[Off Topic] Why Scientists Are Opposed to DCA Use

_{February 22, 2007

Culture, Off Topic, Science}

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

I finally figured it out. It’s because scientists have not officially blessed its use. To take a drug that scientists say you shouldn’t try yet is to commit a horrible transgression against the authority of the scientific clergy. Even when you’re dying of stage 4 cancer and no scientifically sanctified therapies are available you are not allowed to wander off the reservation and try unsanctified remedies. You should instead just die quietly without making any waves.

http://www.thedcasite.com

http://www.buydca.com

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated in any way with the above sites. I have no financial interest in DCA. I have no friends or family suffering from cancer who stand to benefit from DCA.

Comments

doctors are damned if they do and damned if they don't. IF a Dr. prescribed DCA at this point, and the patient died, they'd be sued for sure. Someone above suggested that they should be sued for not prescribing it. I'm glad I didn't pursue a medical profession :)Fross_{February 23, 2007
February
02
Feb
23
23
2007
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

One of the reasons I'm not pursuing a career in academia even if I ever get my PhD is the academic obsession with reputations. For every good scientist out there, it seems there is another who cares only about how many interviews he does and how seriously people take him. I'm sure there are are some people who want DCA to fail because they didn't think of it...and bad as that sounds.Rowan_{February 23, 2007
February
02
Feb
23
23
2007
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

"If fasting worked to cure cancer pretty much everyone would be cured by chemo & radiation because it ruins your ability to digest food. People are usually emaciated to skin and bones by the time they expire from it." It also gives you "chemo brain" and possibly a host of other physiological reactions & interactions nobody knows about. "Emphatically not true and clearly stated in my article." Sorry I bothered you. You keep pressing this cancer issue, not sure why. But never mind, just remove my post from this thread if it sounds so idiotic. Thanks.rockyr_{February 23, 2007
February
02
Feb
23
23
2007
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

jpark320, I believe that you have provided the accurate answer to why "scientists are opposed to DCA use." There is one more valid point, however, which is that there have been dozens, nay hundreds of reports of cures for cancer in mice which have not panned out in humans. DCA might fly. It probably won't. No practicing professional could possibly recommend that one try the thing without trials, or that professional would experience a trial of his own. Lawyers, spit spit! Bottom line, even if the chance that this thing is the cure is less than one in ten thousand, if I were "declared dead" by medical science, I'd be taking it. (If there were a real chance for an established cure, of course, I would go for that first.)bFast_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

I'm not sure of any specific examples, but I'm confident I could find a whole bunch. My main point was that there is so much hoopla around malpractice in the hospital that you can sue for the most ridiculous things. I'm definite that if you give a drug that has not passed the protocol of your hospitals clinical research trial committee and anything goes wrong (say they die earlier than expected) you will get slammed with a lawsuit regardless if it has passed phase 3 clinical trials. This is an unfortunate circumstance, but a necessary evil, to protect the doctors and hospitals who have gotten sued for these very things. I agree that more people should get on it and if they are at stage 4 (there prb is some sort of "fast track") they should do what they can. However even if DCA proves to be a wonder drug (I as a future oncologist sincerely hope so) the serious hoops and rings you have to go through is amazing. Once again why the whole unnecessary process: 1) Quack Doctors who would test anything. 2)Disgruntled family who would sue. 3) LAWYERS!!! I just want you to know that a lot of these rules were made based on simply 1 case and the complications and complaints from that 1 case gets extended to every other. That is the sad fact. Kinda like 9/11 and how the whole airport system changed.jpark320_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

DS, I always thought it was the medical establishment that was most reluctant to experiment on patients. We basic researchers are just itching to try anything on people that they'll let us. (At least that's what I learned from SciFi movies.) I think all the reluctance is tied up in that whole medical "First do no harm..." mantra. They somehow neglect to (fully) consider how the relevance of their sacred creed might be diminished for someone in stage 4 cancer. I think by that point you're at the "I'd piss on a sparkplug if it'll do any good stage." Of course, we all know it's infinitely more important for individuals to adhere to their hallowed professional creeds so that they can continue to wallow in the glory of their own self-righteousness than it is to take a risk to potentially cure someone. That's not to say that legal issues and the legitimate desire for rigorous objective study/record procedures are not part of the impediment, but I think "but what if it goes bad?" fear weighs far too heavily in these processes. Stage 4 cancer is already very bad. Personally, I wouldn't mind getting killed in the attempt to get cured when all hope, practically speaking, is otherwise lost. As long as their is careful record keeping and something is learned from it. And that shouldn't be hard to arrange.great_ape_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

A stage 4 cancer patient has very little options, and if the doctor is aware of something that could potentially help and wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t cause death in and of itself, and did NOT at least present it as an option to a patient, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d think that would make the doctor himself negligent. I would sue for not prescribing it.shaner74_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

jpark320 There sure a lot of reports of doctors prescribing it. Most of them seem to be in the UK and Canada though there are a few I've read in the U.S. Different liability laws perhaps. Can you provide examples of doctors getting sued for prescribing investigational drugs that have passed phase 1 clinical testing to stage 4 cancer patients or did you just think that sounded right so wrote it without any evidence?DaveScot_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

There is one reason doctors don't like to give approved drugs to Stage 4,5 cancer victims. They would get sued like crazy. I think its kinda way for them to protect themselves b/c they would get sued for a lot worse. It was like that for chloramphenicol - great drug, but 1/40,000 get aplastic anemia is good enough to get sued like crazy for. It took phase for clinical trials to find this out mind you Oh yea, not to mention vioxx. Let's just say it only takes one apple to ruin the whole batch! Part of the blame should also lay on the families and patients who would sue.jpark320_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

I read some of your posts about cancer, it seems to me either you or somebody you love is in trouble. Emphatically not true and clearly stated in my article. The theory was that if you fast enough, and deprive the body of food & energy, it will start burning up the cells, and the diseased cells are the most likely ones to get dissolved and consumed by the body. If fasting worked to cure cancer pretty much everyone would be cured by chemo & radiation because it ruins your ability to digest food. People are usually emaciated to skin and bones by the time they expire from it.DaveScot_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Dave, I have been busy lately, and I haven't been reading all that is posted in this forum. I read some of your posts about cancer, it seems to me either you or somebody you love is in trouble. I was in a similar situation some time ago, considering everything from experimental and quack cures to Chinese medicines. (There are 2 thick books, a most extensive US-Chinese research of traditional Chinese medicines and cures, published in Portland I think, I could get the info). There is also and interesting video about Tibetan medicines, endorsed by Dalai Lama, Russians, and some Swiss research, perhaps worth following up. (They mix a large number of medicines, they have several groups, and treat classes of diseases.) I think this product is also commercially available. But there was one interesting thing I dug up. Long time ago, when browsing in a health food store, and read some paberback books, I read about the research of a Sweedish physician, who treated people by fasting. The theory was that if you fast enough, and deprive the body of food & energy, it will start burning up the cells, and the diseased cells are the most likely ones to get dissolved and consumed by the body. The fast also gets rid of accumulated toxins in the body and thus cleanses it. I am convinced this helped a lot. (Reduce diet to organic salads and juice, for as long as it can be tolerated, 2-3 week, or seek a professional to monitor the fast.) Use herbs for body cleansing, for example, as in the very popular herbal book of an Austrian herbalist Maria Treben, "Health Through God's Pharmacy", which sold 20 million copies worldwide. Also, as with any cancer, one ought to eliminate the causes, like the hormones in the milk or in red meat, contraceptives or steroids, pesticides in food, chlorine in water, etc. I hope this helps and wish you all the best.rockyr_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply