Cure for cancer found? Yet no one knows about it

[Viperdream]

I was browsing on youtube and found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7pGO...el_video_title

A promising treatment for cancer, yet the public doesn't know about it.

Time for another conspiracy theory:
The guy talking about it suggests that the pharmaceutical companies might be behind this.

Due to the treatment being so cheap and can't patent it, they won't produce it due to being not profitable.

Some articles from it:

Article from 2007:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

2010:
http://dca-information.pbworks.com/f...oroacetate.pdf

Your opinion?

[Creatinebrah]

please find me a pubmed article on this so called "cure."

guy says 'medicine journals all over the place,' yet gives 0 sources.

lol, you gotta love youtube

[Sayl]

This one's making the rounds again, I see.

Dichloroacetate and cancer

So many people have sent me this sensationalistic article, "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice", that I guess I have to respond. I sure wish it were true, but you should be able to tell from how poorly it is written and the ridiculous inaccuracies (mitochondria are cells that fight cancers?) that you should be suspicious. The radical, exaggerated claims make the truth of the story highly unlikely.

The simple summary is this: that claim is a lie. There have been no clinical trials of dichloroacetate (DCA) in cancer patients, so there is no basis for claiming they have a cure; some, but not all, cancers might respond in promising ways to the drug, while others are likely to be resistant (cancer is not one disease!); and there are potential neurotoxic side effects, especially when used in conjunction with other chemotherapies.

Sorry to burst the proverbial bubble. The article spells it out in detail.

[Royalcrown]

Honestly, with how things are today, i wouldnt doubt if there was a cure to cancer and not announced due to being unprofitable. I also believe the same for AIDS. Pharmaceutical companies are just corporate drug dealers.

Now, just to put tarnish on the gold. Back when Bush was president, pharmaceutical companies paid him, and other members of the house to sign a bill that allowed them to put a price on meds, instead of being govt regulated.

[Destruktion]

The article is sensationalist. This particular study only tested one kind of brain cancer, and the experiment itself was only preliminary. Let's not jump the gun just yet.

[Deleted]

Honestly, with how things are today, i wouldnt doubt if there was a cure to cancer and not announced due to being unprofitable. I also believe the same for AIDS. Pharmaceutical companies are just corporate drug dealers.

Now, just to put tarnish on the gold. Back when Bush was president, pharmaceutical companies paid him, and other members of the house to sign a bill that allowed them to put a price on meds, instead of being govt regulated.

What about healthcare? Insurance companies profit if you get well cheaper and faster, they should have interest in easier and cheaper treatments and are pretty big themselv

[Ozzy1346]

Honestly, with how things are today, i wouldnt doubt if there was a cure to cancer and not announced due to being unprofitable. I also believe the same for AIDS. Pharmaceutical companies are just corporate drug dealers.

Now, just to put tarnish on the gold. Back when Bush was president, pharmaceutical companies paid him, and other members of the house to sign a bill that allowed them to put a price on meds, instead of being govt regulated.

rofl!!!!! thank you for the laughs. lmfao

[Neichus]

I'll say I'm skeptical, to say the least. I doubt there will ever be "a" cure for cancer, because despite a singular label it's really a multitude of diseases with each pathology being a little different due to the location of the body, which mutations were involved, and so forth. While there are certain broken genes that are shared in a large number of cancers, I'm not sure if all of them share a common substrate beyond "cell growth that is not properly regulated."

[Tziva]

Haha, I was totally going to post the quote from PZ Myers, but someone beat me to it.

I believe that another ScienceBlog, Respectful Insolence, also posted something on this recently. And they're an oncologist.

[koodledrum]

The very statement "a cure for cancer" as a generalisation is frowned upon by medics - you will never find "a cure for cancer" given the broadside statement, we already have "cures" for several "cancers" - but there is no one miracle drug which will cure the thousands of types of cancer out there, never mind the fact that every cancer has several grades & severities. The rumor of this "miracle cure" has floated around for years, but it's as likely to happen as proof of intelligent life on Mars - just not happening!

[Sayl]

I believe that another ScienceBlog, Respectful Insolence, also posted something on this recently. And they're an oncologist.

Righto, available here: The DCA zombie arises again

[Boomshackle]

Ive been looking into this for a while, i dont have cancer but i do have neuropathy, this drug would help me out from what ive read

[Deleted]

Wow, thats a pretty cool find. Any helpful drug is good in my books!

[Confirm Deny]

Didn't watch the video or read the article since it all appears to have been refuted, but the pharmaceutical company bit interests me. Maybe there was another purpose to the sensationalism?
Found this and was wondering, "Really?"
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1Fat9x...cal-companies/

[Tziva]

Righto, available here: The DCA zombie arises again

Thanks!

<3 orac

[Deleted]

Yes, it's a well known substance discovered in the 19th century and cna reduce the size of tumors. Last report I read it can increase the size of some tumors but as it has no patent, large companies won't touch it because they're greedy soul-less bastards.

---------- Post added 2011-05-23 at 07:17 PM ----------

The very statement "a cure for cancer" as a generalisation is frowned upon by medics - you will never find "a cure for cancer" given the broadside statement, we already have "cures" for several "cancers" - but there is no one miracle drug which will cure the thousands of types of cancer out there, never mind the fact that every cancer has several grades & severities. The rumor of this "miracle cure" has floated around for years, but it's as likely to happen as proof of intelligent life on Mars - just not happening!

No it's just taking so long because it's had to be done by independent studies, again see soul-less bastards as to why.

[VersedalX]

Can someone educate me in something? My grandmother has been fighting cancer the last decade with 8 years in-between of remission (1 year on, 8 years off 1 year on) remission is saying the cancer is gone yes? yet it returns? is this "Cure" somehow eliminating the return or only helping beind the patient in remission?

Sorry for grammar mistakes, misspelling or anything of the sort.. I'm working on it. Also I was unable to read the articles as I am limited on time currently.

[Jaxi]

I also believe the same for AIDS.

HIV has a high variance rate. It's extremely difficult to make a vaccine for a virus that changes every single damn day. On top of that, catching it early is often very difficult because the initial infection period is often misdiagnosed for the common flu. It's not an easy bastard to cure, and is rivaled only by prions in difficulty to combat. On top of ALL of that, all of our "cures" work in conjunction with the human immune system. When you have a virus that attacks the immune system, it begins to complicate treatment frontiers.

[Tziva]

Can someone educate me in something? My grandmother has been fighting cancer the last decade with 8 years in-between of remission (1 year on, 8 years off 1 year on) remission is saying the cancer is gone yes? yet it returns? is this "Cure" somehow eliminating the return or only helping beind the patient in remission?

To put it in simple terms, remission means there is no detectable cancer. It doesn't necessarily mean there aren't a few microscopic amounts of cells out there. It also doesn't mean the body isn't capable of reproducing cancer again, depending on the cause/type of cancer. Unfortunately, some types of cancer have a very high reoccurrence rate.

A person in remission usually isn't considered "cured" unless they remain in remission for X amount of years.

disclaimer: not a doctor.

[VersedalX]

To put it in simple terms, remission means there is no detectable cancer. It doesn't necessarily mean there aren't a few microscopic amounts of cells out there. It also doesn't mean the body isn't capable of reproducing cancer again, depending on the cause/type of cancer. Unfortunately, some types of cancer have a very high reoccurrence rate.

A person in remission usually isn't considered "cured" unless they remain in remission for X amount of years.

disclaimer: not a doctor.

Thank you for the response