Cure for Cancer

[k10magic]

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.

 

Read more...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/

 

"The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap."

 

This seems convincing...

[Revenged]

Interesting area of research...

 

But remember monoclonal antibiodies were thought to be perfectly safe treatment for cancer...

 

but one study using monoclonal antibodies had horrifying results...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4808090.stm

[lucaspa]

I've been down this road before. In the 1980s there were 2 "cures" for cancer. They involved the natural killer cells. In one treatment, blood was ultrafiltered to remove soluble receptors to TNF (tumor necrosis factor) put out by the cancer cells that interferred with activating the natural killer (NK) cells. The results were VERY dramatic. In one example, a person with 10 different lesions of lung cancer -- spread between both lungs -- was "cured". The cancer disappeared from the MRI.

 

The problem was the cancer ALWAYS came back. The problem is that the treatments never kill EVERY cancer cell. Cancer cells vary from cell to cell. And there are billions of cells. So, for any single treatment, the odds are that at least ONE cell will be resistant or immune. So you kill all the other cancer cells. That one cancer cell simply multiplies and makes the cancer all over again. Now the treatment doesn't work because ALL the cells are resistant.

 

It's natural selection at work. With a vengeance.

 

So, this isn't "convincing" until we have the clinical trials AND a 10 year follow-up. My bet (and I would like to be wrong), is that the initial results will be astounding -- then the patients will have the cancer back in 5 years and die.

[lucaspa]

There is a REALLY bad assumption in the work: that switching off mitochondria is what makes cancer cells "immortal". There is growing evidence that cancers arise from adult stem cells. Some types of those cells already are immortal.

 

There is also evidence from U of Michigan that 95% of cancer cells are partially differentiated and don't proliferate. Instead, it is the 5% of "cancer stem cells" that do the dividing. So I can see the rationale that cancer cells in the interior of a tumor switch to glycolysis. This may delay apoptosis. BUT, it isn't what made them immortal. So giving the drug may kill the 95% of the non-stem cancer cells, but it will leave 5% or less of the cells alive.

 

And the cancer returns.

[YT2095]

there`s also a lot of Interest in Hydrazine sulphate too.

does anyone have any Clinical data as to the efficacy of this chemical?

there`s several forums full of ancedotal evidence, But is there any Proof?

[lucaspa]

there`s also a lot of Interest in Hydrazine sulphate too.

does anyone have any Clinical data as to the efficacy of this chemical?

there`s several forums full of ancedotal evidence, But is there any Proof?

 

When you have a question like this, the place for you to go is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi This is database of the National Library of Medicine or PubMed. Enter your search terms. If you want to use the term "OR", you can simply use a comma. So, for you I would input "hydrazine, sulfate, cancer" and see what comes up. I couldn't resist doing that and found this article at #11:

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110

 

You'll want to read it.

 

BTW, science doesn't deal in "Proof". Please stop using that word. What you are looking for are studies that tested the hypothesis that hydrazine sulfate is effective in treating cancer. What you will get are studies that either falsify/refute the hypothesis or studies that support it (by failing to falsify it). You won't EVER get "proof", and certainly not with a capital "P".

[YT2095]

Bite Me

 

the reason I asked is that I have 100g of the stuff in the Lab, and it`s a Known Carcinogen, and there`s plenty proof of that!

[Comandante]

The problem was the cancer ALWAYS came back. The problem is that the treatments never kill EVERY cancer cell. Cancer cells vary from cell to cell. And there are billions of cells. So, for any single treatment, the odds are that at least ONE cell will be resistant or immune. So you kill all the other cancer cells. That one cancer cell simply multiplies and makes the cancer all over again. Now the treatment doesn't work because ALL the cells are resistant.

 

It's natural selection at work. With a vengeance.

 

I don't understand how that works. How did cancer cells get immune to that specific drug or treatment in other patients when other patients haven't been treated with the drug? You were referring to any patient when you said ALL cells , no? I find that rather interesting.

[Revenged]

I don't understand how that works. How did cancer cells get immune to that specific drug or treatment in other patients when other patients haven't been treated with the drug? You were referring to any patient when you said ALL cells , no? I find that rather interesting.

 

i don't think cancer cells do not become immune to treatment... i think it is that the treatment doesn't work on all the cancerous cells in the first place...

 

most traditional chemotherapy simply works by stopping cell devision... this is why cancers that are very rapidly growing respond best to this kind of treatment... but a lot of these traditional chemos target all dividing cells in the body, which is why they are so toxic and this is why cancer therapy is traditionally such an ordeal to go through...the perfect example of chemotherapy working at its best is testicular cancer, which is now very easily treatable with combination chemotherapy (bleomycin-etoposide-cisplatin)...

