Doing the rounds: "Scientists Cure cancer and nobody notices?"

[Simon Bridge]

Didn't find a thread for this, though it may be part of one, so:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice
... sensationalist and containing factual problems (eg. mitocondria are not a type of cell, they are part of all cells - DCA-based drugs are patentable and, indeed, some patents have been filed) but I have seen it three times today in different places all spouting the same message: that drug companies are not funding an important cure.

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

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v99/n7/full/6604554a.html
... has a better overview of the state of research.

There does not seem to be any special difficulty for these researchers getting funding. In fact, DCA research has been funded for quite a while.

There is no special difficulty getting hold of DCL if you want it. Oncologists are aware of the treatment possibilities and there are clinics already offering it as an experimental treatment.

The idea is barely past the "this looks promising" stage in scientific research. Media seldom pay attention to this sort of thing and when they do they are often burned for reporting too soon.

There are already "on-label" (major drug company based) treatments using DCA, so "major drug companies" don't seem to have any problem providing funding or products based on the substance.

That only leaves the idea that drug companies do not want to sell "cures" since they can only sell each the once. There is more money in therapies and almost cures and side effects ...


To be fair, I do hear stories from non-USA medical researchers about borderline research practices by US pharm. But it's more prejudice than anything.

eg. there is a practice that patients taking part in drug trials, where the drug proves effective, will continue to receive the drug free of charge ... well fair enough (it has a special name I keep forgetting). When local researchers ask US researchers if such a provision is to be made in a proposed trial there, the frequent response is "I'll have to get back to you on that." Now ... this makes a bad impression, even though the answer has always been "yes" (and there are any number of reasons they guy may have felt the need to check).

The trouble I have with these stories is that the question is seldom even asked where the collaborating researcher is not in the USA. It is plausible only due to the general background of suspicion surrounding US medical research ethics that articles like the one here (top) like to feed on and promote.

Which drags the monologue back to the original topic. I do notice that the human trials are Canadian and most of the papers I see are European ... eg. places with public health care ... and from non-profit(ish) institutions like universities. One could almost be forgiven for thinking that big-pharm don't care.

[bigred]

... sensationalist and containing factual problems...so why bother any further? Honest question.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Research done by pharmaceutical companies is rarely, if ever, published. Once something is published it enters the public domain, which means your competitors can start on the idea and work on variations that would allow them to bypass any patent you might have.

Usually, only when a working medication has been produced (a 10+ years program if fast) does publication follow.

Also, the disease cancer does not exist as reported in the media or 'they won't cure it websites' claim. There are literally hundreds of radically different genetic defects possible that all lead to rapidly proliferating cells, which each ultimately give a similar symptoms. We lump all these symptoms with one name, but that does not makes them all the same disease.
There will never be a 'cure for cancer'. The best we can hope for is a tailored set of cures for as many types of cancer as we can discover.

[The Fallen Serpent]

I earlier today replied to this article being posted on Facebook by a friend. I expect I will have to do so a few more times in the coming days as it makes the rounds. If one is an oncologist this has been a possibly exciting bit of research to follow. Otherwise it is like a few dozen other "looking good" areas of study out there. Too technical of knowledge for me to make any real judgement on. Also only works on certain types of cancers, ect ect ect all the usual "Cure for cancer" caveats that are always overlooked in the media and social networking.

[Ignosticist]

There does not seem to be any special difficulty for these researchers getting funding. In fact, DCA research has been funded for quite a while.

There is no special difficulty getting hold of DCL if you want it. Oncologists are aware of the treatment possibilities and there are clinics already offering it as an experimental treatment.


Sounds good, but it has (potential) associated risks such as: Carcinogenicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Carcinogenicity) and neuropathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Neuropathy)


The idea is barely past the "this looks promising" stage in scientific research. Media seldom pay attention to this sort of thing and when they do they are often burned for reporting too soon.


Which is probable the case this time :(


There are already "on-label" (major drug company based) treatments using DCA, so "major drug companies" don't seem to have any problem providing funding or products based on the substance.

That only leaves the idea that drug companies do not want to sell "cures" since they can only sell each the once. There is more money in therapies and almost cures and side effects ...


You can only reach that conclusion if you decide that you don't care about the carcinogenicity and neuropathy risks associated with DCA. :boggled:

How do you know it won't kill more people than it would save? (After all cyanide and arsenic also kill cancer... by killing the human being where the cancer "lives") :(

[Simon Bridge]

And I misstype it's "DCA" not "DCL" or whatever else I've been typing ... grrrr.

