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-latest-chapter-in-the-seemingly-never-ending-saga-of-dichloroacetate-as-a-cancer-treatment/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/why-havent-we-cured-cancer-yet/

geeman

stuar, we probably need a lot more testing to be carried out but it's fantastic news all the same.

It's true that there has been little in the news recently but perhaps that's because it was initially reported 5 years ago or was there an update since?

Jaafa

Maybe the mainstream media hasn't picked it up much, but is been well covered in the academia.

A phase I study published in January 2007 by researchers at the University of Alberta, who had tested DCA on human cancer cells grown in mice, found that DCA restored mitochondrial function, thus restoring apoptosis, allowing cancer cells to self-destruct and shrink the tumor.
These results received extensive media attention, beginning with an article in New Scientist titled "Cheap, ‘safe’ drug kills most cancers". Subsequently, the American Cancer Society and other medical organizations have received a large volume of public interest and questions regarding DCA. 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.

I see no reason why pharma companies wouldn't look into this. Even if it is too expensive or whatever at the moment, they sure as hell would look into a way to make it cheaper. I mean a cure for cancer? Just imagine the amount of money they could make from that.

Secondly its a relatively new discovery, 5 or 7 years is really a short amount of time in this field, and just because it shows promise for one or two types of cancer, doesn't mean it'll work for all cancer. On top of that, there may be side-effects not yet discovered. So much much more study is needed.

This is a non-starter topic tbh.

RoboClam

A phase I clinical study using a human cancer line in mice is nowhere near "curing" cancer.

Lola B

Hey I searched it on google scholar and found a scientific journal article that says it could be used to help fight cancer, the line I read said that patients who take it could go through less chemotherapy and radiation therapy. But I didn't read the whole thing... here is a really interesting quote:

Funding for such trials would be a challenge for the academic community as DCA is a generic drug and early industry support might be limited. Fundraising from philanthropies might be possible to support early phase I–II or small phase III trials. However, if these trials suggest a favourable efficacy and toxicity, the public will be further motivated to directly fund these efforts and national cancer organisations like the NCI, might be inspired to directly contribute to the design and structure of larger trials. It is important to note that even if DCA does not prove to be the ‘dawn of a new era' (Pan and Mak, 2007), initiation and completion of clinical trials with a generic compound will be a task of tremendous symbolic and practical significance. At this point the ‘dogma' that trials of systemic anticancer therapy cannot happen without industry support, suppresses the potential of many promising drugs that might not be financially attractive for pharmaceutical manufacturers. In that sense, the clinical evaluation of DCA, in addition to its scientific rationale, will be by itself another paradigm shift.

And here's the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567082/

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

This story isn't new and had cropped up a couple of separate times in the media.

Except as usual the reality is a lot more complex than Stuar and other alternative news sources would like to pretend.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-latest-chapter-in-the-seemingly-never-ending-saga-of-dichloroacetate-as-a-cancer-treatment/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/why-havent-we-cured-cancer-yet/

geeman wrote: »

stuar, we probably need a lot more testing to be carried out but it's fantastic news all the same.

It's true that there has been little in the news recently but perhaps that's because it was initially reported 5 years ago or was there an update since?

RoboClam wrote: »

A phase I clinical study using a human cancer line in mice is nowhere near "curing" cancer.

Yea here's an update from December 2011, from PubMed, stating:

CONCLUSIONS:

  These results demonstrate that the novel 17β-oestradiol derivative C9, in combination with DCA is a potent anti-proliferation treatment, with properties of selectivity towards tumourigenic cells. Thus, this warrants further studies as a potential combination chemotherapeutic agent for further cancer cell lines.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21992416

So 5 years on further studies are required, havent noticed anybody especially interested in funding these further studies.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

So 5 years on further studies are required, havent noticed anybody especially interested in funding these further studies.

Tell us, what do you usually hear about people who are interested in funding further studies of things?

stuar

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Tell us, what do you usually hear about people who are interested in funding further studies of things?

