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.