SUBSCRIBE TO NEW SCIENTIST
I believe that the part that's causing the brouhaha is the "not-patented" bit. That because pharmaceutical companies can't patent DCA they're not interested in continuing tests and development, as there'd be no point for them in doing so.
It'd be interesting to know the opinions of the pharmaceutical industry about this.
I still find it completely morally abhorant that we made it illegal - not because it had been shown to do harm, but because it hadnt been shown to do good (even though it had, just not to the level of standard we want in our medicine). This isnt cosmetic surgury here, this is cancer. People die from this. You cant blame them for wanting to try something that *might* work when we already know nothing else will.
The absolutly sickening thing is that its been 4 years and there still hasnt been a decent trial for it. People are litterally lining up to pay out of pocket (because your health insurance wont pay for it) to guinea pig themselves. Why is it so hard to use their payments to cover the cost of the experiement, then you dont even need to find someone to fund you.
And whats the worst that can happen? No impact and you die of cancer? Sounds like it was worth a shot. Or maybe it extends your life for 5 years and you die of kidney failure. Sounds like a bargain on my end, I still fail to see the problem. Again, Im failing to see how anyone can not be completely outraged by the legislative debacle this puts us in.
The big question that is worth New Scientist asking is whether humanity is served by a system of science and medecine that is so expensive and litigation prone that promising but unpatentable solutions (including both DCA and any natural remedies) are unlikely to get the trials they deserve? Is there any wonder that patients take risks and self-medicate.
Why exactly is it disappointing that this story has resurfaced?
The chemical works and the greedy stagnant FDA, instituted after we cured polio because it made all the Iron Lung dependant hospitals & investors go out of business/lose tons of money, doesn't want the same thing to happen with cancer. Millions are DONATED every year, we put people thru CHEMOTHERAPY which is worse on regular cells than cancer cells for indefinite amounts of time, all to "help" with cancer. If we can just stop it cheaply, thats the POINT. We shouldnt be trying to make money off curing any ailment, yet not one thing has been cured since polio was cured and the FDA instituted.
The issue with DCA reminds me a lot of the issue with Low Dose Naltrexone. Though LDN has been trialled to Phase 2 standard for Crohn's, with good results - http://ldnforcrohns.blogspot.com
LDN hasn't been trialled at that level for the many other conditions that anecdotal evidence from both qualified doctors and 100,000+ patients suggests it is effective for (MS, CFS/ME, fibromyalgia, Lupus, Psoriasis and other auto-immune diseases).
But the issue is the same, without profit motivation only public money will make these trials happen, which is tragic for all with these conditions.
Personally I've been on LDN for Crohn's for over a year and feel as good as I did on Mesalazine, though Mesalazine destroyed 80% of my kidney function, whereas Low Dose Naltrexone has been found to have a side effect profile not far removed from a placebo.
A cheap cancer drug that appears to work and is already used as a medicine.
Only very limited trials have been performed and it can't be patented.
Teams arround the world are trying to develop drugs that do the same job, but which can be patented.
Am I cynical?
**Crickets Chirping**
I think possibly the reason it's come back up now is that that particular p.o.s. article has been doing the rounds on Facebook recently, with people linking to it with some kind of message about "doing your bit". Useless slacktivism.
Four years on and there isn't a serious large-scale experiment? That alone tells us what the agenda is...get the money.
There's more to this story. Thousands of cancer patients including myself have self-administered DCA with varying outcomes and zero injuries (DCA slowed my disease doubling time from 24 days to 72 months, the difference between life and death.) The drug is not completely benign, you have to establish a suitable dose and generally know what you're doing, but side effects are trivial compared to mainstream treatments: surgery, radiation, hormone manipulation, and chemotherapy.
There have been a few small clinical trials, limited by funding constraints: http://www.thedcasite.com/dca_human_studies.html
DCA appears to be most efficacious when combined with other therapeutic agents. In 2007, as a stage IV patient with no other recourse, I concurrently took DCA, theophylline and multimeric alpha-lactalbumin. I have no regrets, not one.
The Medicor Cancer Centre in Canada is reporting good responses in patients treated with DCA, and they are now publishing peer-reviewed research:
http://www.medicorcancer.ca/
Bottom line, DCA holds significant therapeutic potential and there's growing momentum in both treatment and basic research. NewScientist was the first to bring DCA to public attention, and for this, many like me owe you a debt of gratitude.
Well done Big Pharma for moving in so quickly to discredit it.
I'm struggling to find the "false optimism" of the headline. Four out of five people in a small trial had an improved outcome.
if only were the world were as simple as you people think. It would cost about 1 billion $ to conduct a clinical trial. Who is going to pay for it, knowing that the drug is not patentable and they would not receive any money back...you? I'm sure all you people go to work everyday without getting paid...the government and insurance companies stand to gain through less payouts on health care, but they would actually lose a ton of money not treating diseases that people shell out all their money for, so they don't have the incentive to spend a billion so they can end up losing a billion. If you guys still think its an easy problem, I have some good stock tips for you.
Is this article supposed to suggest some conclusion? The headline is not even addresed within the article. It's as though only the first 2/3 of the article was published. Is anyone checking this content?