Possible cure for most cancers?

[dennilfloss]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...heap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

Sounds like something governments should investigate since I doubt pharmaceutical companies would invest money in something that cannot be patented but it might save money for those countries with national health care, not to mention ease a lot of unnecessary suffering for their citizens.

 

[NanoStuff]

I don't understand where all the DCA hype came from. It's good but it's by far not the only option.

It cannot be patented in it's current form, so it may benefit from government sponsored funding, but only if they can justify that with a ROI through reduced medical expenses. They have good reasons to be hesitant about funding FDA approval considering vast commercial competition.

 

[Feldenak]

Interesting.

 

[sixone]

Fascinating. I hope it pans out.

 

[SirStev0]

ask me how surprised I am that this was found outside of the US.

 

[funboy6942]

Why would you think the government would look into it since they are in it with the pharmaceutical companies? If anything they will side with them, try to say there is no cure, and make sure to do everything they can to hide it, get rid of it, or buy the rights to it and make sure it never becomes a reality except for those in power will get the treatment, im sorry cure if this is in fact true.

There is no money to be made in a cure, only treatment to keep the sickness at bay for as long as they can till you die. If you get cured, they cant sell you the drugs anymore which means no profit for them OR the government and THEY cant have that

 

[dennilfloss]

I said "those countries with national health care".

 

[2Dead]

Even if not the US then some government. If they can get it to work, then I'm sure the cure would be available somewhere and thats not something you can ignore for long.

 

[dennilfloss]

And in the USA, the insurance companies could save a lot of money.

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
I said "those countries with national health care".

Even those with National health care it wont matter, they take in the money for nation health care how? TAXES! Do you honestly think all the tax money collected goes towards what it does?? Why is it, for example, our government buys normal things we can for pennies on the dollar for a higher cost? To hide the money and where it goes Where we can buy a hammer for $5 the government bills a hammer they buy at $50. So even if those with national health care system they still cannot have a cure, that means people will call for lower to no taxes, and again ANY government once they get a taste for money coming in wont give it up, will crave even more to come in. The war on drugs, a front, the war on terror, a front, all fronts knowing us as sheeple will see in one hand they show its for the "good" and for the other hand we dont see its a non winning cause but another reason for the government to raise taxes and bring more money in on something that can never be cured.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
I don't understand where all the DCA hype came from. It's good but it's by far not the only option.

It cannot be patented in it's current form, so it may benefit from government sponsored funding, but only if they can justify that with a ROI through reduced medical expenses. They have good reasons to be hesitant about funding FDA approval considering vast commercial competition.

Are you trying to say that this is a bad drug because drug companies can't make money off of it? To be honest I can not follow your logic at all.

It has been around for a very long time (it is a very simple acetate) and it can not be patented. This would be a miracle cure - cheap, large quantities, and effective.

 

[ElFenix]

if it turns out this stuff cures cancer, and the FDA takes forever in approving it for that use, i bet doctors will just prescribe it anyway. it's been available for decades. heck, it looks like a simple enough molecule you could probably mix it in your garage.

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
And in the USA, the insurance companies could save a lot of money.

yup. the insurance co's are just as money grubbing as the drug makers. they'll push for this stuff in a heart beat if it's effective. they'll fund studies, undoubtedly.

'we want to do a round of chemo at $50,000'
'have you tried dichloroacetate yet?'
'no'
'well why don't you try that for $10?'

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
And in the USA, the insurance companies could save a lot of money.

No money is saved for anyone its passed on to the consumer. The insurance companies wont want a cure, Im sure they hide money just as well, why do you think you get a increase in your rates all the time, they dont take a hit, you do. If there was a cure, they may lower your rate a few bucks but I can promise they will just put a sh!t load more in their pockets.

But again a cure will NEVER happen ANYWHERE. Your messing with someones cookie jar and a cure for cancer is a huge cookie jar to be putting your hand in with some very powerful people who wont stand for you dipping in and taking multi billion cookies out of their jar they will never see again till another "incurable" illness comes along they can mass market pills you must take to keep you alive.

 

[JulesMaximus]

If the treatment is available in other countries and it works then I'm sure US citizens will be flocking to those countries for treatment. Our government can't ignore it for long.

 

[RichUK]

Interesting read. :thumbsup:

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: funboy42

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
And in the USA, the insurance companies could save a lot of money.

No money is saved for anyone its passed on to the consumer. The insurance companies wont want a cure, Im sure they hide money just as well, why do you think you get a increase in your rates all the time, they dont take a hit, you do. If there was a cure, they may lower your rate a few bucks but I can promise they will just put a sh!t load more in their pockets.

But again a cure will NEVER happen ANYWHERE. Your messing with someones cookie jar and a cure for cancer is a huge cookie jar to be putting your hand in with some very powerful people who wont stand for you dipping in and taking multi billion cookies out of their jar they will never see again till another "incurable" illness comes along.