 

but this is only one example... if we had a slow growing benign cancer - such traditional chemotherapy would be next to usless and wouldn't work... alteratively, if we used Avastin - monoclonal antibody that targets angiogenesis (production of blood vessels) - it would be useless are targeting hypoxic areas of tumours... or if we used surgery to remove a breast tumour -the tumour may have already metastasised to the axillary lymph nodes... or we could have pancreatic cancer and by the time the doctors find out you will be dead within the year and the treatment is next to useless... as you can see, cancer is a complicated subject and it's treatments are very different so it's hard to answer such generalised questions... often surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are all used together to try and destroy as much tumours cells as possible... and i don't really understand immunology but somehow the body can destroy cancerous cells and so often if you get get a tumour small enough, the immune system can deal with it and you can be cured/permanent remission... so it doesn't necessarily matter if the cancer treatment doesn't target all the cells - it doesn't necessarily mean that you'd get the cancer back... you'd have to ask someone else if you want to know how the immune system targets cancerous cells because i don't know...

[Rasori]

Sysco, he's not worried about it not working between patients. What he's saying is that, in one patient, the treatment won't kill 100% of the cancer. What remains in that patient will become another cancerous growth. However, the cancer that remained in the patient will be what was resistant to the drug originally, so any cancerous cells that spawn from it will also be resistant to the drug, so upon the return of the cancer, the drug will no longer work.

 

The same will be true in most/all patients. The drug will seem to work on the first attempt, but will likely be useless after.

[Comandante]

Ah I see. He confused me by saying "Now the treatment doesn't work" part, I had the idea he was saying it now doesn't work for anyone, otherwise I see what you mean. That sounds right now Thanks.

[lucaspa]

the reason I asked is that I have 100g of the stuff in the Lab, and it`s a Known Carcinogen, and there`s plenty proof of that!

 

There's plenty of supporting evidence. It's still not "proof". You can't "prove" anything either by induction or deduction. You can disprove by deduction.

 

But, if you work in a lab, then you have access to PubMed. Do your own search! Be a competent lab worker.

[lucaspa]

I don't understand how that works. How did cancer cells get immune to that specific drug or treatment in other patients when other patients haven't been treated with the drug? You were referring to any patient when you said ALL cells , no? I find that rather interesting.

 

Cancer cells vary. No cancer cell is exactly like any other cancer cell within the same tumor. And by the time a cancer become noticeable clinically, there are at least a billion cancer cells!

 

So, by accident, one or a few of the cancer cells are going to have a variation that makes them resistant to the treatment. Kill off all the other cells by the treatment, and then the resistant ones divide and pass their resistance to the daughter cells by inheritance. So the cancer grows back, only this time the cancer is composed of cells that are resistant to the treatment.

[lucaspa]

if we had a slow growing benign cancer - such traditional chemotherapy would be next to usless and wouldn't work... alteratively, if we used Avastin - monoclonal antibody that targets angiogenesis (production of blood vessels) - it would be useless are targeting hypoxic areas of tumours.

 

It's worse than that. One of the cancer cells would have a different way of inducing angiogenesis than what Avastin targets. So the tumor would still get angiogenesis as all the cancer cells are descended from the cell that has a different way of inducing angiogenesis.

 

.. or if we used surgery to remove a breast tumour -the tumour may have already metastasised to the axillary lymph nodes.

 

That's different. Surgery is the one way you can get a "cure". Because, unless the tumor has metastasized, you can remove ALL the cancer cells.

 

often surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are all used together to try and destroy as much tumours cells as possible...

 

And the idea behind this is that it is unlikely that a single cell will be resistant to BOTH radiation AND chemotherapy. Therefore the radiation kills the cancer cells the chemotherapy doesn't and vice versa. It is oncologists finally recognizing that they are dealing with a Darwinian system.

 

and i don't really understand immunology but somehow the body can destroy cancerous cells and so often if you get get a tumour small enough, the immune system can deal with it and you can be cured/permanent remission... so it doesn't necessarily matter if the cancer treatment doesn't target all the cells - it doesn't necessarily mean that you'd get the cancer back... you'd have to ask someone else if you want to know how the immune system targets cancerous cells because i don't know...

 

 

1. If the cancer has gotten to the stage that you notice it clinically, it has already gotten a mechanism to avoid the immune system.

 

2. Cancer cells have mutated proteins. Proteins are constantly being cleaved in lysosomes and then the fragments (smaller peptides) are cycled to the cell surface on the major histocompatibility complexes. The immune cells then "look" at these fragments. They have gotten acclimated to normal fragments and these fragments from normal cells are recognized as "self". But the abnormal fragments from cancer cells look different and the immune system says these are "not self" and starts to destroy them. So treatments based on immunotherapy are designed to boost the immune system so that it is better at recognizing the cancer cells as "non-self".

 

3. The problem is that a few of the cancer cells are going to be different and still be able to fool the boosted immune system that they are "self" and not be destroyed. Then they multiply and now all the cancer cells are descended from these. And the cancer is back -- all from the few cells that were able to survive the treatment.

[Revenged]

all i could remember from immunology is that MHC class I on is where foreign peptides inside the cell are produced to the surface of virus infected cells and stimulates phagocytosis/atoptosis of the cell... and that MHC class II is where bacterial proteins get placed on the end of antigen presenting cells and stimulates the antibody responce... wasn't sure how cancer fits into all this... is it MHC class I pathway that is involved as it involves processing endogenous material?

[YT2095]

But, if you work in a lab, then you have access to PubMed. Do your own search! Be a competent lab worker.

 

don`t get your panties in a bunch with me pal, if you don`t like being asked a civil question, then Why are you on a Public Forum

 

now then, I`ll expect a little more civility from you in future!

[lucaspa]

all i could remember from immunology is that MHC class I on is where foreign peptides inside the cell are produced to the surface of virus infected cells and stimulates phagocytosis/atoptosis of the cell... and that MHC class II is where bacterial proteins get placed on the end of antigen presenting cells and stimulates the antibody responce... wasn't sure how cancer fits into all this... is it MHC class I pathway that is involved as it involves processing endogenous material?

 

Yes. Proteins are degraded and the fragments processed to the MHC-I. But that happens to ALL proteins in the cell -- the "normal" ones produced by the cell and the "foreign" ones produced by the virus. The body has gotten used to the "normal" fragments and recognizes those as "self". The virus proteins are not self.

 

But when a gene is mutated and starts producing an altered protein, that is pretty much the same as having a foreign protein produced by a virus, isn't it? So a single cancer cell is going to present "foreign" protein fragments on its MHC-I and the immune system will recognize this as an abnormal cell for phagocytosis/apoptosis. And indeed, the data indicates that the body does in individual cancer cells all the time. We never know that these cells exist because our body kills them before they can proliferate. The cancers that present as disease are those that have evaded this system so that they can reproduce to make tens of millions of cells.

[lucaspa]

don`t get your panties in a bunch with me pal, if you don`t like being asked a civil question, then Why are you on a Public Forum

 

You didn't ask a question. You made two statements: "Bite Me

 

the reason I asked is that I have 100g of the stuff in the Lab, and it`s a Known Carcinogen, and there`s plenty proof of that! "

 

So you consider your post as civil? Since when is "bite me" a civil response? And I suppose you consider the stick your tongue out smiley to be civil.

 

Now, when you did post your original question, I did answer civilly. I even went and found the answer for you! But did I even get a thank you in return? No.

 

I would expect a little civility from you, but I know I'll never get it. You are obviously completely oblivious to your incivility.

 

Of course, this is all a distraction from my post correcting you on how science works and my observation that you apparently don't know enough to do a simple PubMed search. Your incompetence in both areas doesn't change by trying to divert the subject to my behavior.

[YT2095]

is Pedantry Really a requirement?

was it called for?

no I didn`t think so either.

 

could you Not have just answered the question Without all the rest of the fluff?

 

and as for "pubmed" I`de never heard of it before, I don`t run that kind of Lab!

[lucaspa]

is Pedantry Really a requirement?

was it called for?

no I didn`t think so either.

 

could you Not have just answered the question Without all the rest of the fluff?

 

I see I'm still not going to get a "thank you" nor admission of your incivility.

 

Now, I asked you -- even using "please" -- not to use the word "proved". It's not "fluff". It's a very important attribute of science. Science does not, strictly speaking, "prove". It can't by either induction or deduction.

 

If you look at any serious discussion of the nature of science, you find it emphasized as an essential characteristic that science is always tentative. Saying something is "proved" is not tentative.

 

and as for "pubmed" I`de never heard of it before, I don`t run that kind of Lab!

 

How can you not have heard of the most extensive database of scientific publications around? BTW, what kind of lab do you work in that you capitalize it as "Lab"?

[YT2095]

now we`re on about my Capitalization!

 

I rest my case *sigh*

[lucaspa]

now we`re on about my Capitalization!

 

Not at all. I was just curious. Was it a mistake on your part to write "Lab"? If so, just say so.

 

BTW, I'm still waiting for that polite "thank you".

[Phi for All]

Was it a mistake on your part to write "Lab"?

YT2095, like some others, uses caps for vocal emphasis in a non-vocal medium. Some people use italics, some use * brackets, some use bold and some use caps.

could you Not have just answered the question Without all the rest of the fluff?

Seeing as how he had no way of knowing "fluff" would set you off so badly, lucaspa's thorough answer can be forgiven, yes?

 

 

Let's curb our sensitivity and get back to the thread.

[lucaspa]

Let's curb our sensitivity and get back to the thread.

 

It looks like we've pretty well exhausted the topic.

 

In brief, getting cancer treatments is tough because cancer cells are subject to Darwinian evolution. Cancers are populations of cells, each of which varies slightly from the others. By the time a cancer is clinically noticeable, that population is hundreds of millions/billions of cells. A treatment based on the property of cancer cells runs into the problem that a few of the cells are going to be resistant. So the treatment might kill all but 1,000, all but 100, all but 10. However, the remaining cells are not going to multiply and, after 2-5 years, the cancer is going to be back to where it was in size except now the treatment won't work. Because all the cancer cells are descended from those who were resistant and, by inheritance, are also resistant.

 

Don't you just hate it when evolution is true?

[YT2095]

Indeed.