Canadian Scientists Cure Cancer... No One Notices?

[Harbinger_]

I get a laugh out of some of the people that are commenting saying certain cells don't work this way and this doesn't make medical sense.

Do people honestly realize how many things we thought were correct only to be proven wrong over the many, many years that humans have been around?
Especially in medicine?

The egyptians believed the brain was a useless organ, alot of people believed that vaccines did far more harm than good. I won't deny that people have learned in school that treatment A cannot work on illness B but it is possible that what you are learning may not in fact be 100% correct.

When people mention "Oh the media would have told us all about this regardless if it was worth money or not." I just have to shake my head. There have been countless breakthroughs in efficient energy, nanotechnology and synthetic intelligence over the years but we don't hear alot about it do we?

Of course not and because thats due to the information being smothered and the sources being removed before it can become completely public knowledge.

If I told you tomorrow that I found a way to fuel your car and you could produce it in your very own home and that it would be cheaper and run cleaner than fossil fuels...

Do you not think that when word spread about it it would impact those large fuel and energy conglomerates? Think of all the money they would lose.

This really isn't any different.

We're not the ones who need to know about them.

As I mentioned, medical journals. All it would need is for this to be tested, proved and it would be printed in medical journals (which are written by doctors) and it would see everyday use.

Also, yes our knowledge of science does change. But mitochondria still aren't cells.

Nobody's losing money by curing cancer, there's just no money to be gained, because no one has bottled a cure for cancer yet. It's not the same as your fuel example (also gas station attendants don't have a peer reviewed journal, but if they did word would get around). Doctors already haveand use this drug for other reasons. They just need to be told about it and they'll start using it. No one needs to patent it and sell it. Doctors already use it.

But do you not agree that more money changes hands when a disease is simply treated rather than cured? Thats what I meant by the fuel example.

 

[Eggsnham]

It's all about money for pharmaceutical companies, they're getting tons of money from their current treatments and cancer research donations, and don't want to lose it to an actual cure.

That's what I'm thinking anyways.

In any case, if I ever get cancer, I'm going straight to these guys.

 

[Okysho]

Yeah, as a third year science student, what that first post says about mitochondria makes absolutely no sense.
Also, there are a huge variety of cancers, like one for every tissue, and are a wide range of effective treatments for many of them. So there is no real guarantee this will work on all cancer types, so they haven't really cured it.
Also, glycolysis is the metabolising of glucose to produce energy, and not part of the immune response. Some of that stuff makes no sense, as I said.

I only took bio up to grade 12, but correct me if I'm wrong. The mitochondria organelle is what provides the energy for the cell via the breaking of ATP bonds from glucose inside the cell.

Now here's where I might be wrong, but don't machrophages (the front-line white blood cells) eat or absorb infectious bacteria? As opposed to blasting them with protein missiles like the B cells?

On that basis, wouldn't the lysosomes within the machrophage destroy the invader and then use it's remains to fuel itself?

Again it's been a little while since I went over this, but by this theory, wouldn't attacking the cancer cells have some connection to the mitochondria?

Note: I admit that the way they're using it in the OP sounds like crap, and I'm pretty sure it's the Lysosomes within a cell that induce apoptosis (The self-destruction of a cell) I'm just curious if my understanding of this part of the cells is correct.

OT: Unless I'm misreading (besides the part about the mitochondria, anyone with a Grade 8 science background can tell you they're BSing) It sounds more like they're talking about the Lysosomes, or "suicide sacs" that all cells have within them, and activating them to kill off tumours and other mutated cancer cells.
What does that have to do with Glycosis? I call Shenanigans!!

What's disturbing about this is that I'm Canadian and I support our cancer research (which I didn't know was going on until 10 minutes ago)

 

[funguy2121]

snip

The medical journal sourced by your link stated in 2007...

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2007-03-15_Update.cfm

...that DCA may prove to be a cure for many forms of cancer, and then, in 2010...

