The Cure For Cancer
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Science…which the drug companies won’t test because they can’t make any money off of it? Hmmm…
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 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.
Oh, if only something like this could work out…
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 17th, 2007 and is filed under Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:57 am
It shouldn’t surprise anyone if DCA never appears as an effective and cheap cancer treatment. Cures only devestate pharmaceutical companies profits, so it will get buried, I’m sure. Kind of like Cavistat, which is a combination of calcium carbonate and arginine, a simple amino acid. It’s been proven more effective than fluoride in combatting dental caries, but it’s not being used for that purpose, though it’s non-toxic and safer for children than fluoride, a known toxin.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably isn’t. Remember cold fusion? But stories like this give us the wonderful opportunity to bash the evil drug companies and demonstrate our complete ignorance about why and how these corporations do what they do.
January 20th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Lewis, grow up… A corporation only exists for profit to ownership. It’s their only legal obligation. So don’t try to make them out to be candidates for sainthood.
Tell you what, Lewis. If I’m so ignorant, as you say, of business and corporate motivation, perhaps you’ll enlighten me, here, as to what they are, if not profit? Or are you just beating some meat?
January 20th, 2007 at 6:45 am
By the way, only an idiot ever, for one second, bought into cold fusion. It is a physical impossibilty to cause fusion at anything but enormous temperatures, hence the need to ignite a thermo-nuclear reaction with the heat only fission can generate.
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Well, even though actual fusion is extremely unlikely, effects caused by cavitation in liquids and lasers are still very poorly understood, and may have some interesting and potentially useful ramifications. Even though the claimed “cold fusion” was bogus, the research the idea has spawned may bear serendipitous fruit.
I Agree that drug corporations will almost certainly do whatever they can to bury this, because of the billions they would lose in cancer drugs and treatments. Insurance companies, however, should do everything they can to promote it, as it would save them billions. Should be interesting to watch the clash of these titans.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
If it cures cancer, someone will manufacture it. Its absurd to blame drug companies for any wrong-doing here. If it is so cheap to make, and there is no patent, then anybody could form a company to produce it, and make a profit (just sell the drug for more than whatever it costs to make…there is nothing stopping you!). Justin could get together with sleipner and start their own production company.
Why do existing companies need to make it if they dont want to? What the heck does cavistat have to do with this - Who is preventing anybody to produce or sell cavistat? How are drug companies “burying” this story if I just read it here? Is every oncologist in this country so shallow that they would kow-tow to drug companies and not reccomend the drug for their dying patients, if indeed the drug has been proven effective? What about other countries with socialist health care - why don’t they distribute DCA to their patients? Questions unaswered. Hmmmm….
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
What do you say sleipner? Do you have 10 million dollars to set up a startup drug company? I could do the marketing…
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 am
Stick to my question and you’ll have your answers.
By law and charter, a corporation and it’s executive body must put profit to ownership above all else. It is their sole duty. Anything else, like curing cancer, is superflous to business decisions.
It is at the heart of the modern corporation, and even Milton Friedman would back me on this statement. He has already, rest his soul. As would any first-year law or business student. Or CEO, if they like their jobs, and want to keep them.
This business model stands for any form of publicly-traded, limited-liabilty company. A privately owned company can, however, be more flexible, as it is the ownership itself who can make these decisions of putting people ahead of profit. But the privately owned company is severely limited in how it can raise venture capital, hence most go public.
So, in case you don’t ubderstand what all this means, I’ll tell you. You will not see these companies increasing the manufacture of this drug, for anything other than metabolic disorders, unless it is profitable to them.
And no amount of whining and obfuscation about “what does cavistat have to do with this” will change that.
Get a brain.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 am
“So, in case you don’t ubderstand…” Oops… I hab a code in my nobe… lol :)
Sorry guys.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 am
Hmmm… buggers won’t cure my cold either… :)
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 am
Sleipner… very good point concerning the insurance industry, btw. Sorry I missed it earlier. Yes, should be interesting.
Actually, guys, I did notice that the researchers at the University of Alberta are getting many offers of funding. Good start to things.
I personally am predisposed genetically to cancer, my doctor says, so I have a very selfish interest in not dying horribly while taking chemo or radiation therapy. So, if I’ve been rude, it is not personal.
All is good in the world gents.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 am
Maybe you don’t, but there are thousands of venture capitalist and investment firms that do. Besides, if it so cheap and there is no patent, you probably don’t need that much anyway! Make it in your basement and sell it over the internet. There are a ton of quacks selling stuff that claims to cure cancer and all sorts of diseases, although DCA might actually work.
As of 2002, over 10 Miliion people in the united states alone are living with cancer. If you are selling a cure, it is guaranteed that all 10 million will buy it, otherwise they may die. Tell me that is not one hell of a market to get into!
Think about it, If one drug company breaks the mold and desides to sell it, then all other competing companies will lose profit on their cancer-treatment drugs because they wuld instantly become obsolete and no health care plan would buy them. It would be in the best interest of those companies to get on board with DCA.
Brian Lee, there is no way you can convince me that it would not be profitable to invest in such an endevour. It the cure for cancer for Christ’s sake. Its the holy grail of medicine! Again, why does it have to be a big pharma company that is required to manufacture and sell it? There is no patent on paper plates, but I can go to Wall-Mart and there are a ton of different brands selling them, with each one making a profit on every unit they sell.
You should get a brain. Better yet, you should get a chemistry set and some investors (perhaps from the paper plate company). You (as well as those investors) could make millions, and you wouldn’t have to worry about your unfortunate genetic dispostition.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I heard of another treatment for cancer recently that involves nanoparticles, supposedly they’ve had really good results in first phase trials. Apparently, the blood vessels in tumors are more permeable than those elsewhere, so tailored gold nanoparticles of a specific size tend to congregate in cancerous tissues. Then, wavelengths of light that heat up the particles but pass harmlessly through the body are used to burn the tumors away. Here’s a link I googled about it:
http://www.techreview.com/Nanotech/17956/
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I’m not prognosticating. I’m just saying how business operates outside of moral concerns. I’m not even upset over this fact. It just is.
And stop giving me ideas. You’ll make me unhappily rich… But understand this: if you do, I’m leaving all my money to Sleipner and Justin. (And I expect birthday cards until then guys. :)
January 24th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
People forget that this cures the incidence of cancer, not prevent it. We will keep getting cancer for as long as the human race exists and as long as our cells still have DNA. The difference is the Pharmecuticals will actually benefit from it. they will be manufacturing this cure like Cold medicine and they will keep selling it!
January 24th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Good point Shinto, but what an awful thought… People will be calling in sick to work because of cancer, and the boss will tell them to to take a pill and report, or be fired. lol