Possible cure for cancer, that has been recieving no attention

[Prince of Darkness]

Article on Student Printz

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.

But it might not be ready for Therapeutic use...

For someone like myself, who have lost many loved ones to cancer, this does nothing but give me hope and boundless anger at the same time. To think that something this great receives no attention whatsoever makes me despise the media more than I thought I could.

[Georgef551]

The problem is, it was made in Canada. In MY opinion, I don't care where it's made, but here in the States, the drug companies, and the Federal Government (minus the staunch and looney-lib Democrats) despise Canadian pharmascudicals. Cost and the FDA's failure to fix things have got so bad, plus legal issues, people sneak on busses to go over the border, to get the same exact drugs for a LOT less.
If the government would severely crack down on the lawsuit-happy morons who sue over everything, including KNOWN complications, things could be a lot different.

I'd like that drug company make a hard push to CBS, NBC, and ABC (which are liberal, good in this case), and FOX (Bi-partisan, might be tougher), to bring this to everyone's attention. It looks like a very good find.

God forbid, if I get it, and that drug/treatment is available up there, I'll go over the border.

[TheeXile]

-snip-

Bah nvm.

[esselfortium]

Hooray, another reason to hate on the FDA and the American drug companies. Forgive my lack of specifics, but some drugs on the market are essentially synthesized recreations of natural supplements. You can't patent a natural supplement, but you can patent a synthesized recreation of it. My dad had been taking red yeast rice extract in place of some of his prescribed heart medication, for the similar (or identical) elements in it, and his cardiologist was stunned by the results (in a good way, mind you). He recently told me that now the FDA is forcing it to either have the relevant element be removed or have it be taken off the market. If I remember correctly, the claim was a patent violation. Hmmmm.

I'm sure this post sounds stupid and misinformed without the specifics; he's a doctor, I'm not, and I didn't feel like bugging him for info that I could use in an internet forum post, but regardless. 'Tis a really lame situation in general.

[fraggle]

Yeah, um, if they have found a decent treatment that helps, then great, but you'll forgive me for thinking that article is more than a little sensationalist.

[Georgef551]

esselfortium said:

Hooray, another reason to hate on the FDA and the American drug companies. Forgive my lack of specifics, but some drugs on the market are essentially synthesized recreations of natural supplements. You can't patent a natural supplement, but you can patent a synthesized recreation of it. My dad had been taking red yeast rice extract in place of some of his prescribed heart medication, for the similar (or identical) elements in it, and his cardiologist was stunned by the results (in a good way, mind you). He recently told me that now the FDA is forcing it to either have the relevant element be removed or have it be taken off the market. If I remember correctly, the claim was a patent violation. Hmmmm.

I'm sure this post sounds stupid and misinformed without the specifics; he's a doctor, I'm not, and I didn't feel like bugging him for info that I could use in an internet forum post, but regardless. 'Tis a really lame situation in general.

I belive this. I've seen stories like this on the local news (local level), so there's no surprise there.
If I need any meds in the future, I should see what they comprise of. Maybe I can fix things on the (very) cheap.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

A cure for cancer will never be allowed to happen, as the pharmaceuticals would lose billions.

[Nightmare Doom]

Another reason why Capitalism sucks.

[Csonicgo]

The Ultimate DooMer said:

A cure for cancer will never be allowed to happen, as the pharmaceuticals would lose billions.

Which is why I gave up on my dream to become something in pharm tech. I don't think my moral values would allow it.

[Snarboo]

The Ultimate DooMer said:

A cure for cancer will never be allowed to happen, as the pharmaceuticals would lose billions.

That doesn't make sense. If "big pharma" is concerned about making money at the expense of moral principles, why not subtly introduce carcinogens and then charge an exorbitant fee for the cure instead? There will always be cancer, so it's not like developing a cure will change anything. Making vaccines hasn't put "big pharma" out of business, neither would a cancer cure. If anything, it would make them more money, both for finding it and then producing it in mass quantities.

Also, most people don't pay for their medication, their insurance does. About the only thing that the FDA isn't involved with are dietary and herbal supplements, which aren't covered by insurance anyway. And honestly, the FDA should be regulating them, as many are of dubious value and poorly manufactured, resulting in things like lead contamination.

[esselfortium]

Nightmare Doom said:

Another reason why Capitalism sucks.

Much like your posting.

[Georgef551]

Snarboo said:

{SNIP}
Also, most people don't pay for their medication, their insurance does. About the only thing that the FDA isn't involved with are dietary and herbal supplements, which aren't covered by insurance anyway. And honestly, the FDA should be regulating them, as many are of dubious value and poorly manufactured, resulting in things like lead contamination.

Lucky. My insurance doesn't cover the full price. We have to pay a co-payment, depending upon the brand, and what it's for. I think the highest co-pay is about $40.

[myk]

Snarboo said:
That doesn't make sense. If "big pharma" is concerned about making money at the expense of moral principles, why not subtly introduce carcinogens and then charge an exorbitant fee for the cure instead?

While I agree what TUD is saying is silly, there are laws against poisoning or sickening people on purpose. This doesn't, of course, stop such companies from making money at the expense of moral principles in more subtle ways, such as appropriating cures and increasing their price so as to make profit, or challenging initiatives that aim for cheaper and more widely available medicine mainly because it undermines their gains.

[Snarboo]

myk said:

This doesn't, of course, stop such companies from making money at the expense of moral principles in more subtle ways, such as appropriating cures and increasing their price so as to make profit, or challenging initiatives that aim for cheaper and more widely available medicine mainly because it undermines their gains.