Also see:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5166

[Simon Bridge]

...so why bother any further? Honest question.Just because the popular press, or a blogger, misreport it does not mean the core claims are wrong.

The most this allows me to do, is criticize the poster for using a bad source as if it was definitive. Even Wikipedia is better at this and still advises against citing them.

[Simon Bridge]

I challenged the "friend" to come up with another example - which turned into "Nicotinamide is an effective treatment for MS" ... but big pharma won't make it.

Huh: it's vitamin B3 ... doesn't big pharma make and market vitamin suppliments?



Note: though pharmacos are stingy about publishing research, it does happen, and the onset of actual clinical trials is usually fairly public. I think most people don't realize how long it takes to go from "looks good in mice" to "lets do final-stage human trials". They also are very surprised at the disinterest of the popular press in these things - how many human trials are going on right now? How many make it into the media?

[ThunderChunky]

I read this exact same story 3-4 years ago (probably when gthat group published in 2008). Why is it being rehashed now?

[Aepervius]

You can only reach that conclusion if you decide that you don't care about the carcinogenicity and neuropathy risks associated with DCA. :boggled:

How do you know it won't kill more people than it would save? (After all cyanide and arsenic also kill cancer... by killing the human being where the cancer "lives") :(

To be fair, the link you provided explicitely says that the doses at which the liver cancer appear in mice is significantely higher than the doses proposed for treatment.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

the disease cancer does not exist as reported in the media or 'they won't cure it websites' claim. There are literally hundreds of radically different genetic defects possible that all lead to rapidly proliferating cells, which each ultimately give a similar symptoms. We lump all these symptoms with one name, but that does not makes them all the same disease.
There will never be a 'cure for cancer'. The best we can hope for is a tailored set of cures for as many types of cancer as we can discover.
Good points but there are several 'cures for cancer' which work at a 'coarser' level than the genetics and exploit some of the generic characteristics of cancer eg rapid growth and cell division and the consequent need for increased blood supply. So radio- and chemo-therapy (and more experimental stuff like thalidomide) work on many different types of cancer. As does surgery of course.

Yuri

[Simon Bridge]

Hah - you'll like this: clinicaltrials.govt has a searchable database of all the trials they know about.

They list 107,294 trials with locations in 174 countries currently in the database, some have completed recently.

So I can look up the supposed suppressed treatments ... eg.

nicotinamide interventions are listed for 201 of them, though none seem to target MS explicitly there are degenerative diseases on the list.

MS is the target of 721 of them, rather a lot to read in one go so I just looked at the first 28 ... 6 of them used non-patentable interventions, one of which was vitamin A. (There were a bunch of odd ones like meditation.)

So it seems that the expected resistance of big pharm to non-patentables does not prevent these things getting a long way through the process.

On-topic there are six where DCA is the intervention for various cancers. There are 25 for DCA in general, the non-cancer ones are things like diabetes and lactic acidosis ... so we have active and expensive research going on right now. Two of the cancer studies are still recruiting.

[Ignosticist]

To be fair, the link you provided explicitely says that the doses at which the liver cancer appear in mice is significantely higher than the doses proposed for treatment.

To be fair, we are not interested in DCA as a cure fore cancer in mice....

[Simon Bridge]

This is fun - there are 12 looking into using cannibis to treat cancer ... though mostly to relieve side effects of chemo - half of which involve multiple patents.

There are six each for Qigong and Reiki.

Clearly unpatentability does not prevent something going to clinical trial.

[Simon Bridge]

To be fair, we are not interested in DCA as a cure fore cancer in mice....[my emph]... or ever "aft" cancer or mid cancer ....

technically we are interested ... though a cure for mice that don't work on humans would not be used much.

Your point about having to balance positive and negative effects is well taen though.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Good points but there are several 'cures for cancer' which work at a 'coarser' level than the genetics and exploit some of the generic characteristics of cancer eg rapid growth and cell division and the consequent need for increased blood supply. So radio- and chemo-therapy (and more experimental stuff like thalidomide) work on many different types of cancer. As does surgery of course.

Yuri

But both radio and chemo therapy affect different cancers at different rates (and some chemo therapies are useless against certain cancers). Not to mention that they of course are so unspecific that they are limited in use before they start killing the patient with the disease.
The same with surgery. Breast cancer is easy to remove in an early stage. Brain tumors on the other hand...
So even these 'coarser' techniques have limitations imposed on them by the exact type of cancer and its location.

