Cheap, Safe, Patentless Cancer Drug Discovered

PyroMosh writes "The New Scientist is reporting that researchers working at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada have discovered that an existing drug called dichloroacetate (DCA) is effective in killing cancer cells, while leaving the host's healthy cells unharmed. DCA has already been used for years to treat metabolic disorders, and is known to be fairly safe. Sounds like great news, is it too good to be true? Why is the mainstream news media failing to report on this potential breakthrough? The University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board have set up a site with more info, where you can also donate to support future clinical trials."

Comments

Patentless?

[iluvcapra]

Open Source Medicine?

How would you write the GPL of pharmacopeia?

Re:Patentless?

[pngwen]

The problem I have with your attitude is simple. Doctors spend long hours and lots of time schooling, followed by a period in which they work extremely long hours for next to nothing. That much is certain. What about Engineers and Programmers? We go through the same crap, but we don't make near as much as you do. What is it that makes you feel your time is worth $800.00 an hour? (I arrived at this figure by timing how long my physician spends with me vs. how much I pay them.) The reason is simple. People would die without your help. What you are doing is nothing more than taking advantage of sick people, milking them for all they are worth. It is tantamount to extortion, except you use illness instead of violence.

You think you're the only type of business that has overhead? Virtually every business pays an office staff, has to be insured, needs a building, etc. Why don't they charge outrageous fees? It comes back to the arrogant sense of entitlement that you exhibit. My plumber is more professional and friendly than any doctor I have ever seen. He comes to my home, does his job and courteously thanks me. He charges less than my doctor. If he can do it, why can't you?

I will never trust you. You are a doctor. It is in your best interest to keep me just well enough to survive, but sick enough to keep returning. You are exceptionally greedy, and you wouldn't hesitate to prolong, rather than cure, any illness. I will only go to doctors if I need to, and I will second guess EVERYTHING you say. It is for the best, because you wouldn't hesitate to kill me by making me take medications that are dangerous, but which you get kickbacks for prescribing.

Even this announcement is a little late...

[Dieppe]

If anyone was paying attention this is a few months after the previous mention of it.

And the reason it won't get any funding to study whether or not it's a real cure for cancer is because there's no money in it! If it's a cheap solution and it magically cures cancer... where's the profit in that?

So people will continue to die from cancer, who could have been cured by this cheap drug, because it would offset the bottom line. Nice world we life in, huh? Up next: Other things about this world you didn't know! Wal*Mart sells toys made by third-world children in order to sell them cheap in the United States!

Not what it seems

[Raindance]

DCA kills many sorts of cancer in mice. This is a good sign. It's based on something found naturally in food and is already used safely in humans. That's also good.

But many, many things kill cancer in mice but don't in humans-- mice have significantly different molecular machinery than we do re: cancer prevention (just look at the cancer rates of control lab rats!). This is promising, but it's no breakthrough until it proves itself in humans.

I feel there's a lot of politicking going on behind the scenes on this issue.

Please, not another breakthrough

[jenik]

Not only is this story a dupe but having read the paper in Cancer Cell I'm nowhere near that optimistic. Yes, they show death of cancer cells both in vitro and in vivo but the proposed mechanism of action (re-activation of mitochondrial metabolism leading to increased free radical production and apoptosis) is debatable to say the least. Moreover, even though DCA is registered for treatment of congenital lactate acidosis, it has quite a few unpleasant side effects so it's definitely not a silver bullet. The paper is not clear on how they came to interpretations they present as some of the data could easily be interpreted in other ways. Although the concept of targeting mitochondria to treat cancer is very interesting, as usual, beware of breakthroughs in medical sciences - they often aren't. jan

Re:Please, not another breakthrough

[prefect42]

Read the next issue of New Scientist, and the reader letters includes a piece that notes that it's rather early to be suggesting that this drug is a wonder drug, including the fact that it's known to cause cancer as a side effect (in much lower doses than would be needed to treat a cancer). Not that that's necessarily a killer.

Canadian Health Care System

[mrSnowman]

I bet the public Canadian Health Care System would foot the bill to produce this drug. If you had a universal health care system in your country eradicating cancer cheaply would definately reduce the money the government would pay for overall health care costs.

