DCA – The Patent Pending Treatment Protocol

_{February 3, 2007

Biology, Intelligent Design, Off Topic, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In case anyone was wondering, the international patent application for DCA as a cancer cure is available for anyone to read. DCA is an inexpensive, uncontrolled chemical hailed as a potential cure for cancer that anyone can buy. This is not an endorsement or encouragement for anyone to self-medicate. It is intended solely to get the attention of established clinicians with experience in orphan drug testing.

DCA is not technically an orphan drug by definition since it treats one of the most common afflictions known to mankind (although it IS an orphan drug in Europe for a different and rare disease). It meets the orphan definition in that there’s little or no profit incentive in it.

A METHOD OF TREATING CANCER USING DICHLOROACETATE

The invention relates to the use of dichloroacetate and chemical equivalents thereof for the treatment of cancer by inducing apoptosis or reversing apoptosis-resistance in a cell Preferably, the dosage is 10-100 mg/kg Preferably, sodium dichloroacetate is used. The dichloroacetate may optionally be given in combination with a pro-apoptotic agent and/or a chemotherapeutic agent Preferably, the cancers treated are non-small cell lung cancer, glioblastoma and breast carcinoma.

There’s a lot more reading at the link. This is just the patent abstract.

Sodium dichloracetate is not a controlled substance and is available from many chemical suppliers. This link provides a list of 18 suppliers in case anyone is interested in starting a clinical test of this drug that’s already been approved for clinical testing in humans for a number of different ailments other than cancer.

Comments

U of A wasn't even the first one to use DCA in cancer research. If one was to listen to them, it would sound like he is the first person to ever think of it let alone do studies on it. Here are two patents that showed DCA used with lipoic acid where the DCA doubled the rate of tumor kill. United States Patent 6,331,559 Bingham , et al. December 18, 2001 Lipoic acid derivatives and their use in treatment of disease "... This second reagent is preferably an inhibitor of mitochondria energy metabolism and/or one that induces apoptosis. Such reagents include metabolism inhibitory reagents. Many such reagents are known in the art. One particularly preferred reagent is dichloroacetate. This second reagent may be administered sequentially, simultaneously or separately, so as to amplify patient response to said treatment method." and an example in an earlier patent: ..."This was tested in this Example with dichloroacetate (henceforth abbreviated DCA)(8)...." ..."We find that the cells of the experimental subset are killed approximately twice as rapidly as in the control subset."... The experimental subset had DCA while the standard had the lipoic acid by itself. ... So both of these patents I am sure also have studies associated with them that were published. Yet Dr. M doesn't have any of this noted in his work. Maybe he is just weak on research. Or maybe he is hedging his bet for money and fame. I find his inability to recognize earlier research appalling. ironryan

bfast: I may soon be officially diagnosed with the "big C". Not certain yet, however, if so and this DCA does work, I would NOT look askance at an unreasonable royalty. jaybor

forthekids It's really me. DaveScot

A process patent would probably work to discourage anyone but the inventors or licensees from conducting clinical trials. Currently (or at least in 2000 when I was still actively employed in patent application and grant work) it takes 2-3 years for a patent to go from application to grant. By keeping this a secret for the first year they (the discoverers) got one year closer to getting total ownership of clinical trials. Of course the patent would be impossible to enforce on an individual use basis. I would really liked to have been a fly on the wall when the discoverers were talking with pharmaceutical companies about sponsering clinical trials. The intellectual property attornies at the pharma companies must've concluded that the patent wasn't likely to be able to protect the process from infringement after clinical trials concluded and thus no profit could be made from investing in DCA-cancer research. DaveScot

bFast, That is true also. A lot of people would be honest. Jehu

"The trouble with a use patent is that it is impossible to enforce." All I'll say on that is that if someone finds a cure for cancer, they deserve to be rich. If I were dying of cancer, and DCA saved my life, I would be ever so happy to send its discoverer his reasonable royalty. bFast

It would be easy to get a clinical trial together since, if the drug is used in the USA, then it is already approved by the FDA and you wouldn't have to go throught the costly and time consuming NDA process. The trouble with a use patent is that it is impossible to enforce. A doctor can simply claim that he is giving DCA for an indication that is in the open domain and not cancer. There is money to be made in generics however and DCA could be formulated with other things to improve its efficacy against cancer creating a novel patentable drug. Jehu

I don't know if I'd try it myself but I'd probably give it whirl if one of my dogs had cancer. DaveScot

Maybe this is why this drug isn't on the front page of Time. 'No use promoting a drug that just heals people, and doesn't make any money. However, orfan or not, some responsible organization needs to monitor and properly evaluate DCA for dosage, efficacy and side effects. Its still a drug. All I'll say is, if I were dying of cancer, I'd be trying the thing -- with or without my doctor's approval. bFast

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply