Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers

New Scientist has received an unprecedented amount of interest in this story from readers. If you would like up-to-date information on any plans for clinical trials of DCA in patients with cancer, or would like to donate towards a fund for such trials, please visit the site set up by the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board. We will also follow events closely and will report any progress as it happens.

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).

Read the rest of the article at the link above.

Comments
Where did I say it's approved for routine use in the United States? It's approved in the U.S. for investigative use in humans thus there is no obstacle to going directly to administering it to humans in a clinical study for cancer treatment.DaveScot
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Dave, Sorry for asking you to provide a link. You did the same yesterday when you asked me for a link. I promise not to ask you for links anymore. Nevertheless, I hope you'll allow an exchange of information to continue on your blog, even if, at times, the information does not necessarily agree with your own position. As to the use of DCA: it is not an approved drug. It has been used in a clinical trial (congenital Lactic Acidosis), in severe malaria and in poisening. The malaria study was done in Thiland, not in the US. The poisening of monochloroacetate, for which the third study used DCA, is not a disease. In all these studies, the aim was to reduce the levels of lactic acid in the blood with the assumption that the lactic acid is the problem. This is an old concept that has been proven to be wrong many years ago. Lactic acid is simply an indicator that energy metabolism is not functioning normally, but by itself is not a toxic substance. On the contrary, it could be an essential and crucial energy substrate on its own. That is probably why the Gainsvill group that did the clinical trial with DCA on congenital lactic acidosis found a decrease in lactate levels and an increase in pH, but no improvement in the neurological prognosis.S. Rivlin
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
It's approved as an investigational drug in the U.S. The most interest has been in Congenital Lactic Acidosis. It's been used to treat lactic acidosis in severe malaria. It's used to treat systemic monochloroacetate poisoning. It's also been used to treat lactic acidemia in severe burn victims and in treating lactic acidosis associated with NRTI therapy. There are probably more but I got sick of looking. Why couldn't you find these for yourself? I ban people for making me do research they should be doing for themselves. Consider yourself warned.DaveScot
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Dave, Could you provide me with the list of diseases in which DCA is approved as treatment and the appropriate links? Thanks.S. Rivlin
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
S.Rivlin Yet DCA is still approved for use in other diseases...DaveScot
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Joseph I drink a 28 ounce pot or two of green tea every day plus take this vitamin supplement.DaveScot
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Here's some recent scientific articles that indicate DCA itself to be carcinogenic and could explain the skepticism that some may have regarding its anti-cancer activity: Hassoun E, Kariya C, Williams FE. Dichloroacetate-induced developmental toxicity and production of reactive oxygen species in zebrafish embryos. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2005;19(1):52-8. Bull RJ, Sasser LB, Lei XC. Interactions in the tumor-promoting activity of carbon tetrachloride, trichloroacetate, and dichloroacetate in the liver of male B6C3F1 mice. Toxicology. 2004 Jul 1;199(2-3):169-83. Pereira MA, Wang W, Kramer PM, Tao L. Prevention by methionine of dichloroacetic acid-induced liver cancer and DNA hypomethylation in mice. Toxicol Sci. 2004 Feb;77(2):243-8. Epub 2003 Dec 2. Hassoun EA, Ray S. The induction of oxidative stress and cellular death by the drinking water disinfection by-products, dichloroacetate and trichloroacetate in J774.A1 cells. Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2003 Jun;135(2):119-28. Carter JH, Carter HW, Deddens JA, Hurst BM, George MH, DeAngelo AB. A 2-year dose-response study of lesion sequences during hepatocellular carcinogenesis in the male B6C3F(1) mouse given the drinking water chemical dichloroacetic acid. Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Jan;111(1):53-64.S. Rivlin
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Joseph Radiation targets tumors and doesn't depend on blood supply. DCA isn't a complete cure but it might be the most effective, cheapest, and least debilitating chemotherapy drug found so far. Other chemotherapy drugs, radiation, and surgery would still be used but likely to a lesser extent. The lesser extent could alleviate a lot of pain & suffering concomitant with current treatment regimens. We really need clinical studies for this. The "stink" I talked of in an earlier comment is that DCA's efficacy as a cancer killer was known about in 2005 when UofA filed for a U.S. patent on the treatment protocol. Clinical testing could have been finished by now since this drug was already approved for use in other diseases.DaveScot
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Dave, First, here's the link you requested: Dichloroacetate Prevents and Reverses Pulmonary Hypertension by Inducing Pulmonary Artery Smooth Muscle Cell Apoptosis M. Sean McMurtry, Sebastien Bonnet, Xichen Wu, Jason R.B. Dyck, Alois Haromy, Kyoko Hashimoto, Evangelos D. Michelakis Circ Res. 2004 Oct 15;95(8):830-40 Second, I responded yesterday to Jerry's comment regarding the glycolytic energy metabolism in cancerous cells and why lactate appears not to increase in the blood of cancer patients, but my response was never posted, thus I will repeat it again here. Even if cancerous cells are relying exclusively on glycolysis for their energy production (without the participation of mitochondria in the process) and even if the main product of such metabolism is lactate, any healthy tissue surrounding the cancer and most other tissues that receive blood that contains lactate (liver, heart, brain, lungs, kidneys, etc.) will immediately metabolize lactate oxidatively such that any trace of an increase in lactate production is wiped out immediatley. Much has been changed in our understanding of energy metabolism over the past 20 years and lactate is no longer perceived as simply an end-product of anaerobic energy metabolism.S. Rivlin
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Joseph, I believe the blood system is the only viable method for delivering anything to cells. There are interstitial fluids but getting something there is very local and if it is to spread would do so via the blood system. The way to each cell is through the blood and the network of capillaries. Dave, Aerobic metabolism only takes place in the mitochondria and this process is the result of several steps in the Krebs cycle and what is called the Electron transfer process. The fuel for most of energy for this aerobic process during normal body activity is fat and to a lesser extent a carbohydrate called pyruvate. At high metabolic rates pyruvate becomes the main source of fuel for the muscles' production of energy in the mitochondria but I do not know what happens in other cells. Pyruvate is more efficient than fats so cells tend to use it if it is available. This process in the mitochondria is what uses oxygen and is therefore called aerobic. It is our main source of energy and is why we must breathe. Glycolysis is what is referred to as the anaerobic system because it does not use oxygen to produce energy and only takes place in the cystolic fluids outside the mitochondria and uses glucose/glycogen (chains of glucose molecules) for its fuel. Glucose is the sugar you are referring to when you call it sugar metabolism. The output of glycolysis is pyruvate which converts to lactate quickly if not used by the mitochondria for fuel for aerobic metabolism. Thus, if the mitochondria is being shut down somehow then the cell can use only glycolysis for energy production to survive and will flood the cell and if there are enough of them eventually the blood system with lactate. There are other consequences of glycolysis such as the production of hydrogen ions which lower the pH of the cell and actually inhibits glycolysis which would mean that if the mitochondria are shut down there should be limited energy production for the cell and the cell should eventually die. So that the cells are thriving without the mitochondria seems unusual and the way to kill them is to restore the mitochondria also seems a contradiction. I will be interested in how this happens. I sell lactate testing equipment and was not aware of this connection of lactate with cancer. So I was curious about the process that was described in the initial post. My ears go up immediately when I see the term glycolyisis. Lactate is a hot topic in some medical areas and there are extensive testing programs investigating high lactate levels with HIV, sepsis and some other conditions but I had not heard about a connection of cancer with higher lactate levels. So I am curious about why not. As I said that maybe in the beginning the number of cells that are cancerous may be too small to produce enough lactate to show up as a measurable difference in the blood. Lactate is in the blood and is produced by the red blood cells since they have no mitochondria. I will try to ask some people. I know research is going on trying to find markers for cancer's early detection. There are doctors and maybe some physiologists who read this site who may have more information on this.jerry
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
This interests me because my mother had cancer, as did her father. My father had cancer and so did one of my sisters (she died at 3 from a brain tumor). I just try to eat right- I take many supplements including "broccoli sprout extract"- and stay away from carcinogens. IOW I understand that epigenetics is as importatnt to our lives as genetics...Joseph
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
DS: One reason DCA isn’t completely effective is cancers usually don’t have a good blood supply (lack of oxygen delivered from blood is why they can’t use aerobic sugar metabolism). The same blood that delivers oxygen also delivers DCA. This suggests that they need to find a way to get the DCA to the cancer other than via blood- ie direct injection (when possible).Joseph
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
So what causes the glycolysis to proceed at high rates According to the article the mitochondria in cancer cells are inoperative. Normal sugar metabolism takes place in mitochondria. Mitochondria are also responsible for monitoring the cell for proper operation and initiating apoptosis at the appropriate time. Whatever inhibits operation of the mitochondria in a cancer cell is nullified by DCA then the mitochondria start back up, find the cell is not operating properly, and initiate apoptosis. One reason DCA isn't completely effective is cancers usually don't have a good blood supply (lack of oxygen delivered from blood is why they can't use aerobic sugar metabolism). The same blood that delivers oxygen also delivers DCA.DaveScot
February 2, 2007
February
02
Feb
2
02
2007
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
Dave, Glycolysis produces lactate. Excess glycolysis would produce higher than normal levels of lactate and is usually associated with impaired aerobic metabolism except for intensive exercise when the aerobic system is not impaired but is starting to approach maximum. So I was speculating that if this glycolysis was wide spread it would show up as lactate in the blood because excessive lactate has no place to go but the blood stream. I was surprised by the reference to glycolysis since my work requires and understanding of energy metabolism. There are a couple references to higher lactate levels and cancer in google but not a lot. Lactate is easy to measure and it would seem to be a good marker for cancer but it is not currently used as such. The interesting thing is that the aerobic metabolism of the cell is not impaired since it comes back when the drug is administered acording to your write up. So what causes the glycolysis to proceed at high rates when normally the cell will choose mainly aerobic metabolism using fats as an energy source at low metabolic requirements. I was curious. And what caused the drug to reverse the trend. A lot of people will kill for anything that inhibits glycolysis. That is what the blood doping in sports like cycling and distance running is all about.jerry
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
jerry From eMedicine: [Lactic acidosis] Type B1 occurs in association with systemic disease such as renal and hepatic failure, diabetes, and malignancyJanice
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
jerry Cancer Sugar MetabolismDaveScot
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
SRivlin The study you are all getting so excited about was done on isolated cell lines (cultures). To extrapolate from a study such as that to treating cancer in human beings is too big a jump and very dangerous. It was also done on rats infected with human cancers. Dichloracetate (DCA) and other haloacetates are toxic chemicals affecting all types of cells, not just cancerous ones. Most things are toxic. The LD50 of DCA is 2500-5000mg/kg. The therapeutic dose is 25-100mg/kg. DCA is more toxic than aspirin but not a whole lot more. It has been used for many years to treat a variety of illnesses. The authors of the recent article, have published last year another article in which they have shown the DCA relieves hypertension by inducing apoptosis (cell death) in normal vascular cells by the same mechanism that kills cancerous cells. Clearly, DCA is not as selective as the authors make it to be, based on their own previous findings to the contrary. Got link? DaveScot
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Glycolysis produces lactate and if cancerous cells are using mainly glycolysis for energy then there should be elevated levels of lactate in the blood of cancer patients. As far as I know high lactate levels are not associated with cancer. It may be that the number of cells affected are too small that they cannot affect blood lactate levels to any substantial amount.jerry
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Personally I've always been of the opinion that there needs to be a "Bletchley Park" for DNA. Gather as many mathematicians, engineers, and biologists as you can and sick them on the problem of "decoding" DNA. After all, if we truly understood how everything worked millions of lives could be saved...never mind all the possible tech implementations.Patrick
