Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: DCA molecule kills most Cancer

  1. #1 DCA molecule kills most Cancer 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    DCA

    In a nutshell, its a molecule ALREADY used to treat patients with a rare metabolic disease (realated to mitochondria). University of Alberta in Canada has found that it appeas to kill most Cancers. The thing is that the molecule can currently be produce for very little and would provide if effective on humans a cheap and effective way to treat people with cancer. The bad news is that Pharmaceuticals stand to loose billions in treatment and they probably arent happy about it (unless they block it but use the science to create another molecule they can pantent and charge a small fortune for).

    http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/newscientist.pdf

    http://www.ualberta.ca/~publicas/folio/44/11/front.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    120
    That makes quite a bit of sense, since the cancer cells would have overly active mitochondria and DCA normalizes it.

    Hopefully, greed will not get the better of anyone and they can further research this!!!


    It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Yeah but keep in mind if pharmaceutical companies make it they can still charge whatever they want for it, there isnt a huge incentive to sell it cheaply!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    I am very cautious and septic about this one.

    I did not read any report about this miracle medecine.
    I am always very cautious, when a report say that a therapy is very, very good, but is not well known, because it will make lose tons of money from big corporations.

    I can tell you, that for example, where I live, my country will be more than happy to have access to a therapy that cure most cancers for almost free. The lobbying of big corps will be totally useless if it was the case.

    It's very well known, if a magical innovation is not well known and diffused in the media, it's because of the conspiracy of huge economical interests.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    945
    I came across this in New scientist a few months ago, same gist to the small article.

    ya gotta wonder what if ...
    Stumble on through life.
    Feel free to correct any false information, which unknown to me, may be included in my posts. (also - let this be a disclaimer)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 2010 what the hell happened to the research? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Ok theres hardly anything about this after 2008, they could have reported that it didnt work and why, or something, but its as if its mothballed

    "where I live, my country will be more than happy to have access to a therapy that cure most cancers for almost free"
    Ok but do they know about it, if so whats their basic comment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: DCA molecule kills most Cancer 
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    The bad news is that Pharmaceuticals stand to loose billions in treatment and they probably arent happy about it.
    Putting aside any notions of pharmaceutical companies trying to block this as an anti-cancer drug...the problem is that to test and develop this molecule as a drug costs a lot of money. Who is going to pay for that? Normally, a company would pay with the expectation of recovering that money by selling the drug. DCA can not be patented, so if company A spends money to develop the drug, and company B comes along and sells it as well as company A, then what incentive is there for company A to invest that money when company B is profiting from it? I do seem to vaguely remember something about a use patent for this molecule, but I'm told those are not as desirable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    If it were worth pursuing, I'd imagine the cancer research charities or government funded institutes would be investigating it. Most clinical research is sponsored by pharma companies, but certainly not all of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Limiting research because theres not profit is crazy, theres the equivalent of three 911 attacks every week, if spending hundreds billions like theres no tomorrow can be justified for war(on Iraq a country without any link to 911), surely spending 1/4 of 1 billion on this and other no-patent cures makes sense when more people die each and every week than the total of all terrorirsm that occured in the past decade.

    If its not worth pursuing then there should be a clear indication that its so, people are dying by the thousands each week, imo the least any organization should do is give an update twice a year or something, to show they're on the ball and demonstrate professional diligence
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    From searching around pubmed, as far as I can see there is still some research ongoing on the subject. However, DCA does seem to be known to cause liver toxicity. So, it isn't a risk free wonder drug, but it may have uses in helping to treat cancer. Intuitively it makes sense that a pyruvate dehydrogenase inhibitor would inhibit cancer growth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    If it were worth pursuing, I'd imagine the cancer research charities or government funded institutes would be investigating it. Most clinical research is sponsored by pharma companies, but certainly not all of it.
    I think I remember hearing something about governments stepping in to fund more research on DCA, but I could be wrong on that. As far as I know it is rare for that to happen, but again I could be wrong on that.
    Anyways, as i_feel_tiredsleepy has pointed out, there are some serious side-effects associated with DCA (of course, most if not all anti-cancer drugs do have serious side-effects).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    Limiting research because theres not profit is crazy, theres the equivalent of three 911 attacks every week, if spending hundreds billions like theres no tomorrow can be justified for war(on Iraq a country without any link to 911), surely spending 1/4 of 1 billion on this and other no-patent cures makes sense when more people die each and every week than the total of all terrorirsm that occured in the past decade.

    If its not worth pursuing then there should be a clear indication that its so, people are dying by the thousands each week, imo the least any organization should do is give an update twice a year or something, to show they're on the ball and demonstrate professional diligence
    I meant worth pursuing scientifically, not financially.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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