[Simon Bridge]

Hey - I found a patent for this:
(WO/2006/108276) A METHOD OF TREATING CANCER USING DICHLOROACETATE (http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ia.jsp?IA=CA2006%2F000548&DISPLAY=STATUS)... pending OK, but kinda kills the whole unpatentable thesis you'd think?

[Simon Bridge]

But both radio and chemo therapy affect different cancers at different rates (and some chemo therapies are useless against certain cancers). Not to mention that they of course are so unspecific that they are limited in use before they start killing the patient with the disease.
The same with surgery. Breast cancer is easy to remove in an early stage. Brain tumors on the other hand...
So even these 'coarser' techniques have limitations imposed on them by the exact type of cancer and its location.
All good points - indeed.

I'd submit that there is a valid non-medical use of the term "cure for cancer" which would describe a treatment effective against a wide range of different cancers. I think we ca agree that the normal use of English is imprecise ... at the same time, headlining an article with something as imprecise as "Cure for Cancer found" should trigger our skeptical organs.

Bearing in mind that "Some Cancers Cured" is not much of a draw to readers.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

But both radio and chemo therapy affect different cancers at different rates (and some chemo therapies are useless against certain cancers). Not to mention that they of course are so unspecific that they are limited in use before they start killing the patient with the disease.
The same with surgery. Breast cancer is easy to remove in an early stage. Brain tumors on the other hand...
So even these 'coarser' techniques have limitations imposed on them by the exact type of cancer and its location.
Limitations yes, but not the way you were suggesting. The point I was addressing was your claim, "The best we can hope for is a tailored set of cures for as many types of cancer as we can discover" which was based on your preceeding sentence "There are literally hundreds of radically different genetic defects possible that all lead to rapidly proliferating cells, which each ultimately give a similar symptoms".

Surgery, chemo and radio therapy exploit the same generic features of many different types of cancers in the same way. We don't need "a tailored set of cures for as many types of cancer as we can discover" any more than we need a different type of antibiotic for each pathogenic bacteria that we discover.

Yuri

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Limitations yes, but not the way you were suggesting. The point I was addressing was your claim, "The best we can hope for is a tailored set of cures for as many types of cancer as we can discover" which was based on your preceeding sentence "There are literally hundreds of radically different genetic defects possible that all lead to rapidly proliferating cells, which each ultimately give a similar symptoms".

Surgery, chemo and radio therapy exploit the same generic features of many different types of cancers in the same way. We don't need "a tailored set of cures for as many types of cancer as we can discover" any more than we need a different type of antibiotic for each pathogenic bacteria that we discover.

Yuri

Fair enough, it sounded like what I suggested in my mind, but a forum is and always will be a somewhat limited way of communicating as its hard to directly elaborate on any point where different interpretations occur.
My main point was to get across that a 'cure for cancer' is unlikely to ever occur, as the three techniques that we discussed have clearly NOT cured cancer, they can only be used to sometimes cure certain patients that happen to have a cancer ameanable to any of the techniques.

We can of course hope, but cancer research in general has moved away from a generic cure and is focussing its efforts on using more tailored methods to attack a specific type and is even looking into methods to work on person-specific remedies. Sadly, those are long and hard ways that may take longer than I'll live to give tangible results.

[Madalch]

I've seen a couple of FB posts on this nonsense, and Pharyngula's made a good post on it.

It's amazing how much drivel people post on topics they know nothing about- I've read posts where people claim that DCA occurs naturally in salt and vinegar chips (which contain both chloride and acetate, which must magically combine to give dichloroacetate- mixing things is the same as forming new bonds, right?), along with the usual conspiracy theories about how cancer's been cured for a long time, but Big Pharma doesn't want you to know (I mean, they've been working on it for 50 years- obviously they'd have cured it by now if they were really trying). Snivelling little *** who have watched The Edison Twins and an episode of House and think they know all about medical research from that.

[Emet]

I've seen a couple of FB posts on this nonsense, and Pharyngula's made a good post on it.



Dichloroacetate and cancer
May 16, 2011 10:02 AM, by PZ Myers
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/dichloroacetate_and_cancer.php


The DCA zombie arises again
May 16, 2011 12:00 PM, by Orac
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/the_dca_zombie_arises_again.php

[bigred]

Surgery, chemo and radio therapy exploit the same generic features of many different types of cancers in the same way. We don't need "a tailored set of cures for as many types of cancer as we can discover" any more than we need a different type of antibiotic for each pathogenic bacteria that we discover.
I don't have any links offhand, but actually "targeted therapy" - ie not targeted to specific cancers, but tailored to individuals/their characteristics - is garnering a great deal of attention from what I gather, at least for chemo.

