What is Digg?240 Comments
- kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+187If this is for real I'll pay for it out of my own pocket.
- tiedyeman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+108Ok. This DCA thing has got to stop. Seriously. Please read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php
Apparently 90% of digg thinks medical research occurs in the following way.
1) BigPharm has an idea.
2) BigPharm checks to make sure the idea is profitable.
3) BigPharm dumps 100 billion dollars into the idea using lab trials
4) BigPharm test the drug out on the 1000's of cancer patients they have at their secret hospitals.
5) BigPharm gives Dick Cheney $100mil, stomps 50 puppies to death, and pays homage to our alien overlords.
6) BigPharm holds out on the new drug and only gives it to rich white kids.
7) Repeat.
In actuality, if a compound such as DCA were to prove promising in University Labs, (which for whatever reason the intarweb really really think this looks awesome, although in actuality this isn't a huge breakthrough browse www.pubmed.gov for awhile), it would go something like this:
1) University lab scientists think they are on to something and they talk to their counterparts across the street, the clinicians of University hospitals (which may be themselves in the case of MD/PhDs).
2) Doctors at University Hospitals ask NIH for a grant.
3) Doctors at University hospitals treat their patients with new treatment, comparing it to the "gold standard."
4) Doctors at University Hospitals publish their results.
5) Doctors of Academic Societies read results, pow wow, and set protocol.
6) Doctors all over the world are advised of new standard of care.
Believe it or not, Big Pharma aren't the only people doing research! In fact in a situation like this, if a MD were to publish a paper claiming that the new drug Placebacor reduced tumor growth in a clinical trial, and then at the end disclosed that they received funding from Scienoheal, the multinational drug company and patent holder of Placebacor, it would be a HUGE knock on whether or not the paper carried any clout.
And people "Cancer" isn't a single disease, its a bunch of them, caused by many many different factors, some of which we are good at treating, some still have us stumped. Their is no magic bullet and if we someday find one, it most likely won't be DCA. I am rotating through a pediatric Hematology/Oncology service right now at a University hospital, and trust me these people would not let a little thing like dollars and cents stand in the way of curing children of parents they have to tell will die. - chefsam, on 10/12/2007, -8/+109It would seem that these scientists have found this cure AND had their buddies post it to DIGG about 25 times this year...
- danandre, on 10/12/2007, -4/+80Digg is about:
* Curing cancer
* Reporting bad PS3 sales
* Praising Apple
* Bashing Bush and the republicans
* Fighting DRM
Honorable mentions: PSP firmware hacks and Microsoft bashing. - Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+74Please read this rational rebuttal of the hype surrounding DCA:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php
Summary: DCA is just one in a long line of drugs that have been effective in cell culture/animal trials - many of which didn't work in humans. Cancer's not one disease, it's many, and DCA probably isn't a miracle cure. The huge price tag of trials, stated in the article, is mostly misinformation.
The linked article is by a scientist with experience in the field, not a home-grown conspiracy theorist. - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+60If Poop-in-a-Box cured erectile dysfunction they'd be all over it.
- Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -12/+60News about this possible cancer cure was previously submitted here, but with such a poor description most diggers felt that it won't ever hit the front page.
http://digg.com/health/Support_the_miracle_drug
Hell, this one might not hit the front page either, but at least we gave it a shot. - Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42@nixonrichard "I pooped in a box . . . drug companies won't buy that either"
Come up with a catchy tune and slogan. Something with butterflies and soft music. They just might buy it yet. - mastercheif, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41Is it just me, or is cancer cured every day on digg?
- ADVIZR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35New Scientist has an article on it:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html
DCA RESEARCH INFORMATION
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/ - Kericr, on 10/12/2007, -11/+44BEHOLD! THE FATAL FLAW IN FREE ENTERPRISE HEALTH CARE!
The problem is since pharmaceudicals can't make money off it, it's not worth investing in. They don't look at it as a potential cure, they look at it as a revenue killer.
