5 ms·
Here's something interesting about a common chemical compound called Dichloroacetic acid (DCA). Big pharma is ignoring it since it can't be patented (because it
by jimmyvanhalen 15y ago
Here's something interesting about a common chemical compound called Dichloroacetic acid (DCA). Big pharma is ignoring it since it can't be patented (because it's so common).
Cancer cells change the way they metabolize oxygen in a way that promotes their survival. In laboratory studies of isolated cancer cells grown in tissue culture, DCA restores the original metabolism, and promotes their self-destruction. This has led to the use of DCA for treating cancer, by individuals experimenting with it themselves, by doctors administering it to patients as a non-approved drug, by scientists testing it in cancer tissue cultures in cell culture and in mice, and in human Phase II studies. DCA has improved certain biochemical parameters, but it has not demonstrated improved survival.
Cancer cells generally express increased glycolysis, because they rely on anaerobic respiration that occurs in the cytosol (lactic acid fermentation) rather than oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria for energy (the Warburg effect), as a result of hypoxia that exists in tumors and malfunctioning mitochondria. [9] [10] Usually dangerously damaged cells kill themselves via apoptosis, a mechanism of self-destruction that involves mitochondria, but this mechanism fails in cancer cells.
A phase I study published in January 2007 by researchers at the University of Alberta, who had tested DCA on human[11] cancer cells grown in mice, found that DCA restored mitochondrial function, thus restoring apoptosis, allowing cancer cells to self-destruct and shrink the tumor.[12]
These results received extensive media attention, beginning with an article in New Scientist titled "Cheap, ‘safe’ drug kills most cancers".[11] Subsequently, the American Cancer Society and other medical organizations have received a large volume of public interest and questions regarding DCA.[13] Clinical trials in humans with cancer have not been conducted in the USA and are not yet final in Canada, emphasizing the need for caution in interpreting the preliminary results.[13][14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid
- polyfractal 15y agoTo be fair, it is only one of many compounds that are effective against specific traits of cancerous tumors. In this case, it is effective against tumors which are poorly vascularized. In most cases, one of the predominant features of tumor progression is the increase in vascularizing growth factors from cancer cells. Tumors which fail to start pumping out growth factors that encourage blood vessel growth often kill off the entire tumor due to lack of oxygen. Also, the apoptosis cascade can be hijacked in many locations. Even if you get the mitochondria to start releasing Cytochrome C (the main component that triggers the cascade), cancer cells can turn this pathway off anywhere downstream of CytC, such as turning off production of one of the various caspases. So, again, it comes down to cancer biology being incredibly complicated.
- refurb 15y agoBig pharma isn't ignoring it because of the patent issue, they are ignoring it because it doesn't work that well. They may not be able to get a "composition of matter" patent on it, but they could get a "use" patent on it. For a great example of a VERY common chemical that big pharma is developing, check out BG-12 from Biogen. It's dimethyl fumarate, something you can buy in ton quantities and most labs have jars of it. They are developing it for MS and it looks quite promising. http://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/oral-bg-12-dimethyl-fumarate-significantly-reduced-multiple-sclerosis-ms-relapses-disability-12528.html http://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/oral-bg-12-dimethyl-fum...
- jimmyvanhalen 15y agoThey don't know DCA doesn't work that well because they are not spending money on R&D. I agree they can get a use patent on DCA, as a matter of fact the researcher from University of Alberta already has a use patent on DCA as a cure for cancer. interesting info on BG-12. thanks.
- refurb 15y agoBig drug companies are CONSTANTLY exploring new areas, trust me, they looked into DCA and found it wanting. I can't personally attest to the amount of R&D dollars spent by pharma on R&D, but it has been EXTENSIVELY studied, just checked out pubmed (gov't funded research). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=dichloroacetate http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=dichloroacetate If DCA were an effective agent, they would have handed the U of A a handsome check for that use patent. They didn't, so what does that tell you?
- jimmyvanhalen 15y agoHundreds of millions of dollars and years of clinical trials are needed to prove if DCA is effective or not. You can't just say "trust me, they looked into DCA and found it wanting". Looked at it how? Have they done years of clinical trials? did they spend millions in R&D on this?
- nl 15y agoDCA is an unfortunate example of the pattern where people look for a radical cure covered up by conspiracy when infact it is little more than a mildly interesting drug with little evidence supporting its use. So far as the conspiracy theory goes, to quote the same Wikipedia article: The use of this compound as an anti-cancer agent has been patented.