Canadian Scientists Cure Cancer... No One Notices?

[FarleShadow]

Okay, my BS monitors are going off here. Mitochondria are a structure within the cell, not a type of cell. Further, they're essentially the powerplant of the cell; if cancer patients had non-functioning mitochondria, they'd be dead long before the cancer did anything. I'm going to have to see a more reliable source on this before I believe anything.

Afaik, mitochondria are disabled in CANCER cells, not all other cells, I vaguely remember that cancer cells perform glycolysis (Alot less energy produced from that pathway) but provides alot of additional materials for growth and such. Also, again afaik, re-enabling the disabled mitochondria does not instantly mean the cancer cells self-destruct, just that they're competiting for the same fuel reserves, if apoptosis's code has been destroyed, cells won't know how to self-d anyway.

Also. first thought went reading this:

"Cancer, eh? What's that aboot?"

 

[sapphireofthesea]

If it were as simple as using drugs already in use, doctors would have simply used the ones they use for other things on the cancer patients (similar things have already been done).
As a scientist (University Taught) I am not convinced by the aritcle presented here, nor am I satisfied by their explination of the workings of the alleged cure. As far as I am concerned, at best, they are still testing the teory, at worst, it is just a hoaxs.
No need to get worked up.

 

[uc.asc]

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.

Mitochondria - the structure inside the cell that causes glycolysis to occur which is essential in enerygy production. If you kill mitochodria the patient will die faster than the cancer would kill them.

That's like saying oh yeah we can fix your car but you'll not have an engine in it

People, please, stop acting like you know Biology, because half of you don't know two craps of what is written there...

This paper have been proved as fact by the community and many third party supporters are angry about this fact.

Going into third year university level immunology + microbiology - so yes I know about cancer and functions of the cell. This paper is wrong - mitochondria do not posses the ability to directly kill cells, let alone specific ones.

Cancer is just regular cells that can't turn off their division signals and keep proliferating. The only way this idea works is in making less energy available for the cells to divide. But that then means there isn't enough energy available for other essential functions.

They are killing the cancer by malnourishing and putting the patient at risk - that is why it won't be patented

Here's the actual source http://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/abstract/S1535-6108%2806%2900372-2 . It doesn't say what most people here think it says.

 

[Wilko316]

Damn, this is AMAZING. Screw those corporations just wanting to make a profit, someone should sell this.

 

[Kair]

Capitalists create problems, not only unintentionally but also intentionally. The market economy runs on problems.

 

[Harbinger_]

I get a laugh out of some of the people that are commenting saying certain cells don't work this way and this doesn't make medical sense.

Do people honestly realize how many things we thought were correct only to be proven wrong over the many, many years that humans have been around?
Especially in medicine?

The egyptians believed the brain was a useless organ, alot of people believed that vaccines did far more harm than good. I won't deny that people have learned in school that treatment A cannot work on illness B but it is possible that what you are learning may not in fact be 100% correct.

When people mention "Oh the media would have told us all about this regardless if it was worth money or not." I just have to shake my head. There have been countless breakthroughs in efficient energy, nanotechnology and synthetic intelligence over the years but we don't hear alot about it do we?

Of course not and because thats due to the information being smothered and the sources being removed before it can become completely public knowledge.

If I told you tomorrow that I found a way to fuel your car and you could produce it in your very own home and that it would be cheaper and run cleaner than fossil fuels...

Do you not think that when word spread about it it would impact those large fuel and energy conglomerates? Think of all the money they would lose.

This really isn't any different.

 

[BlackWidower]

What the fuck is HubPages? Do you have a better source? Like the New England Journal of Medicine? You'd think they would have posted something this big in a peer reviewed journal. I'd have to read the whole thing (which I don't have time for now) but it does seem worthy of publishing in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[Abengoshis]

Have other independent groups tested it?
Has it been tested on humans?
Has it been tested on pregnant rats or rats with other diseases?

Do I believe it? No.

 

[cgaWolf]

Pretty sure we can cure Aids too, but a one time cure doesn't make anywhere as much cash as lifetime treatments.

AS: just picking up your quote, the "you" in my responce is general, not necessarily.. you

Actually, curing 30m people + everyone who keeps getting infected, and getting 100% marketshare because you're the only one with a cure -- that's VERY profitable. That anticorporate stance of "they don't want to cure, because there's more money in treating" is a very ...naive, and doesn't even come close to the realities of pharmaceutical research.

Treating symptoms is something that can be progressively done as our understanding of diseases increases; finding a lasting cure from an imprefect understanding of a disease is much harder.

That counts double for retroviral diseases (HIV, Hep B), where the virus genome is integrated into your own. Even if we could methylate specific genes to deactivate them (and we really can't, and although we're able to detect DNA methylation, that's fairly recent), there's a whole baggage of legal & ethical questions left unanswered, before you start playing around with the genome of living people.

If there's one thing we know better now that we did 15 years ago, then it's that there are no easy answers. If there were, Huntingtons disease would be one of the first to go.

Don't mistake what you learned in highschool (which corresponds to the state of the art knowledge of 30-40 years ago) with actual scientific knowledge please.

--

As to the article in question: it has been written by someone with either little knowledge of what he's talking about, or little knowledge in the unbiased reporting of actual news items.

DCA shows some promise in reversing abnormal growth of cells, and re-enabling programmed cell death. So far, so good.
It also causes liver cancer in rats, is toxic, and DCA treatements against lactic acidemia may have led to improvements of the condition, but didn't actually cure people, or had to be interrupted due to toxicity.

