…and this is a 
So many people have sent me this sensationalistic article, "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice", that I guess I have to respond. I sure wish it were true, but you should be able to tell from how poorly it is written and the ridiculous inaccuracies (mitochondria are cells that fight cancers?) that you should be suspicious. The radical, exaggerated claims make the truth of the story highly unlikely.
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.
The simple summary is this: that claim is a lie. There have been no clinical trials of dichloroacetate (DCA) in cancer patients, so there is no basis for claiming they have a cure; some, but not all, cancers might respond in promising ways to the drug, while others are likely to be resistant (cancer is not one disease!); and there are potential neurotoxic side effects, especially when used in conjunction with other chemotherapies.
So we have one popular account that is badly written and makes exaggerated claims. There is also a university press release, the source for the sloppy popular account, that doesn't contain the egregious stupidities but does tend to inflate basic research studies into an unwarranted clinical significance. And then, of course, there are the actual peer reviewed papers that describe the research and rationale, and also the reservations, on DCA. It's like a game of telephone: you can actually trace the account from the sober science paper to the enthusiastic press release to the web account with its extravagant claims of a simple, cheap cure for cancer, and see how the story is gradually corrupted. It would be funny if the final result wasn't going to dupe a lot of desperate people.
But there is a germ of truth to the story, in that DCA does have potential. Here's how it works.
There are two major pathways that we use to extract energy from sugar. One is glycolysis, which extracts two ATP molecules from each molecule of sugar, and doesn't require oxygen. Then there is glucose oxidation, which as you might guess from the name, does require oxygen, but which takes the byproducts of glycolysis and burns them completely to produce 36 ATP. So there's the tradeoff: if your cells are oxygen-starved, or hypoxic, they can still get energy from sugar, but it's relatively inefficient, but if they do have access to oxygen, they can extract much more. This is why you breathe, and why your heart beats, and why you have an elaborate circulatory system to deliver oxygenated blood to your tissues: without oxygen, you suffer a catastrophic hit to the efficiency of energy production.
Another feature of these two energy-producing pathways is that they are in different cellular compartments. Glycolysis takes place in the cytoplasm, while glucose oxidation occurs in the mitochondria. There is a gate-keeping enzyme, pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK), that regulates the flow of pyruvate, a product of the glycolysis pathway, into the mitochondria for oxidation. If PDK is active, it suppresses the transport of pyruvate into the mitochondria, and the cell is forced to rely on glycolysis, even if oxygen is available. If PDK is inactivated, pyruvate is shuttled into the mitochondria, even if oxygen is low.
This is where DCA comes in. DCA inhibits PDK, forcing cells to use the more efficient form of energy production. That sounds like a strange way to make a cancer cell uncomfortable, but the other factor here is that mitochondria are primary regulators of apoptosis, or cell suicide. They are loaded with sensors and enzymes that react to abnormalities in the cell (like being cancerous!) by activating a self-destruct mechanism. Shut down the mitochondra, you shut down the self-destruct mechanism that polices the cell. So the idea is a little indirect: by goosing the mitochondria, we also wake up the safety switch that, if all goes well, will cause the cell to spontaneously kill itself.
There are good reasons to think this might work. Many cancer cells arise in hypoxic environments; a poorly vascularized tumor, for instance, is going to be oxygen starved in the absence of blood flow, and the inhibition of mitochondria may be a factor in their survival. There is a well-known phenomenon called the Warburg effect, in which cancer cells will rely on glycolysis even when oxygen is available, suggesting that they have suppressed their mitochondria.
DCA also seems like a relatively safe drug. It's been used for a long time in patients with metabolic disorders, or with metabolic side effects from other problems.
A large number of children and adults have been exposed to DCA over the past 40 years, including healthy volunteers and subjects with diverse disease states. Since its first description in 1969, DCA has been studied to alleviate the symptoms or the haemodynamic consequences of the lactic acidosis complicating severe malaria, sepsis, congestive heart failure, burns, cirrhosis, liver transplantation and congenital mitochondrial diseases. Single-arm and randomised trials of DCA used doses ranging from 12.5 to 100 mg kg-1 day-1 orally or intravenously). Although DCA was universally effective in lowering lactate levels, it did not alter the course of the primary disease (for example sepsis).
This is encouraging. It means there is a body of work already published on the effects of DCA, which should simplify the process of moving it into clinical trials. The authors, however, very clearly indicate that it won't be a magic bullet affecting all cancers, but that some are likely candidates.
Dichloroacetate could be tested in a variety of cancer types. The realisation that (i) a diverse group of signalling pathways and oncogenes result in resistance to apoptosis and a glycolytic phenotype, (ii) the majority of carcinomas have hyperpolarised/ remodeled mitochondria, and (iii) most solid tumours have increased glucose uptake on PET imaging, suggest that DCA might be effective in a large number of diverse tumours. However, direct preclinical evidence of anticancer effects of DCA has been published only with non-small cell lung cancer, glioblastoma and breast, endometrial and prostate cancer. In addition, the lack of mitochondrial hyperpolarisation in certain types of cancer, including oat cell lung cancer, lymphomas, neuroblastomas and sarcomas, suggest that DCA might not be effective in such cases. Cancers with limited or no meaningful therapeutic options like recurrent glioblastoma or advanced lung cancer should be on top of the list of cancers to be studied.
Notice that the only work done so far is preclinical: that means it has been tested in mouse models, tissue culture, but hasn't really been tried in cancer patients yet. The authors come right out and say that, express some possible reservations about its effectiveness, and suggest what needs to be done next.
No patient with cancer has received DCA within a clinical trial. It is unknown whether previously studied dose ranges will achieve cytotoxic intra-tumoral concentrations of DCA. In addition, the overall nutritional and metabolic profile of patients with advanced cancer differs from those in the published DCA studies. Furthermore, pre-exposure to neurotoxic chemotherapy may predispose to DCA neurotoxicity. Carefully performed phase I dose escalation and phase II trials with serial tissue biopsies are required to define the maximally tolerated, and biologically active dose. Clinical trials with DCA will need to carefully monitor neurotoxicity and establish clear dose-reduction strategies to manage toxicities. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetics in the cancer population will need to be defined.
Do not rush out and buy DCA and gurgle it down as a cancer preventative. We don't know that it works — the safe concentrations for you may not be sufficient to kill any cancer cells, and the concentrations needed to kill cancer cells may be so high that it will do horrible, unpredicted, and dangerous things to you (some work with patients with congenital mitochondrial disorders also revealed some degree of peripheral neuropathy, for instance). This is why we have clinical trials: to work out safe and effective doses, look for dangerous interactions with other drugs — and if you have cancer, you're already on a complicated cocktail of drugs — and detect unexpected side effects.
