Huh, looks like they cured cancer
<img src="http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2587/25874701.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325874.700-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html" target="_blank">http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health...st-cancers.html</a>
Thats nice.
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325874.700-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html" target="_blank">http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health...st-cancers.html</a>
Thats nice.
Comments
Edit: D'oh, should have read the link first.
If that's the drug I'm thinking of, it's been out for a long time. In fact, its patent expired so none of the drug companies can market it exclusively -- that's why nobody is coughing up the cash for the trials to prove its worth, and thats why we're not seeing it on the market.
Edit: D'oh, should have read the link first.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well... isn't it nice that people suffer because Big Pharma doesn't want to take a chance and lose profit?
Money makes ze vorld go 'round, ze vorld go 'round...
1) The science that shows this could be promising is incomplete and has only been done in a single animal model (a rat IIRC). While this is promising, bear in mind that people aren't rats and that diseases in rats (such as cancer) can have a different aetiology and progression in humans. Until the clinical trials are repeated in people this is just a 'promising' result.
2) The toxicity of DCA is a massive issue. A cure for cancer that gives you liver failure isn't likely to go anywhere or be overly useful.
2) The toxicity of DCA is a massive issue. A cure for cancer that gives you liver failure isn't likely to go anywhere or be overly useful.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not necessarily. We can replace livers. With cancer we throw whatever looks good at the moment at it, and hope for the best. If I had cancer, I'd take a treatment that would cure it, even if it did mean I'd need a liver transplant.
Not necessarily. We can replace livers. With cancer we throw whatever looks good at the moment at it, and hope for the best. If I had cancer, I'd take a treatment that would cure it, even if it did mean I'd need a liver transplant.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really.
The simple problem is litigation. If you cure someones cancer they turn around and sue the hospital for liver failure. Current 'medicine' tries to minimise such side effects as much as possible for this reason. Also, liver failure isn't a 'side effect', it's pretty much something that ends a persons normal way of life and is not a desirable outcome. Compared to current treatments, I do not think that DCA has sufficient evidence over other treatments to justify it given the proven toxicity in humans.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In fact, its patent expired so none of the drug companies can market it exclusively<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not true. You cannot patent the base molecule, that is correct but you can patent the use of the drug and even the formulation. If someone has filed a patent for the use of DCA as an anti-tumor drug and there is no published precedent for this - or alternatively - if someone files a patent on a specific formulation/treatment using DCA that is sufficiently novel: the process can be patented.
However, I suggest anyone read the following three links, which will put DCA and its use/potential interest to drug companies in better perspective: <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2007/02/the_dichloroacetate_cancer_ker.php" target="_blank">Here</a>, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/3/113713/3658" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php" target="_blank">here</a>.
What?
What?!
Modern ["Western"] medicine tries to <i>minimise</i> negative side-effects??? This is news to me and the hundreds of millions of people taking crappy, damaging and ineffective pill cocktails every day to "fix" their conditions. Thank god Western medicine is so helpful as to do their utmost to minimise negative side-effects for patients, whatever the cost! It's not the medicine or the money, it's the patients' welfare that counts most. Now I'm relieved... time to buy all those prescription pills I've always wanted.
What.....?
What?
What?!
Modern ["Western"] medicine tries to <i>minimise</i> negative side-effects??? This is news to me and the hundreds of millions of people taking crappy, damaging and ineffective pill cocktails every day to "fix" their conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are side effects of many drugs, particularly those that affect particularly sensitive pathways, but generally you don't get away with having a drug cause severely debilitating effects like liver failure. These can and do happen, because in a population as big as the current human populace, there is a lot of variation between individuals in how they respond to various drugs. However, as many drugs that are now no longer used demonstrate, having side effects like those of thalidomide (for example) means that drug probably won't be used forever.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thank god Western medicine is so helpful as to do their utmost to minimise negative side-effects for patients, whatever the cost! It's not the medicine or the money, it's the patients' welfare that counts most. Now I'm relieved... time to buy all those prescription pills I've always wanted.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh-huh. Stupid strawmans and the usual "HURR PHARMACY IS EVIL" shrieking aside, as a general rule nothing is as simplistic as you actually describe things as.
