Cancer Cured, Where's the Drug?

[KROW]

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 but little ripple in the news or on TV. It is a simple technique using a very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders, so there is no concern of side effects or other long term effects.

The 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 dichloroacetate (DCA) on human 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, but why are the major drug companies not involved, or the media not interested in this find?

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

The effect of this allows for the reactivation of 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, and without a patent they cannot make money. They’re currently making fortunes with their AIDS patent. Since the pharmaceutical companies won’t develop DCA drugs, independent laboratories should start researching DCA more to confirm all of the above findings and begin producing drugs. All of 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.

This article hopes to raise more awareness of dichloroacetate, and to hopefully inspire some independent companies and small startups to pick up on this idea and begin producing life-saving drugs… because the big companies won’t be touching it for a long time.


SOURCE

=============

To me, this comes as no surprise. To paraphrase George Carlin, "Why? Because there's no money in it."

[TheCanadiandrome]

Man I'm on board with this! I lost a cousin in 2008 to cancer and my Aunt just finished her battle and beat it last year, so god damned governments better get backin this! I don't want my family or anyone else's families to battle cancer any more!

[BubblyShell22]

I agree. If this is the cure, they should back it. Maybe then my grandpa's cancer can be cured, and he won't have to worry. But then again, it's all about money. If there's a cure for cancer, then other drugs won't be used and neither will the treatment centers set up. They'll lose everything to this, and the government can't have that. It's stupid if you ask me.

[Mayhem]

Sadly things aren't as straightforward as that. Firstly some details from the Wiki page regarding trials:

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

Secondly some information from a friend of mine, whose father spent over 30 years in pharmacology...

The good news is, from what we've read, the dicholoroacetate method could work. Basically, what it's doing is interfering with the process that makes cells cancerous while telling them "go off and die somewhere". It's been found to work in quite a few cancer cells so far.

The bad news is that we're dealing with a treatment that, while it's been documented to be safe for what it's been used for--namely, treating metabolic problems--there's no way to know yet how much of the drug would be safe/needed to kill cancer in a human subject. A safe dose may not be sufficient, and a dose big enough to kill the cancer cells may do worse damage than the cancer. There's no way to tell without proper tests.

And that, as you saw, was the lament in the article. Nobody's willing to do the ultra-expensive clinical trials needed to confirm what dosage would be needed to guarantee that would be "safe" and "effective" at the same time. That is where the independent labs need to come in, and the private funding. We've got people out there with the money to do it--the trick is getting all the pieces in place.

All that said, if this method was found to work on just one form of cancer in humans, it would be a huge step forward.

Here's another article you can read--it starts off negative, but ends up praising the idea and explaining the science behind the concept in much greater detail--and frankly it's going to be over the heads of most people, which is why I'm glad I had my father to explain it

P.S. - After reading the Wiki page, it would seem that the general concern was founded. The high dose was affecting the brain. That's a shame, but perhaps the research will lead to a similar but safer method. Until then, I think that PeakImmune4 is still the best way to go, because it triples the immune system as well as tripling the effectiveness of chemo while causing no side effects.

[Rikirk]

Would be nice if this was viable, through modification or whatever....but its too late for someone very close to me, who we lost last month.

And im not holding my breath for a cure to come in my lifetime,...as was said theres no money in the cure, just the treatment. And woe to anyone who has to try and pay for it thanks to the corporates.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

There are many stories of "miracle cures" that have since proven to be fraudulent, often using falsified data. This is probably why the drug companies are uninterested-they're not about to be taken in by a probable fraud.

[oldmanwinters]

Yeah, somehow I don't think a legitimate cure for cancer would be swept under the rug for long, even if tons of important people would lose out on the money. More than likely, it just hasn't passed enough tests to earn the respect of the medical journals.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

There are many stories of "miracle cures" that have since proven to be fraudulent, often using falsified data. This is probably why the drug companies are uninterested-they're not about to be taken in by a probable fraud.

Or are at the very least, very wary of such things.

[Andrew NDB]

I did a lot of research into experimental cures or treatments for cancer before my father died from it about a year and a half ago. One of the things thoughts that once ran through my head is how angry, how furious I would be if he would die and then a cancer elixir would materialize shortly thereafter.

[Ninjinister]

My first thought was "isn't this old? I remember hearing about this previously". Turns out the article's from January. No biggie though.

Anyway, I've lost way too many people to cancer, and in fact just days ago I found out another's got 6 months to live. I've even fought it myself for the past few years. If someone would get their head out of their asses and make this not only available, but also very accessible, the world would be better off. Even if the cure didn't save me or anyone I know. This deserves to be out there.

The only problem I see is cancer, in its very nature, is a mutation, and if this cure works as planned, it may mutate a resistance. Hopefully, it does not.

[Sage Ninja]

I've lost my grandparents on my mother's side to cancer. I hope this cure can get some backing. Honestly what are they waiting on?

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Originally Posted by Sage Ninja

I've lost my grandparents on my mother's side to cancer. I hope this cure can get some backing. Honestly what are they waiting on?

Making sure the potential cure actually works and also doesn't end up doing more harm than good. I read how the drug Thalidomide was supposed to help with pregnancy complications, and where it was legalized for such use (not in the USA), it resulted in badly deformed babies. (Thalidomide is still used for other applications where it is safe.)

[Zany Orange Dude]

The word needs to get out about this so companies (the smaller ones anyway) and people can back it for further testings.

But it is good to hear that they may be on to something! A cure for cancer, the thought almost seems like a dream.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

There are many different types of cancers, though, that affect different parts of the body and function in many different ways. You might have a cure for some types but certainly not each and every type.

I lost an aunt to cancer and had testicular cancer myself fifteen years ago.

[Katie]

I'm skeptical of this on a lot of levels, but mostly on the point that no big pharma will touch this cause they won't make money. At a minimum, any company that tests/proves the drug works on cancer would get investor capital. I'd buy stock in that company. Think of what else might be learned.

Wouldn't government labs test this anyway? Health ministries or somebody? And wouldn't the country be advertising the hell out of the acomplishments of their scientists?

Smells fishy to me.