Cure for cancer found.

But nobody cares.

Fucked up pomegranate.

> 4 year old article

That's just really sad. :/

It isn't a cure.

I've been up since 4 am gimmie a break LOL..

I've been up since 4 am gimmie a break LOL..

NO NATE. YOU SHOULD FEEL EXTREMELY BAD.

Seriously though how did you just suddenly find this? "YO, YOU KNOW WHAT I HAVENT LOOKED INTO, FUCKING CANCER CURES, THAT'S RIGHT"

Like 4 people just posted it on FB lmfao. None of hem know each other

They haven't finished testing yet. That's why nobody "cares". It's not even proven safe or effective yet. And anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that there is never going to be a "one drug fits all" type of cure. Ever.

My classmate just died from cancer. If there is no money in it, the cure will get nowhere. Fucking pharmaceutical companies.

inb4 we're all zombies tomorrow

But seriously, is there an actual reason this isn't well known?

inb4 we're all zombies tomorrow

But seriously, is there an actual reason this isn't well known?

Yes, because they can't make money off of it. People are greedy. :|

I bet if it made one guy really rich, it'd be known world-wide.

So should we tell him?

Yes, because they can't make money off of it. People are greedy. :|

Actually, if it were successful, the drug can be quite profitable. The real reason this isn't well known is that it's not through clinical testing, so it can't be marketed.

I find it irritating that people come in here just to jab at "how corrupt society is". Whoever the hell wrote this article is ridiculously opinionated, so form your own opinions instead of blindly accepting the journalist's, and stop hating just to hate.

They even linked the article to the researcher's website.

Actually, if it were successful, the drug can be quite profitable. The real reason this isn't well known is that it's not through clinical testing, so it can't be marketed.

People should stop making blind judgments. Read the article for yourself and ignore the fact that whoever the hell wrote it is ridiculously opinionated. They even linked the article to the research page.

I did read the article and they said clearly that it's not being used because pharmaceuticals aren't using it because they can't profit off of it. That's the same as being greedy, no?

silly people! you can't make a profit off healthy people!

We don't know what it works for, what doesn't nor do we know the full extent of the side effects. And before I take any of such drugs, unless it's the last line of defense, I won't take it until the full biochemistry is elucidated. There are clinical trials for good reasons.

Looking at what they did, they're not exactly very ethical, giving some patients this drug off-label is their private clinic. Who's going to answer for it if anything happens? Oh right... it can easily be covered up in such cases. Hah. For a good cause, but with questionable methodology.

Hadriel

DCA Research Team publishes results of Clinical Trials
May 12, 2010

Print this update

Edmonton, AB - Medical Researchers at the University of Alberta reported today evidence that the orphan generic drug Dichloroacetate (DCA) may hold promise as potential therapy for perhaps the deadliest of all human cancers: a form of brain cancer called glioblastoma. The report is published at the journal Science Translational Medicine, a journal of the American Association of the Advancement of Science; it appears today at the journal's web site http://www.sciencemag.org/

In 2007 the U of A team led by Dr Michelakis, published evidence that DCA reverses cancer growth in non-human models and test tubes. The team showed then that DCA achieves these antitumor effects by altering the metabolism of cancer. By altering the way cancer handles its nutrient fuels, specifically the sugars, DCA was able to take away cancer's most important strength, the resistance to death. Since then, several independent groups across the world have confirmed the Alberta team's findings. In December 2009, the editors of "Science" predicted that cancer metabolism is one of only 5 areas across all scientific disciplines, to "watch for major breakthroughs" in 2010.

The U of A team set out to show that the way that DCA works in actual patients is the same with the way it works in the lab. In addition, researchers wanted to show whether DCA is safe and possibly effective in very sick patients with brain cancer.

By extracting glioblastomas from 49 patients over a period of 2 years and studying them within minutes of removal in the operating room, the team showed that tumors respond to DCA by changing their metabolism. Then, the team treated 5 patients with advanced glioblastoma and secured tumor tissues before and after the DCA therapy. By comparing the two, the team showed that DCA works in these tumors exactly as was predicted by test tube experiments. This is very important because often the results in non-human models tested in the lab do not agree with the results in patients. In addition, the team showed that DCA has anti-cancer effects by altering the metabolism of glioblastoma cancer stem cells, the cells thought responsible for the recurrences of cancer.