We should be urging further investigation of this promising drug with the beginning of clinical trials, but it's far too early to be babbling about "cancer cures". There have been lots of drugs that look great in the lab and have excellent rationales for why they should work, but the reality of cancer is that it is complicated and diverse and there are many more pitfalls between a drug that poisons cancer cells in a petri dish and a drug that actually works well in the more complex environment of a human being.
One other factor that inflames the conspiracy nuts over this drug is that DCA is simple, dirt-cheap, and completely unpatentable — there is no economic incentive for a pharmaceutical company to invest a gigantic bucket of money in clinical trials, because there is no hope for a return on the investment.
This is why an independent academic community with research funded for knowledge rather than profit is so important, and really emphasizes why we cannot afford to privatize all biomedical research. The authors propose a plan for progressing without the involvement of the pharmaceutical industry.
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', 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.
I can't blame the industry for not following up on this: a clinical trial costs millions of dollars, and even if DCA pans out, there is no profit at all to be gained from it. For this research, we have to turn to public support (they have an interest in better cancer treatments!) and to scientists and doctors themselves, who of course have a great personal interest in seeing their patients get better.
Michelakis ED, Webster L, Mackey JR (2008) Dichloroacetate (DCA) as a potential metabolic-targeting therapy for cancer. Br J Cancer 99(7):989-94.
Medicine & Health
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 16, 2011 10:14 AM
This is why an independent academic community with research funded for knowledge rather than profit is so important
yup.
Words that should be resonating with Sciblogs bloggers right about now too.
Posted by: rednukleus
|
May 16, 2011 10:17 AM
Here is a relevant comic.
Posted by: And-U-Say
|
May 16, 2011 10:20 AM
Sounds interesting. But legion are the "cures" for cancer that have come up wanting. Cancer is a very wiley condition and it has a way of thwarting treatments. Still, one should always have hope that this would become another potent tool in the oncologist's arsenal.
Of course, there will be no such thing as a singular cure for cancer. Cancer is a set of diseases which are so diverse that the cures will also have to be diverse.
Posted by: Is it fishing season yet?
|
May 16, 2011 10:23 AM
Hell, even the two Edmonton papers and all of the local TV/radio stations missed it. If any newspaper or radio station would have run the story it would have been The Sun and CHED (think Fakes News with a Canuck accent and slightly better grammar).
Not likely to happen in a province where oil companies set their royalty payments and the Regressive Conservative Party has run the joint for more than 30 years (think Canadian with a Texas accent)
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 16, 2011 10:24 AM
Orac has covered DCA a few times.
Posted by: LarianLeQuella
|
May 16, 2011 10:26 AM
And Steve Novella covered this as well. http://skepticblog.org/2011/05/16/another-cure-for-cancer/ Looks like we have some good responses to the hype on facebook.
Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder
|
May 16, 2011 10:26 AM
Huh, that was real? I saw it on Facebook and assumed that it was from The Onion.
Posted by: Tulse
|
May 16, 2011 10:28 AM
But there is economic incentive for insurance companies and HMOs to do so, and unlike Big Pharma, their interest is in treatments/prevention strategies that actually work, rather than in treatments that have high profit margins . I really wish that these kind of companies would recognize this, and begin to fund such research themselves.And of course, in countries with government-provided health insurance (that is, the entire civilized world except for the US), there is huge incentive for the government to fund such research.
Posted by: stumpy
|
May 16, 2011 10:30 AM
This was a good post on many levels, including the explanation of how DCA works, and then the evenhanded comments about funding clinical trials, and the role of industry. The odd wording of the general press release seems to me (intuitively) to be the product of a poor translation. Was the original University release in French, or some other non-English language?
Posted by: AKron
|
May 16, 2011 10:34 AM
I'm not interested in facts.
Facts are for people who wear pocket protectors, and stumble on their untied show laces.
What I need is dichloroacetate.
Where can I get some? Where can I get some?
Posted by: Is it fishing season yet?
|
May 16, 2011 10:34 AM
The U of Eh is an English language university (except for 1 affilated French college).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
May 16, 2011 10:35 AM
You do realize that DCA was one of DaveScot's pet topics.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
May 16, 2011 10:40 AM
Sorry meant to have a link there
Posted by: katarney
|
May 16, 2011 10:44 AM
Cancer Research UK covered this last year, when it actually *was* news- early stage clinical trial results on DCA came out in May last year. There's nothing new here, and it's still not a cure for cancer.
DCA clinical trials - Cancer Research UK blog
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
May 16, 2011 10:52 AM
so wait you're implying some sort of conflict between the profit motive and public welfare with respect to medicine and health care?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
May 16, 2011 10:56 AM
The only translation necessary was editing out all the 'eh's.
Posted by: STI
|
May 16, 2011 11:01 AM
Long time lurker, first time poster. :-)
I like your explanation of DCA, but the one thing that sticks in my craw, so to speak, is that glycolysis and "glucose oxidation" aren't really separate processes. (To use an analogy: mitochondrial ATP production is like the big money bonus round on a game show; you have to win the front game, glycolysis, to get there.) If glycolysis is stopped, the cell dies.
Posted by: Orac
|
May 16, 2011 11:08 AM
Way more than a few, actually.:-)
This is old news, and there has already been a small clinical trial that was published last year in Science Translational Medicine:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/dichloroacetate_dca_and_cancer_deja_vu_a.php
What I wonder, actually, is how such an old story (it began in January 2007 with the publication of Michaelakis' first big Cancer Cell) can be so tidily resurrected again as though it were brand new. Truly, nothing ever seems to die on the Internet.
Posted by: David
|
May 16, 2011 11:11 AM
Thanks so much for finding the actual study. A friend of mine recently linked to that same post and I hadn't had the time to hunt down the actual study to look into it, though I was certainly skeptical. The study itself helps quite a lot.
Posted by: beigeman
|
May 16, 2011 11:13 AM
I think possibly the reason it's come back up now is that that particular p.o.s. article has been doing the rounds on Facebook recently, with people linking to it with some kind of message about "doing your bit". Useless slacktivism.
Posted by: Zabalba
|
May 16, 2011 11:14 AM
A clinical trial was in fact performed and had it findings published on 05/12/2010
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 16, 2011 11:19 AM
PZ:
Actually, most drugs on market are either not patented, or have expired patents. That's why you have "generic" drugs. The notion that patents are necessary for profit is false. It's probable that there would be reduced profit, and true that it would take longer to recoup research and marketing investments. However, if there was really no profit, we'd see companies immediately stop selling every drug as soon as its patent expired. And that rarely happens.
Posted by: Brownian
|
May 16, 2011 11:23 AM
I'm so proud of my alma mater. I still remember when we cured diabetes.
Posted by: harold
|
May 16, 2011 11:32 AM
Very nice article.
I'm going to state a subjective opinion. I would be very surprised if dichloroacetate would actually cure or prevent any metastatic malignancies. That has simply proven to be a very difficult task for any approach. The ideas of selectively targeting tumor cell metabolism and/or provoking apoptosis are not new ones.
Having said that, this is at worst a good idea that might pan out, and could represent the identification of something that could be very beneficial.
It's not the easiest thing in the world to test new cancer drugs. It's a major ethical issue to modify protocols that currently have clinical benefit. On the other hand, testing in patients who "have no other hope" could mask effectiveness, but that's usually where you have to start.
(This is an intriguing issue in cases where there are curative but highly toxic protocols with known long term risks in place; not metastatic solid tumors, but some lymphomas or leukemias, for example. Replacement of a grueling regimen that results in a five or ten year cure, with a less grueling but equally effective regimen, would be desirable, but getting to the step at which you can confidently modify the grueling regimen that already works, in the sense of often eliminating the malignancy for a good number of years, is problematic.)
Posted by: Nelson M.
|
May 16, 2011 11:43 AM
Thanks, PZ! I was suspicious when I first saw this appear on my Facebook wall. I'm glad to see some actual science at the core of it, despite the sensationalistic headline.
Posted by: BobFromLI
|
May 16, 2011 12:02 PM
llewelly in #22 doesn't see the way clear for the drug vultures to make money. Ah, not so! Seems that if you take a drug the FDA wants proven out and run full clinicals on it, you DO get rights similar to patent protection. It is unclear at this point how bulletproof these rights are but they're are a number of court cases out there now.
Posted by: joeyess
|
May 16, 2011 12:08 PM
Thank you, Professor. I emailed this to you early this morning. I read the link and with the mention of "patents' and "pharma" I was rightly suspicious.
You've clarified for me that this is neither a pile of woo nor a cure.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I have absolutely no grounding in biological discipline and needed this put into layman's terms. Once again, you've explained things completely and simply.
thanks.
j.
Posted by: sandykat
|
May 16, 2011 12:15 PM
Ugh. I can't help wondering how much credibility this type of irresponsible reporting will leach from my U of A biology degree.
When will people stop trusting crap they read on facebook as it were real news?
Posted by: Brother Roberts
|
May 16, 2011 12:20 PM
I have Merkel Cell carcinoma. Tomorrow begins my third chemo cycle (each cycle is 3 weeks comprised of 1 week of chemo and 2 weeks off). Perhaps I'll mention this to my oncologist.
Posted by: The Pint
|
May 16, 2011 12:21 PM
Thanks for the explanation. I saw this popping up on some friends' FB walls and had been hesitant to comment despite being skeptical of the "CURE FOR CANCER!" claims. This will be highly useful to refer to in those discussions.
Posted by: Zabalba
|
May 16, 2011 12:24 PM
If you are reading comments please look at the link I posted in #22. There is promise.
Posted by: raven
|
May 16, 2011 12:38 PM
There is something drastically wrong here.
They had planned enrollment of 50 patients. They actually ended up treating 5 patients. Generally a clinical trial that doesn't complete its enrollment means something was drastically wrong or something happened. You can't tell much of anything about 5 patients. We generally like 500 to 1000 at least.
Posted by: exploreable
|
May 16, 2011 12:38 PM
PZ, there also is the fact that cancer cells may be able to evade apoptosis following reactivation of the mitochondrial apoptosis signalling pathway if downstream transducers or effectors are broken.
I think any effect that DCA will have will be dependent on the mechanism of apoptosis evasion being centered on deactivation of mitochondrial apoptosis signalling.
A useful review of the mechanisms of evading apoptosis that cancer cells use is here http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijcb/2010/370835/
Posted by: raven
|
May 16, 2011 12:50 PM
The comments about DCA being a common reagent are meaningless.
You can always apply for use patents and that is commonly done.
But any drug can be eligible for orphan drug status. This gives a company a 7 year market monopoly. It's worth a lot. A lot of the time, by the time a drug is trialed and approved, average around 11 years, the patents are close to expiring anyway.
Posted by: exploreable
|
May 16, 2011 12:56 PM
PZ, there also is the fact that cancer cells may be able to evade apoptosis following reactivation of the mitochondrial apoptosis signalling pathway if downstream transducers or effectors are broken.
I think any effect that DCA will have will be dependent on the mechanism of apoptosis evasion being centered on deactivation of mitochondrial apoptosis signalling.
A useful review of the mechanisms of evading apoptosis that cancer cells use is here http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijcb/2010/370835/
Posted by: harold
|
May 16, 2011 1:03 PM
Raven -
Are you referring to the Wikipedia section that links to this (as far as I can tell, the only peer-reviewed publication on the subject)?
http://dca-information.pbworks.com/f/Metabolic%20Modulation%20of%20Glioblastoma%20with%20Dichloroacetate.pdf
In this, they studied effects on only five patients, and 49 glioblastoma specimens in culture.
It does seem very tiny for a phase II study. Nevertheless, this group is apparently proceeding with phase III.
I agree that there is not much that one can conclude here (although one can conclude that it didn't "cure" all five terminal glioblastoma patients), but they do specifically claim that toxicity and side effects were not a problem, in the only five patients they tried it on, and claim some arguably subjective results.
I'm very skeptical in the positive sense that I am skeptical about all hypothetically possible but inadequately tested claims. I don't see evidence of a cover-up of bad outcomes, though, just an insufficient supply of outcomes, for some unclear reason.
Posted by: harold
|
May 16, 2011 1:11 PM
@Brother Roberts -
Well an anonymous internet comment isn't going to do you much good, here is one, anyway. Hang in there. I wish you the rationally best possible outcome.
Posted by: NitricAcid
|
May 16, 2011 1:17 PM
I've heard ads on the radio that claim "pharmaceutical companies aren't interested because it's not patentable". I've also heard people claim that "it's found in salt & vinegar chips!" (as if that made it natural and thus harmless). Supposedly since chip are flavoured with sodium acetate and sodium chloride, the acetate and chloride must combine to give dichloroacetate. At least, in the eyes of people who failed chemistry.
Posted by: wtholland
|
May 16, 2011 1:28 PM
PZ Myers, you are just as ignorant as the pharma companies that most likely finance your research and opinions.
No clinical trials on patients? - You've stated yourself that you understand that no company will pay to research a common, unpatent-able drug that will return very small profit margins. So let's just ignore the benefits of DCA if no civil society groups offer their support. After all, you agree that the private sector shouldn't have to.
What you need is a swift kick up your @$$, you pro-money-grubbing pharma-partisan.
Posted by: raven
|
May 16, 2011 1:31 PM
How many glioblastoma specimens have insurance or medicare coverage? Not going to get paid much from the cells in a dish crowd.
This is preclinical work, necessary for sure, but nothing to do with a phase II clinical trial.
Five patients isn't a phase II trial. These generally have 50 to 100 patients at least. It isn't even a phase I trial number.
Clinical trials that don't complete enrollment or have high drop out rates is a huge red flag.
It doesn't absolutely have to mean there were side effect, toxicity, or lack of efficacy concerns. But it often means exactly that. I saw one trial that didn't finish enrollment. The company didn't even mention that fact. The reason was real simple. The clinicians saw enough evidence that they were going to kill a few patients that they absolutely refused to treat any more.
It could also just be lack of money, too rare a patient population, incompetence in designing trials and recruiting patients and trial sites, or apathy.
Posted by: robmx
|
May 16, 2011 1:31 PM
I have successfully used DCA for my MCC. My colon cancer DX was in November of 2006 after a colonoscopy and biopsy with resection in December 2006 when 12" of my Sigmoid colon was removed.
NO standard chemo till April 2011 or 5.4 weeks ago when I started Folfiri and Avastin. Until then I had NO symptoms of cancer, felt fine, rode my bike, BP of around 110 over 76 normally and excellent blood work with a stable and low CEA of around 6. Actually I stopped DCA because of rising PN, peripheral neuropathy, back in early November of 2010. Since then my tumors have been growing.
I have been followed closely my an oncologist at one of the top two cancer centers in the country, also by my primary physician and been seen and tested by at least 30 other doctors at other top cancer centers in the process of trying to get into clinical trials and looking for quick surgical, electronic (Nanoknife), robotic surgical, cryogenic and radiation fixes or reductions in size of tumors.
After long use of DCA my primary doctor actually gave me a prescription for DCA. He was very surprised that his computer would even let him do it. Problem is NO one would fill the prescription. I had to go overseas to get my refill.
I have had a Pet scan and very many CT scans, have copies of all.
The doctors who have seen me know DCA worked for me. Some acknowledge it and some will not comment but do so my their actions in recommending treatment which was NONE for a very long time. If your tumors are not growing how do you measure chemo effectiveness? You need growth which chem either slows, stops or reverses. If your tumors are already getting smaller or not growing chemo is measurable.
Is DCA a cure for cancer? I don't think so but it may be when used with other things. Can it prolong life for some cancers with little side affects? Yes.
Is it being tested in clinical trials for cancer? Yes.
How does it work? Could be via the Warburg effect or possible a new theory, the Reverse Warburg effect. With that theory the cancer cell does not get its energy via glycosis but through oxidative stress inflicted on stroma cells surrounding the tumor which creates lactate and ketones which the cancer uses as fuel.
DCA eliminate lactate which may be why it works but more important why does DCA stop working.
Maybe taking DCA, Metformin and NAC (radical anti-oxidant), all inexpensive things is a cure for cancer.
Am thinking about betting my life, for a second time, soon on just such a thought.
If you think that is crazy then look up the statistics on advanced MCC with or without chemo for someone who is already 4.5 years in. My life is actually not a big bet.
Posted by: harold
|
May 16, 2011 1:50 PM
Raven -
Complete agreement, I'm just hoping it's what you describe in the third paragraph, not the second paragraph.
Posted by: harold
|
May 16, 2011 1:58 PM
@robmx -
Very glad to hear that you have had success fighting your cancer so far.
Why would you do that? I don't think it's reasonable to presume that this drug combination would cure cancer. At a minimum, we can agree that there is no hard evidence for this.
You have had a great outcome. More power to you and continued success in the future.
Some proportion of people with almost every condition have a relatively better outcome. This is even true of being shot in the head.
It's natural to wonder why your outcome was good.
But you wouldn't want that natural tendency to lead you to take risks, or make unjustified recommendations to others.
Good luck.
Posted by: harold
|
May 16, 2011 2:11 PM
wtholland -
Other than your dislike of this post, do you have any evidence that the opinions of PZ Myers are motivated by payments from pharmaceutical companies?
One bizarrely small phase II trial on five patients. The results have been published and the link is in this comments section. Or you can just get it from the Wikipedia article on dichloroacetate.
Actually, PZ Myers has stated support for publicly funded clinical trials, and Raven has pointed out that orphan drug legislation makes trials more attractive to industry.
How do you know that there are any benefits? It hasn't been studied enough yet. What the hell is a "civil society group"?
No-one said anything about what private companies "should" have to do. As a matter of reality, in free countries, we do not have laws to force them to do clinical trials; they do, in fact, choose whether or not to do them. Philanthropies and government grant programs can also fund trials.
What you need is a remedial education program, with a focus on reading comprehension.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
May 16, 2011 2:15 PM
rtholland @39, please re-read the original post. This time, read it IN ITS ENTIRETY, and read it for understanding, particularly those sections at the end where PZ talks about the need for public funding support.
Then go to the link to Orac, read that, again IN ITS ENTIRETY, and FOR UNDERSTANDING, and pay attention to the part about the early clinical trials that have been done for DCA.
I also highly recommend that you adopt these habits in all future instances wherein you feel an urge to make a post. It will help make you seem less like an ignorant loon, and the rest of us will get to experience just a little less batshit insanity sullying our eyes.
It'll be a win for everyone.
Posted by: sprinklingsofalice.myopenid.com
|
May 16, 2011 2:15 PM
Thank you for taking the time to explain that.
I had a gut feeling it was bullshit, simply by the way it spread around facebook like wildfire, but also because something that big would not happen in today's "Information Age".
I'm just going to copy and paste the link to this rebuttal every time I see it posted.
I may also add something like "Citation Needed, Sheeple."
-Alice
Posted by: grudgedk
|
May 16, 2011 3:00 PM
Yeah duh. Everyone knows they're the ones that give you Jedi powers...Posted by: royalexander
|
May 16, 2011 3:02 PM
Actually that article is 4 years old and is referring to a research article in 2007, in the mean time there have been clinical trials
The latest news article (from 2010) publishes the results of the clinical trials (http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm).
So yes it's not a silver bullet, and it's strange that people all of a sudden get extremely excited about this old news. But tis blog post itself could've done a bit more research, there is not one mention on the age of the article and the actual clinical trials taking place.
Posted by: royalexander
|
May 16, 2011 3:04 PM
Actually that article is 4 years old and is referring to a research article in 2007, in the mean time there have been clinical trials
The latest news article (from 2010) publishes the results of the clinical trials (http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm).
So yes it's not a silver bullet, and it's strange that people all of a sudden get extremely excited about this old news. But tis blog post itself could've done a bit more research, there is not one mention on the age of the article and the actual clinical trials taking place.
Posted by: bloosqr
|
May 16, 2011 3:49 PM
There is a lot of misinformation in this blog and the comments. I also got a slew of people forwarding me this article. The reason this is getting a lot of pop culture press right now is there is a recent article on a phase I clinical trial by the same group in Science Trans. Med. This is the reference:
Metabolic Modulation of Glioblastoma with Dichloroacetate E. D. Michelakis, et al. Sci Transl Med 2, 31ra34 (2010);
They tested it (as other people have point out) in 5 brain cancer patients and found "Three of the patients showed evidence of tumor regression on brain imaging scans, and four were clinically stable 15 months after therapy was initiated. Follow-up studies on cells taken from these patients before and after treatment showed that dichloroacetate normalized several mitochondrial functions, promoted apoptosis, and had other biochemical effects consistent with antitumor activity. "
It certainly has therefore been tried in humans, and certainly at the level one might expect a university funded (or small biotech) to do. To be obvious, this is not enough to go to market, but its certainly a very important step in the right direction and one far greater than most research drugs.
Posted by: harold
|
May 16, 2011 4:02 PM
@BigDaddyMalcontent -
A good proportion of the comments that were already up consisted of a critical discussion of that paper.
To repeat what was said for your convenience -
1) It's an extremely unusually small phase II trial; that's a cause for concern. Raven and I discussed some of the reasons that this can happen. I stated that I hoped it was something like lack of funding or difficulty recruiting patients.
2) Despite the small trial, we can, of course, objectively conclude that none of the patients were outright cured of their glioblastoma. Obviously, even one complete remission, if well-documented, would have been major news.
3) The authors do suggest that, in this phase II trial, which should not be confused with a blinded phase III study, that there may have been beneficial effects. Because of the small size of the trial, and lack of controls (not a flaw in this type of trial but still a limitation), that is hard to evaluate.
4) There do seem to be phase III trials either planned or going on. It will be interesting to learn the results of those, if the patient groups are large enough to generate statistically significant results.
The hypothesis that dichloroacetate may have beneficial effects in some types of cancer is a reasonable one. It is minimally disappointing that it didn't miraculously cure one of the most aggressive cancers known to humans, but that would have been an unreasonable expectation. We'll have to await further studies to learn more.
Posted by: robmx
|
May 16, 2011 4:02 PM
Harold post 43
I didn't make a recommendation for DCA. Only told my experience with it. Don't recommend it for anyone with a low risk threshold. There is little evidence that it works long term. Most of those who I have been in contact with at thedcasite.com with various forms of cancer have died over the years.
Most people who try DCA do so as a last resort after everything else has failed and they are in hospice choosing mode.
I started when I was in perfect health other than the cancer which was growing aggressively. It is/was wrapped around my SVC vein, up against my Aorta and heart.
I am in no doubt, I am not wondering about why my outcome was so good. I know why my cancer stopped growing and it was DCA. A tumor that stops growing and reverses 70% in four months with all else being the same except for DCA is being affected by DCA.
And my outcome is not so good. My outcome is still happening and I would give myself 18 months if my chemo works and the rest of this year or less if it doesn't.
Taking risk, total risk, outright suicide is doing what you know doesn't work and just keep on trucking at it. That is the chemo I am taking. It has been thouroughly tested in years of clinical trials and we KNOW it is just palliative. Will give me some time.
As to the use of DCA and Metformin and NAC together. I know that DCA works some and may work again after a period of non-use. Metformin data from diabetes users show that those using Metformin have less incidence of cancer and less remission reversals when chemo works for them.
As to NAC there is one anecdotal item I have from a top researcher at a major medical center who had his 91 year old grandmother use it. She had allowed her breast cancer to grow to 30 cm without telling anyone. Six weeks on NAC alone reduced it to 8 cm and they then could operate on it. She is now recovering and when she has he has instructed her to start taking NAC again.
Hard to place a bet on such a singular incident but that is what individuals in a free society can do. People like me do not have the time to wait till all the evidence is in in 2090.
I continue to wrestle with the concept that people who do not have cancer can suggest that someone like me is taking "risk" no matter what I do.
Right now I am living with a sure thing, terminal stage IV MCC. Anything I do possibly will mitigate that "risk", that sure thing.
Posted by: harold
|
May 16, 2011 4:19 PM
@robmx and Brother Roberts -
Good wishes to both of you.
Rob, I see no reason for us to argue. What you describe is, I am sure we would agree, an anecdote. By no means does that mean that it is not a valuable insight. There are "good anecdotes". A good anecdote is an observation that, while not conclusive on its own, is a potential starting point for more research. Many valuable discoveries were made by following up on good anecdotes.
Posted by: raven
|
May 16, 2011 5:22 PM
Nonsense again. Repost of #34
The comments about DCA being a common reagent are meaningless.
You can always apply for use patents and that is commonly done.
But any drug can be eligible for orphan drug status. This gives a company a 7 year market monopoly. It's worth a lot. A lot of the time, by the time a drug is trialed and approved, average around 11 years, the patents are close to expiring anyway.
Can't say it any plainer than that. Anyone who doesn't know what an orphan drug is, what the orphan drug act is, and how to get it, should spend 5 minutes on wikipedia or google.
Orphan drug status is quite valuable and highly sought after. It gives 7 years of a monopoly.
Given the length of drug development, average 11 years, quite often the composition of matter patents are either close to expiry or outright expired. There are other types of patents (use) that can cover drugs.
Posted by: raven
|
May 16, 2011 5:29 PM
Five patients isn't much data to go on. A phase I or phase 11 clincial trial usually has 50 to 100 patients. More is better but less than 50 would be unusual.
