Cure for Cancer

[Thalassamania]

Why this piece from the New Scientist has not had more coverage is beyond me.

 

[DennisW]

Very interesting article. I agree, there should be more coverage.

 

[mislav]

Why this piece from the New Scientist has not had more coverage is beyond me.

Probably because of the prevailing "Panem et circem" mentality of today. But excellent news, thanks for posting!

 

[RJP]

Why this piece from the New Scientist has not had more coverage is beyond me.

"The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer."

It has not gotten more coverage because this is about the nine millionth compound that has been shown to kill cancer cells in a test tube or when continually infused into lab animals with induced tumors.

For now it's about as newsworthy as "man walks dog" in the grand scheme of things.

Don't get me wrong, I hope it is determined to be "something" but for now there is NO information as to whether it will work in humans, mostly because there is no way to know how much to give, via what administration, over what time period, or for how long. Little details like whether or not it will kill YOU at doses high enough to kill cancer cells are pretty important.

If you think that's a minor issue to address, here's a bit more info on DCA from the NIH website:

Dichloroacetate is a chemical byproduct of water chlorination and of the metabolism of various drugs and industrial chemicals. Its accumulation in groundwater and at certain "Superfund" toxic waste dump sites is considered a potential health hazard.

Concern about DCA toxicity is predicated on data obtained in rodent strains administered DCA at higher doses than those to which humans are usually exposed. In these animals, chronic administration of DCA induces hepatotoxicity and neoplasia. The DCA doses used in animal toxicology experiments are very similar to those used clinically for the chronic or acute treatment of several acquired or hereditary metabolic or cardiovascular diseases.

It remains to be determined whether important differences in its metabolism and toxicology exist in humans between environmentally and clinically relevant doses.

 

[Thalassamania]

The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.

DCA can cause pain, numbness and gait disturbances in some patients, but this may be a price worth paying if it turns out to be effective against all cancers. The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap.

But it's already FDA approved for treating various metabolic disorders and using for cancer treatment is just an "off label" use. That (and the fact that it's in the public domain) is what makes this interesting. In theory, if you so chose, you could get a script and use it this afternoon.

 

[drbill]

But it's already FDA approved for treating various metabolic disorders and using for cancer treatment is just an "off label" use. That (and the fact that it's in the public domain) is what makes this interesting. In theory, if you so chose, you could get a script and use it this afternoon.

I think you hit the nail on the head here! Which of the major drug companies and doctors who get kickbacks from them can profit from it? After all, this is the "free" enterprise society!

 

[RJP]

In theory, if you so chose, you could get a script and use it this afternoon.

How much would you take?

How many times a day?

How long would you take it for?

It sounds like the dose "for cancer" could be much higher than it's current use, and no one knows what that dose is or how effective - or toxic - it might be.

AJAX powder has been shown in vitro to kill cancer cells. And hell it's safe enough now to be sold WITHOUT a prescription, so why not just use AJAX?

It just ain't that easy.

 

[RJP]

In theory, if you so chose, you could get a script and use it this afternoon.

Just a quick poke around the PubMed database finds plenty of clinical trials using it OUTSIDE cancer - in lower doses - with less than promising results.

Results of 2006 study published by the American Academy of Neurology: During the treatment period, all patients randomized to DCA were taken off study medication because of peripheral neuropathy, and trial was terminated early because of peripheral nerve toxicity. Conclusion: DCA is associated with peripheral nerve toxicity and the findings show that DCA-associated neuropathy overshadows the assessment of any potential benefit.

There also seems to be a fair body of literature citing it as "a known hepatocarcinogen in rodents" so I guess if it kills whatever cancer you HAVE before it GIVES YOU liver cancer it just might work out.

 

[Thalassamania]

The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.

Results of 2006 study published by the American Academy of Neurology: During the treatment period, all patients randomized to DCA were taken off study medication because of peripheral neuropathy, and trial was terminated early because of peripheral nerve toxicity. Conclusion: DCA is associated with peripheral nerve toxicity and the findings show that DCA-associated neuropathy overshadows the assessment of any potential benefit.

Someone, it appears, (and I don't mean RJP, who is going through the trouble to look up more data for us ... thanks) is not giving us the straight story!

 

[RJP]

Someone, it appears, (and I don't mean RJP, who is going through the trouble to look up more data for us ... thanks) is not giving us the straight story!

Hold on thar babalooey!

The point I've been trying to make is that it's all really tied to dose.

Aspirin is safe at 325mg. Take 2000mg and it's a different story.

Just because something is "on the market" and "relatively safe" at one dose for one condition doesn't mean it's safe at another dose for another condition.

It's used at relatively low dose now mostly for children with rare metabolic disorders (inborn errors of metabolism) that will kill the kids in pretty short order, if remember correcly from my days in genetics classes way back when. So "relatively safe" is a relative term.