Canadian researchers cure cancer, but no one is looking

This is something the government should be diverting research funds towards if the treatment shows serious potential.

Don't depend on big pharmaceutical companies to do it if they can't make a buck.

I call bullshit on this news item. Seems spammy.

When you say "Researchers" with no names or credentials, I think of the truthers.

Dichloroacetate has had no effect on outcomes in human testing.

Period.

I'd still take my chances on trying it because it's gotta be better than sitting there waiting to die or............. some of the alternavtive treatments.

But I guess I should ask the question. What tests are you referring to when you say it has no effect on humans?

I should have looked before I asked the question. When I googled it, there were literally hundreds of sites about people wanting to buy it even without the clinical trials having been done.

So it'll either work or we'll find out real quick that it doesn't since it looks like most every cancer victim is gonna be buying and self medicating with it.

@uwish: The Newsbot is for NEWS, not blogs.

Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human’s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone... from the article, theres also a link to the research paper there, I'd say if it's a credable claim they should have government funding for more research and development.

If "Canadian scientists" have tested this, confirmed the results and can reproduce the results consistently, and it uses a common generic drug that already exists, then why do we need the pharmaceutical companies to be involved with this at all? Publish the results, let others test and confirm this and if this is true let the companies that produce dichloroacetate reap the rewards. The pharmaceutical companies can not be involved all they like but if this is true then there's nothing they can do to stop this.

If it works, the companies won't need funding, believe me.

It is kind of non-news. I actually had this posted on my Facebook page a while back, and will state the same thing here as I did there.

DCA is currently undergoing clinical trials up here at the University of Alberta after recieving the requisite funding required (it was fairly big news, I'm betting a few Albertans remember it). Dichloroacetate and it's relation to cancer is an ongoing field of research performed by Doctor Evangelos Michelakis and a postdoc or two at that institution. Trials so far have had some promising results, but should not be considered a "cure." In some types of cancer, DCA actually decreases aptosis, meaning that it can make those conditions worse, rather than better. In those types it does help, it does not "cure" the cancer, but does put it into remission. It should be noted that the papers state that this does not happen in all, or even in the majority of cases with the forms of cancer being tracked. Most often, there is no effect, or it slows the cancer but does not stop it.

It is a promising avenue of research, but the reason it is not on the market is not because of companies. It is not on the market because it has not even finished the clinical trials required to be on the market for even one type of cancer. Most successful trials have been performed using samples outside of the patient and in a lab. There are numerable forms of medication which are not in circulation with far more research having been completed on them for various fields.

I suspect that the author of this blog did not adequately understand the differences between what something says in a scientific journal compared to, say, a newspaper. Saying that you may have found a successful drug for cancer treatment may sound like a cure for some, but inside the field, those who actually follow the documentation won't read it that way. Unfortunately, the translation from a professional, especially in their writings, to the media rarely occurs seamlessly, and this appears to be the case here. None of the people working on this have called it a cure for cancer, but they do consider it a potential avenue for cancer research with beneficial outcomes.

If you read what they write on their websites, there is a lot of may, perhaps, or potentially. That is not shown in the article enough, in my mind, and the article simply mistakes sound scientific practice in the medical field for reluctance.