digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

studentprintz.com — 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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • finista, on 10/17/2007, -54/+69Sad.
    • 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.
    • 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
    • vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -7/+142From 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."
    • kmckanna, on 10/11/2007, -84/+19So do I even digg this or what? I see no sources, no proof, nothing.

      I mean I want to believe what I see, but I find this as someone is trying to get this to get dugg to the "Most Popular," so he/she can get a good laugh...

      Someone post some supportive story links.
    • johnnykalma, on 10/11/2007, -9/+37@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
    • th3heretic, on 10/11/2007, -39/+5mmm StudentPrintz.com ...
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • vacuum2440, on 10/11/2007, -18/+7yea definately tried to submit this story TWICE a hell of a long time ago when it was actually somewhat relevant but it never even got to front page...its really sad that even though there is a drug out there that is virtually ready for human testing on cancer patients that have no other hope, it is not even getting a chance! When I first heard this story (which was hard to come by) I was hysterical and filled with happiness thinking "wow maybe this is it" and I soon realized that in this capitalist society we live in, this story nor drug will ever see the light of day.
    • 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.
    • 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.

    • 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.
    • 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 :)
    • 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...
    • 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.
    • 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...
    • DavidBGie, on 10/11/2007, -18/+4Step 1) Yeah, our drug *may* cure cancer.
      Step 2) Stock goes up 1200%.
      Step 3) Profit.

      More junk science.
    • haggie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20With the exchange rate, it only cures half your cancer, U.S.
    • gamebittk, on 10/11/2007, -12/+9I cured cancer once I think.
    • 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.
    • 0crabby0, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5dichloroacetate(cancer killer) = Windex

      The Greeks were right in "My Big Fat Wedding"
    • DavidDigg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3From wikipedia:

      "DCA is a non-patentable compound. Concerns have therefore been raised that without pharmaceutical industry interest, trials of DCA may not be funded.[12][11][13][17] However, other sources of funding exist; previous studies of DCA have been funded by government organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and by private charities (e.g. the Muscular Dystrophy Association)."

      Capitalism has pathologies, but this is not one of them. This article is, however, a great example of the good that governments can do.
    • jasonliman, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1what do you mean no one, digg is taking notice now!!
    • obixx, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5@ haggie
      "With the exchange rate, it only cures half your cancer, U.S."
      The only thing funny about your statement is that you believe the American dollar is worth twice that of a Canadian dollar. However, 1 USD is equal to .9035 CAD. So ya, lose the arrogance.
    • andersontucker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@viraz

      Hang in there bud. You'll pull through.
    • radu79, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/prisco20070402/
    • NouvelleChimie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@davin510, who said "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."

      ...so then invent a drug delivery system to get the reagent there better. Maybe find a really good excipient and make a system that can target the cells, blend with the drug, and get it down to a safe concentration that's still effective, all the while letting the stuff be metabolized efficiently.

      That's what they're gonna patent: the whole package, especially the way its administered, not just the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). That's what the selling point of stuff like OrthoEvra is: here's your birth control, but it goes through your skin.
    • dasilva333, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3for the skeptics (like me) visit this forum, ull see ppl who are trying it and its working for em:
      http://www.thedcasite.com/cgi/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID2&conf=DCConfID1
      http://www.thedcasite.com/cgi/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=38&forum=DCForumID2&viewmode=threaded
    • edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1they cured cancer and all you can say is "sad". If its really a cure don't worry it will be adopted all over the world. Most likely it will prove to not be a cure like so many other "cures" before.

    • Evacide, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1I think cancer is only caused by the ***** that you put in your body (look at what all the processed sugar has done, for example diabetes). No smoking carcinogens, no drinking alcohol, a healthy diet with plenty of fruits/vegetables, and exercise will all in my opinion greatly reduce your risk for cancer.
    • fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Ah, the glorious irony of peddling a known carcinogenic as a cure to the very disease it causes.
    • N1NJ4hippie, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2http://www.digg.com/health/Scientists_Find_Cancer_Cure_But_Big_Pharma_Isn_t_Interested

      It seems that no one hasn't been taking notice for awhile now, eh?
    • 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?
    • j0c1f3r, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2you have to know that this world is run by greed.....if you dont think someone will discredit this for gain you are lying to yourself....think of how many gangsters would kill for $20 000.....well greedy people are greedy people folks.....and if you dont think the pharmaceutical company would do anything to protect their billions of dollars a year cancer treatment baby.....you ***** retarded.....so lets make real sure that this isnt gonna work before we let some greedy dickwad make the decision for us.....get it....got it....GOOD!
    • SultanTravi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3It's ***** sad because this is inaccurate and should have been buried long ago.
    • kocharoches, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1what is truly sad is that no one RTFA - "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."
    • eviltandem, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Alright whack jobs. If we could make a pill that would kill most cancers easily and painlessly then someone somewhere would make it for the fortune that would follow.

      Pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money too, sure. But if they could make a product that would cure your cancer with no real investment they would. In a second. They would make so much money it would be silly not to.

      Holding back on making a cure that would make everyone involved rich beyond all measure would just be silly. It's equally silly to assume "they" wouldn't do the right thing that just also would make them rich. There would probably be some sort of branding war to win your desire to use their version of the product, etc...

      Curing cancer would make so much money someone would get into it, no matter what the patentability. It's just how capitalism works.

      Sheesh, take off the tin foil hats already.
    • prasanna01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0hi
      this is very good comment for testing the physics
  • LakeshoreBaby, on 10/11/2007, -30/+4This story got buried as "This is Lame". Unbelievable.
    http://www.digg.com/spy_update?&showburies=1&maxitems=10000
    • MtnXfreerider, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20its a dupe times a lot though.. even on the frontpage a few times.
    • subman697, 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.
    • 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.
    • DisposableRob, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6"In fact, "Scientists cure cancer" isn't exactly accurate either."

      Exactly, a bullet to the head cures cancer pretty much 100% in all test studies.
    • dotlizard, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1from the wiki:
      The historical likelihood that a promising agent in pre-clinical (i.e., cell-line killing) experiments will become an effective human cancer drug is 5%, and the likelihood of an FDA approval for any given drug entering Phase I testing is reportedly 8-11%.

      As of April 2007, DCA has passed phase 1 trials and can enter directly phase 2 trials in patients with cancer.

      DCA is a non-patentable compound. Concerns have therefore been raised that without pharmaceutical industry interest, trials of DCA may not be funded.

      ... well, if that doesn't make this newsworthy enough to digg various iterations of the story up to the front page from time to time, i don't know what is. what we have is a promising, but non-patentable compound, that we can be fairly sure won't get funded by big pharma, no matter how much cancer it might cure. good thing to follow along, make sure it doesn't just get dropped before there's a chance to really test it.

      because there's no money in it, it is hard to get the people who produce medicine to care. doesn't that suck?
    • mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I dunno, big pharma found a way to patent melatonin and call it Roserem
    • reb42, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Rozerem (ramelteon) is an analog of melatonin. It's only difference is potency (it's about 10x stronger).
  • strangewill, on 10/11/2007, -8/+95I'm sorry, but is this even a reliable source?
    • Feeedbaack, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0That article is in some corner of a student newspaper website from Mississippi. I think if this was a credible article it would be front page news everywhere.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5"Scientists tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body where it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but left healthy cells alone." -- Lots of things kill cancer cells outside of the body. Like sulfuric acid. Needs human tests.

      "Rats plump with tumors shrank when they were fed water supplemented with DCA." -- Rat != human.

      This "no money in drugs" conspiracy theory was on Digg a while ago but got buried. OMG Big Pharma is on Digg!
    • cTower, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12This is the source you're looking for...

      www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca
    • kylefsu32, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10University of Alberta, so Yeah, I'd say so!
    • strangewill, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@ctower:
      Thanks. :D Sounds like more of no one is taking notice because it seems like it's extremely recent and still in early development stages (don't want to yell "WE CURED CANCER" and find out it wont work on humans I guess...)
    • 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.

    • 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".
    • AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Looks to me like this is an editorial rather than a news story.

      Fortunately, the author linked to the original source, so no harm no foul.
    • 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."
  • ButterBuddha, on 10/11/2007, -7/+29God bless those Canadians....
    • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -23/+2Yeah... their women can suck a mean di..... well.... so I've heard
    • Faustust, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4BLAME CANADA!!!!



      .......for the cure to cancer.
    • nathron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3suck a mean dichloroacetate?
  • musntSurfatWork, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2Life on earth , is cancer enough, thanks very much.
  • brianjameskirk, on 10/11/2007, -15/+9I'm all for finding a cure for cancer and I believe that sometimes mainstream media sidesteps important stories because of corporate interests, but I'm personally burying this story as inaccurate.

    1) The story is from "studentprintz.com." Sounds like a really, really legit media organization.
    2) It was published in January of this year.
    3) The story's "Editor's Note" disproves its own theory as an unverified hypothesis.
    • teh_techie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Check the authors sources... I bury your comment for not RTFA!
    • AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1It's an opinion piece that links to the original work. The author does not claim to be an expert. What more do you expect?
  • 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).
    • Continuum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@420ilerBuzz
      I guess you never click the citations in Wikipedia articles? They link to medical journals and in general a more reputable source (i.e. not a wiki).
      There is nothing wrong with information from Wikipedia in most cases. Just make sure it is cited.
  • Alex74447, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19There goes the folding@home project.
  • usrlocalbin, on 10/11/2007, -9/+7Some others have said it might not be true. But if it were.......
    It really isn't surprising.
    All the rx ad's we see on the TV all the time, and all that *****. The pharmaceutical companies are just in it for the $$$. They don't give a ***** about our heath. Same with the government. They say they do care about our heath.....But cigarettes are legal and taxed by the government, and there is a whole devision of the government to look over tobacco.
    Another reason why it probably wont be on the front page of any newspaper, or the breaking story on any news network is because '1/4 of all americans are retarded' and they'll be too busy watching what happens with Paris Hilton and her jail sentence. :|


    • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Buried for moving into the subject of Paris Hilton in a science article. :-p
    • Continuum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If you mixed blood from Keith Richards and Paris Hilton together, you could cure everything...

      ever.
    • bmartin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"If you mixed blood from Keith Richards and Paris Hilton together, you could cure everything..."

      Side effects include syphilis and herpes
    • sexydawg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0And a killer high from all of the remnants....
  • QstorM427, 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.
    • mogus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Actually, I think that might not be the case. If you think about how many diseases we don't even really treat, if cancer went away, there'd be another front line killer waiting to be cured. I think it's a supply and demand thing. They only supply as much treatment as people can possibly afford. If you take away one disease, there'd be a surplus of money to spend on the next worst thing and the market would settle back down. Just a guess on my part.
    • s14sh3r, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Charlie don't surf.
    • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3How would that stop Canadians from using it? So now we are blaming america for cancer too?
    • br0ck, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually it seems to me that it would be extraordinarily profitable to cure diseases like cancer that outright kill because every 50 year old person that is cured will keep buying other drugs for another 30-50 years.
    • nathron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0He lies! Keep surfing to ***** the Man!

      @s14sh3r
      You either surf or you fight.
    • ciram, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeaah... you may be right, but don't you think they'd profit more if they found a cure? I think every pharma company is looking for cures. If they find one they can patent it and make billions more that they did with chemo drugs.

      Also with something that important, there'd be cheap replica drugs in no time. Either way I believe it would sort itself out.

      I don't really care much who gets the money as long as they effectively wipe out cancer. If they do that, they deserve to be uber-stinky-rich.
    • MrPlug, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1100% right
      thanks man, now i don't have to type so much
  • clickwir, on 10/11/2007, -5/+43Inaccurate.

    1) They didn't cure cancer.
    2) Plenty noticed.
  • 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]"
  • 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.
    • usrlocalbin, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3I didn't know that making money (and ***** lots of it) off of people in need was garbage.
  • theradical, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetate#Potential_cancer_applications
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9Company's don't want a cure they would go out of business
    • jeo77, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10So we're blaming "the man" for cancer too now?
    • dyreschlock, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6For the same reason the oil companies don't invest in alternative energy sources.
    • 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.
    • kodek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"For the same reason the oil companies don't invest in alternative energy sources."

      Actually, the oil companies benefit from research in alternative energy sources because they can patent the idea and maintain their "monopoly."
    • aggrogeek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0No, I think they would want a cure. But I believe they would most prefer a medication that they could patent and keep expensive, so that their profits would soar.
  • wolvyne, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5Pisses me off. Even if this exact report is inaccurate there are many cures out there that we don't get treatment for solely based on the fact that some medical can't patent it to make a ton of profit! What ever happened to medical companies being humanitarians instead of money hungry butt robbers? Something is just wrong with this world...
    • 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.
    • wolvyne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You do have to realize that the funding for most major companies tie to only a few large companies that have majority control. That being said one controversial issue is with medical marijuana and it originally being made illegal due to it's threat to cotton plantations. I am by no means supporting the typical pot head but I do believe that it does have medical purposes. And if you have to question the pill popping age that we are in where there is a pill for everything and everything is a disease that they can "create" a cure for.

