1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Possible simple cure for cancer, pharmaceutical companies not interested

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by jak731, May 15, 2011.

  1. jak731

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 17, 2007

    Posts: 5,476

    Location: Plymouth

    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
     
  2. sniffy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Dec 12, 2003

    Posts: 8,165

    Location: East Sussex

  3. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,758

    Location: Reading, UK

  4. sniffy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Dec 12, 2003

    Posts: 8,165

    Location: East Sussex

    Source?
     
  5. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,758

    Location: Reading, UK

    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: May 15, 2011
  6. jak731

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 17, 2007

    Posts: 5,476

    Location: Plymouth

  7. d_brennen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 30, 2009

    Posts: 12,942

    Location: Aquilonem Londinensi

    Companies not interested in non profit making ventures. Wonders will never cease!
     
  8. sniffy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Dec 12, 2003

    Posts: 8,165

    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.
     
  9. jak731

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 17, 2007

    Posts: 5,476

    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.
     
  10. Rainmaker

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 18, 2007

    Posts: 7,209

    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.
     
  11. sniffy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Dec 12, 2003

    Posts: 8,165

    Location: East Sussex

    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.
     
  12. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,758

    Location: Reading, 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
     
  13. Pixel

    Soldato

    Joined: Apr 13, 2003

    Posts: 7,428

    Location: Lincolnshire

    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.
     
  14. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,758

    Location: Reading, UK

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

    Soldato

    Joined: Apr 13, 2003

    Posts: 7,428

    Location: Lincolnshire

    I was going from this:

     
  16. Huw

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 7, 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

    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.
     
  17. v0n

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,384

    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?
     
  18. jak731

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 17, 2007

    Posts: 5,476

    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.
     
  19. Greenlizard0

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 15, 2004

    Posts: 28,204

    Location: Liverpool

    The system is fine.

    It's just there to make a truck load of money and nothing else.
     
  20. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2005

    Posts: 25,083

    Location: Canada

    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).

    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...
     


Share This Page