8 ms·

DCA: A simple, unpatentable cancer treatment?

82 points by anxiousape 15y ago

code177 15y ago
The article seems filled with errors about basic biology, so here's the actual research: http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca
- anxiousape 15y ago
  Thanks for posting the real deal link
- pg 15y ago
  Replaced it with that.
stevetjoa 15y ago
Encouraging, but read this too, particularly the edit at the bottom, along with the link to ualberta.ca dated May 12, 2010: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/19694/has_cancer_been_cured_big_pharma_doesn_t_like_that_idea_very_much/index.html http://www.tweaktown.com/news/19694/has_cancer_been_cured_bi...
- lostbit 15y ago
  Yes... That's exactly where I ended too. The main page of the site, http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/ http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/, still points to the 2007 research/article. Maybe they didn't want to break the optimism.
willscott 15y ago
The text of the article is poorly written - with a focus too much on conspiracy theory rather than on actual science. The linked article is from 2007, and only reports on preliminary research. There's a reason we have the scientific setup that we do, and it is to filer the noise, and protect the authenticity of the science. If these guys from Alberta are able to come back with good results on human trials, then other labs will independently confirm the result. The fact that drug companies aren't picking up research at a preliminary stage on a drug that won't be profitable shouldn't be surprising, but it also doesn't mean that the research won't go forwards.
- lostbit 15y ago
  I also noticed the 2007 reference. However, further checking the Univesity site on News & Updates, one will find that it went further to Clinical Trials and a new article in 2010 shows interesting results for glioblastoma (a type of cancer).
- pg 15y ago
  (This comment refers to the original, crappy article this link used to go to.)
- smokinn 15y ago
  You're right that it doesn't mean the research won't go forwards since it's currently being funded by "philanthropic groups and individuals" according to wikipedia's article on Dichloroacetic acid which is a much better summary for lay people than the original article or this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Results_of_phase_II_clinical_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Results_of_...
extramoose 15y ago
May 12, 2010 - Edmonton, AB - Medical Researchers at the University of Alberta reported today evidence that the orphan generic drug Dichloroacetate (DCA) may hold promise as potential therapy for perhaps the deadliest of all human cancers: a form of brain cancer called glioblastoma. http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Updat...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
scythe 15y ago
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5166 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5166 This is a great article from the sciencebasedmedicine guys about the state of dichloroacetate as a cancer treatment. A bit long-winded, but totally realistic about the current prospects. The links at the bottom are all great too.
- melvinram 15y ago
  Great article. Here's a summary (or at least how I understood it) for those that don't read it (which I recommend you do): * Mitochondrias (an organele in our cells that is considered the battery of a cell) in cancer patients typically don't function as they normally should. * In 2007, University of Alberta researchers led by Evangelos Michelakis, announced a non-human trial that showed promising signs of stopping and regressing cancer using a substance known as DMC. * DMC is thought to work by fixing bad mitochondrias in cancer patients (obviously over simplified). * DMC is non-patentable and is easily made, so the news became a big anti-big-pharma story and spread like wild fire because the researchers were having trouble getting funds for doing clinical trials, since there was no money that could be made from this drug if it proved to work. * The hopes for many cancer patients skyrocketed creating demand for DMC. * A few ethically challenged entrepreneurs setup websites to sell DMC under the guise of DMC for Pets to get around FDA. * There are potential side-effects when DMC is mixed with other drugs so a lot of people put their their lives in danger by doing self treatment, but no results were ever posted to the forums. The suspected reason is that the forum admins removed all negative reports. * The websites were shut down by FDA after some time. * A couple days ago, Michelakis's team at UofA announced the results of a clinical trial in which they administered DMC to 5 patients. This published in a journal but you can see their announcement at http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Updat... * Of the 5, patient #1, #2 & #5 showed promising results. Patient #3 died (not attributed to DMC) and patient #4 needed a 2nd surgery 3 months after starting, which it didn't specifically say but I assumed to mean that it wasn't considered successful. * Key things to note: - the trials where a combination of phase 0 and phase 1 trials. -- Phase 0 = seek to determine if the drug is doing biochemically what it is expected to do based on preclinical studies, usually by taking a biopsy and doing chemical tests. -- Phase 1 "are designed to determine two things: dose and dose-limiting side effects" ... not efficacy of the drug. - all 5 were treated differently and in combination with other treatments. This makes the tests not reliable enough to make conclusions from. - Treatments often show very very promising signs when dealing with non-humans but fail when the rubber meets the road in real clinical trials. - DMC shows promise but it's dangerous for people to self-treat and inefficient to shortcut the scientific process of testing and evaluating treatments.
