Overclockers UK Forums Click here for more details
Free Shipping for Loyal Forum Members - CLICK HERE

Go Back   Overclockers UK Forums > Life > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 14th May 2011, 23:39   #1
jak731
Soldato
 
jak731's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 5,475
Possible simple cure for cancer, pharmaceutical companies not interested

Quote:
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_c...e_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/...icles/stke.pdf

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
~ Albert Einstein
jak731 is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 23:42   #2
sniffy
Sgarrista
 
sniffy's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 8,158
Interesting but naturally I'm suspicious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jak731 View Post
Doesn't load for me?

sniffy is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 23:42   #3
shroomz
Wise Guy
 
shroomz's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Glasgow, UK
Posts: 1,676
This is old news. The pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to sponsor because the drug can't be patented IIRC.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk....-early-trials/

shroomz is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 23:43   #4
sniffy
Sgarrista
 
sniffy's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 8,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by shroomz View Post
This is old news. The pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to sponsor because the drug can't be patented IIRC.
Source?

sniffy is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 23:44   #5
shroomz
Wise Guy
 
shroomz's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Glasgow, UK
Posts: 1,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniffy View Post
Source?
Haven't got one, wrote an essay on it 4 years ago at school, will try to find it now.

Alberta's articles were published in the journal Science Translational Medicine. Just search DCA or dichloroacetate.

Last edited by shroomz; 14th May 2011 at 23:47.
shroomz is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 23:48   #6
jak731
Soldato
 
jak731's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 5,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniffy View Post
Doesn't load for me?
Hosted it on dropbox for you:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4550021/Meta...20Strategy.pdf

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
~ Albert Einstein
jak731 is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 23:50   #7
d_brennen
Capodecina
 
d_brennen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Aquilonem Londinensi
Posts: 12,659
Companies not interested in non profit making ventures. Wonders will never cease!

d_brennen is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 23:54   #8
sniffy
Sgarrista
 
sniffy's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 8,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jak731 View Post
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.

sniffy is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 23:56   #9
jak731
Soldato
 
jak731's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 5,475
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.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
~ Albert Einstein
jak731 is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 23:57   #10
Rainmaker
Soldato
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 6,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_brennen View Post
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.

AMD FX8350 : Asus M5A99X Evo r2.0
TeamGroup Vulcan RED 16GB : Radeon R9 380 4GB
Samsung Evo 850 250GB : 2TB storage
Rainmaker is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 23:59   #11
sniffy
Sgarrista
 
sniffy's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 8,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jak731 View Post
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.

sniffy is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 00:00   #12
shroomz
Wise Guy
 
shroomz's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Glasgow, UK
Posts: 1,676
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/...t-cancers.html
This article provides a much more balanced view, in my opinion by suggesting a more subdued attitude:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20..._deja_vu_a.php

shroomz is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 00:13   #13
Pixel
Soldato
 
Pixel's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 7,315
Find someone with cancer (unfortunatley not a hard thing to do).

Give them this chemical, tell them to mix it in their tea every day.

See if it works.
Pixel is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 00:16   #14
shroomz
Wise Guy
 
shroomz's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Glasgow, UK
Posts: 1,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixel View Post
Find someone with cancer (unfortunatley not a hard thing to do).

Give them this chemical, tell them to mix it in their tea every day.

See if it works.
Then they get side effects and die. You get done for manslaughter if you're lucky. Glhf.
Clinical trials exist for a reason.

shroomz is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 00:17   #15
Pixel
Soldato
 
Pixel's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 7,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by shroomz View Post
Then they get side effects and die. You get done for manslaughter if you're lucky. Glhf.
Clinical trials exist for a reason.
I was going from this:

Quote:
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.
Pixel is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 00:22   #16
Huw
Wise Guy
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 1,055
Having a background in molecular biology, I'll read the Science article with interest - tomorrow, when I'm not drunk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
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.

