My lady has been reading up on this DCA, a new cancer cure, well maybe not so new, but long ignored by those pharma folks. (Fortunately neither of us are struggling with cancer)
No hoaxes, no rumours, this is the real deal. Researchers at the University of Alberta’s Department of Medicine have discovered a simple and inexpensive drug that is proven to kill cancer cells.
This drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), changes the metabolism of cancer cells and causes them to age and die, a feat that is alien to cancer cells and stops them from otherwise destroying the human body.
There’s even a DCA website.
The good part is that “it’s a compound and not a drug” according to another story.
Sounds too good to be true. Anyone have any background on this latest cure?
When something ends in -acetate it means there has to be something at the beignning of it. Dichloroacetate means from dichloroacetic acid. The question is what’s the other part of it. For example, ethyl dichloroacetate would be similar to a lacquer thinner component. So, the question is what is the other part of the compound? Before we know that it’s hard to even guess at whether it’s real or another snow job.
I googled it. The material sold is sodium dichloroacetate. Apparently it does screw up enzymes in cancer cells, but it’s also pretty toxic to normal cells, especially liver cells. The reports are that it doesn’t significantly improve longevity of cancer patients. My personal evaluation is that I don’t like putting any chlorinated organic into my body unless I have a very good reason.
I get the feeling that this is just one more way of getting money from sick people.
No idea about this drug, but following on what Occam says: it’s very easy to find compounds that will kill cancer cells. Bleach will do it quite nicely. The problem is to find compounds that kill cancer cells selectively, without killing off the host ...
This is a perennial story that has risen up periodically over the last 5 years or so. Here are two blog posts from the last round in 2011, the second of which includes a long series of articles on DCA and the DCA web site. Bottom line is interesting in vitro findings with insufficient evidence to support actual use in living creatures with cancer.
Always be suspicious of claims to cure cancers indiscriminately. Cancer is NOT a single disease. It would be like a claim to cure all coughs, whether it was a pertussis, pneumonia, allergic or tubercular cough. Cancer is a group of diseases with only one commonality, cells growing out of control, but in each case, they are different cells, different causes, and thus different treatments.
(ps, this is my 6666 post, and darn it, I’m not feeling the least bit devilish!! )
...a new cancer cure, well maybe not so new, but long ignored by those pharma folks.
Perhaps they have been ignoring it for a reason? If something has promise they would likely be exploring it to exploit its benefits. If something doesn’t hold much promise, they can’t be wasting their precious time, energy and money on it.
...a new cancer cure, well maybe not so new, but long ignored by those pharma folks.
Perhaps they have been ignoring it for a reason? If something has promise they would likely be exploring it to exploit its benefits. If something doesn’t hold much promise, they can’t be wasting their precious time, energy and money on it.
...a new cancer cure, well maybe not so new, but long ignored by those pharma folks.
Perhaps they have been ignoring it for a reason? If something has promise they would likely be exploring it to exploit its benefits. If something doesn’t hold much promise, they can’t be wasting their precious time, energy and money on it.
Without knowing more details, its really impossible to say. I’ve worked for a number of companies who failed to follow up on promising technologies simply because they’d always done things a certain way and never saw a reason to change. There have been several cases where bacteria, which have become immune to the latest in antibiotics, turn out to be susceptible to older antibiotics (having lost their immunity to them). The discoveries of this were almost always accidental, as no one thought to check to see if the bacteria had lost immunity. No idea if there’s now a concerted effort to test older antibiotics to see how common this is or not.
The discoveries of this were almost always accidental, as no one thought to check to see if the bacteria had lost immunity. No idea if there’s now a concerted effort to test older antibiotics to see how common this is or not.
This is done routinely. When we test organisms, we check culture AND sensitivity, in order to know which antibiotic, or group of antibiotics to use against it. Quite often, we start with one antibiotic, because we can’t wait until the results come back we start out with broad spectrum antibiotic which works against either gram negative or gram positive organism depending on which is the more likely culprit. We tweak the antibiotics when the results come back.
And the argument that the companies are not interested in promoting medications they can’t patent and sell for huge profits is quite false. A good example is that I was recently prescribed three pills a day to inhibit growth of kidney stones. They cost $1.00 a pill (I pay only $.25 a pill because of insurance). I checked and see the pills are one gram of potassium citrate. The cost of that is less than one cent per pill. and that’s the generic version!!! The pharmaceuatical companies realize they can charge insane amounts for anything, patented or not.
And the argument that the companies are not interested in promoting medications they can’t patent and sell for huge profits is quite false. A good example is that I was recently prescribed three pills a day to inhibit growth of kidney stones. They cost $1.00 a pill (I pay only $.25 a pill because of insurance). I checked and see the pills are one gram of potassium citrate. The cost of that is less than one cent per pill. and that’s the generic version!!! The pharmaceuatical companies realize they can charge insane amounts for anything, patented or not.
Occam
And that’s when they’re too lazy to simply make a minor tweak to the formula and get a new patent (one which can speed through the approval process much easier, since its characteristics are already known). They don’t even have to be effective changes to the formula, either. There’s a new version of Prilosec (or Nexium) being sold which is just Prilosec and baking soda (AKA sodium bicarbonate)! The doses of baking soda in the pill are too low to have any meaningful effect on heartburn (and using baking soda as an antiacid is discouraged as the necessary amount is so high that the sodium can cause significant blood pressure problems).
And the argument that the companies are not interested in promoting medications they can’t patent and sell for huge profits is quite false. A good example is that I was recently prescribed three pills a day to inhibit growth of kidney stones. They cost $1.00 a pill (I pay only $.25 a pill because of insurance). I checked and see the pills are one gram of potassium citrate. The cost of that is less than one cent per pill. and that’s the generic version!!! The pharmaceuatical companies realize they can charge insane amounts for anything, patented or not.
Occam
Yeah this argument sounds plausible and convinces all the conspiracy theorist pharma haters, but there’s little truth to it. Just look at Lovaza. Its a pharmaceutical grade Omega 3 fish oil product that cost far more than the OTC products and yet it seems to be selling well.. despite the fact there is not a lot of convincing evidence that any of these products significantly reduce cardiovascular disease.
You don’t need a patent to make money on something.
...a new cancer cure, well maybe not so new, but long ignored by those pharma folks.
Perhaps they have been ignoring it for a reason? If something has promise they would likely be exploring it to exploit its benefits. If something doesn’t hold much promise, they can’t be wasting their precious time, energy and money on it.
Agreed. I think that is very likely the case.
Hey, but in another blog they said it made a great cleaner too
Wow, this one interests me much. Thank you for sharing this information. This needs to be spread all over the world. Although, I’m not so sure about it, but at least I’m aware.