This is where healthcare reform REALLY needs to focus. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31You forgot finding James Kim..
- Humptydank, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Trying to construct the perfect Digg headline. Maybe:
"Ubuntu Cures Vista, But MPAA Won't Pay!"
"Cancer Cured By New Wii Wrist Strap, but Hot Singing Blond Won't Pay!"
"Woman's Arms and Legs Removed While She Slept, Big Pharma Paid!" - jackmaninov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I keep seeing this story and think to myself "If you're so sure; MAKE it happen":
- Open-source the research until enough researchers with small amounts of funding can do it, ie start a non profit corp.
- Search for private citizen donations
- Search for corporate donations (corporations pay for employee heatlh benefits after all)
- Apply for government grants. If your government won't fund the research, move the research to a country that will
- Look for money from the UN, World Heatlh Organization, medical NGOs, etc.
- Do all of the above. - cmdrNacho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18thats why they need money to run tests on human...
- owenleej, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Why don't all these breast cancer foundations that raise millions of dollars with all their stuff fund this. Isn't that why the exist in the first place?
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@Quiplash
"just did a search for front page posts within the past year which mention "dichloroacetate" or "DCA" --- nothing. So where are these other posts?"
http://digg.com/health/The_Latest_Cancer_Cure_Yes_It_s_100_Anti_Cancer_Drugs_in_One 7 days ago
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Curing_Cancer_A_Patent_Impossibility 8 days ago - dsignr, on 10/12/2007, -12/+25I find it incredibly naive when people say "Fight the power" as though there is a elite group of people surpressing mankind from progress. Even if this group existed, you can't fight droves of people that want progress.
The same goes with alternative energy and big oil companies. Apparently, the reason why alternative energy won't be widespread is because big oil companies hinder its growth--fearing loss of their own profits. Does anyone think that maybe our technology isn't at a suitable level yet?
However, I could be incredibly naive as well and could be dugg down for such a blasphemous comment. - rvidal, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Please don't consider this to be in any way "against" this amazing new study, but there is more than meets the eye here and people should read a bit more before taking hasty conclusions. This DOES work on rats and petri dishes (so do other innovating substances and drugs!) but nothing says it will work on humans...
I recommend everyone read this article that explains this far better than I can:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php - TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13* dismissing religion
* im in ur Soviet Russia, blending ur clichés - justintsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Good reply.
Moreover Im tired of people thinking theyre changing the goddamned world because they clicked "digg it" on their computer screen while sitting at home or starbucks. - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Here's an easy solution: stop reading one of those sites. With user-submitted stories on both sites, it's obvious there's going to be a lot of overlap. That's how the system works; get over it...
- undersky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14ha ha ha ha, you two (above me) wrote great comments! anyway, i am currently a research assistant in a cancer research lab, all i can tell you is, there is no such thing as "the universal cure" for cancer! cancer is not a disease! it's a type of disease that has to do with cells that fail to grow properly, or more correctly put--to die (apoptosis) properly (since cells are designed to die when broken, when they fail to die, they become cancerous). anyway, there are researches that focus on more fundamental levels of cancer growth that is common to all cancer (e.g. angiogenesis), but trust me, if we have found cure already, you will know about it! at the meantime, you can do just about nothing digging up this article on digg.com. i personally recommend you to exercise more, take a swim, jog a few miles, refrain from using internet so much, and develop some actual human-to-human interpersonal skills, so even if you do contract with cancer, hey, you won't regret wasting your entire life on this pretty empty cyber-world!
peace - morsosky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Ive worked with many compounds that absolutely kill cancer cells in culture and in mice; I mean really staggering rates of cell apoptosis. However, these have not translated into humans in most cases. Please stop touting this as a medical miracle when it does the same thing as soooo many chemical compounds. And trust me, there are alot of good people in academia looking out for the welfare of humankind and are not profit-driven. Some are, many are not. Go to Pubmed.com and search for this if you want real scientific information!
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Remember, pharmaceutical companies are all pure evil. It's not like it costs them billions of dollars in failed research and development to put out a single drug or anything.
