Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.
Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using a very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.
This drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies.
Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human’s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, why the major drug companies are not involved? Or the Media interested in this find?
...
Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can’t make money, like they are doing now with their AIDS Patent. Since the pharmaceutical companies won’t develop this, the article says other independent laboratories should start producing this drug and do more research to confirm all the above findings and produce drugs. All the groundwork can be done in collaboration with the Universities, who will be glad to assist in such research and can develop an effective drug for curing cancer.
SUMMARY
The unique metabolic profile of cancer (aerobic glycolysis) might confer apoptosis resistance and be
therapeutically targeted. Compared to normal cells, several human cancers have high mitochondrial
membrane potential (DJm) and low expression of the K+ channel Kv1.5, both contributing to apoptosis
resistance. Dichloroacetate (DCA) inhibits mitochondrial pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK),
shifts metabolism from glycolysis to glucose oxidation, decreases DJm, increases mitochondrial
H2O2, and activates Kv channels in all cancer, but not normal, cells; DCA upregulates Kv1.5 by an
NFAT1-dependent mechanism. DCA induces apoptosis, decreases proliferation, and inhibits tumor
growth, without apparent toxicity.Molecular inhibition of PDK2 by siRNA mimics DCA. The mitochondria-
NFAT-Kv axis and PDK are important therapeutic targets in cancer; the orally available DCA is
a promising selective anticancer agent.
Interesting, though I'll point out it's from 2007, but here's the original study, so if anyone with a brain can tell us what it means. *cough*Digsbe*cough*
Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice
What a very astonishing find! I wish the universities well in their ongoing drug development.
Pharmaceutical companies just like any other company exist to make profits. A cancer cure would put a huge dent in their profits.
And if this is true(which I doubt because it is 4 years old, and something like this would have caused a stir) they should all be tried for all the deaths, and money lost by people affected with cancer.
Pharmaceutical companies just like any other company exist to make profits. A cancer cure would put a huge dent in their profits.
This is why government funding is so very important in the medical field.
Should companies bury cures to maintain profit on purpose, the CEO's of those companies should be arrested and executed in my opinion.
A little too regressive for some people? :lol:
I could live with it.
I wouldn't go that far. You can't blame private pharmaceutical corporations for doing what they are created to do. They are not in business to find cures for cancer, but to make profits for their investors (obviously a much more important goal) and I'm not even being ironic.
This is why free-market capitalism is incapable of providing everything that society requires.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
In my opinion if the drug companies of this world United, pulled their recources together and did all they could, we could cure every single ailment known to mankind in the next 20 years.
The bucks they make are not quick, they take many years and much research to achieve, and they are not doing this for the benefit of society at large, but to make a profit. Any benefit they provide to the wider society is a serendipitous by-product of making money. That's why it's called capitalism, because it's driven by the concerns of capital i.e. investment money.But we choose not to, to make a quick buck here and there.
Of course it is, but that it the system that most people here seem to believe is indispensible to the well-being of human society. Go figure.It is a travesty to mankind that anything to do with the health of the human being is a money making scheme.
Its idealistic thinking I know, but I stand behind it, as is my belief in the way the world SHOULD be.
They could, but why would they? What would be the benefit in profit terms were this to happen? I think it would have a negative effect on profits, don't you?
The bucks they make are not quick, they take many years and much research to achieve, and they are not doing this for the benefit of society at large, but to make a profit. Any benefit they provide to the wider society is a serendipitous by-product of making money. That's why it's called capitalism, because it's driven by the concerns of capital i.e. investment money.
Of course it is, but that it the system that most people here seem to believe is indispensible to the well-being of human society. Go figure.
To me, you appear to be getting frustrated at the natural operation of the current system. I think your ire would best be directed at the fundaments of the system, not its consequences.
As of April 2009, 159 (89%) patients had stopped treatment with DCA while 20 (11%) were continuing treatment. This is not a static number and you can get an idea of the current numbers from the Live Update page.
I wouldn't go that far. You can't blame private pharmaceutical corporations for doing what they are created to do. They are not in business to find cures for cancer, but to make profits for their investors (obviously a much more important goal) and I'm not even being ironic.
This is why free-market capitalism is incapable of providing everything that society requires.
Oh and if anyone truly believes that nonsense, ask yourself why Aspirin and Tylenol still produce their signature OTC medicines, even though they are also out of patent protection.
I eagerly await to hear you back that up.
They could, but why would they? What would be the benefit in profit terms were this to happen? I think it would have a negative effect on profits, don't you?
The bucks they make are not quick, they take many years and much research to achieve, and they are not doing this for the benefit of society at large, but to make a profit. Any benefit they provide to the wider society is a serendipitous by-product of making money. That's why it's called capitalism, because it's driven by the concerns of capital i.e. investment money.
Of course it is, but that it the system that most people here seem to believe is indispensible to the well-being of human society. Go figure.
To me, you appear to be getting frustrated at the natural operation of the current system. I think your ire would best be directed at the fundaments of the system, not its consequences.
Oh and if anyone truly believes that nonsense, ask yourself why Aspirin and Tylenol still produce their signature OTC medicines, even though they are also out of patent protection.
I eagerly await to hear you back that up.
Because they have strong brands that are possible to use to generate sales of OEM.
Riiiight and so no other well known pharmaceutical company could do the same?
All of the above (Statist) rhetoric points tothe same thing:
If a private company could cure cancer, they would. Why? Because all of their stakeholders would become instant millionaires - business success.
Here you go kids.
No clear answer and I pulled this little snippet to.
"I am acutely aware that there are cancer patients out there who are fighting every day for their survival, hoping that there is one last chance to get a treatment that may prolong or save their lives.
For some of you out there to inappropriately make them feel that DCA is the answer to their prayers based on this single early-stage report in a medical research journal is, in my opinion, not acceptable at best -- and despicable at worst."
DCA: Cancer Breakthrough or Urban Legend? - ABC News
Harry. Tylenol is a brand name similar to Xerox and Google. Your analogy with Tylenol doesn't apply because of name recognition. I go to the local pharmacy and see both Tylenol, and the pharmacy's generic brand of Tylenol. Guess which alway seems to have a lower inventory, regardless of price? TYLENOL.
Regardless, I would think that there would be more to this if it was completely accurate. Something seems missng from this story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?