Cure for Cancer?
Found this pretty interesting on a couple of levels. The University of Alberta discovered a substance called DCA appears to cause regression in several types of cancer. Cancer has a curious property of shutting down the mitochondria; DCA reverse this process specifically on cancerous cells and doesn't effect normal cells. It's been used in other treatments for years and has proven relatively non-toxic.
Now you would think this would be pretty exciting stuff. The problem is, DCA is not patented and not owned by a major pharmaceutical. It's inexpensive and can be administered by mixing with normal drinking water. Two major strikes against it because it doesn't seem profitable to either the major pill pushers or to the commercial medical complex.
What I find even more curious is some of the responses to this research. Besides the trouble they are having getting funded for the reasons above, there are responses like this article on cancer.org. They've been flooded with requests for more information. Despite them being clueless about DCA, they nevertheless feel authoritative in dispensing advice, like:
"It is NOT non-toxic. It is a byproduct of another chemical called trichloroethylene (TCE), which has been a source of concern as a cancer causing agent for some time. (A simple Google search will give you over 8 million hits on this topic.)"
Because a chemical is a byproduct of a toxic chemical, it doesn't necessarily follow that the chemical itself is toxic. E.g.
"When DCA was used in humans in 1983, it effectively reduced lactic acidosis and normalized blood pressure. The drug itself produced no known toxicity [New England Journal Medicine 309: 390–96, 1983]"
Trichloroethylene is one of the many deadly variants of chlorine, one of the most toxic substances known to man. Also a common ingredient in table salt. So while he knows nothing about DCA, he waves a red flag about its chemical antecedents. Trichloroethylene is also used to decaffeinate coffee, by the way. No one is advocating its use for curing cancer.
Now his only other semi-related, semi-factual objection:
"Despite improvement in their lactic acidemia, all patients but one died of their underlying disease. No serious drug-related toxicity occurred. We conclude that dichloroacetate is a safe and effective adjunct in the treatment of patients with lactic acidosis, although the ultimate prognosis may depend on the underlying disease. In other words, the treatment was a success, but the patient died."
So it wasn't that effective for lactic acidemia. So what? That's not what the study is about. All the rest of the article is padded with vague warnings about misplaced optimism and other experiments that have failed in the past. In other words, he has nothing relevant to say about DCA but wants to demonstrate his superior intellect in warning the naive consumer about getting their hopes up. Or heaven forbid, this receiving any serious funding ---just because it's showing concrete results--- that haven't been demonstrated in any other area of the billions of dollars absorbed by this lucrative research field for people with more to gain.
What happens when the search for knowledge becomes bureaucratic? I think this is a scary example. This is not to say there is any big conspiracy, or that DCA is all that, necessarily, just interesting to note what passes as counter-evidence in established views. Human trials should be starting soon, curious how this develops. Most of the criticism so far seems to be about people trying it on their own and about how the press has dumbed this down and blew it out of proportion. It can't be that easy, can it? But a director of the Canadian Cancer Society's investigating the claims states "The authors didn't overstate the findings," she says. "I hope it's a breakthrough." I do too.
Now you would think this would be pretty exciting stuff. The problem is, DCA is not patented and not owned by a major pharmaceutical. It's inexpensive and can be administered by mixing with normal drinking water. Two major strikes against it because it doesn't seem profitable to either the major pill pushers or to the commercial medical complex.
What I find even more curious is some of the responses to this research. Besides the trouble they are having getting funded for the reasons above, there are responses like this article on cancer.org. They've been flooded with requests for more information. Despite them being clueless about DCA, they nevertheless feel authoritative in dispensing advice, like:
"It is NOT non-toxic. It is a byproduct of another chemical called trichloroethylene (TCE), which has been a source of concern as a cancer causing agent for some time. (A simple Google search will give you over 8 million hits on this topic.)"
Because a chemical is a byproduct of a toxic chemical, it doesn't necessarily follow that the chemical itself is toxic. E.g.
"When DCA was used in humans in 1983, it effectively reduced lactic acidosis and normalized blood pressure. The drug itself produced no known toxicity [New England Journal Medicine 309: 390–96, 1983]"
Trichloroethylene is one of the many deadly variants of chlorine, one of the most toxic substances known to man. Also a common ingredient in table salt. So while he knows nothing about DCA, he waves a red flag about its chemical antecedents. Trichloroethylene is also used to decaffeinate coffee, by the way. No one is advocating its use for curing cancer.
Now his only other semi-related, semi-factual objection:
"Despite improvement in their lactic acidemia, all patients but one died of their underlying disease. No serious drug-related toxicity occurred. We conclude that dichloroacetate is a safe and effective adjunct in the treatment of patients with lactic acidosis, although the ultimate prognosis may depend on the underlying disease.
So it wasn't that effective for lactic acidemia. So what? That's not what the study is about. All the rest of the article is padded with vague warnings about misplaced optimism and other experiments that have failed in the past. In other words, he has nothing relevant to say about DCA but wants to demonstrate his superior intellect in warning the naive consumer about getting their hopes up. Or heaven forbid, this receiving any serious funding ---just because it's showing concrete results--- that haven't been demonstrated in any other area of the billions of dollars absorbed by this lucrative research field for people with more to gain.
What happens when the search for knowledge becomes bureaucratic? I think this is a scary example. This is not to say there is any big conspiracy, or that DCA is all that, necessarily, just interesting to note what passes as counter-evidence in established views. Human trials should be starting soon, curious how this develops. Most of the criticism so far seems to be about people trying it on their own and about how the press has dumbed this down and blew it out of proportion. It can't be that easy, can it? But a director of the Canadian Cancer Society's investigating the claims states "The authors didn't overstate the findings," she says. "I hope it's a breakthrough." I do too.
Comments
Post a Comment