digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Scientists Find Cancer Cure, But Big Pharma Isn't Interested

wanderings.net — The drug dichloroacetate appears to target cancer cells, causing them to die. It's potency as a cancer killing agent has been tested in tissue cultures and mice, with very promising results. However, clinical trials need to be run. Since the drug is not patentable and can be produced very cheaply, pharmaceutical companies won't fund those trials.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -11/+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.
    • Ransomowris, on 10/12/2007, -69/+27Actually, this one has been on digg's front page 2 times before. It's amazing that this is the third time it's been on digg, and you people still think it's new.
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+186If this is for real I'll pay for it out of my own pocket.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -85/+18I pooped in a box . . . drug companies won't buy that either.

      This doesn't make drug companies evil. They're not going to invest in something that will make them precisely $0 because once it gets approved (if it gets approved) anyone can use it. Also, doesn't Canada subscribe to the Journal of Socialized Medicine? Shouldn't the Canadian government pay to fund their own approval of the drug?There are plenty of reasons to hate drug companies, this is not one of them.

      Oh, and I developed a substance that kills all cancer cells too . . . NaClO. Do you want to give me a bunch of money to have it tested for approval as a cancer treatment? Did I mention it kills ALL cancer cells?

      Killing cancer cells is no big deal. Killing ALL cancer cells and ONLY cancer cells is the real deal.
    • chefsam, on 10/12/2007, -8/+108It would seem that these scientists have found this cure AND had their buddies post it to DIGG about 25 times this year...
    • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -30/+10I just did a search for front page posts within the past year which mention "dichloroacetate" or "DCA" --- nothing. So where are these other posts?

      Oh, and nixonrichard, you're a troll. Go find a bridge to live under.
    • 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.
    • 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/
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+60If Poop-in-a-Box cured erectile dysfunction they'd be all over it.
    • 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
    • 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.
    • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@captinherb:

      Thanks for the links.

      However, NEITHER one of them actually mentions "dichloroacetate" or "DCA" in the digg title or description.
      No wonder I couldn't find any other mentions by doing a search on digg. And, no wonder it keeps getting reposted.
    • 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)
    • 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?
    • andrew52, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4http://duggmirror.com
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Why not just post this story and Digg it to the front page every day? Maybe it'll make it out to the "real news" someday? LOL

      This has happened before by the way:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Work_in_alternative_medicine
    • mastercheif, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41Is it just me, or is cancer cured every day on digg?
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • tiedyeman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+107Ok. 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.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@Wonder
      here's nixonrichard's catchy slogan tune:
      "It's my ***** in a box..."
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9"It'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."

      THIS. MENTALITY. IS. THE. CORE. OF. WHY. MANY. CURES. HAVE. NOT. BEEN. PURSUED......
    • RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5@EASTTNO: "It'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."

      Please explain this to me: if finding a cure is the responsibility of neither the drug companies nor the government, then who's responsibility is it? Under a free market health care system, who else is going to be motivated to find a cure AND have the necessary funding for research???
    • 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.
    • Kamill85, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2http://digg.com/health/Cheap_Safe_Drug_Kills_Most_Cancers
      .....
    • 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!"

    • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Kamill, thanks for the link. But again: neither the title nor the description of this item actually mentions the key terms "dichloroacetate" or "DCA". So when I searched for them I couldn't them. And that's also why a story like this (or any other possible cuer for cancer) keeps getting repeated. When I took the original story and reposted it with a better title and description, I certainly wasn't aware that it had been posted only 13 days earlier. And, for whatever reason, Digg didn't show this article as a repeat when I posted this item to digg.

      My original goal here was simply to get the word out to more people about the research that is being done at the University of Alberta, its potential, and the fact that it might be difficult to get a DCA cure to market because there are not a lot of incentives for pharmaceutical companies to pony up for human trials.

      I am actually flabbergasted that this has been dugg so much; I guess I had forgotten that when it comes to cancer, people get very personal because everybody has either had or currently has cancer, or knows someone who is sick with, or dies from, cancer.

      Humptydank: you are hilarious.

    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Please just read Flashman's link. This whole thing has been blown way out of proprortion.
    • Prefection, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is definitely exciting stuff, but the pessimism about funding seems a little over-wrought. There are tons of good people in the world willing to philanthropically perform the studies. http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
    • 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!
    • dnthomps, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2***** the pharmaceutical companies.

      Could you imagine the press if... "Google Inc. Releases Cancer Cure From Beta Testing After Vowing To Sponsor Clinical Trials Last February."
    • 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.
    • griffix0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@nixonrichard "I pooped in a box . . . drug companies won't buy that either"

      Actually there is a treatment for people who had the bacteria in their GI Tract die off where they put a donor feces in the patients rectum. Info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomembranous_colitis

      So nixonrichard you could market you poop in a box, but like others said you might want to get some good marketing.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Trying to construct the perfect Digg headline."

      Cheney Shape-Shifts, Says He's Jesus, Flies For Jerusalem (On Own Power)
      Unconfirmed reports of Proclamation: "I have some remodeling to do and then I'll be directing the fate of Mankind from there."
    • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This has to go into some kind of Hall of Fame, even if it's the one in my own mind. It must be one of the funniest things I've ever read.

      "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."
    • resplence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Forbidden
      You don't have permission to access /notebook/Main/CheapSafeDrugKillsMostCancers on this server.

      THE BASTARDS``/~1
    • coit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Three Words: American Cancer Society

    • EASTTNO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kelbear

      Excellent explanation kelbear I couldn't have said it better myself.
  • Sms4001, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2amen
  • derlin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4diiiiiigggggggg+++;
  • 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"
    • kutsal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The R&D is going to have to be picked up by Universities and Private institutions, /////but they'll need money from people/////."

      Okay, where do I donate money for their R&D efforts?

      Granted, while R&D doesn't come cheap, if Wikimedia Foundation can raise more a million dollars, /the cure for cancer/ should attract a bit more donations, one would think....
    • mhuggins, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5My friend works for American Cancer Society, and he directed me to information explaining that this is not true.

      http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_11_1_Secret_Cancer_Cure_Myth.asp
    • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Refer your friend to the most recent issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Cancer Cell and he can read the article for himself. Your link is to a general purpose "cure for cancer". There is no such thing as a universal cure for cancer. Does that mean we ignore a potential cure for one or more types of cancer?

      Here's the journal article summary:
      http://www.cancercell.org/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1535610806003722
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Isn't this, dare I say, where the government steps in? Public interest, you know? Fund important studies? Spend money to benefit the taxpayers? Make the world a better place?

      ...sorry, I had to wipe away a tear of laughter.
    • 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
    • angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@kutsal

      Brought to you by Azure from an earlier post:
      "Hate to abuse this comment thread, but as a few people have expressed interests in donating, I'd like to point out that, at the bottom of the official website http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/ , there are directions for making donations. Here https://www.xact.ualberta.ca/giveonline/ is a link to an online donation page. When prompted, select DCA - Cancer Research Fund."

      I think the links got screwed in the copy & paste, but you know where to go!
  • 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
    • cmdrNacho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18thats why they need money to run tests on human...
    • DesolataX, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Why would big pharmaceutical companies want to fund something that will end their biggest cash cow?
      Cancer research is one of the (if not the) biggest cash cows for pharmaceutical companies.
      Why would they just let that go, they want to protect their business, but want to find the most expensive (for us) cure for cancer.
      I think the governments should intervene and support this research, heck, even I would donate.
    • kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
      People need to read this, but everytime this link comes up, it's been done in a reply stream and never gets the size it needs. Hence this post. Yeesh.
    • mvandemar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@rvidal - "but nothing says it will work on humans..."

      Wrong, actually.

      "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."
    • g026r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Works on cell cultures is not the same as works on cells when they're in someone. If you read the link that the parent posted, you'll see that that's mentioned as having happened before with other potential "cancer killers".
  • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Hydrazine sulfate is another DCA-like cancer drug that never hit the prime-time news:

    http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/storonhydsul.html
  • Fascist, on 10/12/2007, -21/+9Since it can't be patented, it will be suppressed. It can't be suppressed if it hits Digg's front page.

    Digg this story. Fight the power.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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
    • spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh stop being such a retard. There's probably a perfectly reasonable explanation behind this, like the fact it isn't anywhere near as wondrous as people are making out.

      Besides the whole 'big pharmaceutical companies suppressing it' story sounding like an implausible conspiracy theory the logic of it doesn't even hold up. So they're keeping it hidden because there's no profit in it, and yet they don't think the resulting PR hit from the public finding out about it would ruin them? Much less the fact there would probably be criminal proceedings.

      Yeah, it'd be a great story if it was accurate, but use your heads and don't fall for sensationalist nonsense.
  • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4YES!!! The story just hit the top of the front page. Thanks to everyone who dugg. I checked on Google News this afternoon and there were only about 50 mentions of this story amongst all the news sites that Google News indexes. Why? Because no pharmaceutical industry's PR department is promoting it?
    • 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.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Give me a break! Yeah...for stories to get more than 50 hits in Google, they need big companies to promote it! RIGHT.

      We know Quiplash...everybody is out to get you. I feel sorry for you. Your parents did a TERRIBLE job in raising you and should be jaile for child neglect. They did not prepare you for the real world, forcing to to invent a fantasy world for yourself.

    • undersky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4hey, i commend you for trying to save this world, good luck trying it!
    • theratster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, the drug is technically patentable.

      The use of the drug for treating cancer is patentable under a procedural patent.

      So they aught to be looking for money from chemical supply companies that produce the stuff now... its a new revenue source for them!!
  • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6rvidal
    i understand what you are saying, but the fact that it DOES seem to work on rats and in petri dishes should be more than enough reason to fund research into the chemical.
    ...its pretty disgraceful that the pharm companies would turn their back on it.
    • LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm sure a non-profit organization would be able to raise funds through donations to get the ball rolling. I know I'd donate to fund the research...
  • Adamacus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Digg like crazy
  • neptunebk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This is like the 5th time DCA has appeared on digg front page...
    • danandre, on 10/12/2007, -4/+79Digg 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.
    • neptunebk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31You forgot finding James Kim..
    • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7and funny YouTube videos
    • shadowsword232, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Don't forget to mention the Wii and Ubuntu
    • TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13* dismissing religion
      * im in ur Soviet Russia, blending ur clichés
    • KMartSheriff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6* How to get more hits on your blog. You know, the one no one reads?
    • armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@TenebrousX: Dugg for you taking the time to hit Alt + 130. Well played. *golf clap*
    • gommle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is a key on keyboard that makes those you know.

      Alt Gr + then e. At least on mine :)

      é á ć ó ń ś ź ŕ ý ú í í ĺ
  • snakesonasam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2i have trouble believing that it is entirely safe
    call me a sceptic but i have to believe that it is either too much reqquried to be affective or it is to dangerous for humans
    and i also feel this artcile might have a little bias
    • Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hmmmm, maybe that's why it needs to be tested.

      We can start testing on people who can't spell?
  • yossarian24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"An article in New Scientist magazine suggests that clinical trials may require public funding, as the lack of a patent reduces the incentive for any company to invest in research.[8] Original article appeared in the journal, Cancer Cell.[9]"

    from wikipedia
  • 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?
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I was wondering the same thing. The only explanation that makes any sense is that they are in bed with big pharmaceutical (or maybe it's just a lack of creativity on their part)...
    • Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Who do you think the foundations biggest donors are?
  • hometack, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13You 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.
    • 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".
    • captjc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is not a conspiracy, it is business.

      Say I own a pharmaceutical company and I decide to fund research on this drug. I invest billions on research as well as footing the bill to get this FDA approved. Because of the lack of patent on the drug, any company can make a clone of the drug for much cheaper since they didn't have to foot the bill. While I am not an expert on FDA drug laws, but AFAIK since it is a copy of a drug that is FDA approved, there is less work they have to do to get approved. I would get stuck with competition that can afford to under-price my product.

      I am not saying it is right. I dislike our messed-up patent system. Unfortunately drug patents are the only incentives that drug companies have. Simply put, it is business as usual.
    • kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hey dumbass, it only costs 100k-500k to test. Even 1 rich guy who gets cancer or has friend/family with cancer could fund this. Just like all conspiracies, it's completely reliant on a massive network of people who all stay in agreement forever, even though it only takes ONE person to shut it all down.

      Ever try to get just 20 people to ***** agree on LUNCH?!
  • neptunebk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3This treatment was founded in CANADA, the government of Canada is funding this project with others helping. That is why pharmaceutical companies can't patent DCA.
    • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Drug Companies work with Universities all the time, and almost all universities in Canada receive government funding, so I think your argument is a little suspect.

      I think that it may be unpatentable becasue it has already been on the market for decades, but for another purpose. But I confess ignorance on exactly why this drug is unpatentable. Anybody??
    • undersky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+499% of medical research is funded by government, NIH grant, NSF grant, xxx grant, etc. all research products go into public domain and free for others to use/advance/replicate (journals).

      patenting a drug on the other hand is way different, is to combine all the information available for scientists (google "pubmed") and design something that works...
  • CaptainSpeaking, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Who cares about curing cancer when there's profit to be made... pfft...

    Fools.
  • desu43fnoc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0The next illegal drug on the streets... perfect for combating that pesky lung cancer from smoking all those other drugs all those years! Its a win-win!
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I think tobacco is the only one that's been shown to cause cancer. I can't be sure about all the smokable drugs, but numerous studies have shown no correlation between smoking marijuana and cancer.
    • ArekRashan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you're smoking something other than tobacco or cannabis, lung cancer is the least of your worries.
  • danielos, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0I'm getting tired of seeing the stories from reddit show up on digg a couple hours later, or the other way around.
    • 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...
    • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I found this originally through newsvine, not reddit.
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sheesh, it's bad enough when people have to troll about a story having already been on the front page. Now we complain when a story's already been posted on an entirely different web-site?
    • Ambicar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jimminy Cricket. All the major TV News Networks repeat their own stories intentionally about 20 times a day. With the same story being on all the networks at the same time. Never did find the girl in Aruba did they, but my god they ran that one into the ground. So a few recurrances on Digg by accident is worse than intentionally produced repeat content on TV.
  • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2The site's down, but I'll digg it because it sounds interesting.
  • sodypop77, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Perhaps if the medication gave you a hard on, reduced your cholesterol, or relieved 'weak stream' then the BigPHarm might invest in creating a commercial that gave you no clue as to what the drug actually does.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not if it can't be patented... There's no easy money in producing generic compounds (at least when compared to the guaranteed income with patented substances)...
    • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, I'm sure none of the generic companies make profit...
  • dainbramage559, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Since the drug is not patentable and can be produced very cheaply, pharmaceutical companies won't fund those trials."

    Then I will! Where's a paypal-donation link?
  • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I hope they get this on the market before I get cancer.
    • smish420, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1duuude, me too cause i'm like this close ||
  • recockulous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Big Pharma has apparently killed the link, too. Anyone got a mirror?
  • suprememilo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hmm how do you link in a comment?
  • Indeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mirror please!
  • 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.
  • cmdrNacho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think everyone that believes corporations would put peoples/and or societies best interests over profit ... are extremely naive.

    Some examples.. telco's, *AA, oil companies.. these groups of corporations are definitely looking to better society than to make a profit.
    • Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 Does anyone know of a non-prescription anti-insanity drug for this guy?
    • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think he's just being sarcastic.
  • Kenzan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Anybody but me a bit skeptical about a group claiming to have cured cancer, yet scream about no publicity or funding?
    Bill Lumbergh voice...yeah...Uh....I'm gonna have to uh..Call ******* on this one, M'kay?
    • 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
  • DesolataX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Damn Pharmaceutical companies!
  • EricCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://duggmirror.com/health/Scientists_Find_Cancer_Cure_But_Big_Pharma_Isn_t_Interested/
  • 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...
    • spraguep, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1i.e. cures are not a good way to increase the value of your stock.
  • kmk2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar."
    • Ambicar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I usually prefer my cells to distil then age their sugars in casks.
  • 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.
  • paradox4190, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Human greed never fails to surprise me.
    • moudig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It has nothing to do with greed.
      Nobody can finance research and FDA aproval of billions of dollars if they will sell $2 pills, together with all the industry.
  • handler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wheres the donation link?
    • Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This was just posted by digg user Azure 5 minutes ago:

      "Hate to abuse this comment thread, but as a few people have expressed interests in donating, I'd like to point out that, at the bottom of the official website (http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/), there are directions for making donations. Here (https://www.xact.ualberta.ca/giveonline/) is a link to an online donation page. When prompted, select DCA - Cancer Research Fund."

      So if you wish, you can donate there.
  • passingthrough, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wish I had the money to have these trials done...
    If only the big heads of these pharmaceutical companies would stop being greedy and start helping in these types of trails, this world would be a much better place for all to live in.
    DIGG this story!!
  • primetime75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1There's more to the story....if this is a truly feasible solution, why haven't the BILLIONS of dollars given to any of THOUSANDS of cancer charities found their way into these labs? The drug companies aren't the only offenders.
    • kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Because all that money is being spent on the other possible cures that have more validity than this one.
  • kerryhall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ah capitalism at work...
  • passingthrough, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Its the same thing in almost every industry. For instance the automobile giants killed the Electric Car so that they could profit by coming up with their Hybrid cars.
    • 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?
    • spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No no no, you got it all wrong. George Bush killed the electric car so he could go to war with Iraq and kill Saddam Hussein because Saddam was about to tell the world the truth about a magic cancer cure because his secret lover cheated on him and she owns a pharmaceutical company and he wanted to get back at her, but she wasn't actually cheating on him she was actually an alien from the moon who was here collecting sperm samples so she can breed a secret army in area 51 and use it to steal the constitution America and sell it to the terrorists so they could use it to start a bonfire and burn every existing copy of Windows Vista. DUH.
  • Joel32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Don't give up, don't ever give up.
  • Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The money quote: "pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines"

    DCA as a molecule is unpatentable. DCA as part of a process for treating cancer is *unpatented*. There's a huge difference. And any changes made by a drug company produce a new, patentable drug - perhaps one that works slightly better.

    "Big Pharma Conspiracy OMG TEH NOES"
  • tehbored, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Ok, I think this is the third time I've seen this story on he front page but I dugg it anyway.

    You know, even if this isn't a perfect cure, it's really quite amazing. We've been searching for something really good for a long time now. People have dreamed of a cure for cancer and now it may be a reality. Unfortunately, there's no money in it so the big companies who make and provide drugs won't invest in it, so it will never be used and we're just going to have to keep looking for something that is patentable.

    Big Pharma sucks.
  • Narrator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1if this stuff isn't on a DEA controlled substance schedule and is not a prescription drug there's nothing preventing anyone from acquiring it from a manufacturer and consuming it (entirely at their own risk of course). Remember the meaning of the 10th amendment to the constitution: "everything which is not prohibited is permitted".
  • falch69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What happens to those billions of dollars donated every year to cancer foundations? Can't that money be used to fund clinical trials for this drug?
  • triumphthedog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Why would you WANT a big pharmaceutical company to be involved? They'd get their chemists to modify the drug so that it IS patentable, do the testing, and jack up the price. They wouldn't just ignore it, they'd find a way to make money off of it.

    If the drug is truly a viable anti-cancer agent, there will be no problem with funding it. There are several charities and charitable trusts that would love the recognition that delivering a cancer cure would bring. I bet the Gates Foundation, with their 32 billion dollar endowment, would be all over it.
  • cyberghost232, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Bill and Melinda Gates foundation perhaps?
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3lol, you must not be familiar with Microsoft's business ideals.
    • smb3d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"lol, you must not be familiar with Microsoft's business ideals."

      lol, you must not be familiar with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation perhaps.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2uttles...with that one comment, you have undermined every shred of credibility you might have had. You have proven to everyone on Dig that no matter how stupid it makes you look, you will post anything negative toward Bill Gates.
    • Taromsn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Clearly neither of you have heard of the Steven and Melinda Gates Foundation...
    • Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@taromsn

      While I admire your creativity in your comment, I must say that the creator of that went too far on this one.

      You just do not make fun of people who give out billions to save lives and cure diseases. Sorry, you just don't.
    • kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1His business practices might suck, but his foundation does not. It's the biggest in the world, hands down, bar none. What the ***** have YOU done that compares?
    • DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think he is spending his money on things that actually have a better chance of working.
    • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I sent a mail to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation encouraging them to take a closer look at this.
      info@gatesfoundation.org

      You can do the same if you're interested, whether this turns out to work or not I think it should at least be tested.
      The Gates foundation has supported various cancer research programs generously, even with tens of millions of dollars for single projects.
  • kobalt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Look I don't care about testing it. Where the hell can i buy it? i NEEED it.
    China, India? I'll take 3rd party foreign releases, anyone got a link ?
  • ninjakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google, or Microsoft should go team up and put the money to get this trough testing and then release it to the public, think how good that will look for the company. plus with less people dieing thats money back in there pocket since they are adversing and selling software.
  • bsmeteronhigh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Many of the non-profit groups are in business to raise funds, not find cures. So, there really is no incentive to find a cure. They'd be out of business. Drug companies are about creating diseases for which they can create a cure. Obesity comes to mind. I see it as a perfect opportunity for WalMart to re-define itself as "the people's store" and do the research and then offer the generic for $4. Imagine the headline: WalMart Cures Cancer! From a P.R. standpoint, it would be tough to beat.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow! Are you suggesting that obesity is a "fake" diseased created just to make money?
    • captjc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It is one of those thing that is just blown out of proportion. Some people are naturally overweight but it doesn't really affect their health. Then there are people like the McDonald's Kid [1] where it is obviously a problem. We, as a society, are getting to the point where if you can't see your ribs, you're obese. Obesity being defined as not being anorexic. We are becoming extremely vain
      and it is in the interests of companies to help perpetuate this vanity.

      [1] http://www.foodfacts.info/blog/uploaded_images/mcdonald-large-kid-748669.jpg
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.