There are billions of pharma/biotech dollars chasing drugs, especially cancer drugs. And a lot of lame drugs going into clinical trials just because no one has better ideas.
If their preclinical and small amount of clinical data is good, they really should have no trouble outlicensing it to a corporation. And the companies have the resources and abilities to do standard clinical trials. Tens of thousands are done every year. This isn't rocket science.
Posted by: Whoa Nelly
|
May 16, 2011 6:40 PM
Thanks for this. I am so tired of trying to tell everyone who is posting this on Facebook that they really should take these things with a grain of salt.
The article should really be titled: "Scientists research promising drug for certain kinds of cancers, require funding for futher clinical trials."
Posted by: robmx
|
May 16, 2011 6:41 PM
Here are a few DCA things in the works other than the University of Alberta, there is more.
Synergistic Antitumor Effect of Dichloroacetate in Combination with 5-Fluorouracil in Colorectal Cancer
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jbb/2011/740564/
Phase II Study of Dichloroacetate (DCA) in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Breast or NSCL Cancer
http://www.bioportfolio.com/resources/trial/69953/Phase-Ii-Study-Of-Dichloroacetate-dca-In-Patients-With-Previously-Treated-Metastatic.html
In vitro cytotoxicity of novel platinum-based drugs and dichloroacetate against lung carcinoid cell lines.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21239354
Test Kit for Dosage Determination
For Safer Administration
Of Dichloroacetate
http://apps.research.ufl.edu/otl/pdf/marketing/13485.pdf
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
May 16, 2011 6:52 PM
One can almost see where this is coming from. It's a brutally erroneous misinterpretation of the important role mitochondria play in regulating apoptosis.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 16, 2011 9:05 PM
The orphan drug status is for specific cancers, not cancer in general. And some types of cancers fit the less than 200,000 cases qualification.Also, the Hatch-Waxman act extends patent protection for new drug products for up to five years to offset the patent coverage loss due to clinical trials.
Posted by: raven
|
May 16, 2011 9:06 PM
Sorry to tell you, but you are an incredibly stupid and ignorant idiot.
Cancer isn't a disease. It is large collection of diseases with some similarities.
Cancer drugs aren't approved to "treat cancer".
A typical approval would be for treating stage 3/4 pancreatic adenocarcinoma in combination with drug X. Or in second or third line treatment with drug Y.
Once you start defining your tumor type, stage, previous treatment history, and patient population, the numbers are almost always less than 200,000 patients.
Both the USA and Europe grant orphan drug status to anticancer drugs on a frequent basis.
Posted by: raven
|
May 16, 2011 9:33 PM
A partial list of anticancer drugs with US orphan drug status. There are many more. It is quite common for these drugs to apply for and get orphan drug status because many are focused on narrow patient populations of less than 200,000.
Posted by: Randy M
|
May 16, 2011 9:45 PM
Dr. Myers,
Congratulations for bringing some thoughtful balance to the blogosphere on the volatile subject of DCA.
DCA helped me enormously in 2007; my anecdotal report:
http://www.thedcasite.com/dcaforum/DCForumID2/244.html
The initial UofA study with DCA and glioblastoma was largely funded by donation jars on every checkout counter in one small town in Canada. I mention this as one reason for the 5-patient cohort. UofA was dosing very aggressively: 50mg/kg, a lot for brainstem tumors where tumor lysis syndrome is a significant hazard.
A side effect of DCA you did not mention is hypoglycemia. When it hits you, disorientation happens fast and it may be difficult to understand what's happening. Hypoglycemia is the SE I would be most concerned about; it can be quickly fatal.
The Medicor Clinic in Canada includes DCA in their repertory of cancer drugs, and their patients report good outcomes.
http://www.medicorcancer.com/
Dr. Akbar Kahn's team has recently published a paper on palliative application of DCA in late stage cancer:
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/jpm.2010.0472
An interesting question for another day: Is it ethical to deny well-informed, terminal patients access to novel treatments like DCA? Or is there benefit in moving from the classical clinical trial to an internet-based cohort of patients? Those of us with terminal disease can predict the trajectory of our progression with some precision, thanks to 50 years of cancer research. Therefore if enough early adopters report extended survival time and/or improved QOL with a previously untested molecule, then more expensive, rigorous trials might be justified.
Respectfully,
Randy M
Posted by: WhiteHatLurker
|
May 16, 2011 9:47 PM
This is totally frakkin' old. At the time, yes there was a bit of a sensationalistic splash, which as I recall was tempered by the principal investigator. Part of the splash was that it was an "open" drug, without proprietary baggage.
Interesting to see that tests have progressed, @royalexander (is that an Edmontonian I detect?) Thanks for that note.
Posted by: raven
|
May 16, 2011 10:26 PM
Oh. Just a troll.
Sorry, my Moronese to English translator is broken.
Posted by: robmx
|
May 16, 2011 10:31 PM
Randy M
I have been having the same thought about "internet based" trials.
Most of the world does not have the cash to pay $4 or is it $8 thousand a month for a drug like Avastin.
They still get cancer though and many of them will experiment with lots of bogus junk remedies and some promising molecules of interest.
Of course it would be unethical to take advantage of these millions by gathering data on their personal clinical trials or make suggestions about what they might try but it IS happening and WILL accelerate anyway.
A simple web site like thedcasite.com is a very small beginning. Someone is going to develop a Facebook of personal experimental medical data and if done right it might fly right past the plodding, ever so carefull, we all must protect our individual and collective corporate asses way of doing research in the west today.
It feels like an army of lawyers and bean counters have clogged our collective research like plaque in an alzheimers patients brain.
But most of the world has few lawyers but lots of cancer.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 16, 2011 10:36 PM
Fixed that for you loser. Now take your own advice. After all, you haven't said anything interesting yet, but Raven has for years.Posted by: raven
|
May 16, 2011 10:40 PM
LOL, don't worry about it.
That seems to be slanted science with yet again another ID. He'll get in a few posts and get banned for the who knows how many times.
Posted by: M Otis Beard
|
May 17, 2011 3:42 PM
Man, I hate conspiracy theories, especially the ones that allege some kind of cover-up taking place in the scientific community. You should question authority, yes, but thanks to peer review, science is the authority that questions itself, and we need to keep that in mind before we go forming any strong opinions informed only by paranoia and Alex Jones.
It's also important to remember how bad people are at keeping secrets, especially when their only motivation is profit, and keeping the secret is tantamount to committing an objectively evil act. You aren't the only monkey in the barrel with a conscience, jack.