What would you have them do? Give drugs away for free, meanwhile eating away any revenue, and therefore, money to pay scientists and researchers salaries?
I'm all for cancer cures, but let's not assume we know more than people who actually do this for their full time job. - EASTTNO, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17It's not the drug companies responsibility to fund this research. Why did you ever think it was? They are allowed to do whatever they want with their money because it is THEIR COMPANY. If you wish to fund this research go ahead and do so. It would be great to cure cancer but don't expect someone else to do it. And by the way this also means it isn't the governments responsibility either.
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You would think that at least one company would do it simply for the PR. "We were the company that cured cancer without any financial gain".
- InvertedOne, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16If big PHARMA wont pay for lets get the digg-nation behind this and make it real! Why wouldn't you want to take part in saving thousands of lives?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This is like the 5th time DCA has appeared on digg front page...
- Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Since the site I linked to seems to have fallen victim to the Digg Effect, here's a link to an article in The National Post on this research:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9091f800-ac23-4511-b962-7ed60584b88a
A simple molecule, used for decades to treat children with rare metabolic diseases, commits "immortal" cancer cells to a natural death and could soon be used to treat many forms of cancer, according to a new study.
University of Alberta researchers were excited to discover that dichloroacetate (DCA) causes regression in several cancers, including lung, breast and brain tumours.
"It's important for the future of cancer," said Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a professor at the University of Alberta's department of medicine and an author of the study. (Source: Leong, Melissa. "Cancer finding hailed", National Post, January17, 2007) - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8morsosky no-one's listening. They're far too caught up in paranoid fantasies about those evil medical men and their unwillingness to help people.
Just to get your attention: THIS DRUG IS NO DIFFERENT FROM HUNDREDS OF OTHERS THAT DESTROY CANCER CELLS IN RATS. THOSE RESULTS HAVE NEVER HAD THE SAME PROPERTIES WHILST BEING USED ON HUMANS. WHILE THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT THIS DRUG CAN BE EFFECTIVE IN LIMITING CANCER, IT IS IN NO WAY A CANCER CURE. THIS STORY WAS DEBUNKED ALMOST A WEEK AGO AS PARANOID CONSPIRACY. STOP BEING SUCH A BUNCH OF REACTIONARY RETARDS AND DO SOME GODDAMNED RESEARCH.
Thank you. - Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7and funny YouTube videos
- givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I hope they get this on the market before I get cancer.
- leodavinci, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9This is what I posted in the other story:
"From the article:
"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."
Article goes on to talk about why it isn't being picked up by drug companies, which is because it is unpatentable and therefore no good way to make tons of money off of it. The R&D is going to have to be picked up by Universities and Private institutions, but they'll need money from people. So the hope is that if it gets some attention by the media, this will happen.
Here's an article on the drug from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetate" - KMartSheriff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6* How to get more hits on your blog. You know, the one no one reads?
- shadowsword232, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Don't forget to mention the Wii and Ubuntu
- Ambicar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In My basement I have a Green Renewcyclable Clean Cancer Curing Cold Fusion Room Temerature Superconducting Generator that runs at 99.9% efficiency off of Chloroflourcarbons and CO2 sucked out of the Stratosphere and can be produced by the Homeless picking up discarded Cans and Cigarette Butts and additionally from Landfill waste while being the size of a nano-machine run through a mollecular extruder. It is even a good floor wax too boot! And NOBODY will even drop by to see it it works. PLEASE SPREAD THE NEWS !!!!
Please send your donations immediately so I can further research:
http://www.justpaymenow.org - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Buried as inaccurate anti-corporate BS.
Read:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php
For a rational explanation - greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think it is laughable that people think that pahram COMPANIES exist to do anything other than make money, they are not publicly funded humanitarian organizations... they are COMPANIES... Look up the definition...
- Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Believe it or not, naysayers, there are caring doctors and pharmacists and nurses and medical technicians, not only in the US, Germany, and pharm producing countries, but all over the world where an effective non-patented drug can and will be promoted.