***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.
Huw is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 00:36   #17
v0n
Soldato
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: The Great Lines Of Defence
Posts: 7,038
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?

v0n is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 00:41   #18
jak731
Soldato
 
jak731's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 5,475
Here's the paper the article in science is based on:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...5&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.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
~ Albert Einstein
jak731 is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 00:55   #19
Greenlizard0
Man of Honour
 
Greenlizard0's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 28,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
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.

Greenlizard0 is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 00:59   #20
Amp34
Capodecina
 
Amp34's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 22,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by shroomz View Post
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/...t-cancers.html
This article provides a much more balanced view, in my opinion by suggesting a more subdued attitude:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20..._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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huw View Post
Having a background in molecular biology, I'll read the Science article with interest - tomorrow, when I'm not drunk.



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.

***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...
Amp34 is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 01:01   #21
dowie
Capodecina
 
dowie's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 20,914
I don't see and issue here - why would pharmaceutical companies be interested in researching further usage of a drug they can no longer make a decent margin from. They're not charities, they're not Universities, they're profit making companies. They spend money on research in order to bring products to market and sell at a profit.

If a random psychology research group found that playing mario on an old NES system helped kids with autism would we also feel outraged that Nintendo had no interest in funding further research.

IF this is something that requires further research then there are plenty of people out there with an interest in curing cancer - its not exactly a rare illness...
dowie is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 03:45   #22
shredgod
Gangster
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Hull/Sheffield
Posts: 155
It's nothing new. Being able to cure cancer in cells present in a test tube is not a new thing. Part of my end of year dissertation was to do with Certain anti tumour drugs. A coupe showed very promising results on human cancer cells in a test tube (almost 100% cure rate) however when tested in the human body in phase 2 trials, it turned out to not be effective what so ever.

As people have said before, drug research is not cheap. Unless the company can make a profit from it in the end then they are not interested. They are a business after all.
shredgod is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 03:49   #23
Biohazard
PermaBanned
 
Biohazard's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 31,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amp34 View Post
I can almost guarentee that you wouldn't be sat at a computer typing that if money wasn't spent on ICBMs...
How?
Biohazard is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 03:53   #24
[FnG]magnolia
Registered
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ.
Posts: 23,287
OH MA GOD BIG PHARMA AND BIG GUMMENT GONE DONE US WRONG!!!

C'mon guys, really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huw
Having a background in molecular biology, I'll read the Science article with interest - tomorrow, when I'm not drunk.
Well, that's certainly promising.

Quote:
In fact, you know what? We probably already have cured cancer.
Ok, I'm out.

[FnG]magnolia is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 03:54   #25
Biohazard
PermaBanned
 
Biohazard's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 31,350
I'm not saying anything me!
Biohazard is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 04:15   #26
[FnG]magnolia
Registered
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ.
Posts: 23,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biohazard View Post
I'm not saying anything me!
5am UK time? You're drunk aren't you fella?

e : i said fished. Fished, definitely not ******.

Last edited by [FnG]magnolia; 15th May 2011 at 04:16. Reason: pished.
[FnG]magnolia is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 04:21   #27
Biohazard
PermaBanned
 
Biohazard's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 31,350
Just can't sleep for some reason...

I'll end up losing all of sunday in a few hours
Biohazard is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 04:23   #28
Raikiri
Capodecina
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Brighton
Posts: 16,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by [FnG]magnolia View Post
5am UK time? You're drunk aren't you fella?
16:23 in New Zealand? You're drunk aren't you?






Last edited by Raikiri; 15th May 2011 at 04:32.
Raikiri is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 04:25   #29
[FnG]magnolia
Registered
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ.
Posts: 23,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raikiri View Post
16:23 in Australia? You're drunk aren't you?





I'm hoping the is for your geography error.

But otherwise, yes. Yes, I am

[FnG]magnolia is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2011, 04:31   #30
Raikiri
Capodecina
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Brighton
Posts: 16,077
I meant to write Auckland but put Aus for some reason, bah!

Raikiri is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Overclockers UK (Ocuk Ltd)