Canadian Scientists Cure Cancer... No One Notices?

[jamesmax]

It's being ignored because it's Canada. They're too bussy being Canadian to run soul-crushing healthcare corperations.

do you here? I do and i find our health care to be one of the best in the world

 

[Kpt._Rob]

And people wonder why I rail on about what a sick fucked up system privatized healthcare is. In a socialized healthcare system, where people come ahead of money, we'd have jumped all over this. Too bad we'd rather make money by holding people's own lives hostage until they fork up the dough for a treatment.

You do realize the research and article comes from Canada, a place with a socialized healthcare system.

As I've already pointed out to the other thousand people who thought this qualified as a rebuttal

1) It's kind of hard to be an advocate of socialized healthcare and not realize this, and...

2) That would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that the drug companies are operating in a global economy, and since Americans spend more on healthcare than pretty much anyone else our system is largely responsible for the commercialization of the global drug manufacturing system. That is to say that the socialization of healthcare in one country or another doesn't change the fact that the drug manufacturers are still operating as privatized corporations, and to the extent that their current state is largely symbiotic with the American healthcare system, our moronic system has an effect on everyone.

 

[Kukakkau]

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

I think you should go study a bit harder...

The study says cancer makes mitochondria not work correctly, therefore the cells only use glycolysis to make energy, which produces lactic acid. If those mitochondria DID work, they would produce less/no lactic acid and also they would be able to commit suicide BECAUSE THEY ARE CANCEROUS.
This stuff supposedly allows the mitochondria in cancerous cells to keep functioning, so saying this will kill people faster than the cancer itself is just silly. All it does is let the cell work like it should (which in the case of cancer is killing itself). It would NOT affect healthy cells because they have no reason to kill themselves.

Mitochondria ARE responsible for apoptosis (killing the cell they are in), so I dunno why you claim expertise on this subject but you are very wrong. Check wikipedia for either mitochondrium or apoptosis.
And sure this stuff gives the cell more energy in the process, by burning lactic acid instead of just glycolysis. However since the cell can now commit suicide, like planned, it probably wont use the energy to reproduce.

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm

The OP linked a crappy explanation of the process, but the research isnt done by whoever wrote that (I assume).

See that makes sense the OP's paragraph just said mitocondria can die thanks to the drug and this turns off glycolysis.

And I said that mitochondria do not selectively kill cells - since the way they were speaking of it, it was if mitochodria were their own seperate cells killing other cells. It seemed like they were talking about natural killer cells or cytoxic T cells

 

[jamesmax]

It's being ignored because it's Canada. They're too bussy being Canadian to run soul-crushing healthcare corperations.

do you here? I do and i find our health care to be one of the best in the world

soul-crushing healthcare corperations.

WO.....TOOK THAT WAYYYY RONG ...vary sorry...

 

[Okysho]

Yeah, as a third year science student, what that first post says about mitochondria makes absolutely no sense.
Also, there are a huge variety of cancers, like one for every tissue, and are a wide range of effective treatments for many of them. So there is no real guarantee this will work on all cancer types, so they haven't really cured it.
Also, glycolysis is the metabolising of glucose to produce energy, and not part of the immune response. Some of that stuff makes no sense, as I said.

I only took bio up to grade 12, but correct me if I'm wrong. The mitochondria organelle is what provides the energy for the cell via the breaking of ATP bonds from glucose inside the cell.

Now here's where I might be wrong, but don't machrophages (the front-line white blood cells) eat or absorb infectious bacteria? As opposed to blasting them with protein missiles like the B cells?

On that basis, wouldn't the lysosomes within the machrophage destroy the invader and then use it's remains to fuel itself?

Again it's been a little while since I went over this, but by this theory, wouldn't attacking the cancer cells have some connection to the mitochondria?

Note: I admit that the way they're using it in the OP sounds like crap, and I'm pretty sure it's the Lysosomes within a cell that induce apoptosis (The self-destruction of a cell) I'm just curious if my understanding of this part of the cells is correct.

OT: Unless I'm misreading (besides the part about the mitochondria, anyone with a Grade 8 science background can tell you they're BSing) It sounds more like they're talking about the Lysosomes, or "suicide sacs" that all cells have within them, and activating them to kill off tumours and other mutated cancer cells.
What does that have to do with Glycosis? I call Shenanigans!!

What's disturbing about this is that I'm Canadian and I support our cancer research (which I didn't know was going on until 10 minutes ago)

The OP's source sucks, the underlying science looks as reliable as any from what I can tell from a cursory glance. If you have access, search Dichloroacetate on wiki and then check the link to the study in rats.

Macrophages work completely differently from B-cells it's true, but what they do is to engulf pathogens/toxins/waste and then break them down with a combination of lysosyme and an oxidative burst. The thing is that the process in the mitochondria is quite similar in the induction of Apoptosis - the activation of cell death signals like Caspases, Bax and PUMA (no really) leads to the release of Reactive Oxygen Species from the mitochondria, where they form part of the electron transport chain and Krebs cycle. This acts like a cellular oxidative burst and helps to break down more organelles/DNA/proteins leading to a chain reaction.

If a cancer cell switches over fully to glycolysis, far fewer ROS are generated. Simples!

Thanks for the extra science lesson, like I said I've only got a general idea since I only took Bio until grade 12. I didn't know that the mitochonrian process was similar to apoptosis, and I think THAT is where this research is basing itself, and while what is being said in the OP, the theory has some merit. I haven't looked this up though, nor am I about to (just for lack of time, there's Dragon Age to be had) I just wanted to make sure I wasn't a complete dumbass. Hey if the research has merit than may it blossom into a real cure.

 

[Pyro Paul]

-snip, snippity snip snip snip!

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.

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.

oh yeah, it is a tiny amount... if you compare it against the multi-billion dollar programs major car companies run to design and field new cars. but if you compare it against Other Proof of Concept Prototype cars designed to simply show that the technology works... 24 Million Dollars is acctually an insanely High amount.

here is the thing. the Multi-Billion dollar programs is NOT just to build one car. it is to build thousands of cars, to build factories, supply lines, parts, and machines to build them. It involves tests, procedures, and protocal for every aspect the car may be in so that the cars themselves are safe. it involves Marketting, Selling, advertising, and shipping so that the final finished product can acctually get into the hands of consumers. This entire process takes about 3 years from start to finish

if you where to take the proof of Concept car current state and expand it out to cover every aspect of production... you would be looking at a 100 billion dollar price tag to put that car in the hands of consumers... in about 8 years.


to the topic of cancer and this cure...

you want to know why you haven't heard of this cure?

Because it is Lethal to Humans.
the doseges required to counter-act the cancer cells is neurotoxic.

it has some promise and people are looking into it, But until the drug has a less then a 100% mortality rate when used to counter act cancer scientists are not going to call it a cure...

from what your saying...
Suicide is a legit cure to cancer.

 

[DrWilhelm]

Come on guys, what's happened to your sense of scepticism? I took biology at college and failed it. Failed badly in fact, and even I can see that this article is full of dribbling BS.

 

[willofbob]

sad, but not surprising.

ya see, children, people are bastards. that's all there is too it. Cancer has been cured but no-one wants to fund it because there isn't a high enough profit margin.

Let's just hope this doesn't turn out like [i/] One Chance [/i]or [i/]I am Legend[/i]

I find this post sad, but not surprising.

You see, children, people are lazy. That´s all there is too it. The sensationalist and somewhat misleading nature of the article has been pointed out, but no-one seems to notice because they prefer to just throw their opinion out there.

Let´s just hope this doesn´t turn out like.... some kind of movie where ignoring previous posts in a thread leads to horrifying events.... yeah (**** off, it´s really early where I am right now).

Seriously, it´s fun how some people are willing to believe ANYTHING, including that a way to generate infinite energy has been invented or that somebody cured cancer (how do you even "cure" an entire class of disease at once ?), as long as it reaffirms their believe that people are *****.

right, sorry about that.

people are still bastars though

captcha: CARoompa pro: some sort of new dancing/racing

 

[Grospoliner]

http://www.thedcasite.com/index.html

Don't know about the biology behind it. But the news story was released in 2007 and we didn't hear a peep of it.

 

[VanityGirl]

This has been said and "done" before.
Let's be very frank here. Drug Corporations would LOVE to have a cure for cancer. You do realize the first company to manufacture said drug would get the most profit?

Also, doesn't it seemy fishy that the media isn't having a field day with this?