If and when that happens (assuming this new thing is really what we hope) it will catch fire around the world. - kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Shhh, they don't want to hear reality. It's easier to hate "the man" for hiding the cure for cancer, when the tragic reality is that we don't have any simple solution to this tough tough problem. "The man" is composed of people who die, and live among/with those who die, of cancer.
When it sounds too good to be true, that's because it's not. When it sounds hopeful, that's better, and it'll take a long hard process to make it worthwhile, just like everything else in this world. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Please just read Flashman's link. This whole thing has been blown way out of proprortion.
- Mufflegrump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Are you being sarcastic, or do you honestly think every large industry is in cahoots with the Illuminati or something?
- kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@raistlinmajere
You clearly have no idea what free market means. If it was the free market, then that means anybody could enter the free market and do it. Nobody's obligated to do *****. But if they want a profit, they do it. If they don't do it then somebody else does it which means you don't get any of that profit while they do! If all the market decides not to do it, it just takes 1 player to step in and do it and everyone else can just screw off.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php
And if you read that, the cost is only 100k-500k, not hundreds of millions. That's a paltry amount of investment capital. If this had more potential for success than other investments, then it'd just get DONE. It'd only take 1 millionaire who has a friend/wife/familymember who has cancer to fund this. This is just another conspiracy theory that's broken by the ludicrous complexity of maintaining a massive agreement when it only takes 1 player to dismantle it, and that 1 player already has the incentive of profiting by being the first grabber. - znutar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Just to stir the pot a bit more: DCA is a water chlorination contaminant and has been extensively studied (including by me, I've got a PhD thesis on the metabolism of this stuff). If you read the literature you will see that the story of DCA is very complex. Yes, it is a metabolic dysregulator and has been proposed in the treatment of diabetes (read the literature of Stackpoole et. al.). Also, it is a tumor PROMOTER when given in the drinking water to rodents. The promotional activities are complex but real (read the literature of RJ Bull, A. DeAngelo, and several others), so I think it is very premature and stupidly presumptuous to proclaim DCA a miracle cancer cure.
- hometack, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14You guys are sort of ridiculous. Do you really think there is some huge conspiracy with all the pharmaceuticals companies? If this were something really as great as the sensationalist articles, it would be successful. There is no huge conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies suppressing this wonder drug.
- Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Even better than a summary: the FULL TEXT of the peer-reviewed article published in the scientific journal Cancer Cell, provided free by the University of Alberta!
Here's the link:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/cancer_cell.pdf - znutar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In response to quiplash: Yes, according to the paper, DCA shrank tumor in TUMOR-BEARING mice. In normal mice without tumors, when you give it in the drinking water (non-tumor bearing mice), the will DEVELOP liver tumors. The effect on the tumor bearing mice is due to metabolic disruption since tumors grow in an uncontrolled fashion, and more rapidly than normally dividing cells.
I'm not saying DCA won't work to shrink tumors, just don't count on it being a miracle cure. I develop anti-cancer drugs for a living (yes, I am part of the "evil drug conspiracy") and it is trivial to shrink tumors in nude (athymic) mice. I've seen a few hundred of these while working with our business development group looking at promising drugs to in-license. Unfortunately, 99% of them DO NOT WORK in humans. The difference between a homogeneous implanted tumor in an athymic mouse and a heterogenous tumor in a human with a functioning immune system is VAST. - Guzzler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Funny story...clearly people have no idea how medical research occurs. The idea that thousands of scientists and physicians working around the world (and longing for academic fame and Nobel prizes) would allow such a promising compound to be buried is complete nonsense.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Its amazing that cancer gets cured 3 times a week on Digg. But of course the "Evil Drug Companies" (you know, the ones that have cured many diseases) are always trying to keep it down for some reason (like getting the first cancer cure on the market wouldnt make them trillions of dollars or something),
***** idiots. -
Show 51 - 100 of 231 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is