Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Watch the Edmonton News Report of Cancer Cure Dichloroacetate (DCA)

arroba Email

Edmonton Global News television report on dichloroacetate cancer cure and interview with discoverer Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta.

Click here to watch.

jerry Great article at the spectator. I really liked this
At the beginning, the oncogene theory posited that a single gene, when mutated, turned a normal cell into a cancer cell. We have gone from 1 to 250, the latter "playing a role." This "multiplication of entities" -- genes -- is the hallmark of a theory that is not working. It's what philosophers call a "deteriorating paradigm." The theory gets more and more complex to account for its lack of success. The number of oncogenes keeps going up, even as the total number of genes goes down. Six years ago some thought humans had 150,000 genes in all. Now it's one-sixth that number. How long before they find that all the genes "play a role" in cancer?
Evolution by chance & necessity is a similar "deteriorating paradigm". That's what makes this cancer cure story relevant here. Flawed theories that have a life of their own in a science establishment no longer able to police itself due to personal politics and greed. On the number of genes that play a role in cancer here's a great analogy. In a cancer the mechanism that restrains growth is broken. The cell is out of control. Compare this to an automobile. How many different small parts can break that will cause an automobiler to go out of control? Answer: hundreds of components in everything from brakes to steering to throttle can cause it to go out of control if they break. On the aneuploidy of cancer here's some interesting reading: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GFRC%2CGFRC%3A2006-49%2CGFRC%3Aen&q=cancer+aneuploidy+duesberg Thanks again for the link. I liked it so much I added it to the recent links sidebar . DaveScot
russ On the Daily Kos article. The author didn't do much research. His points and the problems: 1. cancer is not a single disease True. But all cancer cells have something in common and that is that they are not subject to apoptosis (programmed cell death) which is how they multiply out of control. DCA exploits this common mechanism. 2. Lots of diseases were cured in mice but failed to work in humans. This was addressed in the original article here on UD. Cancer has not been cured in mice and the cure failed to work in humans. This is simply urban legend. No cancer drug like DCA has ever been seen. 3.until we hold human clinical trials, we have no way of knowing how readily human tumors can 'outwit' (if you'll forgive the anthropomorphism) the drug The rat models in the DCA research were infected with human cancers. The human cancers didn't outwit anything. The cancers melted away. 4. big pharma will find a way to make it profitable They aren't even trying. It's a lost cause. DCA isn't even a controlled substance. Anyone can order it from any of scores of chemical supply houses for about $2/dose and even that will fall when demand rises (economy of scale). It was dissolved into the rats' drinking water like powdered kool aid. In fact it's so easy to get and take that I thought it best to include an explicit disclaimer that my writing on it is not advocacy or encouragement for anyone to self-medicate. There's no reason to hate big pharma over this. I haven't seen any evidence of a conspiracy on their part. They're simply not investing in it because there's no money to be made. They are businesses not charities. This is something that the public sector needs to pay for not the private sector. Perhaps behind closed doors pharma lobbyists are putting pressure on gov't to ignore it. That's why I'm not letting it rest. The more people that know about it, the more of their representatives in congress know about it, and eventually there's enough pressure on them so they cannot ignore it. DaveScot
Dave, Here is an article by Tom Bethell talking about the politics of cancer research. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8588 In it he discusses how about nearly every cancer is what is called aneuploidy, or that most if not all cancer cells have an adnormal number of chromosomes and yet all the research is on the gene connection to cancer and little or none is on the possible mechanism that causes aneuploiidy. jerry
Here's a physician explaining the medical community's skepticism: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/21/144057/028 russ
Here's the hard-core American Left's take on the situation: -------------------- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/10915/9320 Headline: "Potential cheap, safe cure for cancer: Will Big Pharma Allow It?" ---------------------- Their fear is that Pharmaceutical companies will use every possible means to stop this drug, forcing Americans to leave the country to gain access. This strikes me as ironic, since the U.S. Federal Drug Administration has blocked numerous safe cancer drugs because expensive, lengthy trials for "efficacy" have not been completed. In other words, cancer patients with nothing to lose from trying these drugs are prevented from doing so because SAFE drugs might be no better than a placebo. And the villain in this case is not private enterprise ("Big Pharma") but our beneficient Federal Government. russ
Pretty incredible given it's been 15 months since the discovers filed a patent application on the treatment protocol and it only takes a few weeks to replicate the experiment. I wonder if the Sloan researcher had read the paper published in Cancer Cell. I feel like the only one in the world aside from the peer reviewers and authors who bothered. DaveScot
Sitting on an airplane earlier this week, my seatmate struck up a conversation. At some point in our discussion, he identified himself as a cancer researcher at a major research facility in the U.S. whose initials are S.K.I. I asked him his specialty and he said "cellular biology" or something having to do with cells. I thought the timing was perfect, so I asked him about the DCA thing. He had indeed heard about the possible cancer cure. I asked if it was a big deal, and he kind of shrugged it off as yet another iffy proposition, since the researchers results hadn't yet been duplicated. russ
I don’t understand why I haven’t seen this all over the news. It's because scientists like David H. Gorski who make their living in the multi-multi-multi-billion dollar cancer therapy industry are asked for their opinions and they say don't get excited about it. So the maintstream media keeps their hands off lest they start an epidemic of false hope for cancer sufferers. Of course the people like Gorski are simply giving a knee jerk response to protect their egos and their source of income. If DCA works in humans as well it worked in rats with intractible human cancers then many insanely expensive cancer therapies and the uncounted thousands (possibly millions) of high paying jobs financed from the life savings of cancer patients is going to suffer an insanely big decrease because DCA is cost-free in comparison to anything else, twice (or more times) as effective, and virtually free of uncomfortable side effects (no nausea, no hair loss, no coronary stress). DaveScot
yeah, another WOW! from me. It shrunk the cancer by 70% in three weeks?? That's simply amazing. I don't understand why I haven't seen this all over the news. shaner74
Wow. Gods iPod

Leave a Reply