The main point I was raising was as to the wording of your statement: "Current 'medicine' tries to minimise such side effects <i>as much as possible</i>". "As much as possible" naturally precludes that which might reduce profits by even a fraction of a percent, discounting the costs of hiring lawyers to manipulate law suits. In the vast majority of cases it is a lot more profitable to run with the costs of lawsuits than it is to provide a product/service that discourages cricitism.
No need to get your panties in a twist, I'm aware of the facetious nature of my post -- are you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, this will sound offensive, but I encounter idiots who write in the exact same manner all the time on this topic with similar sounding points. That it is difficult to determine what is parody and what is an actual opinion after this time is a side effect of that. This is because however ridiculous you attempt to make something sound so it will be taken as parody, it actually manages to still be believable. You should look at the comments to some of the blogs I linked (well, probably have to follow other links). You'll soon see why there is confusion.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The main point I was raising was as to the wording of your statement: "Current 'medicine' tries to minimise such side effects <i>as much as possible</i>". "As much as possible" naturally precludes that which might reduce profits by even a fraction of a percent, <b>discounting the costs of hiring lawyers to manipulate law suits</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are aware that litigation and the threat of litigation is one of the most important factors in the development and marketing of any modern drug? Take a look at the current scandals over vaccines, there have been virtually no new vaccines developed in years precisely because of the fears surrounding litigation in the US.
There is this bizzaire conspiracy theory that holds that large pharmacies attempt to find 'chains' of side effects of drugs to increase profits. I've never quite understood how utterly nonsensical this is, because if you have side effects and a lawsuit happy populace, you have a lot of problems.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the vast majority of cases it is a lot more profitable to run with the costs of lawsuits than it is to provide a product/service that discourages cricitism.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do not survive lawsuits when it comes to drugs in the US.
You've never considered the possibility of chained drugs?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because it's ridiculously stupid and only a moron with a tinfoil hat would buy into it. It's perfectly true that you often have to prescribe a drug to counteract effects of other drugs, but the base reasons for these are actually physiologically justified. You cannot for example mess with a persons heart rate (such as with drugs like betablockers) and not have to deal with the resulting physiological reactions to it. For example, my mother takes around 9 different drugs. I know for a fact, 3 of these drugs are essential for keeping her alive (they basically keep her heart functioning as per normal) and the other 6 have varying effects.
However, I know sufficient amounts about every drug she takes that I'm well aware they are all important. Many of them are there to compensate for natural fluctuations that could have devastating side effects one they go out of control (for example, a drop in blood glycogen levels), completely negating the effect of the drugs that keep her alive. Together they are a relatively crappy option, but against the crappier option of my mom dropping dead, I'll just have to deal with that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I suppose you don't believe in doctors being paid to prescribe ritalin, then...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is entirely different in concept, execution and is known AND proven to occur. Drug companies often lobby GPs with stuff to consider the new drugs that they are putting out, additionally, ritalin has to be one of the most over-prescribed and over-used drugs in the US. Ritalin however is an amazingly effective drug for what it does, the problem is that in a litigation happy populace, if you don't prescribe something you are making yourself as liable for problems as if you didn't. It's like the Doctors who prescribe antibiotics like augmentin for someone with a cold. Antibiotics do not do jack against the viruses that are causing the cold, they perturb the natural bacterial population leading to easier stomach infections and overall do nothing: but they are still prescribed because of pressure from patients/potential litigation if they didn't.