What?

stuar

stuar wrote: »

Yea here's an update from December 2011, from PubMed, stating:

CONCLUSIONS:

  These results demonstrate that the novel 17β-oestradiol derivative C9, in combination with DCA is a potent anti-proliferation treatment, with properties of selectivity towards tumourigenic cells. Thus, this warrants further studies as a potential combination chemotherapeutic agent for further cancer cell lines.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21992416

So 5 years on further studies are required, havent noticed anybody especially interested in funding these further studies.

So who funded that study you just quoted?

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

So who funded that study you just quoted?

Department of Physiology, University of Pretoria, South Africa, I assume?

Here's a list of trials,
http://clinicaltrials.gov/search/intervention=dichloroacetate

These guys seem to be the only ones interested in it's cancer curing qualities apart from the last quoted link and anybody in Alberta, Canada, I dont see any of the big phamacutical companies batting an eyelid, but why would they, as said in OP it's money they care about not cure or health.
http://www.sanfordresearch.org/

Committed to Improving the Human Condition
At Sanford Research, we are changing the landscape of science and health care. Our growing team of more than 200 researchers is focused on identifying new therapies and treatments for some of the world’s leading health concerns. It’s our goal to find solutions that will cure illness, eradicate disease and improve the lives of people in our communities and around the world.

http://druginfo.nlm.nih.gov/drugportal/ProxyServlet?mergeData=true&objectHandle=DBMaint&APPLICATION_NAME=drugportal&actionHandle=default&nextPage=jsp/drugportal/ResultScreen.jsp&TXTSUPERLISTID=0013425804&QV1=DICHLOROACETATE

As said it was 5 years ago it was claimed DCA had cancer curing qualities, and so far nothing really has happened.

All I'm saying people with a lot more knowledge than you KingMob find it worth further study into curing cancer, yet the big drug companies aren't interested, which was said in the OP, so rather than keep going in circles try move it forward.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

Department of Physiology, University of Pretoria, South Africa, I assume?

Here's a list of trials,
http://clinicaltrials.gov/search/intervention=dichloroacetate

These guys seem to be the only ones interested in it's cancer curing qualities apart from the last quoted link and anybody in Alberta, Canada, I dont see any of the big phamacutical companies batting an eyelid, but why would they, as said in OP it's money they care about not cure or health.
http://www.sanfordresearch.org/

And who's funding those trials? Where does the Department of Physiology, University of Pretoria get it's funding?
They are probably partially funded by "Big Pharma" in some capacity.

stuar wrote: »

http://druginfo.nlm.nih.gov/drugportal/ProxyServlet?mergeData=true&objectHandle=DBMaint&APPLICATION_NAME=drugportal&actionHandle=default&nextPage=jsp/drugportal/ResultScreen.jsp&TXTSUPERLISTID=0013425804&QV1=DICHLOROACETATE

As said it was 5 years ago it was claimed DCA had cancer curing qualities, and so far nothing really has happened.

All I'm saying people with a lot more knowledge than you KingMob find it worth further study into curing cancer, yet the big drug companies aren't interested, which was said in the OP, so rather than keep going in circles try move it forward.

And these people, including the people you are quoting are all saying that DCA might have potential as a treatment. There is no solid evidence that it is a "cure".
And some of those same knowledgable people also point out that a "cure for cancer" probably will never be a thing in the first place.

studiorat

King Mob wrote: »

And who's funding those trials? Where does the Department of Physiology, University of Pretoria get it's funding?
They are probably partially funded by "Big Pharma" in some capacity.

About half of it from international research contracts and international funders. Quarter from the government and about a quarter from sales of patents and intellectual properties according to their 2010 research report.

stuar

KingMob, you would like to believe your some type of scientist, to my knowledge scientists experiment, search and research, you ask the most silly questions that anybody with a basic knowledge of google could easily answer.
DCA is and has shown very positive results for cancer, maybe I and others overstepped the mark a little by saying "CURE", but it's no excuse to dismiss it as a potential cure, the main conspiracy here is the total lack of interest in DCA.