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/
      http://www.newstarget.com/002581.html
  • subman697, 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.

  • Bullsnot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5The pharma companies may not be interested in funding research that will not profit them, but I find it hard to believe there is not a million scientists out there that wouldnt want to have their name on the "cure for cancer". Drug companies alone would not hold back a true cure.
    • coryking, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Of course they wouldn't be able to "hold back a cure". You think the shareholders, who could make millions, would want it held back? You think all the employees and researchers working there, who have invested years in education and many long weekends of overtime, would hold it back?

      You, and every other "EVIL PHARMA COMPANY" conspiracist in this thread are idiots.
  • 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."
    • zeebusboy, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3Note the language this "friendly neighborhood molecular biologist" uses, "proving unworkable in a real life situation".

      Note that nothing at all has been proven about DCA as no human clinical trials have yet been performed. Note that the early research notes a commonality of the cancer process (glycosis trigger, mitochoindrial reactivation) heretofore more or less unidentified. Note also the promotion of proprietary, patented cancer drugs.
    • CraigJ, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@zeebusboy - somebody isn't paying attention...
    • GottIstTot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Thank you so much. I actually work on interdicting cancer with therapeutics and it's a tough slog. Most people don't even realize that cancer isn't a single disease. Most of the really promising research is just now starting to have some traction because of the more complete picture we are starting to assemble of this family of pathologies. I'm glad some other scientists actually post meaningful comments on Digg.
  • zeebusboy, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4If you are dying of cancer right now, the Canadian Cancer Society is urging you to die rather than risk taking this medicine. If you take it and don't die, that would be a catastrophe for the pharmaceutical industry and you wouldn't want that on your head. Finding the connection between the Canadian Cancer Society and large pharmaceutical industry concerns is left as an exercise to the reader. Expect dichloroacetate to be utterly demonized and soon banned across the western world.

    Kick back and enjoy your cancer! And don't forget to take your meds, suckers!

    http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=7cf7ce21-faad-4ae2-a673-77e6ae247fe2&k=75726
    • ragsmaloy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@zeebusboy (the comment i'm replying too actually seems to have occured a few below this. damm)

      From your given link what the Canadian Cancer Society actually seem to be saying is

      "we just don't know whether the use of this substance will actually hasten someone's death . . . We don't know whether the use of this drug will cause severe side-effects that will reduce significantly somebody's quality of life for the time that they have left"

      rather than don't take the drug as we want you to die as you seem to be suggesting. Thus although this might kill cancer cells in a petri dish so would bleach, and i don't notice any digg topics about the evil drug companies attempting to ban bleach for its miracle cancer curing properties.
  • tantheman67, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Medical community and other drug manufacturers will not make money! They wont pursue it! SAD!
  • break99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Reminded me of when Iran cured AIDS...

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250281,00.html
    http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-203/0609127440174631.htm
    • CCoe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1We're talking about a CANADIAN university. Canada - you know, that WESTERN liberal democracy to the North? The one that's not a theocratic state? The one that doesn't have a crazy dictator? Harper is a Conservative, just like your Bush my friend. Don't be so ignorant of the things around you.
  • Lonewolfsanscub, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"This is a column of opinion written by Printz Executive Editor David McRaney. Comments can be sent to printz@usm.edu"

    There shouldn't be any debate about whether or not this is a serious article.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • aminy23, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0It is just profit,
    if you go to many other countries you could get the same medicine for a fraction of the price.
    Scientists made vaccines for aids, they tested it on monkeys then they injected aids into them
    out of 18 one got it and that was the one with the lowest dose. they tested it on humans at risk
    of aids and none of them got it. if i had aids i would say ***** testing and the FDA, if this ***** didn't
    work i would die anyway.they made a machine that shoots radiation and quickly and painlessly
    destroys cancer. they all ready cured people with it.It is just for money and that is a shame.
  • mre5765, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Dugg down as inaccurate.

    Really, every day cures for cancer are announced. And most of them turn out to have "issues". All you and the people dugg this up was give false hope.

