Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Can Someone Debunk This?

  1. #1 Can Someone Debunk This? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    I posted this in Health and Medicine too, but just in case biologists are better at this stuff:

    This can't be real, right??


    Reply With Quote  


  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    It's half-true.

    First of all, the study was done at the University of Alberta not Edmonton.

    Secondly, it was effective in vitro which is not the same as being proved to be a cure for cancer.

    Thirdly, it is undergoing trials funded by Health Canada and non-profits, and has shown moderate effects at slowing tumour growth, nothing spectacularly groundbreaking.

    The lack of interest by pharmaceutical companies is true, but this actually hasn't hindered the process since government and non-profits have picked up the slack. It doesn't make sense for a private company to invest hundreds of millions in something that won't turn a profit.

    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    New Zealand
    Nothing new about this. It has been under research for some years now. However, any cancer treatment must take years to develop, because there are so many fishhooks in such treatments.

    Realistically, it will probably result in some new techniques for assisting in the control of some cancers, possibly in conjunction with other drugs. The strongest probability is that it will not revolutionise cancer treatment - but, hey, every bit helps!
    Reply With Quote  

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Austin, TX
    It was taken down and fairly well explained over here:
    So many people have sent me this sensationalistic article, "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice", that I guess I have to respond. I sure wish it were true, but you should be able to tell from how poorly it is written and the ridiculous inaccuracies (mitochondria are cells that fight cancers?) that you should be suspicious.


    The simple summary is this: that claim is a lie. There have been no clinical trials of dichloroacetate (DCA) in cancer patients, so there is no basis for claiming they have a cure; some, but not all, cancers might respond in promising ways to the drug, while others are likely to be resistant (cancer is not one disease!); and there are potential neurotoxic side effects, especially when used in conjunction with other chemotherapies.

    So we have one popular account that is badly written and makes exaggerated claims. There is also a university press release, the source for the sloppy popular account, that doesn't contain the egregious stupidities but does tend to inflate basic research studies into an unwarranted clinical significance. And then, of course, there are the actual peer reviewed papers that describe the research and rationale, and also the reservations, on DCA. It's like a game of telephone: you can actually trace the account from the sober science paper to the enthusiastic press release to the web account with its extravagant claims of a simple, cheap cure for cancer, and see how the story is gradually corrupted. It would be funny if the final result wasn't going to dupe a lot of desperate people.

    But there is a germ of truth to the story, in that DCA does have potential. Here's how it works. <continue reading>
    Reply With Quote  

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