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm

...stated that the drug may be an effective alternative to chemotherapy in treating specific brain tumors, and that "in some cases" the tumors either regressed or did not grow within the patients as a result.

It is not an instant cure for all, or even many, forms of cancer. Still an exciting find, however, and the study cited notes that they were able to get funding from other sources in spite of the drug not being attractive as a patent.

 

[House_Vet]

Hmm, well, the OP's source is BS, but the study is on PubMed and reviewed in Cell - several studies I've flicked through also back it up (I have free access to most journals through my Uni). It's actually a very clever bit of science - increased free radical (reactive oxygen species) generation by changing the metabolic pathway back to something much more like a normal cell.

We have a large number of metabolic pathways, but one of our main ones is the Krebs cycle. According to one of the followup studies on the original work, cancer cells have been shown to often suppress the Krebs cycle (oxidative metabolism) and switch to Glycolysis, an anaerobic system. This means that fewer free radicals are produced, increasing the potential for the cell to survive, and removing one of the means by which cells commit "suicide" or Apoptosis.

Also, Drugs companies, whilst greedy, are a necessary evil.

 

[Typhon1388]

Nice to see skepticism about this. These DCA trials are at the earliest of stages, almost a proof of concept point. The problem is that any potential cancer treatments are pushed out into the public eye before they are fit to withstand proper scrutiny.

My opinion is that this is not a cure for cancer. DCA has the potential to be a very effective treatment which may reduce reliance on chemotherapies. The reason I claim is this is because cancer has a large genetic involvement and medical research has a long way to go before it can rectify genetic mutations on a large scale.

Some points on the article quoted from my standpoint as a molecular biologist:

Major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

They are not interested as the research is at an early stage and no were near a marketable state.

No concern of side effects or about their long term effects.

There is, and there will be. Toxicity is all about dosage.

This drug doesn't require a patent.

It will when it is finished the clinical trials. Its unlikely the final version would be released without adjuvants (think enhancers) that would make the drug patentable.

It was tested on Rats.

Well mice. Mitochondria have genetic differences between species but in regards to apoptosis the mechanisms are pretty much universal in animals and the majority of eukaryotes.

In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective.

As many have said, mitochondria are not cells but organelles which are found in eukaryotic cells. This mistake tears through the credibility of the article.

You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that can't be pressed in cancer cells.

Apoptosis is initiated by a number of different processes. The mitochondria are not the only way.

Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished.

This is true. Failure of apoptosis is a key part of tumour malignancy.

 

[zehydra]

we're going to need a better source.

Wish Granted!
http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2007-03-15_Update.cfm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526171.600
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article736333.ece
http://www.archives.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article/2007/01/8153.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/opinion/01moss.html

Basically; DCA does something to the damaged mitochrondria in some cancer cells that causes them to self destruct/metabolise (however you want to put it). Its not a cure but it does limit and possibly reduce the size of potentially fatal cancer. Human drugs trials are not underway. Some people have been self-medicating but there are issues with liver failure due to excessive use. Wikipedia is your friend.

awesome thank you.

 

[Killertje]

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.

Mitochondria - the structure inside the cell that causes glycolysis to occur which is essential in enerygy production. If you kill mitochodria the patient will die faster than the cancer would kill them.

That's like saying oh yeah we can fix your car but you'll not have an engine in it

People, please, stop acting like you know Biology, because half of you don't know two craps of what is written there...

This paper have been proved as fact by the community and many third party supporters are angry about this fact.

Going into third year university level immunology + microbiology - so yes I know about cancer and functions of the cell. This paper is wrong - mitochondria do not posses the ability to directly kill cells, let alone specific ones.

Cancer is just regular cells that can't turn off their division signals and keep proliferating. The only way this idea works is in making less energy available for the cells to divide. But that then means there isn't enough energy available for other essential functions.

They are killing the cancer by malnourishing and putting the patient at risk - that is why it won't be patented

I think you should go study a bit harder...