Stocked up on tinfoil I see.

Any company that did find a cure and produced it, especially if they made it cheap enough that most people could afford it even without insurance would get so much good publicity that they would establish a place in history. This would be a very good thing for business.

If this really does work then yes people will find a way to get it somehow. We'd see a cancer curing drug ring. Not sure if you've noticed but legality has never exactly stopped people from taking drugs. Now imagine if its something that instead of it just making you feel good actually straight up saved your life?

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Are you trying to say that this is a bad drug because drug companies can't make money off of it? To be honest I can not follow your logic at all.

That's because my logic flew right over your head . The drug is good and it works, at least to the extend that animal models have shown. There are however many other drugs that also work.

And no it's not a miracle cure. I'm not surprised you have been lead to believe this surrounding the unjustified hype. It's effectiveness has not been demonstrated anywhere beyond that of ferrous-compound infrared irradiation, engineered gold nanoparticles, meta viruses, RNA interference or countless other approaches I cannot begin to remember.

Sure it could prove to be an effective treament for a substantial number of cancers, but it could also prove not to be, and at a very large cost. The alternative treatments are exactly the reason why there's hesitation in pursuing DCA funding.

 

[DaShen]

marked for later... too much work right now.

 

[SirStev0]

Not unjustified hype, I have been reading the full article on pubmed. Maybe you should try that. They back it up very well and the fact that other countries are starting studies as well leads me to believe that it is justified.

And I'm sorry but do you actually have any credentials to back up your rant? I really don't mean to insult you but you are making some claims that I would reserve for someone with a degree and experience.

And I dont know about you but I have personally used DCA in organic lab, it is not "a very large cost". D54702-1KG 41.60 02/01/2007
$41.60 for 1 kg ... what like 5 bucks for shipping... Fu ck I am about to sponsor my own clinical trial.

 

[SirStev0]

Dichloroacetic Acid

here is the link incase you wanna buy some of your own.... Might be time to start stockpiling.

 

[NanoStuff]

Claims that what, there are other effective treatments? If I could remember the half of them I'd be happy to provide you with links. I'm sure PubMed mentions them if you're willing to flip through it's vastness. Good luck with your own clinical trials, it will probably be a bit short of FDA approval.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Are you trying to say that this is a bad drug because drug companies can't make money off of it? To be honest I can not follow your logic at all.

That's because my logic flew right over your head . The drug is good and it works, at least to the extend that animal models have shown. There are however many other drugs that also work.

And no it's not a miracle cure. I'm not surprised you have been lead to believe this surrounding the unjustified hype. It's effectiveness has not been demonstrated anywhere beyond that of ferrous-compound infrared irradiation, engineered gold nanoparticles, meta viruses, RNA interference or countless other approaches I cannot begin to remember.

Sure it could prove to be an effective treament for a substantial number of cancers, but it could also prove not to be, and at a very large cost. The alternative treatments are exactly the reason why there's hesitation in pursuing DCA funding.

The difference between DCA and what you've mentioned is the development and refinement of those other processes. DCA has been used for a long time already.
All potential cures will need the same costly studies, all things being equal DCA will be cheaper and faster to the table than any of those other options.
There is no good reason, as far as I've read this has not been moved to human trials.
I know for a fact you'd find a lot of patients willing to go for it.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Dichloroacetic Acid

here is the link incase you wanna buy some of your own.... Might be time to start stockpiling.

Hopefully people realize ingesting this without a clue is a bad idea before their kidneys are shot.

 

[GasX]

A clinical trial studying the effect of air vs water as a breathing medium would be expensive. Clinical trial expense has little to do with the cost of the drug.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Claims that what, there are other effective treatments? If I could remember the half of them I'd be happy to provide you with links. I'm sure PubMed mentions them if you're willing to flip through it's vastness. Good luck with your own clinical trials, it will probably be a bit short of FDA approval.

So you have nothing of value to say.

This works in initial studies. So do other therapies.
This theory is going to further studies. There are other therapies going to further study.
This is inexpensive. Other therapies are not.

There are various chemo and radiation therapies that are effective but not fully studied.

To be honest, if there were a break through that was patentable it would probably be much more highly persued.

I am not saying this is definitely a break through, but it is very, very interesting and it has potential. It is everything that the public needs in a cancer treatment and not at an outrageous price. Maybe you need to chill on the naysaying just a bit.

(Oh, and not to be flapping my gums without posting my own credentials, I am a senior pre-med major in a Microbio option. I am extremely interested in oncology and probably going to pursue a carrier in it. That being said I am not a doctor but I have had a decent amount of upper level biology and biochemistry and all the claims they make in the article and the tests they use to prove them are firmly based in known bio science. If you really want me to, I can explain what they found the chemical does in in vitro human cancer cells and why they feel it may be a potential cure.)