Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

OttawaGuy

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 28, 2006
541
36
Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers

11:58 17 January 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Andy Coghlan

What makes cancer cells different - and how to kill them


It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their “immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.
It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.
Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.
Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis’s experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020).
Michelakis suggests that the switch to glycolysis as an energy source occurs when cells in the middle of an abnormal but benign lump don’t get enough oxygen for their mitochondria to work properly (see diagram). In order to survive, they switch off their mitochondria and start producing energy through glycolysis.
Crucially, though, mitochondria do another job in cells: they activate apoptosis, the process by which abnormal cells self-destruct. When cells switch mitochondria off, they become “immortal”, outliving other cells in the tumour and so becoming dominant. Once reawakened by DCA, mitochondria reactivate apoptosis and order the abnormal cells to die.
“The results are intriguing because they point to a critical role that mitochondria play:
they impart a unique trait to cancer cells that can be exploited for cancer therapy,” says Dario Altieri, director of the University of Massachusetts Cancer Center in Worcester.
The phenomenon might also explain how secondary cancers form. Glycolysis generates lactic acid, which can break down the collagen matrix holding cells together. This means abnormal cells can be released and float to other parts of the body, where they seed new tumours.
DCA can cause pain, numbness and gait disturbances in some patients, but this may be a price worth paying if it turns out to
be effective against all cancers. The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap.
Paul Clarke, a cancer cell biologist at the University of Dundee in the UK, says the findings challenge the current assumption that mutations, not metabolism, spark off cancers. “The question is: which comes first?” he says.

Printed on Sat Jan 20 04:21:41 GMT 2007

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8153
 

ibook30

macrumors 6502a
Jun 4, 2005
815
3
2,000 light years from home
....It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs...

If this is true- then it won't bring profit to Pfizer and other drug co.s - making it likely they will stimey it's development. Sad.
 

Counterfit

macrumors G3
Aug 20, 2003
8,195
0
sitting on your shoulder
If this is true- then it won't bring profit to Pfizer and other drug co.s - making it likely they will stimey it's development. Sad.

It's quite sad that pharmaceutical companies are more loyal to their shareholders than to curing diseases and helping people.

Actually, I hate it when any company care more about the shareholders than the customers.
 

72930

Retired
May 16, 2006
9,060
4
....It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs...

If this is true- then it won't bring profit to Pfizer and other drug co.s - making it likely they will stimey it's development. Sad.
I smell government funding in the UK...w00t!
 

72930

Retired
May 16, 2006
9,060
4
Health care should be govt funded.

Capitalism for everything is not going to work, just as communism didn't pan out ultimately. It is in human nature man!

Yeah...but the NHS is a disaster...

My idea is that everyone going into hospital should pay £1...that way:
1.It wouldn't be a burden on the people
2.People (especially hypocondriacs) would not come in just wasting tax money
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,837
850
Location Location Location
....It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs...

If this is true- then it won't bring profit to Pfizer and other drug co.s - making it likely they will stimey it's development. Sad.

The drug companies will fight to make sure this drug never gets out.

There are conspiracy theories that try to give "evidence" of miracle drugs, much like this one, that was reported about, then bought by a pharmaceutical company, and never heard of again.

I don't know if I believe that this happens as often as some conspiracy-geeks want us to believe, but I have read of one specific new effective drug that a pharmaceutical company "bought", and then said they don't have it and don't even know what people are talking abotu, but I forgot the name of the drug and what it did. I read about it a long time ago.

Sick people are "repeat customers."
 

davidjearly

macrumors 68020
Sep 21, 2006
2,264
371
Glasgow, Scotland
Yeah...but the NHS is a disaster...

My idea is that everyone going into hospital should pay £1...that way:
1.It wouldn't be a burden on the people
2.People (especially hypocondriacs) would not come in just wasting tax money

The NHS is NOT a disaster. Far from it. Speaking as someone who actually is involved in it that is. It is one of the best healthcare systems in the world considering it is still free at the point of use.

Thats not to say it doesn't have inefficiencies though but then again, what service doesn't? Especially when the current political powers in Britain are behind it.

David
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,837
850
Location Location Location
The NHS isn't a disaster unless you're used to seeing better healthcare, and better or comparable healthcare is only available in.....what........a handful of countries in the world for free?
 

atszyman

macrumors 68020
Sep 16, 2003
2,437
16
The Dallas 'burbs
I don't know what form of dichloroacetate these guys are talking about. But a quick look at the MSDS (hazard evaluation form) suggests that dichloroacetate itself is a suspected carcinogen.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/ALDRICH/347795

There is some concern about the toxicity of dichloroacetate. Accumulations of dichloroacetate in groundwater have been described by some reports as a potential health hazard. However, concern about dichloroacetate toxicity is mainly based on data obtained in rats who were administered dichloroacetate at doses thousands of times higher than those to which humans are usually exposed. In these animals, chronic administration of dichloroacetate was found to cause liver problems and tumors. (Stacpoole, 1998.) In contrast, the dosage given to most humans is much lower than that administered to the rats. In clinical trials where dichloroacetate is used as a medical drug, no major side effects have been reported.

link

Sounds like it's the old "feed a rat an amount of a substance that would be nearly impossible for a human to ingest" study. Watch the rat react badly to a dosage that no human would ever be subjected to/able to ingest and issue a warning. I would wager that water would be hazardous to a rat's health if they administered a dose thousands of times higher than those to which humans are usually exposed.