Getting back to the actual topic, DCA is certainly an interesting prospect.

[INRM]

The drug works apparently by restoring the process of apoptosis which causes defective cells to self-destruct. When used at unsafely high doses though it can cause neurological problems though (it ironically can be carcinogenic when the doses get high enough).

They are trying to patent it as a treatment for cancer arguing that strong intellectual property protection is needed to encourage further research. I think this is nonsense as the chemical is non-patentable and patenting it for use in treating cancers is simply and end-run around this; furthermore the fear-mongering about strong intellectual property rights to allow further research is just that -- fear-mongering to justify it.

[Simon Bridge]

I don't have any links offhand, but actually "targeted therapy" - ie not targeted to specific cancers, but tailored to individuals/their characteristics - is garnering a great deal of attention from what I gather, at least for chemo.(my emph) Warning Will Robinson! Warning!

What does this mean: "tailored to individuals/their characteristics"?

[Simon Bridge]

They are trying to patent [DCA] as a treatment for cancer arguing that strong intellectual property protection is needed to encourage further research. I think this is nonsense as the chemical is non-patentable and patenting it for use in treating cancers is simply and end-run around this; furthermore the fear-mongering about strong intellectual property rights to allow further research is just that -- fear-mongering to justify it.


(WO/2006/108276) A METHOD OF TREATING CANCER USING DICHLOROACETATE (http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ia.jsp?IA=CA2006%2F000548&DISPLAY=STATUS)

Though the substance cannot be patented, stuff made from the substance can be and so, in some jurisdictions, can ways of using it a la business methods.

Even if this were not the case, drug companies do sell drugs that are out of patent.

heh - look at the history of aspirin.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

(my emph) Warning Will Robinson! Warning!

What does this mean: "tailored to individuals/their characteristics"?

Generally it means that the eventual hope is that we can isolate a person's cancer cells, and then screen for a specific therapy that will kill those rather than give a cocktail of drugs and hope one works.
The reason this is becoming even a potential possibility is the advances in technology allowing rapid screening cheaply.
The other option being looked into is (after the isolation again) of sequencing the DNA of the cancer cells, discovering the damaged gene(s) and use genotheraphy to correct the mistake, rendering the cancer benign.

The problems are currently still massive. The techniques are cheaper and faster than they were 5 years ago, but still not cheap or fast on an individual scale. The first one requirers hospitals to have a large amount of drugs available that have been pre-tested to kill at least some cancers without killing humans. Genotheraphy is still severely limited in scope and suffers from severe pr-problems
And all these methods currently rely on detecting the cancer in its early stages. which is not easy to do.

[Miernik Wieslaw]

In Europe, regulations allow only pharmacological study of medicinal preparations. Prohibit the testing of amulets and talismans. For the same survey company pay money to the pharmacological state institution. Are America's laws allow the study of talismans and amulets?

[Simon Bridge]

Generally it means that the eventual hope is that we can isolate a person's cancer cells, and then screen for a specific therapy that will kill those rather than give a cocktail of drugs and hope one works.By comparison with general chemo and radio therapies right? Even though there exist treatments designed to target specific cancers (remember, "cancer" is not the disease itself - there are many cancers) and chemo is normally for those cases where a targeted approach is unavailable or unreliable.

Do we have an actual oncologist here? I expect that exact treatment protocols will depend on the country, and institution.

The reason this is becoming even a potential possibility is the advances in technology allowing rapid screening cheaply.
The other option being looked into is (after the isolation again) of sequencing the DNA of the cancer cells, discovering the damaged gene(s) and use genotheraphy to correct the mistake, rendering the cancer benign.There are references in the literature to the specific genes malfunctioning.

The skeptic-red-flag got raised because it sounded like something a quack could seize on "we ascertain your personal characteristings and determine a therapy that only targets the cancer - by correlating your birth chart with the exact phase of the moon..." see what I mean?

[Simon Bridge]

In Europe, regulations allow only pharmacological study of medicinal preparations. Prohibit the testing of amulets and talismans.That's not true - there is nothing prohibiting study of the effectiveness of talismans etc. in treating or preventing disease in Europe. Where did you get this idea from? For the same survey company pay money to the pharmacological state institution.Survey companies conduct surveys - they do not normally conduct medical research. In fact, surveys are not usually useful in ascertaining the effectiveness of a treatment.

