Yep woops. Sadly the OP's quoted bit is not actually tied to the article. Most people are just railing against mitochondria being described as a natural cancer fighting cell I think.House_Vet said:
Canadian Scientists Cure Cancer... No One Notices?
- Thread starter Yassen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It saddens me that we live in a world so resigned to the worst that when soemthing like this occurs people automatically brand it as a fake.
Having said that, I'm sure that if it has been around for this long it would have been more widely used by doctors who aren't members of greedy drugs companies by now.
Having said that, I'm sure that if it has been around for this long it would have been more widely used by doctors who aren't members of greedy drugs companies by now.
To pull out a quote from your link:Killertje said:
'No conclusions can be made on whether the drug is safe or effective'
The hyperbolic article in the OP does exactly that: jumps to conclusions. Maybe this is a step in the right direction, maybe not, but that's all it is: a step. Not a cure.
Peoples need to calm down.
It is actually theorized that the mitochondria were once their own cell. They are the only organelle with it's own DNA. If that theory is correct, then yes it is a type of cell. Anyway, the body does actually have natural ways to fight cancer. It is a gene that can be turned on and off in a lab. They are saying that particular gene in the mitochondria is off, not the mitochondria itself.Owyn_Merrilin said:
I admit to sucking at Science. But I am incredulous that a cure to the phenomena of cancer could be covered up for years. There is profit in it, even without a patent, selling it could gain great profits if you set up production quickly, and people would be willing to pay. Are you sure this isn't just research which could lead to cure(s)? I don't think the media would stay quiet, or Universities doing research for that matter.
It strikes me as overly cynical really, and as a cynic it sticks in my throat to say that. But really? A world wide conspiracy for years?
It strikes me as overly cynical really, and as a cynic it sticks in my throat to say that. But really? A world wide conspiracy for years?
I see Tumblr is spilling in the Escapist. The research is still ongoing and only a few clinical trials with cancer patients under palliative care have been ran. From what I remember, one died and the other 4 showed reduced or halted growth. Three of the patients had not responded to various chemotherapies, two were recently diagnosed.. Their cancers weren't specified in the article, I can't find the trials on the Cancer Cel Journal or the Universities archives so I couldn't reference it. They were studied over a period of 3 months.
This is as far as human trials have gone officially, though used of DCA in combined drug therapy with traditional chemotherapy "off label" has reportedly been successful in putting cancers into remission that would have otherwise not done so with chemo alone.
However DCA has show to have paradoxical effects in some lab mice with human colorectal tumours, where apoptosis would be reduced (cell suicide) and the tumour growth would accelerate. I consider the source reliable upon referencing, though validation is again required.
They need private funding to really push this endevour forward, it's been quite stagnant for the past 4 years. As it probably mentions in the above article, the problem is pharmaceutical companies don't want to invest in anything they can't control legally.
People are right in noticing there is scientific inconsistancies in THAT article, you would be better off reading this for the facts of the initial tests:
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2007-03-15_Update.cfm
It was last updated in 2010, more recent and comprehensive papers are available at dca-information.pbworks.com
Here are the results of the human trials (Phase II): http://dca-information.pbworks.com/f/Metabolic%20Modulation%20of%20Glioblastoma%20with%20Dichloroacetate.pdf
Mitochondria are indeed not cells as many have pointed out. They were symbiotic bacteria, but they are considered organelles. I would have also thought the RER and Golgi apparatus were where lysosomes are produced, having very little to do with the mitochondria. I only have 2 years of college Biology and years of enthusiasm in the subject with particular interests in zoology and molecular pathology, so I'm no expert.
This is as far as human trials have gone officially, though used of DCA in combined drug therapy with traditional chemotherapy "off label" has reportedly been successful in putting cancers into remission that would have otherwise not done so with chemo alone.
However DCA has show to have paradoxical effects in some lab mice with human colorectal tumours, where apoptosis would be reduced (cell suicide) and the tumour growth would accelerate. I consider the source reliable upon referencing, though validation is again required.
They need private funding to really push this endevour forward, it's been quite stagnant for the past 4 years. As it probably mentions in the above article, the problem is pharmaceutical companies don't want to invest in anything they can't control legally.
People are right in noticing there is scientific inconsistancies in THAT article, you would be better off reading this for the facts of the initial tests:
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2007-03-15_Update.cfm
It was last updated in 2010, more recent and comprehensive papers are available at dca-information.pbworks.com
Here are the results of the human trials (Phase II): http://dca-information.pbworks.com/f/Metabolic%20Modulation%20of%20Glioblastoma%20with%20Dichloroacetate.pdf
Mitochondria are indeed not cells as many have pointed out. They were symbiotic bacteria, but they are considered organelles. I would have also thought the RER and Golgi apparatus were where lysosomes are produced, having very little to do with the mitochondria. I only have 2 years of college Biology and years of enthusiasm in the subject with particular interests in zoology and molecular pathology, so I'm no expert.
Well, it's been used in vivo in rats and mice, and the follow-up papers seem to suggest that the theory behind it (and its potential transfer to human medicine) is definitely sound. The fact that they're actually putting it through clinical trials is damn good news too.Sapient Pearwood said:
Effectively, the most impressive data showed that adding the dichloroacetate to drinking water caused a statistically significant degree and frequency of different types of tumors in the rats and mice. I posted some of the theory earlier too =)
The current mainstream theory of mitochondria/chloroplasts is that they evolved intracellular symbiotes, so to say that they "have never been cells" is somewhat dubious. Similarly, mitochondria do more than process oxygen. When activated by the right signals, they trigger apoptosis, which is probably what the article was referring to. They also store calcium and can even synthesize compounds.afaceforradio said:
Actually eating (living) healthy DOES prevent most if not all types of cancer. It doesnt mean you wont get cancer if you do everything right, but the chances you get it are a lot lower than if you smoke, eat lots of fat and drink alcohol every day. Cancer is caused by mutations in your DNA and those are caused by radioactivity. Since the way the human body produces energy also produces radioactivity you can never 100% prevent cancer, but the less radioactive you are the better. Eating healthy and not smoking helps a lot in that regard.afaceforradio said:
that's awesome.
and really saddening, that nobody will sell it because they can't make much money off it.
i thought Canada's healthcare system was different than america's tho. i thought the pharmaceutical companies didn't make any money off medicines. am i mistaken?
and really saddening, that nobody will sell it because they can't make much money off it.
i thought Canada's healthcare system was different than america's tho. i thought the pharmaceutical companies didn't make any money off medicines. am i mistaken?
Okay, that's just stupid. Just because the big guys in the business can't make money from it, they're not interested?
I think having a reputation of making the cure non-profitable works better than one of refusing to make it untill they could make money.
Just saying.
I think having a reputation of making the cure non-profitable works better than one of refusing to make it untill they could make money.
Just saying.
The reason the media hasn't seized on this is because the researchers involved are being extremely cautious. The technique is still being researched and they don't want people to think this is an absolute cure and then have it turn out as a failure once testing is complete.
Here's the wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetate#Potential_cancer_applications
Here's the wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetate#Potential_cancer_applications
Well of course there's problems, there's problems in developing ANYTHING I don't know much about the subject - but it would have been ignored completely if there hadn't been SOME hope of fixing said issues.Pyro Paul said:
And you were saying they put 24million dollars into it?
That's a TINY amount by these days standards - this should be a huge project - the ability to make a car god knows how much more efficient and do a hell of a lot for the environment, and the use of fuel - and Microsoft go about tossing billions around to buy SKYPE of all things!
Millions isn't a figure we should be spending on something so vital, we need billions spent on it so we CAN develop it, and goes back to my original point - we don't invest enough to going into research and development of things like this.
But back on the topic of cancer stuff.
Look at it this way - I don't understand all the problems this thing may bring but if you have a deadly case of cancer - this just a way of rolling the dice and maybe getting another shot at it - you're dead either way, why not try this - if you die from it you were probably dead anyway! So you can't deny it's worth looking into - and I'm sure with a bit more development they'd be fine working out side-effects for the most part.
Actually there is a pill for AIDS. (It's as expensive as hell though.) And there is a international movement called ONE whose goal is to have no child born with AIDS by 2015.Patrick_and_the_ricks said:
You do realize the research and article comes from Canada, a place with a socialized healthcare system.Kpt._Rob said: