Possible simple cure for cancer, pharmaceutical companies not interested

Soldato
Joined
17 Mar 2007
Posts
5,506
Location
Plymouth
Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.

This drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies.

Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human’s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, why the major drug companies are not involved? Or the Media interested in this find?

http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

Not sure if this is genuine or hyped up, could be amazing if true. Alberta uni page:

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm

Article published in Science:

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Media/articles/stke.pdf
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Dec 2003
Posts
8,141
Location
East Sussex

Thanks.

Well I'm totally ignorant about medical stuff so can't really digest the paper's content. Has some respected organisation voiced their opinion on these findings?

I understand why private companies won't pursue something that isn't going to make big bucks but surely SOMEONE can make money from this to make it practical? Not to mention saving countless lives.

I'm sceptical.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
17 Mar 2007
Posts
5,506
Location
Plymouth
Yeah purely on the potential benefits to humanity you think this would garner more attention/funding, everybody knows someone who has cancer or has died from cancer. Must be missing something, not sure what though.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Aug 2007
Posts
9,688
Location
Liverpool
Companies not interested in non profit making ventures. Wonders will never cease!

I'm not commenting on the content of the OP directly as I don't know enough about it to do so. However, it has to be said that if something as monumental as a cure for cancer could be ignored on commercial/profit potential grounds then the 'system' is very, very broken and something ought to be changed.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Dec 2003
Posts
8,141
Location
East Sussex
Yeah purely on the potential benefits to humanity you think this would garner more attention/funding, everybody knows someone who has cancer or has died from cancer. Must be missing something, not sure what though.

Indeed. I recently lost a very close friend to cancer. Nicest bloke I've ever known and I'll be a lucky man to find another friend like him in my life. Kinda sucks to think he could have been saved if such drugs were developed.

I'm hoping someone with some basic education on the matter could voice their opinion or provide me with some readable articles.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Feb 2010
Posts
2,075
Location
Glasgow, UK
No the problem is that the drug hasn't been proven to work. Knowing that it tends to have an effect on some cancers in a petri dish is completely different to knowing it will be effective. My initial interest was the sensationalist article I read in New Scientist while at school (bear in mind, I spent maybe 40 minutes working!) here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html
This article provides a much more balanced view, in my opinion by suggesting a more subdued attitude:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/dichloroacetate_dca_and_cancer_deja_vu_a.php
 

Huw

Huw

Associate
Joined
7 May 2011
Posts
1,055
Location
UK
Having a background in molecular biology, I'll read the Science article with interest - tomorrow, when I'm not drunk. :D

However, it has to be said that if something as monumental as a cure for cancer could be ignored on commercial/profit potential grounds then the 'system' is very, very broken and something ought to be changed.

I don't know where to begin. Science as a tool is fantastically useful. The way that this tool is applied in the real world, though, is abhorrent. We could've developed a universal cure for cancer a long time ago if the required dosh hadn't been spent on equally life-saving stuff like ICBMs, stealth aircraft and all the other splendid ways to make people die. :rolleyes:

***Rant deleted*** - I'll just say that, yeah, money talks. If money weren't a consideration we would have cured cancer by now. No problem.

In fact, you know what? We probably already have cured cancer. There are plenty of therapies already available that will make mincemeat of tumorous cells. The larger problem is delivering the therapy to only those cells without harming the rest of the organism. Curing cancer in a petri dish is a piece of ****; curing it in a Human being is difficult as hell. I'll read that paper tomorrow and hopefully see how these guys have claimed to solve the problem.
 

v0n

v0n

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,130
Location
The Great Lines Of Defence
Isn't this old story - Dr. Simoncini and Baking Soda killing cancer (puts on accent) "beecoz cancer iza fungi, iza mushroom"? And now we have confirmation that sodium dichloroacetate kills cancer?
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
17 Mar 2007
Posts
5,506
Location
Plymouth
Here's the paper the article in science is based on:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WWK-4MV1J7C-4&_user=144535&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor&view=c&_acct=C000012058&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=144535&md5=a8961c1dd418f69bf7bba61d84de1d65&searchtype=a

Interesting picture of a DCA treated tumour and control on page 11.

The scienceblogs article was an interesting read, makes it sound less like a miracle drug but still promising. I think the point still stands that it needs more attention.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
15 Mar 2004
Posts
28,143
Location
Liverpool
I'm not commenting on the content of the OP directly as I don't know enough about it to do so. However, it has to be said that if something as monumental as a cure for cancer could be ignored on commercial/profit potential grounds then the 'system' is very, very broken and something ought to be changed.

The system is fine.

It's just there to make a truck load of money and nothing else.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
No the problem is that the drug hasn't been proven to work. Knowing that it tends to have an effect on some cancers in a petri dish is completely different to knowing it will be effective. My initial interest was the sensationalist article I read in New Scientist while at school (bear in mind, I spent maybe 40 minutes working!) here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html
This article provides a much more balanced view, in my opinion by suggesting a more subdued attitude:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/dichloroacetate_dca_and_cancer_deja_vu_a.php

This is the problem, there's a "cure" for cancer every few months, problem is they don't work, generally they were never expected to work in the first place without major extra research and even then it has tiny potential... The problem is the mainstream (ie non scientific) press and normal people get hold of what scientists and scientific papers say and the "may", "could", "possibly"'s suddenly vanish and it becomes "fact" and "works". It's way too common, especially with anything remotely political (eg cancer and climate change).

Having a background in molecular biology, I'll read the Science article with interest - tomorrow, when I'm not drunk. :D



I don't know where to begin. Science as a tool is fantastically useful. The way that this tool is applied in the real world, though, is abhorrent. We could've developed a universal cure for cancer a long time ago if the required dosh hadn't been spent on equally life-saving stuff like ICBMs, stealth aircraft and all the other splendid ways to make people die. :rolleyes:

***Rant deleted*** - I'll just say that, yeah, money talks. If money weren't a consideration we would have cured cancer by now. No problem.

In fact, you know what? We probably already have cured cancer. There are plenty of therapies already available that will make mincemeat of tumorous cells. The larger problem is delivering the therapy to only those cells without harming the rest of the organism. Curing cancer in a petri dish is a piece of ****; curing it in a Human being is difficult as hell. I'll read that paper tomorrow and hopefully see how these guys have claimed to solve the problem.

Cool story Bro... Just have a look and see what every day technology was "invented" due to missile programs, military aircraft and all those other things... ;)

I can almost guarentee that you wouldn't be sat at a computer typing that if money wasn't spent on ICBMs...
 
Back
Top Bottom