# Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice.



## Toska (Jan 10, 2010)

> *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 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.
> 
> ...


Is it too good to be true? Are the great pharmaceuticals smothering the information? Thoughts?

Source


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

If this is true, then I am angry as hell. I lost my grandfather to cancer! However, part of me feels suspicious about this as well.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

I wouldn't be surprised. Cancer treatments would be the end of big pharmaceutical corporations. 

It's the same with alternative energy for automobiles. We have the technology, but it wouldn't be profitable to the oil companies.


----------



## Feral sheep (May 13, 2011)

more money in treating people then curing them


----------



## absent air (Dec 7, 2010)

Pharma company has interest in money

Costly drug*amount of cancer patients=more profit.



Now the question, who is _behind_ these companies?


----------



## Fleetfoot (May 9, 2011)

There's a cancer research center in my town, and I'm pretty sure they did the same thing, but similar story. 


Unfortunately, in these times people don't matter, money does.


----------



## Mei (Feb 5, 2011)

I do not like sensationalism for the sake of it. Which is what the university is doing. Even if the US drug companies are not sponsoring it, there are other entities who will and do use revoluntionary methods to cure cancer. 

There are many different variations and types of cancer in the world, and various methods have been used, trialled for different strategies. The university should indeed get in touch with other entities who have a stake in the cancer research arena, and see if they will consider or use their method. With cancer methods, it is never a case of, "this is the absolute way", but it is always tested, trialled, and considered its usefulness, and there is also an element of cost involved, or efficiency as well. 

I used to work for a bio-tech companies, sometimes there are gazillion ways of doing something, and even go as far as using expensive raw materials to cure one single person, but what is the feasibility of that? You save one, but you lose millions ? 

These are the enitites that I know in the UK who continuously trial methods, and I believe they have paved the rights, and the laws to allow themselves to continually support the clinical trials. 

Cancer Research UK: the UK's leading cancer charity 
NHS Cancer Programme

I don't like how the uni manipulated the general public, it is so unethical. Bad journalism. It did not take long for this piece of gossip, (which is what it is), to spread round the internet and for it to become a myth, and therefore reduces any chance of this piece of research becoming something significant. 

If they really want to prove a point, then they should indeed take this and trial it on a human, to get notice from the major cancer research players across the world. Printing results and trying to publicise it this way is quite immature in their approach. There is also nothing to stop them from collaborating with so many entities across the world.

I would like to state this too:
"dichloroacetate (DCA) causes regression"

Causes regression, does not equate to "cure". Cos the cell still exists.... and please stop spreading mistruths, and riling people's emotions on this. It is quite callous.... and unethical.


----------



## Daenad (Apr 5, 2011)

I have to agree with Mei, going to the media with your research before clinical trials is dodgy at the best of times, with something as emotive as cancer it's even worse. Journalists term to be shoddy with science stories and prefer sensationalism, conspiracy theories over boring discussions of probabilities etc. It also puts undue pressure on doctors to prescribe it off-label which can be disastrous if it has, for example, an inhibitory effect on the action of drugs. 
The correct way would be to get the trial results, get them peer-reviewed (i.e. send them out to to get torn to shreds by other people in the field and see if they survive) and then go from there. While I think it's tempting believe big pharma is out to stop this that and the other, something this cheap and potentially viable would be able to get government funding for their work (especially in countries where the healthcare is government funded).

Also if you're bored read Amazon.com: Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks (9780865479180): Ben Goldacre: Books

P.S. the article is about 4 years old.


----------



## Mei (Feb 5, 2011)

I stand corrected, it is not the uni who is senstionalising this news, but the Joe Blogg writer on Hubpage, and the article on the "Digital Journal" website. Then also the article on a not very well known online magazine, which is not even a proper medical journal which is peer-reviewed. 

Hubpage is an advertising and revenue generating website. Writers can post anything on there that they like, and any click will generate the writer money. I have read the whole comment thread, and there is an actual doctor who is even trying to limit the damage control done by this writer by challenging the other readers on the science, and none of the writers can do this at all. This is also pretty sick too. I don't like the article on the Digital Journal site either, cos it is not one of the recognisable journal that I recognise that has a lot of credibility at all in the medical world. It is just another one of those new online journal that write badly researched articles, and do not even have some kind of ethical standard in its research, and this can be seen by the linker on hubpage. Cos the Digital page talked of ONE type of cancer drug, whereas the hubpage writer talks of ANY types of cancer drugs. "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice." This is misleading English for one. His written English is very ambiguous. He is not even a technical writer. There is in actual fact, not one type of cancer at all, as there are many cell types, and therefore different cancers, and their own respective mechanisms and so forth. 

*Bluntress* :I can only advice that you do not continue sharing this kind of link, so that the misinformation dies with that hubpage site. Cos I am fairly certain that at some point in time, someone will complain of what the writer had done, and it will get pulled. 

In truth, there have been quite a lot of research that went on for HIV and AIDs. A lot of collaboration had gone on its earlier days too. I do not believe that there was a strict patent rights on all these various types of methods at all. 

USA For Innovation -I checked out this site as well, and it has nothing to do with medicine ! Again, I see it as dubious individuals wanting to earn money, rile up people's emotions, so that they can spam, and raise their hit rates. This is so unethical....


----------



## Paeter (May 18, 2011)

There's still a hell of a lot of money in setting up a clinic to* cure people of cancer.* If it has no patent, that just means _anyone _can go produce it if they want and sell it and administer treatment. This is a good thing. People will come if you can prove you can do it for them.


----------



## Khar (May 21, 2011)

Good eye, @Mei. 

I've had this come up on Facebook *and* on another forum I post on, so I'm going to go through this quickly to clean this up a bit. 

First off, as Mei quite rightly stated, this is not a cure, nor is anyone at my local institution (I am here in Edmonton) promoting it as such.

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.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

I found this when looking up the "cure"

Dichloroacetate and cancer : Pharyngula

It claims that it's poorly written and has the "facts" wrong. So this is all I have to contribute.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

I agree with @Mei's assessment here (miracles _do_ happen, apparently). The blogger who posted this has acted extremely irresponsibly. A cancer cure is such a sensitive issue, and people are all too ready to believe in conspiracy theories. Sensationalizing something like this, simply to drive traffic to your site (I imagine that's the motivation) is stupid. Anyway, even if it were all true, as a few people have already said, if someone developed a proven cancer cure, ALOT of people would be interested, even if the pharmaceutical companies weren't, especially if it were relatively cheaply available.


----------



## girlsgonewilde (May 16, 2011)

That's fantastic news! Now if we can just get Johnny off the roof....


----------

