Cure for cancer? What do you think?

Question

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice
David McRaney
Posted: 1/23/07

EDITORS NOTE:

Since the original publication of this article we have been inundated with responses from the public at all walks of life. It is important to note that research is ongoing with DCA, and not everyone is convinced it will turn out to be a miracle drug. There have been many therapies that were promising in vitro and in animal models that did not work for one reason or another in humans. To provide false hope is not our intention. There is a lot of information on DCA available on the web, and this column is but one opinion on the topic. We hope you will do your own research into the situation. So, we have added links to resources at the end of this column.

END NOTE

Scientists may have cured cancer last week.

Yep.

So, why hven't the media picked up on it?

Here's the deal. Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada found a cheap and easy to produce drug that kills almost all cancers. The drug is dichloroacetate, and since it is already used to treat metabolic disorders, we know it should be no problem to use it for other purposes.

Doesn't this sound like the kind of news you see on the front page of every paper?

The drug also has no patent, which means it could be produced for bargain basement prices in comparison to what drug companies research and develop.

Scientists tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body where it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but left healthy cells alone. Rats plump with tumors shrank when they were fed water supplemented with DCA.

Again, this seems like it should be at the top of the nightly news, right?

Cancer cells don't use the little power stations found in most human cells - the mitochondria. Instead, they use glycolysis, which is less effective and more wasteful.

Doctors have long believed the reason for this is because the mitochondria were damaged somehow. But, it turns out the mitochondria were just dormant, and DCA starts them back up again.

The side effect of this is it also reactivates a process called apoptosis. You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that can't be pressed in cancer cells. Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished. Fully functioning mitochondria, thanks to DCA, can once again die.

With glycolysis turned off, the body produces less lactic acid, so the bad tissue around cancer cells doesn't break down and seed new tumors.

Here's the big catch. Pharmaceutical companies probably won't invest in research into DCA because they won't profit from it. It's easy to make, unpatented and could be added to drinking water. Imagine, Gatorade with cancer control.

So, the groundwork will have to be done at universities and independently funded laboratories. But, how are they supposed to drum up support if the media aren't even talking about it?

This is a column of opinion written by Printz Executive Editor David McRaney. Comments can be sent to [e-mail]
© Copyright 2007 Student Printz

Answer 1

It's someones opinion. Scientists often find drugs that seem to hold tremendous potential when used on animals. But animal tumors are not the same as a human brain tumor, or a human breast tumor, or a human bone tumor . . in fact there are over 200 different types of human tumors and the majority of them are treated with a combination of different drugs . . all human tumors are different. Thus that is why we have Clinical Trials and universities, individuals, and companies may conduct a Clinical Trial to establish dosage, safety, and responses to their products

So, if there is any type of 'cure' here for maybe one or two types of cancer . . or rather 'treatments' for these types of cancer than let this product go through the test phase first.

The opinon writer is jumping to conclusions and writing this to stir up controversy and probably to sell a few newspapers or notoriety. He should know that Clinical Trials need to be conducted on any treatment.

Answer 2

If any non-clinical organic clinical care treatments any variety of maximum cancers, the diagnosis might want to were incorrect interior the first position. the answer isn't any. there is no scientifically shown efficacy for organic treatments in any of the two hundred plus ailments lumped mutually and theory-about by potential of the uninformed public as one ailment "maximum cancers." Any knowledgeable individual is conscious that "maximum cancers" is a vast time period for 2 hundred+ very different ailments. forget organic medical look after a complicated maximum cancers of any type.

Answer 3

if you believe in evolution then there will or might be a cure for cancer. if you don't then you would know that there are only treatments that can help you to get rid of it or live with it but it while on the treatment. i do have hope in the scientists but i doubt anyone will find a cure for cancer for now. the amount of money and all the experts that has to get paid i don't think it will happen any time soon. i do hope and pray tho'.

Answer 4

there is no money in a cure, pharmaceutical companies want treatments, not cures

Answer 5

Wow! That's quite interesting. I'm going to save this information and tell others about it. Thanks.