Edit:
On the subject of using one drug and then requiring to treat it with others, I suppose nobody thought about the fact you would have to treat the person with DCA and other drugs to counter the [several] effects of DCA, including liver failure. Also, it is possible that DCA also damages the nervous system as well as demonstrated by <a href="http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/3/324" target="_blank">this paper</a>:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Results: During the initial 24-month treatment period, <b>15 of 15 patients randomized to DCA were taken off study medication</b>, compared to 4 of 15 patients randomized to placebo. <b>Study medication was discontinued in 17 of 19 patients because of onset or worsening of peripheral neuropathy</b>. The clinical trial was terminated early because of peripheral nerve toxicity. The mean GATE score was not significantly different between treatment arms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But yes, let's shriek about how evil Big pharma is because it makes for an amusing story and ###### what scientists have actually found. You could treat that with other drugs of course as well as the liver toxicity.
Eventually though, how far to we go until we drop the word 'safe' from this?
What, again?
Until the headlines state "WORKING CURE FOR CANCER FINALLY FOUND" I'm going to assume it's just yet another method of possibly killing some cancerous cells. Doubt it'll happen before nanites in your veins.
What, again?
Until the headlines state "WORKING CURE FOR CANCER FINALLY FOUND" I'm going to assume it's just yet another method of possibly killing some cancerous cells. Doubt it'll happen before nanites in your veins.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They have cured HIV about 6-7 times as well. Monoheaded antibodies, a serum from crocodiles (actually I believe it was crocodillian complement), a recombinant viral protein etc.
Nobody has managed to tell HIV it's been cured though.
It's never a good idea to believe the over-exaggerated claims of the media.
And second of all, that has to be most inaccurate illusration of ANYTHING I've ever seen. Cancer cells don't "switch off" mitochondria. They clog them with a bonding protein substring, which alters how the mitochondria works. NOTHING in the body can be turned on or off. These are biological processes, NOT lightswitches...
Next, lactic acid doesn't "eat through tissue", it weakens the bonds that hold cells together in a particular shape. IE, it removes the mortar from the brick wall...
When aerobic respiration begins again, the protiens in the mitochondria, and teh cell itself, are so damaged by the lactic acid, that a different process is used, producing a protein denaturant, which then break down the cell.
Telling the world something isn't an excuse to be chemically inaccurate, to the point where you might as well be talking about something completely different,,,
anyone else see the 'diagrams' and think of fried eggs? The last piccy looks a bit like vomit too :s
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
youre too-dimensional...
its a pun get it... too two-dimensional...
in other words, it looks nothing like a fried egg
edit: well... maybe a bit more like that egg from.. that cartoon... with the dog and the old couple.. and the dog didnt really talk... they lived on a farm and aliens kept messing with them... it was the ep with the alien chicken... anyway, that had a polka dot egg...
but yeah even then, only the yolk looks like an egg, and only the egg from that show...
And second of all, that has to be most inaccurate illusration of ANYTHING I've ever seen. Cancer cells don't "switch off" mitochondria. They clog them with a bonding protein substring, which alters how the mitochondria works.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, I could be wrong, but here's how I interpreted it:
There's cancerous and normal cells inside this blob of benign tumor cells. The benign growth around the still-living cells suffocates them, cutting off their oxygen supply. So they start producing energy by glycolysis, which is anaerobic energy production in the cytoplasm of the cell, <i>outside</i> the mitochondria. While all this is happening, the cancerous cells are still undergoing mitosis insanely fast. The lactic acid produced by glycolysis then helps break down the benign growth, allowing the newly produced ######-tons of cancerous cells to flow out into other parts of the body.
I mean, if we cured cancer, average life expectancy would go up from like the 70's to the 100's
I'm not sure cancer is the main cause of aged death, instead of heart being too worn out or the brain decaying.
Cheap? Simple? Safe. Marketing, false advertising or does a liver failure still safe these days?
Cheap? Simple? Safe. Marketing, false advertising or does a liver failure still safe these days?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Safer than Chemo-Therapy.