In the 5 patients tested, the drug took 3 months to reach blood levels high enough to alter the tumor's metabolism. At those levels, there were no significant adverse effects. However, at some of the higher doses tested, DCA caused nerve malfunction, i.e. numbing of toes and fingers. Importantly, in some patients there was also evidence for clinical benefit, with the tumors either regressing in size or not growing further during the 18 month study.

No conclusions can be made on whether the drug is safe or effective in patients with this form of brain cancer, due to the limited number of patients tested by the study's leads Drs Michelakis and Petruk. Researchers emphasize that use of DCA by patients or physicians, supplied from for-profit sources or without close clinical observation by experienced medical teams in the setting of research trials, is not only inappropriate but may also be dangerous. The U of A results are encouraging and support the need for larger clinical trials with DCA. This work is also one of the first in humans to support the emerging idea that altering the metabolism of tumors is a new direction in the treatment of cancer, Michelakis and Petruk said.

The research team hopes to secure additional funding to continue the ongoing trials with DCA at the University of Alberta. Further studies would include more patients with brain cancer, and test the combination of DCA and standard chemotherapies, eventually including patients from other academic health sciences centres.

One of the intriguing features of this work was that it was funded largely by public donations, including philanthropic foundations and individuals. In addition, it received support by Alberta public institutions, both the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Sciences. The multidisciplinary team that performed this challenging translational research included members of the Departments of Medicine, Diagnostic Imaging and Biomedical Engineering, Oncology and Neurosurgery. Clinicians, scientists, nurses and graduate students worked together for 2 years and express their gratitude to the people of Alberta, philanthropists, the patients and their families.

Their last update, for those lazy.

Just so you guys know it:

In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective.

This is not true. In other words, the guys who wrote this article don't know how the mitochondria works, and it's likely he doesn't know how to find a "cure" to cancer.

The study contained 5 people, all with different combination of treatments which included DCA in one aspect or another. You cannot make anything satisfactory out of it and say that it is safe. Based on these results, it is not a cure for glioblastoma or any other cancer yet.

And it's wrong that big pharma doesn't care at all, because there will always be a place where you will get use for it. In Norway and other countries where you get free healthcare, the government want to minimize the costs and maximize the efficiency. In what way wouldn't this do it?

Just so you guys know it:



This is not true. In other words, the guys who wrote this article don't know how the mitochondria works, and it's likely he doesn't know how to find a "cure" to cancer.

The study contained 5 people, all with different combination of treatments which included DCA in one aspect or another. You cannot make anything satisfactory out of it and say that it is safe. Based on these results, it is not a cure for glioblastoma or any other cancer yet.

And it's wrong that big pharma doesn't care at all, because there will always be a place where you will get use for it. In Norway and other countries where you get free healthcare, the government want to minimize the costs and maximize the efficiency. In what way wouldn't this do it?

According to a quick search, one of the main roles of mitochondria is "Cellular proliferation regulation".

Isn't a cancer a form of cellular proliferation disorder? Maybe the study aims at stimulating mitochondria on that aspect, mainly. However, I know nothing else on the matter, so yeah, feel free to prove me wrong. But judging a whole scientific research out of a single sentece is quite... silly.

The mitochondria controls cell proliferation by inducing apoptosis after receiving signals from various pathways. Disruption of the outer membrane integrity of the mitochondria will also lead to apoptosis.

Yes the study is on DCA trying to so-called wake up the mitochondria, but you see they've not actually told us how it works. We advocate caution and not rush things, because failing to identify any potential side effects can lead to disastrous results. Look at Thalidomide. Or as a counter-example that proves my point as well, look at the so-called link of vaccination to Autism in the UK.

Hadriel

According to a quick search, one of the main roles of mitochondria is "Cellular proliferation regulation".

Isn't a cancer a form of cellular proliferation disorder? Maybe the study aims at stimulating mitochondria on that aspect, mainly. However, I know nothing else on the matter, so yeah, feel free to prove me wrong. But judging a whole scientific research out of a single sentece is quite... silly.

In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective.

a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria,

human cell, the mitochondria

Since this article is so old, should this really be relevant discussion for a current event, despite the most recent update saying the contrary to the topic, and still being a year old?