Log in

View Full Version : Cure for cancer



razboz
1st February 2007, 17:38
Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice
David McRaney
Issue date: 1/23/07 Section: Opinion



EDITORS NOTE:

Since the original publication of this article we have been inundated with responses from the public at all walks of life. It is important to note that research is ongoing with DCA, and not everyone is convinced it will turn out to be a miracle drug. There have been many therapies that were promising in vitro and in animal models that did not work for one reason or another in humans. To provide false hope is not our intention. There is a lot of information on DCA available on the web, and this column is but one opinion on the topic. We hope you will do your own research into the situation. So, we have added links to resources at the end of this column. If you are arriving here form a linking website like Fark, then those links will not appear because they tend to grab only the text. For those visitors, here is a link to the original research: www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca

END NOTE

Scientists may have cured cancer last week.

Yep.

So, why haven't the media picked up on it?

Here's the deal. Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada found a cheap and easy to produce drug that kills almost all cancers. The drug is dichloroacetate, and since it is already used to treat metabolic disorders, we know it should be no problem to use it for other purposes.

Doesn't this sound like the kind of news you see on the front page of every paper?

The drug also has no patent, which means it could be produced for bargain basement prices in comparison to what drug companies research and develop.

Scientists tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body where it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but left healthy cells alone. Rats plump with tumors shrank when they were fed water supplemented with DCA.

Again, this seems like it should be at the top of the nightly news, right?

Cancer cells don't use the little power stations found in most human cells - the mitochondria. Instead, they use glycolysis, which is less effective and more wasteful.

Doctors have long believed the reason for this is because the mitochondria were damaged somehow. But, it turns out the mitochondria were just dormant, and DCA starts them back up again.

The side effect of this is it also reactivates a process called apoptosis. You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that can't be pressed in cancer cells. Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished. Fully functioning mitochondria, thanks to DCA, can once again die.

With glycolysis turned off, the body produces less lactic acid, so the bad tissue around cancer cells doesn't break down and seed new tumors.

Here's the big catch. Pharmaceutical companies probably won't invest in research into DCA because they won't profit from it. It's easy to make, unpatented and could be added to drinking water. Imagine, Gatorade with cancer control.

So, the groundwork will have to be done at universities and independently funded laboratories. But, how are they supposed to drum up support if the media aren't even talking about it?

All I can do is write this and hope Google News picks it up. In the meantime, tell everyone you know and do your own research.

PLEASE READ THE EDITOR'S NOTE AT THE TOP OF THIS COLUMN, AND PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINKS TO OTHER DCA RESOURCES LISTED DIRECTLY UNDER THIS COLUMN.

This is a column of opinion written by Printz Executive Editor David McRaney. Comments can be sent to [email protected]

Source (http://media.www.studentprintz.com/media/storage/paper974/news/2007/01/23/Opinion/Scientists.Cure.Cancer.But.No.One.Takes.Notice-2667600.shtml)

Discuss.

chimx
1st February 2007, 19:53
People have been noticing. I read about this 3 weeks ago in a science journal. It really is good news for cancer victims because the drug is not patented, meaning that it can be provided to victims for a relatively cheap cost.

However, this drug does *NOT* cure cancer. Cancer grows because within a benign growth, cancerous cells become suffocated and can't utilize oxygen to produce energy. Thus, they switch to a different for of energy usage that does not require oxygen. But, this type of energy usage makes the cancer cell "immortal", allowing it to eventually spread. This drug simply forces the cell to use oxygen again, despite the fact that it will suffocate. The result is a *reduction* of cancer cells, but *not* a cure in the slightest.

coda
1st February 2007, 21:28
<<<Cancer grows because within a benign growth, cancerous cells become suffocated and can&#39;t utilize oxygen to produce energy. Thus, they switch to a different for of energy usage that does not require oxygen. But, this type of energy usage makes the cancer cell "immortal", allowing it to eventually spread. >>>

Unless your not being clear, than this is not correct.

Cancer grows because of accelerated proliferation of abnormal cell division, caused by a mutation in the DNA.

benign growths always remain benign growths, and are not malignant (cancerous)


Here is a multi-media cancer biology
http://www.insidecancer.org/index2.html

What is cancer?
http://plan2000.cancer.gov/resrch_prog/chap2/2index.htm

Cancer and it&#39;s Causes?
http://plan2000.cancer.gov/resrch_prog/chap4/4index.htm

chimx
1st February 2007, 21:47
Indigo: it is probably because biology is not my area. Let me rephrase it better (and actually look up the terminology this time)

Cancer develops because cells in a growth are starved of oxygen. They survive by switching to glycolysis to make energy instead. This makes the mitochondria "switch off", making the cells cancerous and "immortal". Thus, the cells continue to replicate and the tumor grows.

Glycolysis also generates lactic acid, which lets the cancer cells eath through tissue, and escape the tumor growth. This is why secondary cancer can develop elsewhere in the body.

dichloroacetate, the drug that has killed cancer in some studies, turns the mitochondria in the cancer cells back on, forcing the cell to cease glycolysis and use the mitochondria to make energy. This then forces the oxygen starved cancer cell to wither and die.

Again, this only kills cancer, but is not a cure for cancer. It causes it to recede. Further, this has only very recently been discovered. Tests have only been done on a few petri dishes and the drug is not considered read in the slightest to be used on humans.

Janus
1st February 2007, 21:53
Breast cancer therapy developed (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070130-14563200-bc-us-breastcancer.xml)

Nanotechnology used to fight lung cancer (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070115-16370100-bc-us-nanocancer.xml)

Promising therapies (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6888916)

It seems to me that there has been a lot of focus and drive on cancer as well as on possible cures and treatments. In fact, there&#39;s been a lot of talk about the cervical cancer vaccine recently.

coda
1st February 2007, 22:35
<<Cancer develops because cells in a growth are starved of oxygen.>>

I don&#39;t know if the above statement is true. From what I&#39;ve read of cancer-- LOTS-- the cancer cells need oxygen for developement and growth.

Now, As far as that wonder drug. I am wary of it. I can&#39;t say whether that drug works or not, nor what would make it work or not.

But, If oxygen has anything to do with either of it, than in all seriousness, you should win the Nobel Prize in Science or Chemistry. Because it would have been something that science has hugely overlooked.

chimx
2nd February 2007, 00:26
I think I should win the Nobel Prize for a lot of things.

Here&#39;s the article where I got most of my information from:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...line-news_rss20 (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971&feedId=online-news_rss20)

coda
2nd February 2007, 01:49
<<I think I should win the Nobel Prize for a lot of things>>>

I think you should win the Nobel Prize in Literature for your Poetry of the defense of foreskin. Nicely done.

anyway, that&#39;s the source I was looking for, comrade. Thank you very much for the link.



circumcision I [email protected]&#33; of course&#33;

colorlessman
2nd February 2007, 02:46
Cures aren&#39;t profitable, so no company is going to develop one.

On the other hand, drugs and therapies are a multi-billion dollar industry..

Janus
6th February 2007, 00:15
I don&#39;t know if the above statement is true. From what I&#39;ve read of cancer-- LOTS-- the cancer cells need oxygen for developement and growth.
Cancer develops because of mutations in a cells&#39; DNA which cause them to divide beyond control.