The study says cancer makes mitochondria not work correctly, therefore the cells only use glycolysis to make energy, which produces lactic acid. If those mitochondria DID work, they would produce less/no lactic acid and also they would be able to commit suicide BECAUSE THEY ARE CANCEROUS.
This stuff supposedly allows the mitochondria in cancerous cells to keep functioning, so saying this will kill people faster than the cancer itself is just silly. All it does is let the cell work like it should (which in the case of cancer is killing itself). It would NOT affect healthy cells because they have no reason to kill themselves.

Mitochondria ARE responsible for apoptosis (killing the cell they are in), so I dunno why you claim expertise on this subject but you are very wrong. Check wikipedia for either mitochondrium or apoptosis.
And sure this stuff gives the cell more energy in the process, by burning lactic acid instead of just glycolysis. However since the cell can now commit suicide, like planned, it probably wont use the energy to reproduce.

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm

The OP linked a crappy explanation of the process, but the research isnt done by whoever wrote that (I assume).

 

[Puzzlenaut]

A mitochondrion isn't a type of cell, its just a membrane with a few ribosomes in it and the apparatus required to make the cell's energy.

I'm really failing to see how this could fight cancer.

The quote in the OP was written like it was aimed at a two year old and I can't make heads nor tails of it.

Strikes me as BS tbh...

 

[RepeatAfterMe]

People, please, stop acting like you know Biology, because half of you don't know two craps of what is written there...

This paper have been proved as fact by the community and many third party supporters are angry about this fact.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6nte5IMeY1qc0m6fo1_500.jpg

Guess it's a better time then ever to bring this up...

 

[CardinalPiggles]

if this is completely accurate, then my faith in humanity still dwindles further.

 

[House_Vet]

Yeah, as a third year science student, what that first post says about mitochondria makes absolutely no sense.
Also, there are a huge variety of cancers, like one for every tissue, and are a wide range of effective treatments for many of them. So there is no real guarantee this will work on all cancer types, so they haven't really cured it.
Also, glycolysis is the metabolising of glucose to produce energy, and not part of the immune response. Some of that stuff makes no sense, as I said.

I only took bio up to grade 12, but correct me if I'm wrong. The mitochondria organelle is what provides the energy for the cell via the breaking of ATP bonds from glucose inside the cell.

Now here's where I might be wrong, but don't machrophages (the front-line white blood cells) eat or absorb infectious bacteria? As opposed to blasting them with protein missiles like the B cells?

On that basis, wouldn't the lysosomes within the machrophage destroy the invader and then use it's remains to fuel itself?

Again it's been a little while since I went over this, but by this theory, wouldn't attacking the cancer cells have some connection to the mitochondria?

Note: I admit that the way they're using it in the OP sounds like crap, and I'm pretty sure it's the Lysosomes within a cell that induce apoptosis (The self-destruction of a cell) I'm just curious if my understanding of this part of the cells is correct.

OT: Unless I'm misreading (besides the part about the mitochondria, anyone with a Grade 8 science background can tell you they're BSing) It sounds more like they're talking about the Lysosomes, or "suicide sacs" that all cells have within them, and activating them to kill off tumours and other mutated cancer cells.
What does that have to do with Glycosis? I call Shenanigans!!

What's disturbing about this is that I'm Canadian and I support our cancer research (which I didn't know was going on until 10 minutes ago)

The OP's source sucks, the underlying science looks as reliable as any from what I can tell from a cursory glance. If you have access, search Dichloroacetate on wiki and then check the link to the study in rats.

Macrophages work completely differently from B-cells it's true, but what they do is to engulf pathogens/toxins/waste and then break them down with a combination of lysosyme and an oxidative burst. The thing is that the process in the mitochondria is quite similar in the induction of Apoptosis - the activation of cell death signals like Caspases, Bax and PUMA (no really) leads to the release of Reactive Oxygen Species from the mitochondria, where they form part of the electron transport chain and Krebs cycle. This acts like a cellular oxidative burst and helps to break down more organelles/DNA/proteins leading to a chain reaction.