Two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead. How many people would have to be in on any given conspiracy theory you've heard about, like this one, or like the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, or like the global climate change conspiracy theories, or like the chemtrail conspiracy theories? Ten thousand people? A hundred thousand? Oh, and this stuff has been going on for years, sometimes decades, yet not ONE SINGLE CONSPIRATOR has come forward with a little hard evidence to blow the whistle? I call bullshit.
There's no cover-up here. Why would there be? If there's no clear profit in paying for a particular avenue of research, then pharmaceutical companies have no reason or obligation to pay for it, period. Furthermore, they don't stand to lose much of anything even if someone discovers tomorrow that praying to Jebus while you stand on one foot and molest a little Catholic boy with your left hand cures all cancers immediately. They'll lose the profits they make on pharmaceutically-based cancer treatments, sure, but they'll more than make it up by selling treatments for the ailments suffered by people who aren't dead because they survived cancer. Getting old comes with a whole panoply of chronic non-fatal chilblains and bugaboos that drug companies can turn a profit on.
Posted by: robmx
|
May 17, 2011 8:54 PM
Randy M
A story on Medicor. Seems they are about to publish papers on three complete remissions they call cures using DCA and regular chemo.
http://www.livescience.com/14206-big-pharma-ignoring-potential-cancer-cure.html
"We currently have three patients with incurable cancers who are in complete remission, and are likely cured, from using DCA in combination with conventional palliative (non-curative) treatments. We are in the process of publishing these cases," he said.
Posted by: Randy M
|
May 17, 2011 10:20 PM
robmx,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I scanned that article quickly, missed Dr. Kahn's reference to three complete responses. Permanent cure or remission with stable disease look equally good to those of us with incurable, stage IV disease. This is great news.
Medicor Clinic has invested more work with DCA than any other institution, including early adopters like you and me. I'm very glad they are learning to employ adjuncts and enhance efficacy.
Best regards,
Randy
Posted by: rw.raillantclark
|
May 18, 2011 7:44 AM
I think the last paragraph of this article is important, and I also suspect the point it makes is one of the main reasons the university issued a press release - to remind Canadian taxpayers of the importance of the money the Federal and Provincial Governments disperse to researchers through agencies like the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. It's a pity this was missed by so many commentators.
William Raillant-Clark
Attaché de presse, Université de Montréal
http://rwrc.tumblr.com
Posted by: JBlilie
|
May 18, 2011 4:51 PM
I highly recommend The Emperor of All Maladies by Siddhartha Mukherjee for learning about the diversity (and perversity?) of the cancer cell.
(And isn't it cool that an author named Siddhartha Mukherjee just won the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction?)
One of the cool things I learned (and should have known) is that cancer is a clonal disease: It starts with a single mutant cell. The cells undergo evolution by natural selection as they are assaulted by our anti-cancer measures. We make them worse.
The only hopeful thing is that (transplants and viral transmission aside) they aren't contagious.
Posted by: K Wong
|
May 19, 2011 12:12 AM
There is video from a press event last year (12 May 2010) in Edmonton where the principals discuss their findings. The video is not overly technical and may be useful in defusing the hype surrounding this promising discovery.
Generic drug may be potential treatment for deadly brain cancer: U of A medical study (Part 1 of 2)
Generic drug may be potential treatment for deadly brain cancer: U of A medical study (Part 2 of 2)
Posted by: COFFINMAK3R
|
May 20, 2011 1:57 PM
So who's payroll are you on? The initial paper makes perfect sense. It says what has to be said. The rebuttal is trash and sounds like sour grapes. Did the research scientists write a paper you were working on and publish it first? Is that what happened or did you end up with some financial offer for spin doctoring a negative response on this? In any event the initial article stands regardless of what you say. It is replicated in other forums and in other countries. Anyone wishing further data on this from other scientific bodies feel free to contact me and I'll start sending data in mass quantities. Overall though, BRAVO TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA FOR THIS ACHIEVEMENT!!!! If one takes the time to examine the rebuttal carefully it is basically saying THE EXACT SAME THING AS THE FIRST PAPER!!!! Just with more words and bad negative spins! Come back with a real rebuttal after testing! Until then, the first article stands. PERIOD.
Posted by: btthegeek
|
May 20, 2011 2:04 PM
BECAUSE CAPS LOCK PLUS EXCLAMATION MARKS MAKES IT TRUE!!!!
Posted by: ThatCrazyPharmacist
|
May 20, 2011 2:18 PM
I am a clinical pharmacist who practices in a facility that treats many cancer patients. I also have a family member with a very life threatening cancer.
I have also talked at length with robmx on the phone re: his use of DCA to prolong his life.
For those who are looking for possible solutions I suggest you listen very carefully to what robmx has to say. He is an extremely well informed and assertive individual who I found most interesting.
As far as DCA is concerned, I won't enter the debate other than to say that I strongly believe it has a lot of merit and should be considered by all who have a life threatening cancer. If you're interested in an overview of what my position is and a further discussion of the study and the proposed mechanism just google thatcrazypharmacist and DCA.
But I would like to comment on something I think is important.
The technical presentation in this article is good.
The lack of understanding of the situation cancer patients find themselves in is also quite obvious - and is demonstrated by the reply to robmx's proposed next step:
'Very glad to hear that you have had success fighting your cancer so far.
Maybe taking DCA, Metformin and NAC (radical anti-oxidant), all inexpensive things is a cure for cancer. Am thinking about betting my life, for a second time, soon on just such a thought.
Why would you do that? I don't think it's reasonable to presume that this drug combination would cure cancer. At a minimum, we can agree that there is no hard evidence for this.'
Actually, the answer to the question 'Why would you do that?' is simple. The docs have no solutions and robmx wants to live.
The reply is a normal one from one whose life isn't on the line and who hasn't thrashed around trying to piece together a survival plan. This is not a criticism, I also would have replied that way a couple of years ago.
But the distinction is important.
We are not winning the war on cancer. That is a cold hard fact - and people who are in the middle of it know we're losing.
So, those who can search for solutions their docs don't know about to try to gain quality survival time.
robmx, I know you'll see this reply if it gets posted. You always do. I would suggest you go to my website and take a real hard look at the posts about CoEnzyme Q10 & Low Dose Naltrexone and Alpha Lipoic Acid. If I were you I'd combine these with your DCA to see if you can stop the tumors' growth. Take a look at the videos of Dr Burt Burkson's presentations to the LDN Conference and I think you'll understand.
Good Luck
Posted by: neel bee
|
May 22, 2011 2:04 PM
Note also, not related to DCA:
UNMC Research Team Finds Possible Cure to Cancer etc.
BTW I think PZ struck the right tone here, being open minded and wanting more testing of DCA, but not gullible either.
Posted by: RLS
|
June 30, 2011 5:33 PM
Fact: Positive trial in 2007, but insufficient size
Fact: Inexpensive treatment
Fact: No further significant trial since
Fact: Current treatments are expensive
Hmmm....you need neither psychic ability or a phd to know something stinks.
Posted by: RLS
|
June 30, 2011 5:41 PM
M Otis Beard, sorry, but you appear rather naive. You may recall Rock Hudson was a massive star, yet his sexually was kept secret from a media obsessed with film stars. Have you even heard about Arnold Schwarzennegger's child to his maid? Just two facts that prove those with money and power can keep very obvious secrets hidden from you and me.
Incidentally, my late father was a freemason - as are countless friends. They keep their secrets from me and everyone else. Try thinking about that.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 30, 2011 5:46 PM
The "secrets" of freemasonry are not difficult to find.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 30, 2011 5:55 PM
RLS, if you think more clinical studies are needed, sponsor them, or get a group of investors to sponsor them. The problem with clinical studies is that they are expensive (run by Medical Doctors) and highly regulated (FDA). I don't care much for folks who complain publicly about things like dichloroacetate, then don't lift a finger to really fix the problem. Put your money where your mouth is.
Posted by: RLS
|
July 1, 2011 8:27 PM
Hey, Nerd of R, you mean it could cost money to find a cure for cancer? I'm with you, then: let's not mother. Especially when there are FAR more important things to spend it on - I believe the cost the US forces are currently spending on air conditioning in Iraq & Afghanistan is 20 billion per annum. Yep, please pardon my ignorance; I'll concede to one of greater intelligence...
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/s6Nc_IUerp9UDnUuvRifdbp6DB9S#e5662
|
October 4, 2011 3:23 AM
Dichloroacetate and cancer you are realy right and like that
nedir
after that there is a child site
notebookdepo
Posted by: slowsmile
|
October 26, 2011 12:49 AM
This author is a huge disappointment. His opinions are poorly substantiated and very shallow indeed.
At the University of Alberta, Dr Michelakis's funding has been withdrawn from his DCA project due to pressure from the big pharmaceuticals -- who do all the major funding on drugs research for all Universities in the US. I am also pretty sure that the author is entirely aware of how this sort of research is steered by these drugs firms -- where only patentable and profitable drugs are ever allowed to be invented.
In his article above, and concerning this, Dr Myers takes the view of "Que sera, sera..." to all this research steerage by the big and powerful pharmaceuticals. Apparently there is a "couldn't care less" attitude that permeates all research funded by these drugs companies. Sadly, there also appears to be a biased attitude by all medical researchers these days. After all, if they didn't cow-tow to the drugs company's wishes and research steerage, they would find great difficulty finding funding or even getting a job if they went against the wishes of these drugs cartels. And Dr Myer knows this perfectly well since he works and probably is funded in his own research by these drugs agencies.
It's just such a pity that this sort of outright bias for the big drugs cartels only works to effectively give support to their Business Model and profit motives rather than anything to do with the Hippocratic Oath.
That's why Dr Myer's article does not fool me one bit. Job protection is surely a poor moral reason not to admit or at least be curious about the truth and, perhaps, save some lives in the process.
Posted by: hildeaux
|
December 30, 2011 10:34 PM
Dr. Myers- What is your opinion on this film?: http://www.burzynskimovie.com/
I ask because, at one point, the film discusses how DCA is one component of the synthesis of a cancer treatment patented by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. The film goes on to examine how, when Burzynski refused to submit to research protocols which would only guarantee the failure of his treatment method in clinical trials funded by large research institutions, researchers attempted to go behind his back to look into how his treatment worked in order to attempt to circumvent his patent. One study involved researching DCA, one of the 'building blocks' of Burzynski's treatment; of course, DCA is only one component, so alone it does not work as well as Burzynski's own method.
Of course I'm only stating what the film says (and probably not with the best of explanations), and I'd like a second opinion. I am curious as to what Dr. Myers and/or the larger scientific community think about this story. Thanks.
Posted by: cvkline
|
December 31, 2011 3:36 PM
Thank you for this sane, reasoned, and easy to read discussion of DCA. I've been pointing friends at this who start in on the "cure for cancer being suppressed" conspiracy theory.
So, DCA: interesting? Certainly. Compelling? Possibly. Cancer cure? No, or at least not yet.
Conspiracy? No, not exactly, although there is the sad truth that unless someone can make huge profits on a potentially interesting treatment, it's really hard to get it studied properly. That is at least an offensive reality.
Posted by: Triburner1
|
January 2, 2012 5:34 PM
I would encourage people all over to keep thinking for themselves. The studies confirm DCA induces apoptosis in vivo. I would not lean heavily on this guy's technocratic rhetoric and establishment narrative. The medical curriculum and its tales are designed heavily to prevent cures / create the need for more drugs - it is political business.
For Wellness & *Liberty*
Posted by: Rakshas
|
January 23, 2012 4:13 PM
DCA + Metformin + Donovit(aconitin in homeopat. dosis)
And one more tool -
... hypertermia 43°C for 40 min.
Metformin, links:
http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=5596
Hyperthermia:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fspacenoology.agro.name%2F%3Fpage_id%3D4889
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk9dEQekz6gaZuN0ssiRBR1oUDPjLD2Sr4
|
January 29, 2012 9:28 AM
There is an interesting article documenting one persons use of dichloroacetate to treat his cancer. It is from a reputable science journal and might be of interest to those with an open mind.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 29, 2012 10:34 AM
googlemess #88
To quote from the OP:
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 29, 2012 11:32 AM
This is the same old problem. Folks appear to want to pretend "Big Pharma" is in a huge conspiracy to hold down a simple and cheap cures. Given the nature of science, it only requires that the proper studies be done and published in respected journals beyond the control of "Big Pharma" for said cure to take seriously by doctors. But, all the hypocritical conspiracy theorists want somebody else to do the necessary work instead of them putting their money, time and reputation where their mouths are. If sodium dichloroacetate is such a wonder drug, why aren't some private foundations getting into the act, and benefitting the world by doing so? Hint: maybe upon a closer look, SDCA isn't so promising.