Real or Bogus? Cure for Cancer Found But No One is Talking

[eric]

http://impactlab.com/modules.php?nam...icle&sid=10551

A $2 per serving cancer cure has been found by Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada yet most of the media world is silent.. Since this is not a patentable drug from a major drug company with little profit potential, it has received very little coverage.


Scientists may have cured cancer last week. So, why haven't the media picked up on it?

Here's the deal. Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada found a cheap and easy to produce drug that kills almost all cancers. The drug is dichloroacetate, and since it is already used to treat metabolic disorders, we know it should be no problem to use it for other purposes.

Doesn't this sound like the kind of news you see on the front page of every paper?

The drug also has no patent, which means it could be produced for bargain basement prices in comparison to what drug companies research and develop.

Scientists tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body where it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but left healthy cells alone. Rats plump with tumors shrank when they were fed water supplemented with DCA.

Again, this seems like it should be at the top of the nightly news, right?

Cancer cells don't use the little power stations found in most human cells - the mitochondria. Instead, they use glycolysis, which is less effective and more wasteful.

Doctors have long believed the reason for this is because the mitochondria were damaged somehow. But, it turns out the mitochondria were just dormant, and DCA starts them back up again.





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.

Here's the big catch. Pharmaceutical companies probably won't invest in research into DCA because they won't profit from it. It's easy to make, unpatented and could be added to drinking water. Imagine, Gatorade with cancer control.

So, the groundwork will have to be done at universities and independently funded laboratories. But, how are they supposed to drum up support if the media aren't even talking about it?

All I can do is write this and hope Google News picks it up. In the meantime, tell everyone you know and do your own research.

EDITORS NOTE:

Since the original publication of this article we have been inundated with responses from the public at all walks of life. It is important to note that research is ongoing with DCA, and not everyone is convinced it will turn out to be a miracle drug. There have been many therapies that were promising in vitro and in animal models that did not work for one reason or another in humans. To provide false hope is not our intention. There is a lot of information on DCA available on the web, and this column is but one opinion on the topic. We hope you will do your own research into the situation. So, we have added links to resources at the end of this column.


END NOTE

Via Student Printz

[Becky]

Eric



Sometimes I believe that there is something out there. When I was in treatment, I decided to use Leukine (GM-CSF)

instead of Neulasta (G-CSF). (For the record, the difference between the 2 drugs is that Neulasta (or Neopgen) boosts only the neutrophils and Leukine boosts all components of the white blood cell system including the macrophages (monocytes and lymphocytes) and most importantly the dendrites (that can produce a self-vaccinating effect). Leukine is made by Berlex Labs (I have a point here and I am getting to it). Bizarrely, I met another woman with bc who was also using Leukine. Thinking I might have found another person who was doing the research I was doing, I found out her husband worked for Berlex and was the director of the Leukine division. A week or so later, I found myself (and my husband) at their house for dinner. I had the most interesting discussion of my life with this man. Bottom line – he told me that he felt that sooner or later, everyone would be made aware that G-CSF would be a problem drug (Tom has posted an article that it is a problem) because all WBC components should be boosted together, as they normally exist in the body. He said docs use it because it is one shot vs. 10 shots AND all the oncs really want is neutrophil boost because of the threat of infection. Then the discussion turned to “why cure cancer, it is a huge industry?” Think about it! What would researchers do (both MDs and in University settings). What would the docs do (and not just oncs but radiologists, technicians, surgeons, and pathologists)? Cancer centers, pharma companies, laboratories – its HUGE. There is no incentive whatsoever – none. I am not saying everyone involved is only out for the $ and that no one involved in the cancer "industry" cares, but... nobody wants to lose their job either. Its scary.

[Margerie]

Becky,

Very interesting. I am getting the her2 vaccine at U of W and they inject a small dose of GM-CSF with each vaccination "to enhance the effect of the vaccine." I wish I had known about leukine before I had neulasta. Now, all my WBC are in normal range 9 months post-chemo. Hope that is a good sign.

I have always wondered if these "booster shots" increase the chance of developing a lymphoma later on.

[Lani]

Doctors would still have LOTS to do without cancer--and so would drug companies.

If people lived longer they would continue to suffer from all kinds of maladies that require doctors, surgeons and drugs.