If a cancer cell switches over fully to glycolysis, far fewer ROS are generated. Simples!

 

[Trolldor]

Apparently there is a viable, easy method to cure cancer that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed by Canadian scientists in Edmonton, Alberta but no companies have taken the product up because it can't be patented and is therefore unprofitable.

Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.


This drug doesn?t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies.


Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human?s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, why the major drug companies are not involved? Or the Media interested in this find?


In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective. Scientists used to think that these mitochondria cells were damaged and thus ineffective against cancer. So they used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in curing cancer and more wasteful. The drug manufacturers focused on this glycolysis method to fight cancer. This DCA on the other hand doesn?t rely on glycolysis instead on mitochondria; it triggers the mitochondria which in turn fights the cancer cells.


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.


Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can?t make money, like they are doing now with their AIDS Patent. Since the pharmaceutical companies won?t develop this, the article says other independent laboratories should start producing this drug and do more research to confirm all the above findings and produce drugs. All the groundwork can be done in collaboration with the Universities, who will be glad to assist in such research and can develop an effective drug for curing cancer.


You can access the original research for this cancer here.


This article wants to raise awareness for this study, hope some independent companies and small startup will pick up this idea and produce these drugs, because the big companies won?t touch it for a long time.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

Thoughts?

Edit: Also I'm aware this article is a few years old but it doesn't change the fact that no one has picked it up.

This is far from reliable or plausible.

 

[roostuf]

are you saying that for the past few years there was actually a CURE FOR CANCER all this time, sweet-holy-gods-mother-in-heavens-martyred-pension this fucking amazing!

 

[House_Vet]

I think you should go study a bit harder...

The study says cancer makes mitochondria not work correctly, therefore the cells only use glycolysis to make energy, which produces lactic acid. If those mitochondria DID work, they would produce less/no lactic acid and also they would be able to commit suicide BECAUSE THEY ARE CANCEROUS.
This stuff supposedly allows the mitochondria in cancerous cells to keep functioning, so saying this will kill people faster than the cancer itself is just silly. All it does is let the cell work like it should (which in the case of cancer is killing itself). It would NOT affect healthy cells because they have no reason to kill themselves.

Mitochondria ARE responsible for apoptosis (killing the cell they are in), so I dunno why you claim expertise on this subject but you are very wrong. Check wikipedia for either mitochondrium or apoptosis.
And sure this stuff gives the cell more energy in the process, by burning lactic acid instead of just glycolysis. However since the cell can now commit suicide, like planned, it probably wont use the energy to reproduce.

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm

The OP linked a crappy explanation of the process, but the research isnt done by whoever wrote that (I assume).

You are entirely correct. The research is cited overwhelmingly favourably on PubMed. It's just that whatever the OP put as the source was shoddy as.

 

[Trolldor]

People, please, stop acting like you know Biology, because half of you don't know two craps of what is written there...

This paper have been proved as fact by the community and many third party supporters are angry about this fact.

Then the person who wrote the blog article didn't know what they were talking about; what I said about mitochondria was accurate.

<link=http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm>Here's a link to the website of the university that made the actual discovery. The article that was linked was a piece of sensationalism; they're still in early trials, and in addition to this, the drug is already widely available, meaning there's no need for drug companies to invest further. Currently, it's an off label use that is being researched to become an on label use. Care to tell me where my biology fails?

Edit: Forgot to mention, according to the article I linked, the drug isn't even a cure for cancer. All it does is halt the growth, and allow other methods to kill the cells that are already there without having to worry about further growth. It's a break through, but not a cure in and of itself.

Beware: Science at work.

It amazes me how people honestly think any drug company could successfully cover up a cure for cancer.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

I bet they've made plenty of cures for cancer over the years, it's just nobody wants to give it out cause they're all a bunch of greedy fat cats.

 

[House_Vet]

This is far from reliable or plausible.

So read the paper itself! It's fully plausible, in vivo evidence and is well received and peer reviewed.