|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/18/2007 : 07:30:06
|
Someone more knowledgable in medicine than I needs to comment on this one. From The New Scientist:quote:
Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers
11:58 17 January 2007
What makes cancer cells different - and how to kill them
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.
Things that sound too good to be true, usually are exactly that. Anybody know anything about this stuff?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 08:20:15 [Permalink]
|
Apparantly it is a drug that can influence the mediatory aspects of metabolism. This is what can make it effective in the case of metabolic disorders.
I couldn't find anything directly on treatment of cancer with it (especially not the cancers mentioned). I did see a report a while ago about how cancers are mainly promoted by a core group of cancer stem cells that proliferate indefinitely, while surrounding cancer cells that originate from these stem cells are merely the symptom. Treatment can thus be focused on these cancer stem cells.
I could imagine that DCA might target the metabolism of these cancer stem cells. Cancer stem cells are genetically different from the surrounding tissue, and thus might be specifically targeted by the drug while leaving surrounding tissue unharmed. At present, I'd say it is not as far-fetched as it would sound in first instance. I'd like to see them publicize the work first though. When looking at pubmed the only things I have found on them now is on the cardiovasular system. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
 Posted - 01/18/2007 : 12:52:55 [Permalink]
|
I think that the biggest hurdle is that not all cancer cells are alike. This has been the frustration of every treatment to date. The drugs work great in some tumor types, but are ineffective in others. Almost every new novel treatment recently has had to focus on certain aspects of tumor growth, such as cytokine modulation, angiogenesis, immunomodulatory changes, etc.
Nothing seems to work for everything, because the tumors are so different. I think this has a very long road ahead, but may be an important step in targeting therapy, as has been the goal recently in cancer treatment.
The JCO (Journal of Clinical Oncology) shows nothing on it yet that I could find.
I think the author may be naively hopeful that this will target all cancers and be "dirt cheap". It would be nice, yes, but it's a little early to start counting on it. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 13:00:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The PubMed listing for the actual research article. I was surprised to find Michelakis listed last among the authors (all 16 of them!), but apparently being press spokesman for the group.
I've seen this happen a bit lately with some of the medical journal clinicals. Sometimes you'll see either the primary researcher or even the person who has accrued the most patients take the last spot in the listing. I'm not sure why, and I've never gotten a good answer on why it's sometimes done. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 13:13:29 [Permalink]
|
If the drug companies can't make money on it, very litlle research will be done on it.
Back in the 70's the big craze for cancer treatment was laetrile which is made from apricot seeds. It is now illegal to sell apricot seeds across state lines even though it is a natural product like orange seeds. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 13:25:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
If the drug companies can't make money on it, very litlle research will be done on it.
Back in the 70's the big craze for cancer treatment was laetrile which is made from apricot seeds. It is now illegal to sell apricot seeds across state lines even though it is a natural product like orange seeds.
Maybe laetrile didn't go on to be used as a successful treatment for cancer because it was ineffective, not because companies wouldn't make money off of it.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/patient/Page2#Section_23
Why do a sense a reference to Kevin Trudeau coming? Please, not him!
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 13:40:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
...it is a natural product like orange seeds.
And also just like cobra venom, uranium, and botulism. Just like the natural result of a completely natural free-fall off a completely natural 300-foot cliff. "Natural" doesn't equal "safe for humans." It never has, and it never will. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 14:12:30 [Permalink]
|
| Cancers can proliferate because they have managed to switch of a metabolic pathway that leads to cell death (apoptosis). As noted in this article, several different cancers have a low expression of a potassium channel (a contributor to apoptosis resistance), something which the drug upregulates. But as McQ notes, not all cancers are alike and the drug is unlikely to be a cure-all. But heck, it should not be too difficult screeing for whether a cancer is likely to be affected by this drug, and if it is - well, there seems to be a cheap effective cure(?)/treatment available. Good news, I'd say. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 16:01:32 [Permalink]
|
| Things like this need to be waited out. The reason that the public has such as erroneous view of medicine being flip-floppy is because articles and the media hype something before it has truly shown its validity, going for broke to get readers, and then later it does not meet the claims as originally hoped by the scientist and portrayed by the media hype. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 16:18:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
...it is a natural product like orange seeds.