And lastly, to manufacture a drug, or even use an old drug in a new way takes years of testing. Let's say this story is true and it doesn't "cure" cancer. What if it is only temporary? And also, what are the effects in the long run? What if that seemingly healthy tissue dies or turns cancerous?

Give me a few years of testing, then I'd say we'd have a real cure to cancer, but until years of testing is done, I shall be skeptical.
(Plus I read a similar story about 2 years ago and it turned out to be bologne.)

In all honesty, the cure to AIDS is bleach, but thanks to testing we know that drinking bleach is bad, mmkay?

 

[monkeyonnos]

I am a nursing student and just a general science nerd, and there are two problems with this:

First of all the cancer industry (including oncologist, treatments, drugs, hospital stays, ect..) generates millions of dollars in profit every year, and our government is not going to let that go anytime soon.

Secondly mitochondria do not work like that article explains. The mitochondria in our cells are simply the energy (like gas for a car), and not capable of killing cancerous cells. strengthening the mitochondria in cancer patients is useful however, as it give their bodies more energy to withstand the treatments being administered and their cells fight...more valiantly if you will.

This discovery is an incredible asset to cancer treatment. If you can strengthen a person's cells to withstand the treatment administered, the person's survival rate greatly increases. But...it's not a cure.

 

[Trolldor]

Oh my shit. The mitochondria creates ATP within cells. It has nothing to do with destroying cells.

This is about as scientific as homeopathic medicine. These people don't even know what a mitochondrion is, a GCSE student can tell you that.

People, seriously, do some fact-checking.

Use your head.

Do you honestly think a cure for cancer would just be ignored for several years?
I mean, really, think about it very carefully...

@AugustFall: Ok, seriously man, your knowledge of Biology is severely lacking here. Read wikipedia on apoptosis or just my earlier posts.

@Sapient Pearwood: True on the OP, but if you have access the read the actual paper (or at least the abstract) on PubMed. Very different story - good science, well peer reviewed.

@Trolldor: We meet again... still can't tell what your angle is here... do you mean that there's no way it can work because we haven't heard about it previously? Or that there's no way it hasn't been being worked on? The latter's correct, but unless you get a subscription to an oncology journal there's no way you can argue the former.

What I'm saying is, no cure has been discovered. There's been promising research, but that's all it is.
The reason this isn't swimming the rounds is because there's no cure to report on.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

IF it's legit, then they're ignoring it because there's no money in actually having cancer cured.

 

[Bobbity]

This thread is still alive? For the love of -

It was a sensationalist article written by a misinformed journalist about something that's still in the early stages of testing, that could not possibly work effectively against every type of cancer, and is even so not being ignored by pharmaceutical companies.

Think about it like this. That article is three years old, and the media still hasn't discovered it. It's in their interest to make news, and a cure-all for cancer would be a massive deal. Even if this did exist, and the pharmaceutical companies were ignoring it, the media sure as hell wouldn't be.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

No cure, but there's a vaccine in the works; it was recently proven to work on monkeys, and the next step is to make a version for human use. It's going to be a while, but there will almost definitely be a vaccine within our lifetimes

I can already imagine massive waves of unprotected sex after that happens.

I don't see a problem with this. Do you?

 

[GraveeKing]

-snip-
from what your saying...
Suicide is a legit cure to cancer.

Well yeah, pretty much - I mean there's no denying if you're dead you're pretty much not gonna have to worry about getting any terrible disease or dying anymore! O.K that's a bit harsh - but it's still a cure and something that should be funded and worked on.

 

[GraveeKing]

-snip- Skype is different. It's already raking in billions and that money wasn't spent to develop it, it was spent on a product that guarantees huge returns. If it costs a lot to develop the car, it's going to cost a lot to buy one of them. They have to develop one that's cheap to buy. No point making it if no one can buy it.

True, but think of all the environmentalists and money saved on not buying fuel etc. It's efficient so why not?
And on the topic of skype I'm still pretty paranoid about it going ever so wrong now Microsoft own it....

 

[Trolldor]

No cure, but there's a vaccine in the works; it was recently proven to work on monkeys, and the next step is to make a version for human use. It's going to be a while, but there will almost definitely be a vaccine within our lifetimes

I can already imagine massive waves of unprotected sex after that happens.

I don't see a problem with this. Do you?

Apart from all the other STDs and unwanted/unplanned pregnancies?