Keeping all the people who would have died of cancer in your economy would also keep it nice and healthy.

DCA is not safe (neurotoxicity)

[waterbear]

DCA is not in any medical formulary that I have seen. The prospects of it being accepted as safe and efficacious for anything look rather thin, in view of the neurotoxicity seen in a recently reported clinical trial for a different possible medical indication ----

see "Dichloroacetate causes toxic neuropathy in MELAS, A randomized, controlled clinical trial "
P. Kaufmann, MD, MSc, et al, NEUROLOGY 2006;66:324-330
[see http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/3 /324 ]

[excerpts:-]

"Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of dichloroacetate (DCA) in the treatment of mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes (MELAS)."

[...snip...]

"Conclusion: DCA at 25 mg/kg/day is associated with peripheral nerve toxicity resulting in a high rate of medication discontinuation and early study termination. Under these experimental conditions, the authors were unable to detect any beneficial effect. The findings show that DCA-associated neuropathy overshadows the assessment of any potential benefit in MELAS."

It seems that the researchers at Alberta have not put DCA into any patients yet, and so we can't know how the effective human dose (if there even is one) for discouraging the growth of cancer cells relates to the toxic doses (which unfortunately do exist) seen in the reported clinical trial for another potential medical indication.

This begins to smell to me of hype.

-wb-

I shouldn't have to keep telling you children this

[drinkypoo]

...but "Troll" does not mean "anything with which I disagree."

I sincerely believe what I posted above. If you want to have a reasoned debate about it, I'm game. But modding me down just makes you out to be the ignorant child you are.

Now, let me address something ShadowsHawk said in response to my comment.

People join the military for all sorts of reasons, but I doubt "helping to build the American hegemony" is one of them.

That's right. People join the military to get job training, or to get money for college, or because they've been brainwashed into a military tradition by their family, or lastly and leastly, so they can serve their country. But what all of these people have in common is that, wittingly or not, they are doing just that.

Now, I would argue that any responsible adult should be able to consider the repercussions of their actions, and one of the things that results from joining the military is that it grows. I know this sounds like a very sophomoric point to actually address, but since some people (including your esteemed self) don't seem to be getting this point, I'm going to belabor it until the dead horse has been well-whipped. I can think of no other way to get the point across. When the military is larger, it is easier to apply it to various situations in which it is not warranted. For instance, http://adbusters.org/media/flash/hope_and_memory/t imeline.swf is one of my favorite little presentations on American military history. If you just glance through it you will see that the majority of American military actions were questionable to say the least. We forced Japan to trade with us by force, and of course we all know that we invaded Mexico repeatedly, and stole large portions of what is now the Estados Unidos Norteamericanos away from them, forcing them at gunpoint to sell the rest for a song. We were involved in the Opium wars. We annexed Hawaii in 1898. Especially check out Honduras in 1905; this is one of many American military conquests specifically supporting the United Fruit Company. Look carefully at Nicaragua in 1910, Cuba in 1917, Guatemala in 1954, Haiti in 1959...

The list goes on and on but what all of these things have in common is that they were financially motivated. They weren't about helping people. They were about money and power. Yes, in the same list there are conflicts that are about protecting people from bad people. There's attacks on pirates (the real kind) and their institutions. There's WWI and WWII.

Today, we are seeing much the same thing. We have bombed the shit out of a middle eastern company yet again. And yet again, the bulk of the rebuilding will be carried out by American contractors. In fact, the sole contractor overseeing and profiting from the entire thing is, guess who, Halliburton. The government claimed that they were the only contractor that could be ready "in time" and so they got the contract. Gee, I wonder why they were the only ones to meet the lengthy, detailed, and frankly unnecessary requirements so suddenly. Could they have had, you know, advance warning? Given the connection between certain high-ranking officials in our government and Halliburton, not only is that highly likely, but it is a virtual certainty.

Are you getting the message yet? There are times when the American military has done good things. Most of these were minor conflicts. A couple of them were major. In the case of the minor conflicts, a large standing military was not necessary. In the case of the major ones, the draft was utilized to bring up the numbers of people sent off to combat the menace. In neither case is a large standing military requir