Look at the difference in life expectancies between 1800s and now. People died decades earlier usually of infectious diseases. Effective treatments for infectious disease were developed and lo and behold, people started to die of cardiovascular disease and cancer (diseases of the elderly, now that there were more elderly).

There will be plenty of diabetes, and infectious diseases are becoming resistant to the old "effective treatments", as we age there will be more with Alzheimers and dementia--and more breaking their hips and needing their arteries "rotorootered"

In fact a recent article in the Wall St Journal described charities like the lymphoma foundation etc giving money directly to the drug companies rather than to university researchers to speed up the time between lab bench discoveries and useful drugs because the drug companies are not so interested. Why not? They ONLY want to spend money developing the BLOCKBUSTER drugs that a large percent of the population take, like statins, rather than anticancer drugs, where the number of people taking the drugs will never be that large (and new drugs being developed quickly usurp the market which never involved that many patients!)

Will try to find the article and post it.

[R.B.]

Human dynamics at work.

Of benifit as a drug or not or not I share your pain and frustration at the human dynamic that leads to situations like this.

Diet is another area that does not receive sufficient attention simply as there is no profit in it.

And are there other areas of research that need doing - plently - it is just a question of how funding is allocated and preceived greatest need.


RB

[MJo]

I think if a cure existed, insurance companies would make sure it was available. Health care costs would drop dramatically if cancer were cured.

As someone reminded me, doctors and their families get cancer at the same rate as the rest of us. I doubt a doctor would deny a cure to his/her child to save her job.

[R.B.]

Regretably from my reading the reality is much more complex.

The reseach has to be done to confirm and put the treatment into the wider domain which costs money, then theres getting it into the conciousness of the medical profession (more money), there is also the question of profit margins to hospitals etc (who have shareholders).......which if the treatment is inherently low cost not patentable is not likely to make significant contributions to the cost of deveolpement.......

It is not the result of any one decision but a miriad of knee jerks, that respond to the constraints of the situation they find themselves in... I bet "I would love to but - my boss - my budget .....(or similar)" is a frequent comment in such situations.

I have not read the particulars of this proposed treatment (but Lani is through and dedicated) and so do not comment on this particular case, but just my personal thoughts on why things that are reported as promising (but not financially rewarding) often appear not to be followed up by deeper trials.

And insurance companies are insurance companies and not into combative speculative non profitable drug development I guess.

RB

[Bev]

Sorry, I'm not understanding the study and the difference between nuelasta and the other. I'm sure docs aren't part of a conspiracy. Heck they could all transfer to Avian flu. Alzeimers, etc. There's plenty of things to die from,

I can understand drug companies not following up if they can't make money. Heck, no one wants a nobel prize? I guess the job falls to us and gov then.

I believe the cure will happen. It's just whether it's 10 years or 50 years. For our sake, hoping sooner. Good thread Eric.

[R.B.]

Very dry Eric. "lots of things to die from" .... as things stand being human is fatal.

I would agree that it is largley down to us, and movements in public understanding and perception which requires education and knowledge, and informed media commentary, but who has the funds to pay for most lunches and lobbyists.

Governement is more complex - power money funding vast complexity concentration of power the need to belong a whole range of diverse motivations and human frailties since I suspect in varying degrees the earliest days produces outcomes which at a core level were not the intentions of the individuals concerned. Yes public funding should be available and for prevention research too (Eg the history of trans fats) but one can see a whole raft of reasons why it will likely end up somewhere else.

RB

[Christine MH-UK]

It is on the University of Alberta's website that they plan to get phase I trials together but they need to get approval of a group called Health Canada. I have posted on this somewhere else in the articles section.

This whole thing about nobody being interested in developing this possible cure seems to have been nothing but journalistic spin.

[Joy]

This was posted on bc mets by Musa Mayer







Since you ask....I did look up the medical
literature on DCA, and find that it's never been
tested in cancer. Only a small fraction of
substances that kill cancer cells in the lab turn
out to actually work and be safe, so until it is
tested in humans for this use, there's no way of
telling if it will work or not. It's a promising
first step, but it's only that.


