4 ms·

Debunked here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/dichloroacetate_and_cancer.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/dichloroacetate_a...

josscrowcroft 15y ago
This is why I love reading the comments pages. +1 for the scientific breakdown and well-reasoned arguments... From the debunking: "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."
- dangrossman 15y ago
  > From the debunking: "The simple summary is this: that claim is a lie. There have been no clinical trials of dichloroacetate (DCA) in cancer patients" It's worse than that -- after that was written, there WAS a clinical trial, and DCA not only didn't cure anyone, they got worse. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/05/cure-for-cancer-resurfaces-and.html http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/05/... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Results_of_phase_II_clinical_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Results_of_...
  - gldalmaso 15y ago
    >> It's worse than that -- after that was written, there WAS a clinical trial, and DCA not only didn't cure anyone, they got worse. None of those articles says anything about them getting worse because of the DCA. > Cited in the new scientist article: The results, published last year in Science Translational Medicine, revealed that it probably extended the lives of four of the patients, while one other died. > Cited in the wiki article: DCA was associated with tumor regression and had a good safety profile. DCA side effects were minimal.
    - dangrossman 15y ago
      > None of those articles says anything about them getting worse because of the DCA. I just said "they got worse", which means the DCA was at best ineffective, as opposed to curing anyone. From the wiki: "Of the five patients tested, one died after three months. The surviving four were followed for 15 months. Their Karnofsky scores were unchanged in two cases, and decreased by 10 points in two patients.[4]" A decreased Karnofsky score is worse. 0% is dead.
  - pella 15y ago
    not so bad for incurable cancer .. "The results, published last year in Science Translational Medicine, revealed that it probably extended the lives of four of the patients, while one other died. " original research: http://dca-information.pbworks.com/f/Metabolic%20Modulation%20of%20Glioblastoma%20with%20Dichloroacetate.pdf http://dca-information.pbworks.com/f/Metabolic%20Modulation%...
choxi 15y ago
came to the HN comments off the hunch that I would find more reasoned discussion of this. Was not disappointed.

josscrowcroft 15y ago

This is why I love reading the comments pages. +1 for the scientific breakdown and well-reasoned arguments... From the debunking: "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."

dangrossman 15y ago
> From the debunking: "The simple summary is this: that claim is a lie. There have been no clinical trials of dichloroacetate (DCA) in cancer patients" It's worse than that -- after that was written, there WAS a clinical trial, and DCA not only didn't cure anyone, they got worse. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/05/cure-for-cancer-resurfaces-and.html http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/05/... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Results_of_phase_II_clinical_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Results_of_...
- gldalmaso 15y ago
  >> It's worse than that -- after that was written, there WAS a clinical trial, and DCA not only didn't cure anyone, they got worse. None of those articles says anything about them getting worse because of the DCA. > Cited in the new scientist article: The results, published last year in Science Translational Medicine, revealed that it probably extended the lives of four of the patients, while one other died. > Cited in the wiki article: DCA was associated with tumor regression and had a good safety profile. DCA side effects were minimal.
  - dangrossman 15y ago
    > None of those articles says anything about them getting worse because of the DCA. I just said "they got worse", which means the DCA was at best ineffective, as opposed to curing anyone. From the wiki: "Of the five patients tested, one died after three months. The surviving four were followed for 15 months. Their Karnofsky scores were unchanged in two cases, and decreased by 10 points in two patients.[4]" A decreased Karnofsky score is worse. 0% is dead.
- pella 15y ago
  not so bad for incurable cancer .. "The results, published last year in Science Translational Medicine, revealed that it probably extended the lives of four of the patients, while one other died. " original research: http://dca-information.pbworks.com/f/Metabolic%20Modulation%20of%20Glioblastoma%20with%20Dichloroacetate.pdf http://dca-information.pbworks.com/f/Metabolic%20Modulation%...

choxi 15y ago

came to the HN comments off the hunch that I would find more reasoned discussion of this. Was not disappointed.