Cancer drug....

Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers
Updated 14:26 23 January 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition

It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their “immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.
It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.
Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.
Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis’s experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

"The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001. But as ABC News’s Medical Editor pointed out last night, “most of that occurred in those early years under a Clinton initiative. The budget was actually cut last year and the projected budget for this year is to be cut even further.”"

"Bush’s 2007 budget proposed cutting funding for the National Cancer Institute by $40 million."

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/18/bush-cancer/

and the opening of the piece begins with:


"FACT CHECK: Bush Has Cut Funding For Cancer Research
Health officials reported yesterday that cancer deaths in the United States dropped for the second year in a row. President Bush teed off this news with a speech at the National Institutes of Health, touting the increased funding for cancer research since 2001:

"First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have."

BUSH IS A LIAR! (but we already knew that, i guess)

to my semi-fundy, health-obsessed sister-in-law, I also sent the piece you link.

I thought this post would be of interest to a lot of people.

I wonder a lot of things....will big Pharma will get involved?... is New Scientist credible?... is the study quoted credible?... side effects?.... interactions?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16776882/site/newsweek/

A New Way to Fight Cancer?
Scientists and patients are buzzing about DCA, an existing drug newly recognized as a potentially powerful cancer treatment. But, of course, more research is needed.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
Updated: 6:46 p.m. ET Jan 23, 2007

Jan. 23, 2007 - There are no magic bullets in the fight against cancer: that's the first thing every responsible scientist mentions when discussing a possible new treatment, no matter how promising. For decades, research has emphasized the differences among the many kinds of cancer, their origins in the complex interplay between genes and environment, and the development of ever more sophisticated and tightly focused therapies. Everyone knows that cancer will not be cured the way antibiotics cure a staph infection.

If there were a magic bullet, though, it might be something like dichloroacetate, or DCA, a drug that kills cancer cells by exploiting a fundamental weakness found in a wide range of solid tumors. So far, though, it kills them just in test tubes and in rats infected with human cancer cells; it has never been tested against cancer in living human beings. There are countless compounds that can do the same thing that never turn into viable treatments. But DCA has one big advantage over most of those: it is an existing drug whose side effects are well-studied and relatively tolerable. Also, it's a small molecule that might be able to cross the blood-brain barrier to reach otherwise intractable brain tumors. Within days after a technical paper on DCA appeared in the journal Cancer Cell last week, the lead author, Dr. Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta, was deluged with calls and e-mails from prospective patients—to whom he can say only, “Hang in there.” There are no magic bullets against cancer.

Still, Michelakis may be onto something important. "The work is very interesting, from a conceptual standpoint," says Dr. Dario Altieri, director of the cancer center at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester. DCA is a remarkably simple molecule related to acetic acid, better known as vinegar. It acts in the body to promote the activity of the mitochondria, the cellular structures where glucose is oxidized to provide energy; its main pharmaceutical use has been to treat certain rare metabolic disorders. But the mitochondria have another function: they initiate apoptosis, the fail-safe process by which cells with damaged DNA destroy themselves before they can do damage. This goes on continually in the body. But when a cell turns cancerous, it begins processing glucose outside the mitochondria; the mitochondria shut down, and the cell becomes immune to apoptosis—immortal, until it kills its own host. Researchers have assumed that the mitochondria in cancer cells were irreparably damaged. But Michelakis wondered if that was really true. With his colleagues he used DCA to turn back on the mitochondria in cancer cells—which promptly died.

Remarkably, Michelakis isn't even an oncologist; he's a cardiologist who was studying pulmonary hypertension, a deadly condition in which the cells lining the walls of the blood vessels in the lungs inexplicably proliferate. His research suggested that DCA could help that, too, but the possibility that he might be on the track of a treatment for cancer was too tempting to pass up. One of the great things about DCA is that it's a simple compound, in the public domain, and could be produced for pennies a dose. But that's also a problem, because big drug companies are unlikely to spend a billion dollars or so on large-scale clinical trials for a compound they can't patent. So Michelakis and his colleagues Stephen Archer and John Mackey, with the support of the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board, are embarking on the process themselves, hoping to interest foundations or private philanthropists in underwriting their research. (Anyone interested in helping can click here: http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/)

They have one advantage: because DCA is already in use, they can combine Phase I trials, meant to establish safety, with Phase II, which look at whether the compound actually works. The first subjects, says Mackey, will probably be patients with breast, lung or colon cancers that have recurred after initial treatment—in other words, people without much hope of a cure. He would like nothing better than to offer them some hope. But again, he warns, in cancer, there are no magic bullets.

Absolutely. They will do everything in their power to see that it will not get approval,
at least here in the US.

My cancer treatment was over $100,000 nine years ago. I estimate that medication and
chemo account for about 25% of the total, if not more. One of the anti-nausea pills I
took was $80. a pill.

I doubt that the big drug companies will be willing to give up this cash cow.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=9091f800-ac23-4511-b962-7ed60584b88a

Cancer finding hailed
Causes disease to regress: Molecule could treat lung, breast, brain cancers

Melissa Leong, National Post
Published: Wednesday, January 17, 2007

A simple molecule, used for decades to treat children with rare metabolic diseases, commits "immortal" cancer cells to a natural death and could soon be used to treat many forms of cancer, according to a new study.

University of Alberta researchers were excited to discover that dichloroacetate (DCA) causes regression in several cancers, including lung, breast and brain tumours.

(snip)

The findings were published yesterday in the journal Cancer Cell.

DCA, a non-toxic compound comprised of "a couple of oxygens, a couple of chlorides and a couple of carbons," appears to repair the damage that cancer cells cause to mitochondria -- the energy- producing units in cells.

Mitochondria regulate cell death and because cancer cells suppress their mitochondria, they achieve "immortality," Dr. Michelakis said. This appears to offer cancer cells a significant advantage in growth compared to normal cells as well as protection from many standard chemotherapies, he said.

DCA "puts life into the mitochondria," making cancer cells more susceptible to apoptosis -- a natural cell suicide mechanism that enables a person to control cell numbers and kill off cells that threaten his or her survival, he said.

DCA, being so small, is easily absorbed into the body, and after oral intake, it can reach areas in the body that other drugs cannot -- making it possible to treat brain cancers.

It could one day be used in conjunction with traditional chemotherapies, Dr. Michelakis said.

"The DCA will enable the cell death mechanisms and then chemotherapy would have a much easier job; you could use lower doses and less toxic," he said.

DCA affects cancer cells without affecting normal ones, he added.

Because the inexpensive drug has been used on both healthy and ill patients for 30 years, it can be immediately tested on people suffering from cancer, Dr. Michelakis said.

But because DCA is not patented and is not owned by a pharmaceutical company, it will be a challenge to find funding to begin clinical trials, he said.

Until the past few years, researchers believed damage to mitochondria in cancer cells was permanent. But Dr. Michelakis, a cardiologist, wanted to test this belief. "When you see what DCA can do in other mitochondria, we said, 'Why don't we try it in cancer?' "
(snip)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi43.html

Near 100 percent success rate? From a cheap vitamin...
Should this be screaming news and a part of every Oncologists protocol?

the clinical trials would be conducted first in Canada, and hopefully would be taken into account for approval in the US at some point in the not too distant future. Sounds like funding is going to be a real problem though, due to it not having a patent, and therefore not making buckets of money for the company that develops/distributes it.

It may be able to help people soon, and I hope it speeds through some clinical trials. Sounds like it has a lot of promise. Another link:

http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=88194392


(it doesn't have to be printed out to be read, though it may ask if you want to print it)

i love what an elegant solution this is. it gets the cell to "switch off" its "immortality" trait. the therapy gets the cell to behave normally (mortal).

current cancer treatments kill everything, hoping to leave something left of the patient. this is mindblowing.

New Scientist has received an unprecedented amount of interest in this story from readers. If you would like up-to-date information on any plans for clinical trials of DCA in patients with cancer, or would like to donate towards a fund for such trials, please visit the site set up by the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board. We will also follow events closely and will report any progress as it happens.

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

At this point, the University of Alberta, the Alberta Cancer Board and Capital Health do not condone or advise the use of dichloroacetate (DCA) in human beings for the treatment of cancer since no human beings have gone through clinical trials using DCA to treat cancer. However, the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board are committed to performing clinical trials in the immediate future in consultation with regulatory agencies such as Health Canada. We believe that because DCA has been used on human beings in Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials of metabolic diseases, the cancer clinical trials timeline for our research will be much shorter than usual.

This website will be updated frequently to reflect progress in our efforts.

of both the science and economics of it -- take a look at Respectful Insolence, the scienceblog of a surgical oncologist (and fellow Democrat). He isn't particularly impressed with the paper, nor with the fear mongering that it won't be developed if its proves to be useful.

and "woos." to him, this sounds like a Natural Foods Cancer Remedy. and, he objects to laymen calling this a "cure" and then questioning Big Pharma's integrity vis a vis research and development of non-profitable drugs.

he is PRO-PHARMA.

nothing wrong with that -- it just gives his OPINION a spin. also, if you read his words on this particular issue (cancer research in general) he sounds like someone who has experienced a bit of failure after getting his hopes up. he sounds, well, JILTED.

here's some of what he says:


okay folks -- "rekindle the old argument...metabolic changes." this is one of those GUYS with a giant chip on his shoulder regarding "natural" therapies ALL OF WHICH target metabolic processes.


read on:





i've been dealt some major blows in my professional life and can completely understand where this soul is coming from with his PESSIMISM. what is really bad form/faith, tho, is to fault laymen for using the term "CURE" when talking about this molecule -- this is how LAYMEN SPEAK. we aren't going to use the jargon of cancer research because we aren't cancer researchers -- excuse the fuck out of us.

the other thing -- his mission bias is to give emotional support to Big Pharma because he believes Big Pharma is a VICTIM of media bias and ignorance. see, we just don't UNDERSTAND what Big Pharma has to go thru with their business models and reasearch and having to make money. WHaaaah!

consumers and pharma have mutually exclusive positions because LIFE AND DEATH hang in the balence for people who have to decide every month between their medicines and their FOOD. so FUCK YEAH we don't like BIG PHARMA -- we know exactly what the dealeo is: if it don't make money, it don't become a drug. that's a good enough reason for me and any RIGHT THINKING person to cast a hairy eyeball in their direction.

check back with us when Big Pharma does something HUMANE, DECENT and CIVILIZED. until then we reserve the right to PharmaHate.

science, and was relieved to see that this analysis wasn't really being too critical in a scientific sense -- beyond the usual skepticism and cynicism inherent in some medical/scientific types.

This could well be a significant breakthrough, and yes, of course it's not the first time we've all heard that/said that.

There are several factors that make it so: 1) the molecule is small and simple; 2) the molecule has a clinical history 3) the target is elegant (restoring the suicidability of a cell!).

I hope this pans out -- and if it's real and if it's simple, there will be TONS of lab research -- There are probably labs right now either checking their chemical inventory or placing an order for it to start some experiments. That's the first step anyway, getting verification from other research labs, and expanding the scope (which types of tumors it works on, whether resistence is an issue etc etc).

If the lab research continues to be compelling, clinical trials will somehow be done.

If this drug has been used for many years for various metabolic diseases, couldn't there be some studies done to review those who received it for other reasons, and track the development (or lack of development) of cancerous tumors - comparing those results with a control population?

And this will probably be done, assuming that the doses are somewhat in alignment. I'd really like to see such an analysis.

Thank you for posting this. Over the years I have seen many promising cancer cures announced in the news with great fanfare only to be "disappeared" later on. The most recent one that comes to mind is that the anti-inflammatory drug, Celebrex, had a remarkable ability to destroy Lung Cancer tumors. Strange that a similar class drug was banned because of alleged heart attack risk. At any rate, try finding any Celebrex studies. One has to really look hard, which is odd considering the implications...And keep on eye on this story, as it will most likely be disappeared as well.

K+R

If a simple, single cure all for cancer that was actually tested and found to be safe and effective came along, the thousands of people directly involved would all have to keep quiet about it. I just don't see that happening. I've also read the promising cures that have come down the pipe so far that simply failed to deliver. To believe that one or more of these was the cure everyone has been looking for, but was suppressed is to believe that not one single person who devoted their time and sweat would come out with the news of its existence. And those are just for one specific cure. Multiply that by however many times a new substance had promise. That's an awful lot of people in on the conspiracy.

I've known people who worked in research to find cures for cancer. Most of them worked at nearby St. Jude Children's hospital. Not "Big Pharma". Not a single one of them would have kept their mouth shut if they'd found such a miracle cure. If they knew for a fact that it was safe, effective, and would save millions upon millions of lives over time, they would never stand for it being suppressed. They have loved ones, too, not to mention they themselves are as much at risk of getting cancer as anyone else. Besides, the corporation that is behind whomever finds this cure stands to make billions if it pans out. There is probably no bigger prize than The Cure for the Big C. "Pharma" or not, scientists are always going to be looking for it.

Something is clearly wrong, though. I agree with you on points and have personal experience with ST. Jude and can offer nothing but praise for the people .
However,I have watched two loved ones die because their "teams" refused to give them IV Vitamin C. Here is a completely safe vitamin that has a huge political history... A few years ago it was discovered that C raises Hydrogen Peroxide levels in the blood when given via IV, thus killing cancer cells . The NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH was calling for further studies and were clearly exited about it, even admitting that their own past studies on C were wrong.
So, why is it that everyone with cancer right now isn't getting Intravenous Ascorbic Acid? It's completely safe and it's natural (and cannot be patented). It can be administered with chemo and radiation. Are ALL doctors simply too overworked to keep up on new discoveries?
I still see it as being, like everything else, a matter of MONEY.

Note the last sentence of this article pertaining to Linus Pauling.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi43.html

Okay first of all I know waaaay to much about NIH to be impressed by them getting excited over intravenous vit C. Take what you hear from them with a grain of salt. Thats an incredibly politicized group. And what is this about raising hydorgen peroxide in the blood? I never heard of hydrogen peroxide being in the blood in anyway shape or form. And if it was wouldn't it be cytotoxic to healthy cells as well? I am not trying to attack you. I just am genuinely puzzled on the science you are using here

"Unlike cancer drugs, I.V. vitamin C selectively killed cancer cells, but not healthy cells, and showed no toxicity. The ability of intravenous vitamin C to kill lymphoma cells was remarkable – almost 100% at easily achievable blood serum concentrations..."

And I agree with you about NIH: Again, from the article:
"...The NIH also offered no explanation why it has taken 35 years to confirm the work of Dr. Linus Pauling."

BTW, I have done the IV C thing many times in the 90's. The treatments were part of a protocol from a well-known allergist. No side affects. If anything, the treatment made me feel good.

What bothers me is that IC C is harmless. Chemo and Radiation kill people.
What harm would it do to give a terminally ill person a harmless vitamin?

If interested, do a google search for "The Politics of Vitamin C."

If across the board, few doctors are administering it, then I'm willing to bet there is a good reason they aren't. Just because it's a vitamin doesn't mean it's harmless. If the studies haven't been done, then they don't know if the vitamin could somehow react with the proven treatments in a negative way, for instance. If a cancer patient willingly wants to participate in experiments and studies, then that
s one thing. But, I wouldn't want my doctor using unproven, insufficiently tested methods on me unless he was officially a part of a controlled study of that method, and even then only with my consent. I would even consider taking part in those studies if I were a patient myself, if my doctor thought it worth pointing me in that direction. If further studies aren't being done on vitamin C as a cancer cure, there's a good chance initial findings turned up nothing. It's possible NIH was indeed excited about it at one point, when there may have been signs of some promise. But if they aren't pursuing it further, the likeliest explanation is that there is nothing to the claims that it kills cancer. That isn't an uncommon scenario. And it's vitamin C. That would really be a hard substance to sit on top up and cover up as it is so readily available. If there were anything to the claims, out of the millions of doctors there would be enough of them that would be willing to back it up, and its amazing cancer curing properties would have seen the light of day a long time ago.

If you do a google search for Vitamin and cancer, that is the first thing to come up. I am not blaming the doctors.

I thought you were saying doctors were ignoring vitamin C because of money, and not because it doesn't work. I'm actually aware that vitamin C is a total scam as a cancer treatment, but I didn't want to be overly strident.

Using an an apology to make an uneducated dig is just so internet forum.
You just want to argue.
How can you possibley diss something that has a nearly 100 percent success rate in killing lymphoma cells?
Where is that ignore button....

I thought I really misunderstood you. I didn't mean to get in any digs. I don't want to argue. I misunderstood you yet again and thought you were agreeing with me that vitamin c didn't work.

Is it because I posted that a google search of "Vitamin C and cancer" results in it appearing on quack watch.org? And that that link is at the top of the page? If that is the reason for your misunderstanding, I understand. I think. I was just trying to demonstrate the simple fact that there has been an ongoing propaganda war against Vitamin C going back 35 years to the initial findings of Linus Pauling.

And again, I would like to know how you came to disagree with recent findings as well as the findings of two-time Nobel winner Pauling.

made me think you were clarifying your position because I misunderstood. I was honest and not being snarky at all. I don't blame you for coming to that conclusion because a lot of people here are like that, and I've even been guilty of the occasional snark myself.

I'm not disagreeing specifically with any finding. I'm stating that if vitamin C killed cancer cells, and that has been known to be a fact for 35 years, then that's what doctors would now be using to kill cancer cells. I just don't buy it that all these cancer specialists know vitamin C kills cancer cells at least as effectively if not better than traditional methods, but simply refuse to use it. I don't believe that researchers, like the ones at St. Jude, are continuing to overlook vitamin C deliberately as part of any political cover up, and are allowing children to suffer the ill effects of traditional cancer treatments and die because they refuse to look at vitamin C. Regardless of any links I see on the internet, I know that if vitamin C is truly showing some promise as an effective treatment and that new information has come to light, that researchers are looking into it. I don't believe there is a conspiracy to keep vitamin C as cancer treatment a secret. If it worked they'd be using it, and if it is ever shown in the future to work, they'll use it then. I don't doubt that vitamin C has its benefits, of course. But I don't think it's a cure for cancer, and any doctor that promotes it as such is likely a quack.

I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make regarding the politics behind Big Pharma. Cancer is just a channel through which Big Pharma makes most of its capital. A good portion of this capital is gained through the "cure", which is, of course chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is a highly unsuccessful cancer treatment, leaving the patient with just enough life in them to be useful as a financial resource for Big Pharma.

Now comes along (or rather, some years ago) a harmless, cheap and effective treatment for cancer. This puts quite a dent in Big Pharma's annual income, since vitamin C also negates and greatly relieves the side-effects of chemotherapy. At the very least, it could be use as an adjunct to chemotherapy, but Big Pharma would much rather have you buy their chemical medications to relieve the side-effects of their chemotherapy. And cunningly enough, these chemical medications have side-effects of their own, so you could always get another medication to counteract the side-effects of the medication that's counteracting the side-effects of the therapy for the cancer... and it just goes on and on... money, money, money.

Were it up to the doctors, I am sure this would not be the case. In a time where Oprah gets taken to court by the beef industry simply for stating that meat can possibly be linked to various diseases, you can imagine how it would be quite difficult for a doctor, regardless of his or her strong morals, to stand up against this huge money-making industry machine. It is akin to the situation in Iraq; the majority of the people oppose the war, but no one seems to be able to stop it.

Furthermore, the FDA has approved clinical trials for further studies regarding intravenous vitamin C for one LUCKY foundation. We're talking ONE out of countless research groups, and you know how long these trials take.

And again I have to ask you: How can you argue with a treatment that has a near 100% success rate in killing lymphoma cells, is cheap and causes no side-effects? Name one drug or treatment that comes close to those statistics. You seem genuinely interested in this matter -- I'd highly suggest you read an essay entitled "The Politics of Vitamin C", though I don't have a link handy at the moment, I'm sure if you Googled it, it would be fairly easy to find.

In closing, the final sentence from the article I linked in my earlier post:

"...The NIH also offered no explanation why it has taken 35 years to confirm the work of Dr. Linus Pauling."

:D

No? That's not good news?

Well, I don't know, but it seems there is some controversy about what DCA does and how it does it... there are some papers that propose that it's actually carcinogenic, and anti-apoptotic (although i'll have to read them carefully to be sure of what they're really saying).

Have a look, here's a list of papers that have the term "dichloroacetate" and "apoptosis" in their abstracts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=pubmed&details_term=%28%22dichloroacetate%22%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20OR%20dichloroacetate%5BText%20Word%5D%29%20AND%20%28%22apoptosis%22%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20OR%20apoptosis%5BText%20Word%5D%29