One place I go to look to get a sense of new
breast cancer treatments in development that have
reached clinical trials testing is the website
for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
the professional organization for the
pharmaceutica. and biotech industry. http://www.phrma.org/


Below is a list of new drugs under development
for breast cancer, phases I, II and III from this
website. It is probably not complete or
up-to-date, but it will give you a sense of just
how much work is being done to find new
treatments. Some of these are very promising, in
late stage development, while others haven't
panned out, at least not yet. Others have been
approved for other cancers, and are being tested
in breast cancer. If past experience is any
predicter, over 90% will never make to market. But there will be some.


If you want to take a look at any of these drugs
under development, Google their names + "breast
cancer." This will usually take you to clinical
trials listings, abstracts in PubMed.gov
(scientific literature database), or to a company website.


Musa
2-Methoxyestradiol - EntreMed
ABT 751
AE37 cancer vaccine - Antigen Express
Afimoxifene
AMG 706
Amonafide
Amonafide malate - Xanthus Pharmaceuticals
Annamycin
Anti-MUC1 monoclonal antibody AR 20.5
BrevaRexMAB- ViRexx
Anti-PEM monoclonal antibody
Antineoplaston A10 - oral
Antineoplaston AS2 1 - oral
AP 23573
Arsenic trioxide
Arzoxifene
Atamestane
Axitinib
Bevacizumab - Avastin
Bexarotene oral
Biricodar
Incel™ Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Bleomycin-electrical pulse delivery
BMS 184476
Breast cancer vaccine HER-2/neu - GlaxoSmithKline
BZL 101
C 1311- Symadex™ Xanthus Pharmaceuticals
Cancer vaccine - Genzyme
Cancer vaccine E75 - Apthera
Cancer vaccine MUC - Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Cancer vaccine Theratope - Biomira
Canertinib
Canfosfamide
TELCYTA™ Telik
Combretastatin A4
Doxorubicin liposomal - ALZA
Doxorubicin liposomal - Elan
Lipodox® Pfizer
DTS 301
E 7389
Enzastaurin
Erlotinib
Exisulind
Formestane - Medical Discoveries
Gefitinib
Glufosfamide
GTI 2040
HER2-antigen specific cancer immunotherapeutic
HKI 272
Imexon - AmpliMed
Indisulan
INGN 201
ADVEXIN® Introgen Therapeutics Breast cancer
INGN 225
Interleukin-4(38-37)-PE38KDEL
Ipilimumab
Irofulven
Ispinesib
Ixabepilone
KOS 862
Labetuzumab
Lapatinib
Tykerb™ GlaxoSmithKline
Lapuleucel-T
Neuvenge™ Dendreon Corporation Breast cancer
Larotaxel
Liposome encapsulated doxorubicin
Liposome encapsulated paclitaxel
Lonafarnib
Losoxantrone
LTSDEL
Thermodox™ Celsion Corporation
Mammastatin replacement therapy
MDX H210
Methylenetetrahydrofolic acid
Milataxel
Mitoxantrone
MKC 1
Monoclonal antibody CC49
Monoclonal antibody HMFG1
MPI 5010
NBI 42902
NSC 655649
Oblimersen
Octreotide
OCX 0191
OPT 22
Paclitaxel - IVAX
Paxoral™ IVAX Corporation
Paclitaxel - Sonus Pharmaceuticals
Tocosol® paclitaxel Sonus Pharmaceuticals
Pelitrexol
Pemetrexed
Alimta® Eli Lilly Breast cancer USA II
Perifosine
Perillyl alcohol
PX 1041
R 440
Reximmune-C
Reximmune-C™ Epeius Biotechnologies
Rhizoxin
Rubitecan
Satraplatin
SR 16234
Sunitinib
Tacedinaline
Tanespimycin
Tariquidar
Temsirolimus
Tesmilifene
Testosterone propionate
Synerone® sanofi-aventis
Tetrathiomolybdate
Thalidomide
Tipifarnib
Zarnestra™ Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC
Topotecan
Trabectedin
Trastuzumab-DM1 immunoconjugate
Tretinoin
Trilostane
Trimetrexate
Vandetanib
WX UK1
Yttrium 90 labelled edotreotide
ZK epothilone

[eric]

Great job Joy!

[jhandley]

Co-enzyme 10 exerts its anti cancer effect by normalising the bcl-2 gene; thereby restoring the cells ability to die on cue.