What is Digg?321 Comments
- ViRaZ, on 10/28/2007, -8/+449Damn misleading title for getting my hopes up. Doesn't help since I'm sitting in the hospital getting the chemotherapy right now.
- Tiabin, on 10/11/2007, -4/+338Thought this might be useful as well. It's a criticism of the dicholoroacetate "hype." It also has numerous links to more information on this cancer "cure" and thus is both another side to the argument and a resource for information on the topic.
Check it out...
http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2007/04/perversion_of_good_science.php - Tiabin, on 10/11/2007, -37/+340It's occured to me, as I've gotten older, that it seems like all of the world is searching so hard for where the money is at... that they miss the thing that is so much more important: life itself. Saving others isn't nearly as important as our bottomline, after all.
- vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -7/+143From TFA:
"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." - adb44, on 10/11/2007, -3/+104It got media attention, according to the wikipedia article on the chemical compound. Anyways:
Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971
"DCA: Cancer Breakthrough or Urban Legend?"
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=2848454&page=1
"No Wonder Drug"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325890.200-no-wonder-drug.html
Excerpt: It should also be pointed out that DCA is a by-product of the water chlorination process and a well-known environmental pollutant. It has been shown to be carcinogenic in rodent models and is also genotoxic, hepatotoxic and teratogenic in animals, all at doses well below what would seemingly be necessary to achieve a therapeutic effect in cancer patients. There are worthwhile anti-cancer drugs that are carcinogenic. But it would have been good to inform readers of this. - strangewill, on 10/11/2007, -8/+95I'm sorry, but is this even a reliable source?
- shewasjustagrl, on 10/11/2007, -2/+76@viraz
Hey, best of luck to you. Even though I don't know you, I'm hoping everything turns out alright :) - Humptydank, on 10/11/2007, -2/+76@finista: "Sad."
No, wrong.
The drug may be promising in treating cancer, it is being tested now, so no one knows either way yet. But "no one pays attention?" That's just inflammatory bull. LexisNexis shows 220 articles referring to dichloroacetate in the last 90 days alone, and you're welcome to search scholarly articles yourself.
People who are willing to indulge their own conspiracy fantasies at the expense of people and families who are actually dealing with a deadly disease are not my favorites. - davin510, on 10/11/2007, -6/+72this article is *****.
as a chem-e/bio major, there are many problems with this drug. first, the article mentions that the tests were conducted in vitro (outside the body); hundreds of drugs have been shown to work in a petri dish, but none of them have any therapeutic use because they cannot be effectively delivered to the tumor site. in this case, DCA is a small molecule, and thus it will be cleared by the liver quickly before the it can have any effect on the tumor. also, since DCA is not specific to cancer cells, the drug will be taken up by all cells and as such, be rapidly diluted before it can reach the tumor site.
additionally, this drug will only work on cancer lines that have a functioning apoptotic (cell death) pathway. 1/2 of all tumors have a mutated apoptotic pathway, so this drug will not work on those cancers. and even if the drug were to be successfully delivered to a tumor w/ a functioning apoptotic pathway and kill off cancer cells through apoptosis, the tumor will most likely not go away because all it takes is for one of those cancer cells to develop a mutation in the apoptotic pathway to render the drug useless. most likely, the tumor will shrink due to death of apoptosis capable cells, but reappear after a few months w/ resistance to the drug.
finally, DCA is not a patentable drug. - clickwir, on 10/11/2007, -5/+43Inaccurate.
1) They didn't cure cancer.
2) Plenty noticed. - johnnykalma, on 10/11/2007, -9/+38@kmckanna
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
That was right in the first paragraph.
I suggest you look harder before you say there are no sources next time - warriorscot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+29Not really the drug only works in the petri dish by all accounts, and even if it did work in a human the required dosage would be way past lethal. This story is really old, not only did new scientist cover it they covered the reaction to it as well.
Plenty of people have already tried taking it in desperation so far there are no reports of it having any effect offer than making people sick with its side effects. - ButterBuddha, on 10/11/2007, -7/+30God bless those Canadians....
- yeastbeast, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27Your friendly neighborhood molecular biologist chiming in here:
This article is pure, unadulterated BS. Stories like this periodically crop up and are hyped up by the misinformed and naive as evidence of a conspiracy to keep the cancer industry going or whatever. The reality is that cancer is a blanket term for an enormously wide range of complex diseases, each with its own idiosyncrasies and challenges to medicine. Their drug is like a variety of others, showing limited success in a controlled lab setting but proving unworkable in a real life situation. The tone of the article displays the author's credulous ignorance of the basic process of drug discovery and testing.
Sadly, many of you will as a result of reading this lousy article become suspicious or skeptical of actual progress in the treatment of cancer. Believe it or not, there have been many genuine success stories in recent years— drugs like taxol, Gleevec and Herceptin are widely prescribed and extremely effective at treating specific types of cancer. The drug mentioned here, DCA, may or may not be effective in treating cancer in humans, but at this point it's hardly a "cure." - MtnXfreerider, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20its a dupe times a lot though.. even on the frontpage a few times.
- ViRaZ, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17@ shewasjustagrl
Thank you. I should be ok, but all of the old people around here look really bad.
On a side note I just had this idea: Digg needs a short message sending system for personal messages. Nothing long, maybe 80 - 100 characters. - finista, on 10/17/2007, -54/+69Sad.
- Alex74447, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19There goes the folding@home project.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21It is lame, that is why it was buried. This was reported extensively in January, Phase 2 trials have started, and you want us to believe no one is reporting on it?
Try this before you jump off the cliff next time. Google Dichloroacetic acid and actually DO SOME RESEARCH. - chicken101, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13According to wikipedia:
"The New Scientist later editorialized, "The drug may yet live up to its promise as an anti-cancer agent - clinical trials are expected to start soon. It may even spawn an entirely new class of anti-cancer drugs. For now, however, it remains experimental, never yet properly tested in a person with cancer. People who self-administer the drug are taking a very long shot and, unlikely as it may sound, could even make their health worse."[14]" - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16Dugg down for hte BS title. This received a TON of attention back in JANUARY, when it was first announce. New Scientist did a story titled "Cheap, Safe Drug Kills Most Cancers", for example.
It is just now entering Phase 2 trials, so WAKE UP next time you post. - haggie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20With the exchange rate, it only cures half your cancer, U.S.
- CraigJ, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12A very detailed explanation of the situation: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php It's not even close to being as bad as portrayed in the article. I'm tempted to bury as inaccurate...
- cTower, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12This is the source you're looking for...
www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca - falstaff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Yup, "no one takes notice" is a bit funny since it's been on Digg a number of times. In fact, "Scientists cure cancer" isn't exactly accurate either. I'm all for a good "damn the man" story when it's legitimate, but this....isn't.
How many choices do you have at the drug aisle when you're looking for Vitamin C (or any multi-vitamin for that matter)? It's not patented either, so saying nobody is willing to produce a non-patented drug/compound just doesn't make sense. There's always money in filling a consumer demand. - sleepykit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Could just be me, but this drug was given media attention and is currently being tested. Following some links off wikipedia's article, it seems that the drug is also a carcinogen to some extent and has not been proven to work in real, actual humans yet. It has a slew of dangerous side effects as well and can cause liver problems.
No miracle drug here... Move along... - Zarxrax, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Name one.
I find it hard to believe that in the whole world, no doctors or researchers would bring out a drug that would cure things like this if they could. Large corporations in the USA do not control all research in the planet. - teh_techie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Check the authors sources... I bury your comment for not RTFA!
- andersontucker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@viraz
Hang in there bud. You'll pull through. - masgrada, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15So they're looking for a drug that cures cancer in the test tube, in animals AND THEN if that all works out in humans.... Now if that's not a wonder drug I don't know what is.
- jeo77, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11So we're blaming "the man" for cancer too now?
- kylefsu32, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10University of Alberta, so Yeah, I'd say so!
- orpheusj, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7This again???? Why do diggers keep falling for the same stories??? This makes the scientist in me go *****! Just because it works in a petri dish doesn't mean it's going to work in your body. In fact, DCA has been shown to be a carcinogen. Yes, it causes cancer in animals. ...
I'm just about ready to give up. Seriously, how are we going to get people to do even the tiniest bit of research before posting or digging this garbage? Is it too much to ask? - theradical, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetate#Potential_cancer_applications
- force275, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12Guys go check wikipedia; this can target tumors when not in the body, but when actually in a real-life scenario it has some disastrous consequences (IE causes nerve damage and several other things when at levels nec for tumor targeting).
- haterofps3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Whats really cool is that Edmonton is already a leader in Diabetic research and now to find out we are kicking Cancers ass.
- diggaligg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"The media won't cover it because some interest doesn't profit from it" is a bad cliche and immediately voids any credibility. The media covers all sorts of stories that don't involve a profit for anyone. If even the media outlets that don't receive pharmaceutical advertising dollars are acting on their behalf then I'd better put my tinfoil hat on.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15Realize that Cancer is a billion dollar/year industry, I am sure a hand full of people don't want to cure it. Matter of fact in America large Corporations seem to profit only when Americans surfer.
- Craga89, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8The tone of the article doesn't sound reliable. Reads as if some kid has written the interview in his spare time.
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Buried as inaccurate.
Doesn't it seem strange that the media would ignore a potential cancer cure? Well, that's because they didn't. This was all over the news in January of this year. There is even a wikipedia article that talks about the widespread news coverage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid
That same wikipedia article cites a New Scientist article which concluded:
"The drug may yet live up to its promise as an anti-cancer agent - clinical trials are expected to start soon. It may even spawn an entirely new class of anti-cancer drugs. For now, however, it remains experimental, never yet properly tested in a person with cancer. People who self-administer the drug are taking a very long shot and, unlikely as it may sound, could even make their health worse."
So there ya go. This may or may not be a huge breakthrough. Clinical trials will tell us that. I'm sure we'll see plenty of coverage if the trials conclude that it works. Not only that, we'll see plenty of funding from organizations like the NSF, the NFCR and the WHO.
Take off your tin foil hats, people. - Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6wtf...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=2848454&page=1
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325890.200-no-wonder-drug.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325972.900-editorial-gambling-with-your-life.html
http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8153
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20070117.wxhcancer17%2FBNStory%2FspecialScienceandHealth%2Fhome&ord=15456669&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=80b15f9d-cb4a-46a0-a4bc-f1a4ddea60d3&k=56245
Please don't fall for this one's description (although I see almost 2000 already have). The reason it's not crazily covered in media today is that it offered far from definite results, and... was already covered a bit, as much as unfinished research usually is. - FeargusMcDuff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I've heard this story so many times in so many variations it's just stupid.
- timothybryce, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Check back in with us when they've figured out if this actually works. In the meantime, please read an Econ 101 textbook and spare us the "PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES ARE EVIL" garbage.
- coryking, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5So all the people who are working at the said company want a bunch of people to die? You think they 6+ years at school getting their masters/doctorate degrees so they can screw people over? You think they all enjoy working overtime and comming in on weekends to meet FDA deadlines?
People working at those companies are *proud* of what they do - trying to make the world a better place. Please think first or better yet, ***** off and die. - mikeyrock, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Title should be: "Scientists supposedly find cure for cancer again, teenager takes notice and posts on digg as a stab at big business.. again."
- sbgunn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Exactly. I tend not to think of groundbreaking news stories as coming from sites that sub "z" for "s".
- mortey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I dugg it but I am still wondering if it is, in fact, a trustworthy source. If it is, I wish more people would pick up on it.
- catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3How would that stop Canadians from using it? So now we are blaming america for cancer too?
- Faustust, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4BLAME CANADA!!!!
.......for the cure to cancer. - mattmollysdad, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3maybe snake oil... best to wait and see...hate to give really sick people things like the "apricot pit cure"...which they said cured cancer back in the 70's.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 290 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is