In May 2010 Dr Michelakis was published the results of a Phase I trial of DCA in glioblastoma patients. The study included 5 patients and confirmed that the metabolic action of DCA in humans was the same as that in rats. Dr. Michelakis was able to secure funding for the trial via private investment and some government assistance (Canadian). As I’m sure you’re aware, Phase II and Phase III trials are hugely more expensive and cumbersome. It’s unlikely that these trials will ever take place.

Empirical evidence shows that DCA is not only applicable to a wide type of cancers but that it can be effective against typically chemo resistant tumors. In the case of chemo resistant tumors DCA is often best when concerted with other therapies. In one case (here in Toronto) a patient with non small cell lung cancer (a typically resistant cancer) was given a very poor prognosis. In this case a Chemo Fit Assay was performed which revealed that the combination of Tarceva (a milder approved chemo therapy) and DCA produced a 97% response. This patient is alive to this day and doing well. Parenthetically, the use of Chemo Fit Assays is also not considered a mainstream approach. The mainstream approach is to look up a table of cancer type to an established protocol unleashing a torrent of toxic chemicals into the patient without much further thought.



http://www.martincwiner.com/how-to-cure-cancer/

Why are you so dismissive of something you know nothing about, if a close family member had cancer would you still be so dismissive?, would you agree that funding should be pumped into this to get stage 2 and 3 trials going?, or simply continue down the "mainstream" route.
I think the patient in the above report would somehow disagree with you.

But AGAIN, the main conspiracy is the total lack of interest in a potential cure, which has shown very positive results in such few trials.


Just to add to the conspiracy side of things:
The American Cancer Society: Rockefeller Created Front Group
to Promote Pharmaceuticals
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/acsrockefellerfront25may11.shtml

The American Cancer Society was founded by the Rockefeller family to act as a propaganda outlet and public relations tool to suck in money and help promote pharmaceuticals for cancer "therapy" Gary Null did a fantastic expose on who and what the ACS is in a series of articles about 10 years ago and he often retold his expericnes on the radio in coming to realize what a fraudulent outfit the ACS actually is. People are simply giving aid and comfort to Big Pharma when they support the ACS.

The 130-page document linked below explains in detail why the American Cancer Society may be far more interested in accumulating cash than curing any disease. The ACS has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/24/american-cancer-society--more-interested-in-wealth-than-health.aspx

In 1995, the Arizona chapter of the American Cancer Society was targeted for its extremely high overhead. Two economists, James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo, issued a report analyzing the chapter's financial statements and demonstrating that the Arizona chapter used about 95% of its donations for paying salaries and other overhead costs, resulting in a 22 to 1 ratio of overhead to actual money spent on the cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Cancer_Society

clever_name

stuar wrote: »

KingMob, you would like to believe your some type of scientist, to my knowledge scientists experiment, search and research, you ask the most silly questions that anybody with a basic knowledge of google could easily answer.
[/url]

So a "silly question" you did not know the answer to, what does that make you?;)

Its not really fair to say something was a "silly question" if you dont know the answer and then put your faith in google to get it right.

You can use google to disprove everything you have said and for that matter you could use google to prove everything from bigfoot to vampires running the vatican, does not make them any more true.

stuar

clever_name wrote: »

So a "silly question" you did not know the answer to, what does that make you?;)

Its not really fair to say something was a "silly question" if you dont know the answer and then put your faith in google to get it right.

You can use google to disprove everything you have said and for that matter you could use google to prove everything from bigfoot to vampires running the vatican, does not make them any more true.

He could have done as StudioRat did and looked before asking, and it wasn't BigPharma funding it, that I knew 100%.;)

He asked "Where does the Department of Physiology, University of Pretoria get it's funding?"


And by google I meant he google "Department of Physiology, University of Pretoria", and get to here.............
http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=511
THEN, check around their official site to maybe find the answer.

Hardly bigfoot, zombies, vampires or any other sh1te.

studiorat

stuar wrote: »

He could have done as StudioRat did and looked before asking, and it wasn't BigPharma funding it, that I knew 100%.;)

Actually it more than likely is "BP" funding a large chunk of it in one way or another. Most universities have a commercial research arm these days who are funded by relevant industries.

http://www.pfizer.com/research/rd_works/centers_for_therapeutic_innovation.jsp

The Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), a newly created, entrepreneurial Research Unit at Pfizer, Inc. is dedicated to the establishment of global partnerships between Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) and Pfizer to transform research and development through a focus on translational medicine.

The run courses etc. here in Ireland with MMI.

Likewise...
http://www.ojvr.org/index.php/ojvr/article/view/320/360

The study was funded by the University of Pretoria, Bayer Animal Health, the National Research Foundation and the Institute for Tropical Medicine, Belgium.

Not only BP but biotech companies too > http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n7/full/nbt0711-555.html



Anyhow, doesn't "Cancer" refer to a group of different diseases not just one?

stuar

I read a bit about their animal research and objections to it by animal rights groups etc, I also came across this: "Financial support was given through grants obtained by theCancer Association of South Africa, the Research Committeeof the School of Medicine, the Medical Research Council ofSouth Africa, the National Research Foundation and theStruwig-Germeshuysen Cancer Research Trust of SouthAfrica. CANSA has supported Prof Joubert's research onantimitotic agents for the past ten years at CANSA

Funding comes from different sources, I haven't yet found anything to suggest BP or biotech has funded anything got to do with cancer and DCA.

studiorat

studiorat wrote: »

About half of it from international research contracts and international funders. Quarter from the government and about a quarter from sales of patents and intellectual properties according to their 2010 research report.

Which if the results weren't consistant with the conspiracy theory (like that the study showed that DCA was ineffective) then this woud be enough for the paper to be dismissed as being paid for by Big Pharma.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

KingMob, you would like to believe your some type of scientist, to my knowledge scientists experiment, search and research, you ask the most silly questions that anybody with a basic knowledge of google could easily answer.

I never claimed or implied that I'm a scientist.
And the question I asked was rethorical, since the studies you are providing are funded by Big Pharma.

stuar wrote: »

DCA is and has shown very positive results for cancer, maybe I and others overstepped the mark a little by saying "CURE", but it's no excuse to dismiss it as a potential cure, the main conspiracy here is the total lack of interest in DCA.

Yes you did over step the mark calling it a cure, which is my point and the point made in the links I provided.

stuar wrote: »

Why are you so dismissive of something you know nothing about, if a close family member had cancer would you still be so dismissive?, would you agree that funding should be pumped into this to get stage 2 and 3 trials going?, or simply continue down the "mainstream" route.
I think the patient in the above report would somehow disagree with you.

But AGAIN, the main conspiracy is the total lack of interest in a potential cure, which has shown very positive results in such few trials.

I never dismissed anything. I just pointed out what the science actually says and that calling it a cure wasn't true. Which you now agree with.

I don't know whether it should go on to the next stage of trials, since I'm not a researcher and don't know whether or not the evidence has reached whatever threshold it needs.

And the conspiracy is a non starter since the studies you provide which suggests DCA might be an effective treatment are funded by the shadowy villains you think are trying to keep it down.

jh79

King Mob wrote: »

And the conspiracy is a non starter since the studies you provide which suggests DCA might be an effective treatment are funded by the shadowy villains you think are trying to keep it down.

Why wouldn't big pharma fund it, everything posted shows its use in combination with patented drugs, it could revive the sales of a drug coming to the end of its life cycle but also its an halogenated compound so toxicity could be an issue and the expense of bringing it further only for it to be found to be too toxic could be the problem there could be non-published research on its toxicity.

So on the CT forum adding tiny quantities of halogenated compounds to drinking water should be stopped because of some very vague and minor studies relating to toxicity while the taking of comparitively larger amounts of a halogenated compound poses no health risks at all based on some minor studies...not very consistent