And also just like cobra venom, uranium, and botulism. Just like the natural result of a completely natural free-fall off a completely natural 300-foot cliff. "Natural" doesn't equal "safe for humans." It never has, and it never will.
I have a general rule of thumb which goes something like:
If you develop a chemical that can kill, nature probably has developed something that is similar and more effective. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 16:38:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
If the drug companies can't make money on it, very litlle research will be done on it.
Back in the 70's the big craze for cancer treatment was laetrile which is made from apricot seeds. It is now illegal to sell apricot seeds across state lines even though it is a natural product like orange seeds.
Why bother stuffing yourself with drugs when God answers prayers anyway?  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 17:15:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Why bother stuffing yourself with drugs when God answers prayers anyway?
No, no, Mab. God works through the doctors to develop the drugs that are administered (but only the effective ones, the others are Satan's cocktails) to the praying patients. If god started creating miracles all willy-nilly, then we would all believe in him and god doesn't want that. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/18/2007 17:16:32 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 18:44:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Why bother stuffing yourself with drugs when God answers prayers anyway?
No, no, Mab. God works through the doctors to develop the drugs that are administered (but only the effective ones, the others are Satan's cocktails) to the praying patients. If god started creating miracles all willy-nilly, then we would all believe in him and god doesn't want that.
You wouldn't believe how often I heard that same explanation. Minus the Satan bit and the irony bit at the end, I've heard that A LOT. From my own mom's mouth.
Then I realized I prayed, prayed, did physical, took medicines and tried so hard to really believe and... kept in a wheelchair with horrible pains.
Then I woke up. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 14:40:39 [Permalink]
|
Here's the deal. These authors merely identified the rationale for trying this drug on tumors.
Good place to start. Now more often than not, instead of long trial and error efforts to find drugs, there is a more specific approach. Identify the molecular level point of intervention. Then design or find the drug to interfere, block, or assist depending on what you need.
The drug has been used in human trials and is approved for use in humans. That eliminates the usual hurdle of showing it is safe in animals before human clinical trials which typically precedes testing on sick humans.
It does not mean it is a perfectly safe drug. So far it can cause serious side effects in patients with mitochondrial encephalomyelopathy with lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes or MELAS. I believe this is a newly identified etiology of a weak muscle syndrome but I didn't look any further into it. MELAS could be something else. Regardless, it's a rare disorder. The drug has been used in pulmonary hypertension, another rare disorder.
The point being, it hasn't been given to enough people to know what risks will emerge.
Bottom line, they have identified a good drug to test on tumors and it is past the human trial hurdle. They can begin testing it on tumors. It'll be a few years more before it's added to any cancer drug arsenal, and longer than that before we see the full side effect profile. But it looks promising.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/22/2007 14:42:58 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 19:49:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
The drug has been used in human trials and is approved for use in humans. That eliminates the usual hurdle of showing it is safe in animals before human clinical trials which typically precedes testing on sick humans.
Yes, but it's important to note that it's been approved for use in humans for certain indications, and it doesn't have blanket approval for just any disease or condition. Yes, the already-done animal testing is a good thing that'll speed up research, but there are plenty of scam-artists in the world right now claiming, for example, that zinc pyrithione is "FDA Approved" in advertisements for psoriasis products. Yes, ZnP is approved - for the treatment of dandruff - but it was specifically banned from having psoriasis-treatment claims made about it because it isn't effective for psoriasis. The "approved" label is only correct for medications that are both safe and effective. For another example, aspirin is not "approved for use in humans" for the treatment of gangrene.
I'm perhaps a little touchy on this, but it's only because I know that lots of people have been harmed (some hospitalized) by misuse of the term "approved," and so even when I see it used sort of casually I feel a need to speak up about the fine distinctions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
Cheap, safe cancer drug......?