    As for evil drug companies not testing this, Gates and Buffet are putting their fortunes into charitable endeavours like this. If Bill doesn't think there is anything there, there probably isn't. If there is, then after he pays for a successful trial, and gets FDA approval, there are plenty of generic drug makers who'd produce it.
    • webtroy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3everyone knows the FDA is ridiculously understaffed and doesn't possess the resources to analyze every drug. Instead (as proven in the past) they take payoffs ie. bribes, and only the doctors in it for the $$$ have their drugs approved.

      unfortunate, but this is the reality we live in.

    • Coinspinner, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Probably not nearly as inaccurate as your post.

      I don't believe cures are announced daily, among other issues with your post.
    • ruminator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"Really, every day cures for cancer are announced. And most of them turn out to have "issues". All you and the people dugg this up was give false hope."

      How's that? Firstly, I sure don't hear an announcement about a new cure for cancer EVERY DAY. And I stay pretty well informed. So, I think that's a stretch.

      Second, if you read the New Scientist article, you'd see that there's quite a bit of justification for one to be enthusiastic, if not at least hopeful, about this drug. Dugg down for boorish insensitivity and unjustified cynicism.
  • cchaitu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I hope its true for humanity sake.. I know by experience how it feels to loose somone very close to you cause of this deadly ***** up disease. I hope and pray for those scientists who work for our cause.

    ** god bless u guys**
  • webtroy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Leave it up to Canadians to find the cure for cancer.

    CANADA FTW.
  • Coinspinner, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2No surprise, the US Government learned in 1974 that Marijuana kills cancer.

    They destroyed the research.

    http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v01/n572/a11.html?

  • 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.
    • Coinspinner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2It may "seem strange that the media ignore it", but that doesn't make it untrue.

      After all, only one US paper covered the reproduction study of how Marijuana kills cancer. (the 2000 Spain trials I am referring to, the Boston Globe stuck something on page like 30c or something, every other outles ignored it)

      http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v01/n572/a11.html?

    • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1^--- That's a biased news source though. If it was only covered there, using Occam's razor, it's more likely to be not that big of some news that it tries to tell.
    • Coinspinner, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@jugalator:

      Harvard said it also, and more recently.

      Stop trying to blame the messenger, the fact it is only on alternate news sites is a huge part of the story.
    • hempydave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And the CIA and big phama are too stupid to pay people to "work" wikiapedia ?please don't quote a proven inaccurate web page to "prove" a respected research school is wrong.
  • jonathanz1980, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1why isn't this being picked up by mainstream media? is there really a conspiracy of drug companies blocking the news? I would be surprised if the big pharmas have such a huge, immediate and unified influence on the media.
    • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"why isn't this being picked up by mainstream media?"

      It was. See other articles. There's no conspiracy, and the results were far from convincing in all cases, as media did report.
  • ucdbunny, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0You know you learn a lot about diggers through articles such as these. Favorite quote seems to be that "The point of the article is that no pharm company wants to even try to explore this route because it's not patentable and thus unprofitable." Perhaps you should do some research before making such claims. First of all DCA has only been tested on cell lines, and some experimental animals, meaning no humans. Second of all, there are HUNDREDS of chemicals that destroy cancer cells in cell cultures and animals, but does that mean there effective? You can use petroleum for gods sake to destroy cancers cells but doesn't mean you inject your body with it. You do know that DCA is a carcinogenic, and a toxin, and can cause peripheral neuropathy, meaning you wont be able to walk or move your arms. Its really not that hard to kill cancer cells, its not as if there more immune to destruction from dangerous chemicals then regular cells are, its just that there are random mutation in one of the several million genes can cause a cell to divide unregulated. This is why cancer, unlike other disease such as aids or polio does not have a single cure, because there can be a million different ways/mutations that can lead to a cancerous/tumor cell. And depending on the mutation, means there needs to be a different treatment or drug. But there are some consistencies that show up in cancerous cells which certain drugs focus on to eradicate or disrupt the energy cycle of cells, basically starve them out. Ugh I could go on with this but I have better things to do then explain to you idiots why this is not as it seems. Personally I see it has an attempt by a sub-par university (Canadian at that) to get funding and more exposure. Here this guy can explain it better then I can.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php
    • mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1their
      they're

      They're different in their usage.
  • ucdbunny, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0*smacks his own forehead and looks down in shame

    You know you learn a lot about diggers through articles such as these. Favorite quote seems to be that "The point of the article is that no pharm company wants to even try to explore this route because it's not patentable and thus unprofitable." Perhaps you should do some research before making such claims. First of all DCA has only been tested on cell lines, and some experimental animals, meaning no humans. Second of all, there are HUNDREDS of chemicals that destroy cancer cells in cell cultures and animals, but does that mean there effective? You can use petroleum for gods sake to destroy cancers cells but doesn't mean you inject your body with it. You do know that DCA is a carcinogenic, and a toxin, and can cause peripheral neuropathy, meaning you wont be able to walk or move your arms. Its really not that hard to kill cancer cells, its not as if there more immune to destruction from dangerous chemicals then regular cells are, its just that there are random mutation in one of the several million genes can cause a cell to divide unregulated. This is why cancer, unlike other disease such as aids or polio does not have a single cure, because there can be a million different ways/mutations that can lead to a cancerous/tumor cell. And depending on the mutation, means there needs to be a different treatment or drug. But there are some consistencies that show up in cancerous cells which certain drugs focus on to eradicate or disrupt the energy cycle of cells, basically starve them out. Ugh I could go on with this but I have better things to do then explain to you idiots why this is not as it seems. Personally I see it has an attempt by a sub-par university (Canadian at that) to get funding and more exposure. Here this guy can explain it better then I can.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php
  • HalfGiraffe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Gee another highly toxic chemical with unknown value outside the test tube.

    Buried as sadly, pathetically inaccurate.

    I'm much more interested in the new research into intravenous (and I stress intravenous) administration of high doses of vitamin C. They laughed at Linus Pauling and said it wouldn't work. Then they tested it, but only with oral doses, and didn't get the results. Finally years later they're starting to do trials with IV vitamin C and it looks like there might be something happening there. Cheap, natural and relatively non-toxic (everything's bad for you in high doses).
    • Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They laughed because he pulled this whole vitamin C thing out of his ass. If some buddy of his had recommended vitamin A instead, he would have been touting it and probably would have been bright orange due to massive vitamin A dosing. Starting with your conclusions is the hallmark of quackery, and that's exactly what he did.
  • Twango, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Lamed for misleading headline ... untested on human cancers.
  • ucdbunny, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0i belive this has already been put up before, wierd why is it double posting my stuff
  • 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.
    • ucdbunny, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0yup, just because it shows promise in-vitro does not mean it will translate over to humans
  • saifatlast, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4This is such *****, I can't believe this crap made the front page. If cancer was cured, no company would be jaded enough to not take all of the ***** credit for it. I saw this point made as follows on Metafilter:

    *30 second superbowl commercial, black text on white background*
    Pfizer: We cured cancer.
  • Comatose51, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2What's Paris Hilton doing now??? Quick, tell me!
  • JimXugle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1w00t
    So... now we can donate all that money to other diseases... maybe one that a certain digg user is genetically predisposed to... mhmm... say... Alzheimer's ?
  • smartass007, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2fruits and veggies
  • Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2This just in: ethanol kills cancer cells in vitro. Finally, a cure that I can drink to.
  • pneupsychedelic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I think I know why nobody caught on to this possible miracle.

    The thing with the American media networks and society is that they are easily affected by advertisements and money from big corporations.

    Because of this, most drugs that come from the research and development of big pharmaceutical corporations and drug manufacturers are backed by a large sum of advertisement funds. That is why most drugs or drug companies have advertisements on television networks. To alert the public.

    Since this drug is free, and has no patent, there is no corporation behind the drug pumping millions of dollars of cash to advertise their finds all over the United States and the world.

    Our job as informed citizens is to get the word out about this drug. Thanks to digg.com and ***** were able to, but most of the world doesn't even look at this site. Unfortunately everyone, or most of the population, are unaware of this drug. Lets make it public and tell everyone that you know, or whoever might be interested to know, such as your teachers and parents. Bah. Inaction pisses me off.
  • Sych, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Nothing new. Look up ukrain and amitozyn. Both are effective anti-cancer herb-based drugs that have NO SIDE EFFECTS. One is locked up by big pharmaceuticals in Austria and the other one in Ukraine.
  • jwmazz05, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1well now i know what my research will be based on for my biochem thesis: the effects of dichloroacetate on rats with malignant tumors. this stuff can be easily synthesized in any college chemistry lab.
  • orthodoxDrew, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2buried as inaccurate

  • aaronoog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1So... when does the cure for HIV and AIDS come out?
  • shackleton1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have never heard of this when channel hopping at 3am; therefore the MSM is not reporting on it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 170 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.