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
The study you are all getting so excited about was done on isolated cell lines (cultures). To extrapolate from a study such as that to treating cancer in human beings is too big a jump and very dangerous. Dichloracetate (DCA) and other haloacetates are toxic chemicals affecting all types of cells, not just cancerous ones. The authors of the recent article, have published last year another article in which they have shown the DCA relieves hypertension by inducing apoptosis (cell death) in normal vascular cells by the same mechanism that kills cancerous cells. Clearly, DCA is not as selective as the authors make it to be, based on their own previous findings to the contrary.S. Rivlin
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Kevin Trudeau ("Natural Cures" fame) talks about how (some) cancers cannot surivive in an oxygen-rich environment. And that is the reasoning behind intravenous peroxide drips. However not enough money can be made by employing that method so it's not popular in the USA.Joseph
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
From memory, the scientist who first suggested DCA, did so in the 30's. They said he didn't know what he was talking about. Evolutionists say that the reason kids should be taught Darwinism is so that cures can be found in the lab. Well, how many cures HAVEN'T been found because of this nonsense theory? How many lives could have been spared if the scientific community had listened in the 1930's?PaV
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Hey, can DCA halt materialistic naturalism? That is the cancer of society... ;) I have also wondered what effect "dual action cleanse" would have on evolutionists. My guess is that is that they are so FoS that they will just disappear...Joseph
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
idnet Those side effects haven't been reported in humans at therapeutic doses except for some neuropathy (pain, numbness) in a MELAS clinical study. DCA is metabolized to oxalate (a nerve toxin) and in the presence of adequate thiamine (vitamin B1) to other metabolites. Thiamine stores are rapidly depleted and the metabolism of oxalate slows down. Co-administration of thiamine supplements drastically lowers the oxalate build-up. Toxicological Sciences 14: 327–37, 1990 via http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi68.htmlDaveScot
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
DCAa causes liver cancer in rats and nerve and heart damage. I wonder whether it will lead to substancial increases in the rate of aging also. If one is dying of cancer, it will be a price worth paying. "Based upon the pathologic examination, DCA induced observable signs of toxicity in the nervous system, liver and myocardium. However, treatment related neoplastic lesions were observed only in the liver."idnet.com.au
February 1, 2007
February
02
Feb
1
01
2007
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
Interesting finding here: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ia.jsp?IA=CA2006%2F000548&DISPLAY=STATUS The Canadian discoverers on 11/04/06 applied for a patent on the treatment protocol. Update: This was an international application. The U.S. application was filed on 11/04/05 but isn't published. There's a stink emerging from this. The international patent application was filed exactly one year later because there's a grace period of one year from date of disclosure to international filing. There is no grace period from disclosure to filing in the U.S. The stink is that this research was kept hushed up from at least November 2005 when the U.S. patent was filed to just recently when it went public. DaveScot
January 31, 2007
January
01
Jan
31
31
2007
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
Didn't Wells or some other ID bigshot suggest this a while back? As I recall he suggested it as ID inspired research saying that it would see all parts of the cell as a designed whole rather than chance mutations strung together by evolution.Jon Jackson
January 31, 2007
January
01
Jan
31
31
2007
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
I'm sort of in awe. I didn't think I'd live to see the day, and now I really hope I will. Now I just hope a Parkinson's cure is imminent.thechristiancynic
January 31, 2007
January
01
Jan
31
31
2007
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Please God, let it be so.mike1962
January 31, 2007
January
01
Jan
31
31
2007
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
I encourage everyone to submit this to the Drudge Report to increase public awareness:
Cancer Cure http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html
You can submit news tips to the Drudge Report on the lower right of their homepage in the tip submission box. If enough people tip them off they report on it.DaveScot
January 31, 2007
January
01
Jan
31
31
2007
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply