JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Spiraling Leopard on May 27, 2011, 07:28:38 PM
-
http://hubpages.com/hub/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.
-
It appears that there is research on-going into this drug. Apparently it is not clear whether it is effective for certain cancers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid
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, allowing cancer cells to self-destruct and shrink the tumor.[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]
Concerns about pre-trial use
Following its initial publication, The New Scientist later editorialized, "The drug may yet live up to its promise as an anti-cancer agent – clinical trials are expected to start soon. It may even spawn an entirely new class of anti-cancer drugs. For now, however, it remains experimental, never yet properly tested in a person with cancer. People who self-administer the drug are taking a very long shot and, unlikely as it may sound, could even make their health worse."[24]
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.[25] 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 can be considered a safe and effective cancer treatment.[25]
Side effects
Reports in the lay press after the 2007 University of Alberta announcement claim that dichloroacetate "has actually been used safely in humans for decades",[40] DCA is generally well-tolerated, even in children.[41] Short-term, infused, bolus doses of DCA at 50 mg/kg/day have been well-tolerated.[42] However, at sustained, higher doses(generally 25 mg/kg/day taken orally, or greater), there is increased risk of several reversible toxicities, especially peripheral neuropathy, neurotoxicity, and gait disturbance.[40][43] Studies have also shown that it can be carcinogenic at high doses.[44] The Medicor Cancer Centre reports on its website that doses of 20–25 mg/kg/day on a two-week on, one week off cycle are effective in identifying side effects due to DCA, to support decisions on discontinuing treatment for safety reasons.[45]
-
Mitochondria are inside cells. They're organelles. This makes me wonder if the author of this article is ignorant since he referred to them as 'a type of cell', although they probably originated by a bacterial cell living inside of another cell but that would be linked to evolution and I know you guys mostly reject that idea.
-
Something here doesn't add up in my opinion. A drug company can still patent a molecule that is almost identical to the non-patented DCA and do the same thing. Drug companies do this all the time when an old drug is about to lose its patent protection.
-
In the garb of socialist health and medical care and insurance programs for the peoples, the EuroCommunist economy is minting money by the use of more and more costlier medicines and other treatments. These EuroCommunists provide payments for such health researches and guide the directions of these researches.
Obviously researches for cheaper treatments against diseases like cancer and heart etc can not be expected from them. So even if the dichloroacetate (DCA) is benevolent to some or many types of cancers, it is not going to be brought to the knowledge of the public.
-
In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective.
Mitochondria is part of the cell :laugh:
-
I think Mitochondria are protein.
-
This looks like old news.