Well yeah, in that case I definitely agree. I just don't believe that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't make money from a cure.

Georgef551 said:

Lucky. My insurance doesn't cover the full price. We have to pay a co-payment, depending upon the brand, and what it's for. I think the highest co-pay is about $40.

I'm actually not certain how most insurance companies cover medication, so you kind of caught my bluff. However, when I was last on insurance, my medication only cost about $6 - $10, where it now costs $30 - $40 without.

[alexz721]

Come on guys, it was a preliminary trial on rats. And just because you haven't heard much about it since then doesn't mean that clinical trials aren't being conducted. They are. Third, DCA can cause nerve damage. Not only that, but if you take too much of it, it can cause liver cancer. Whoops. Don't believe everything you read. Yes, there are some promising results, but it is not the godsend we've been waiting for.

[Naked Snake]

The reason it didn't get "front page news" is because new cancer drugs are being tested ALL THE TIME.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Snarboo said:

That doesn't make sense. If "big pharma" is concerned about making money at the expense of moral principles, why not subtly introduce carcinogens and then charge an exorbitant fee for the cure instead?

They've been doing that for a while now - bird flu, swine flu etc.

(it does sound silly unless you see it from an elite's point of view...a cure for one of the world's biggest killer diseases means lots of money lost from selling their multitude of current treatments, and a lot more people on the planet)

[fraggle]

Naked Snake said:

The reason it didn't get "front page news" is because new cancer drugs are being tested ALL THE TIME.

Yep, exactly.

I did a quick Google and found this:

Hi, in this moment it is impossible to say what damages exactly may happen to the people who decide to use DCA as treatment against cancer. Reason for this is that dichoracetate has never been tested as anti cancer drug but only as medication for some rare metabolic disease. Also it's been used on animals for their cancers and caused paralysis, death and testicular shrinkage. As metabolic medication DCA causes numbness, pain and gait disturbance.

It's also untrue that it hasn't appeared in the news, as it has already appeared in New Scientist. Personally I think that splashing a big story across the front page news every time a potential new treatment for cancer is found is a really bad idea. Firstly, the media attention has the potential to adversely affect the scientific process, and secondly, it potentially gives false hope to the people suffering from these diseases, when the research might eventually turn out to go nowhere.

I'm really sorry to the original poster who lost people to cancer, but it's pretty obvious from the article that this is far from being any kind of proven/effective treatment. If it is developed into a treatment, it's almost certainly not going to be some "magic drink that cures all types of cancer" like the article seems to be suggesting.

[kristus]

Georgef551 said:

and FOX (Bi-partisan, might be tougher)

FOX is bi-partisan now? lol.

[Graf Zahl]

The Ultimate DooMer said:

They've been doing that for a while now - bird flu, swine flu etc.

... and here I thought you were an intelligent guy - not just another conspiracy theory nutcase in need of serious help.

[Gokuma]

Hey I'm not sure if we should trust stuff like this coming from... The PRINCE Of DARKNESS.

Just kidding. While not getting your hopes immediately up I think it's a good idea to keep watch on this and how it might be supressed.

[Georgef551]

Snarboo said:

I'm actually not certain how most insurance companies cover medication, so you kind of caught my bluff. However, when I was last on insurance, my medication only cost about $6 - $10, where it now costs $30 - $40 without.

It depends what insurance you have. If you're willing to pay for it (or your employer), you'll get almost everything paid in full. Go for the el-cheapo route, most procedures and meds are only 10% cheaper than full price. Hate to have bypass surgery with that!

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Graf Zahl said:

... and here I thought you were an intelligent guy - not just another conspiracy theory nutcase in need of serious help.

I'm not fanatical, just cynical ;)

and intelligence has nothing to do with beliefs, in fact it's me thinking about the big picture with the world etc. that leads to these views, not some blind faith dogma. Besides, I remember you saying on the zdoom forums that the 2004 US election was rigged...who's believing conspiracies there? ;)

[Graf Zahl]

The Ultimate DooMer said:

I'm not fanatical, just cynical ;)

and intelligence has nothing to do with beliefs, in fact it's me thinking about the big picture with the world etc. that leads to these views, not some blind faith dogma.

There are things that make sense to believe and others that don't. And accusing the entire pharma industry and medical profession of an organized conspiracy as you did is - to put it bluntly - utter bullshit. Nobody can bribe that many people to keep something that huge under wraps.

Besides, I remember you saying on the zdoom forums that the 2004 US election was rigged...who's believing conspiracies there? ;)

... and here's the case in point. Where's the leap from hearing about irregularities in areas where hardcore Republicans were in charge of the election to drawing the conclusion that they falsified results?

The thing with this wasn't that it was kept quiet. On the contrary, as far as I know there was an investigation into these proceedings. It was just that nothing could be proven so no actions were taken.

[alexz721]

Well, that's convenient :D

[deathbringer]

Silver colloids FTW!

[Creaphis]

Graf Zahl said:

There are things that make sense to believe and others that don't. And accusing the entire pharma industry and medical profession of an organized conspiracy as you did is - to put it bluntly - utter bullshit. Nobody can bribe that many people to keep something that huge under wraps.

...Graf Zahl is in on it! D:

[Prince of Darkness]

Gokuma said:

Hey I'm not sure if we should trust stuff like this coming from... The PRINCE Of DARKNESS.

But seriously, In this case I let my past get the better of me. Literally, right after I posted this, I realized "oh wait, if this is true, then why do we have better antibiotics/vaccines/medical concoctions ect.?

Eh, its on the tubes now. Might as well have fun with it.