Note: in the UK, a large number of treatments that this forum would consider little or no better than placebo are publicly funded under the title "complimentary treatments".

I suspect the usual clinic trial approach would be problematical for testing talismans ... how would you design a stage 0 test for example?

In general - talismans have been well tested and found wanting in the past. As a result, it will be difficult to get funding - and this is only proper. Did you have any particular talismans in mind?

[Cuddles]

I just love the idea that multiple trials by several groups over several years in at least two different countries translates to nuts as "nobody notices".

[Simon Bridge]

I just love the idea that multiple trials by several groups over several years in at least two different countries translates to nuts as "nobody notices".Its more the usual internet curse: old popular messages keep coming up early in searches and too few people actually check them. I've seen this same article come up from two people who normally know better. That leaves a knee-jerk facebook or twitter responce ... too easy.

A good lie can run half-way around the World before the truth gets it's boots on - however, those are decent boots, capable of some serious kicking.

[bigred]

By comparison with general chemo and radio therapies right? Even though there exist treatments designed to target specific cancers (remember, "cancer" is not the disease itself - there are many cancers) and chemo is normally for those cases where a targeted approach is unavailable or unreliable.Chemo is generally used when there is a systemic problem or concern vs specific tumors - that might be what you meant but just tossing that out.

The skeptic-red-flag got raised because it sounded like something a quack could seize on "we ascertain your personal characteristings and determine a therapy that only targets the cancer - by correlating your birth chart with the exact phase of the moon..." see what I mean?
Yeah, but that's not what "targeted cancer" means - and really there will always be quacks who twist words to their own ends. It's up to those with the disease to split out the quackery from the non-quackery.

[bigred]

FYI/FWIW and pardon if a duplication of something already stated, but even the proponents of this agree it doesn't work (even somewhat) on some cancers, eg brain cancer and sarcomas.

[INRM]

Simon Bridge

Though the substance cannot be patented, stuff made from the substance can be and so, in some jurisdictions, can ways of using it a la business methods.

How far does that go?

[Simon Bridge]

Sorry - didn't see the reply till today...

It goes as far as the company is prepared to push it.
Usually you have to pass some sort of test for novelty or non-obviousness...

[fuelair]

Didn't find a thread for this, though it may be part of one, so:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice
... sensationalist and containing factual problems (eg. mitocondria are not a type of cell, they are part of all cells - DCA-based drugs are patentable and, indeed, some patents have been filed) but I have seen it three times today in different places all spouting the same message: that drug companies are not funding an important cure.

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

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v99/n7/full/6604554a.html
... has a better overview of the state of research.

There does not seem to be any special difficulty for these researchers getting funding. In fact, DCA research has been funded for quite a while.

There is no special difficulty getting hold of DCL if you want it. Oncologists are aware of the treatment possibilities and there are clinics already offering it as an experimental treatment.

The idea is barely past the "this looks promising" stage in scientific research. Media seldom pay attention to this sort of thing and when they do they are often burned for reporting too soon.

There are already "on-label" (major drug company based) treatments using DCA, so "major drug companies" don't seem to have any problem providing funding or products based on the substance.

That only leaves the idea that drug companies do not want to sell "cures" since they can only sell each the once. There is more money in therapies and almost cures and side effects ...


To be fair, I do hear stories from non-USA medical researchers about borderline research practices by US pharm. But it's more prejudice than anything.

eg. there is a practice that patients taking part in drug trials, where the drug proves effective, will continue to receive the drug free of charge ... well fair enough (it has a special name I keep forgetting). When local researchers ask US researchers if such a provision is to be made in a proposed trial there, the frequent response is "I'll have to get back to you on that." Now ... this makes a bad impression, even though the answer has always been "yes" (and there are any number of reasons they guy may have felt the need to check).

The trouble I have with these stories is that the question is seldom even asked where the collaborating researcher is not in the USA. It is plausible only due to the general background of suspicion surrounding US medical research ethics that articles like the one here (top) like to feed on and promote.

Which drags the monologue back to the original topic. I do notice that the human trials are Canadian and most of the papers I see are European ... eg. places with public health care ... and from non-profit(ish) institutions like universities. One could almost be forgiven for thinking that big-pharm don't care.For general and specific good info about this and similar, I strongly suggest keeping up with Derek: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/

[Simon Bridge]

Thanks - so noted and bookmarked :)

[ieathedead]

Sorry for bringing up a dead thread but this story is starting to do the rounds on facebook again...

CURE ALL THE CANCERS!!!