This will be an interesting study to watch go through animal testing and hopefully on to human testing (shouldn't be too bad since DCA is already used for treatment of some metabolic disorders).
 

SodaPopMonster

macrumors regular
Jan 13, 2005
119
0
Houston, TX
"You're cured of cancer!"

Patient Cheers

"Though, I must admit, the drug we have cured you with has given you cancer again. But for a one week period you're free, man!"

Patient dies of heart attack
 

QCassidy352

macrumors G5
Mar 20, 2003
12,028
6,036
Bay Area
Actually, I hate it when any company care more about the shareholders than the customers.

The purpose of a corporation is to make money for the shareholders. When corporations don't put shareholders first, they find it awfully hard to attract investors. You don't see many of those kinds of companies because A) they never get enough capital to start up, and B) if they did, the board of directors would be ousted for breach of fiduciary duty.
 

unfaded

macrumors 6502
Dec 12, 2002
276
0
Seattle, WA
Yeah...but the NHS is a disaster...

My idea is that everyone going into hospital should pay £1...that way:
1.It wouldn't be a burden on the people
2.People (especially hypocondriacs) would not come in just wasting tax money

A bigger disaster is the wealthiest nation in the world not giving health care to 47 MILLION people.
 

topgunn

macrumors 68000
Nov 5, 2004
1,556
2,060
Houston
The purpose of a corporation is to make money for the shareholders. When corporations don't put shareholders first, they find it awfully hard to attract investors. You don't see many of those kinds of companies because A) they never get enough capital to start up, and B) if they did, the board of directors would be ousted for breach of fiduciary duty.
Sad but true.
 

TuckBodi

macrumors 6502
Jan 10, 2007
388
0
The drug companies will fight to make sure this drug never gets out.

There are conspiracy theories that try to give "evidence" of miracle drugs, much like this one, that was reported about, then bought by a pharmaceutical company, and never heard of again.

I don't know if I believe that this happens as often as some conspiracy-geeks want us to believe, but I have read of one specific new effective drug that a pharmaceutical company "bought", and then said they don't have it and don't even know what people are talking abotu, but I forgot the name of the drug and what it did. I read about it a long time ago.

Sick people are "repeat customers."

I'm a diabetic and years ago I remember asking the nurse practitioner at my doctor's office when and if they'll find a cure for diabetes. She tried to answer that some day they will hopefully and then proceeded to tell me about a patient they had years previously at their office. It was a young girl who was just diagnosed and one of the devastated parents told this person about how their grandfather, according to family legend, had found a cure for diabetes back in the 50's and sold the cure to a pharmaceutical company expecting a big release and cures for all those with this ailment. After the sale, nothing...the company (apparently with ties to insulin or something else related) never released anything and the grandfather soon passed away. Irony is years later his great granddaughter comes down with the same disease he supposedly had found a cure for.

True story? Who knows but watch the movie The Insider and then also read the following article about the Harvard researcher (Dr. Denise Faustman) who was able to reverse diabetes in mice yet could initially get no backing (pharmaceutical or government) until Lee Iacocca stepped in and draw your own conclusions.

Note: Human clinical trials are expected to begin end of 2007 I believe.

http://www.iacoccafoundation.org/ny_times_a_diabetes_researcher.htm
 

Don't panic

macrumors 603
Jan 30, 2004
5,541
697
having a drink at Milliways
it would be a good thing if some of you dismiss that conspiracy hat and start using your brains.

the work has been published on cancer cell, one of the most prestigious journals in bio-science, and it will get a lot of attention.
if the claims are true, be sure they will be followed by the scientific and medical community.
i can guarantee that at my workplace there will be tests run within weeks.
believe it or not there are tons of MDs that would be quite keen on curing cancer (not to mention securing the nobel prize) and they are NOT in the pockets of 'scary-big-pharma'.
time will tell if this is an important drug, meanwhile please get real.
 

bluebomberman

macrumors 6502a
Jan 9, 2005
919
0
Queens, NYC
it would be a good thing if some of you dismiss that conspiracy hat and start using your brains.

the work has been published on cancer cell, one of the most prestigious journals in bio-science, and it will get a lot of attention.
if the claims are true, be sure they will be followed by the scientific and medical community.
i can guarantee that at my workplace there will be tests run within weeks.
believe it or not there are tons of MDs that would be quite keen on curing cancer (not to mention securing the nobel prize) and they are NOT in the pockets of 'scary-big-pharma'.
time will tell if this is an important drug, meanwhile please get real.

You tell 'em.

If this works, you bet that the pills will be churned out as fast as they can make them.

Come one, folks. If Bayer can still make $$$ off of aspirin, we don't need to worry about the availability of this drug.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,136
4
This would be great if it is true. I have personal reasons to love to see this happen. My girl friend lives with cancer and there is not much they can do about it right now but keep an eye on it since there is no areas large enough to remove by surgery or by current treatments that would end up killer her before it killed the cancer. Now she has a long life ahead of her but she has to deal with always getting checkup making sure it does not grow.

This would mean she could live her life with out having to deal with that mess.

Cancer is one of those areas that a ton of research is being poured into to treat. MD are to much involved in it. Cancer doctor would love never to have to see there patiances again after they are discharged because when they come back that means that the cancer is back.
 

sushi

Moderator emeritus
Jul 19, 2002
15,639
3
キャンプスワ&#
If this is true, it will be fantastic.

Especially for those of us who have experienced cancer first hand either personally, a loved one or a close friend. Cancer sucks!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.