DCA is entering the next phase of trials, mostly because stage 2 trails have shown some promise. It's not a wonder drug however: It's another possible step in treating tumors - that's far removed from being a magical cure for cancer.

Sad, isn't it? My girlfriend had to go to the ER a while back and she was prescribed 3 or 4 big name drugs (variations of oxycodone and the like). When we went to the pharmacy to pick them up, the tab was over $400 for three weeks worth of pills. Fortunately for me, my uncle is a doctor and took a look at the list of drugs. He rewrote the prescriptions for the generic versions of the drug (same exact drug down to the molecular lvl, just no fancy stamping on the pill) and we picked up everything for under $14. At that point, I lost the tiny tiny shred of hope I had left for modern western medicine.

How so? A company dumps tons of money into research & getting a drug to market; they get to profit from it exclusively for a number of years, and afterwards everyone who can duplicate the process may do so & bring their generic imitation drugs to the market for a lot cheaper.

Seems to me like a system that, while not perfect for early adopters (adopters.... sorry for that word, it's not like they have a choice), ensures researching companies stay in business and keep looking for new drugs, and that a decade down the line, the drug becomes cheap.

Making money by improving quality of life - i understand some people see that as ethically disgusting, but i just can't bend my brain into thinking that someone who gets treated for a disease of off worse than someone who isn't.

 

[Soveru]

Until this is proven by other reliable sources, I'll remain skeptical

 

[Pyro Paul]

I think the fact it's not been picked up for a few years makes it even worse - they cured cancer a few years ago and we completely ignore it because it's 'not profitable' ?!
This really does perfectly represent the world we live in today doesn't it?
We cure something life-threatening but the second we realize we don't gain anything it's just shrugged off and ignored - It really should speak for itself, if I were to say I've once again completely lost faith in humanity.
I saw similar to do with a shock-wave based engine or something which would (if engineered into a car) make it hugely more fuel efficient, and it was ignored because no car company wanted to implement it into a design simply because fuel would be used so much less in the process they'd lose money.

The problem of old used to be 'breaking the old ways' like religion, stubbornness and other arrogant things - nowadays the only thing holding back progress is the need to make a profit, it's completely pathetic and really sickens me. The entire thing in itself is an entire threads rant worth.

Well, looking into it more...

Yes, this is a cure to Cancer!
but it also cures this little human condition called 'LIFE'

DCA is naturally occuring and normally non-toxic, however in concentrated levels it acts as a thiamine inhibitor causing potentially irreversable and fatal effects on the human brain, nervious system, and cardiovascular system.

Here is the problem(s) you're having with this.
because the internet gives us access to the wealth of information of the world, we can find innovative ideas which where proposed in the past and bring them back to the lime light. However more often then not, these innovative ideas tend to not get off the ground for very good reasons which is why they are ultimatly forgotten.

Also, you are prone to a problem inherent with this generation. 'If it doesn't happen now, then some one is intentionally keeping it down!'

the Wave Disk Generator (shock-wave engine) for example.
It is a rather solid concept and and could revolutionize the internal combustion engine. So why havn't we seen all our cars outfitted with a Wave Disk engine?

Well because it is still very much so an idea. an ambitious company tried to build a car using this technology... last i checked they spent 24 million dollars building it and it Still doesn't work. Conceptual technology and bright ideas are nice, but until they can be practically applied they are just nice thoughts and little more.

 

[FarleShadow]

I'm curious and judgemental, do people seriously think they're masses of alt-energy sources and magical medical technology that 'They' (Capitalists, government, Santa) don't want us to have?

Even if you could only make a penny from magical cancer treatments, someone is going to want that penny and will spam it to make money. Like those shitty plastic toys. Or Pokemon.

 

[Ekonk]

First I was like YEAH then I was like what? Because there are some serious mistakes in that article considering mitochrondia, as someone already pointed out.

 

[deathbydeath]

wow. that is the ultimate troll moment

 

[Pyro Paul]

I'm curious and judgemental, do people seriously think they're masses of alt-energy sources and magical medical technology that 'They' (Capitalists, government, Santa) don't want us to have?

Even if you could only make a penny from magical cancer treatments, someone is going to want that penny and will spam it to make money. Like those shitty plastic toys. Or Pokemon.

Exactly This.

if this was viable, then some one would sell it.
That is how capitalism works.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

This rings BS.Cancer cures swim up every year.Some moron from my country living in Austria tried to patent one just last year even tho he had a record of destroying samples made by official clinics whether the cure works or not.Macedonia patented it I think.Funny same case actually really simple and cheap cure that has never before had effects on cancer growths.Something to do with a camomile extract

If a person invents a cure for cancer he'd likely give it away for humanity.You don't go and market it to pharmaceutical companies because that's just silly.Until those guys win a Nobel prize I call bullcrap.

 

[Terminate421]

Oh my god.

Now all those "donate to cancer patients" seem like real assholes now. Why else would they ignore the possible cure for cancer?

 

[bojac6]

This isn't being covered up, this isn't hidden, this isn't a big discovery. It's being researched and studied currently and has entered phase 3 human trials.

So far results have been sort of successful in treating some forms of cancer, but the drug has a demonstrable increase in risk of liver cancer and has really terrible side effects on patients with MELAS syndrome.

In non-clinical trials (read people buying DCA and taking it as a medication for cancer, despite the evidence not being there), there are reports of success. However, as these are non-clinical, and therefore not controlled, these reports are not relevant and should not have any bearing on whether the drug is approved for cancer treatment.

In short, the blog post the OP posted is old, out-of-date, and a bit sensationalist. DCA is being researched and shows a bit of promise, which is more than just about any other study.