mazsa 15y ago
Science: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/31/31ra34.abstract http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/31/31ra34.abstract Full text: https://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/DCA%20and%20Glioblastoma%20May%20%202010.pdf https://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/DCA%20and...
iwitho 15y ago
The latest update which was about a year ago at the U of A site listed a 5 person clinical trial that had very modest effects on glioblastomas, only 1 type of cancer. Source: http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Updat...
crocowhile 15y ago
The DCA is a promising drug and there's many people working on it, on many kind of tumors. Be aware that this "it's unpatentable" thing is bullshit. You don't patent a drug, you patent the use of the drug for a certain purpose. In fact, Michelakis himself appears to have patented DCA for several cancer forms. http://www.google.com/patents?q=Michelakis&btnG=Search+Patents http://www.google.com/patents?q=Michelakis&btnG=Search+P... http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=RErGAAAAEBAJ&dq=Michelakis http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=RErGAAAAEBAJ&dq=M...
- stcredzero 15y ago
  Be aware that this "it's unpatentable" thing is bullshit. If there is a huge market for X, there is an economically feasible "unpatentable" enabler of X, then someone is going to make money doing X, and even the law won't be able to stop them.
  - william42 15y ago
    But that's not really different for any other drug.
zem 15y ago
scienceblogs had a great piece on this: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_... quoting: What is most pernicious about the conspiracy-mongering stories being spread about DCA is that it builds false hope. People with cancer hear about this drug, and they think there's an amazing cure out there that's being withheld from them because of the greed of big pharma.
- ams6110 15y ago
  "Big Pharma" have to invest a lot of R&D in cancer drugs. Do they really make profits in the "greedy" realm on this effort overall? I'd think they rake in the $$$ on stuff like Viagra and Rogaine.
  - pygy_ 15y ago
    "Big Pharma" invest more in marketing and advertising than in R&D. Even though some drugs are indeed more lucrative for them than others, they would not develop cancer drugs if they were not profitable.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > Big Pharma" invest more in marketing and advertising than in R&D. That marketing and advertising spending is dominated by free and discounted drugs for folks who can't afford list price. Are you opposed to that spending?
    - hga 15y ago
      "marketing and advertising" also means informing doctors about new drugs and therapies. Outside of "miracle" drugs or new drug categories (e.g. ED or the low side effecting SSRIs like Prozac) that get "promoted" by the media etc. a new drug will do few any good if doctors don't know enough about it. This is especially true for cancer drugs marketed to oncologists (which I suspect are never marketed directly to consumers...). The field is very complex ... and I recall that one of the major factors in the difference in outcomes between your local medical system and the major cancer centers is the better current knowledge of the practitioners in the latter.
gdilla 15y ago
Yes it is real. You can read the review article here: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v99/n7/full/6604554a.html http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v99/n7/full/6604554a.html The only problem is that most cancers develop mechanisms to block or inactivate apoptosis pathways of which there are several, so DCA will not work in every type of cancer since these apoptosis pathways need to be intact before cancer cells will die. It is never that simple and some scientists tend to oversimplify the story.
mvkel 15y ago
A lobby needs to be created to educate the public that each cancer is its own disease, and there can never be a cure for all cancers in one magical formula.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  I can 100% guarantee that I have a cheap and successful way of killing all cancerous cells of any type with one simple and effective treatment, with only one side effect. I call the treatment plumbum-therapy. (Note: reported side effect to therapy includes death by gunshot wound) I think people would prefer to opt for a more expensive treatment plan.
FreakshowLee 15y ago
DCA doesn't cure cancer, you dopes. http://www.cancer.org/AboutUs/DrLensBlog/post/2010/05/14/More-On-Dichloroacetate-(DCA)-In-Cancer-Treatment.aspx http://www.cancer.org/AboutUs/DrLensBlog/post/2010/05/14/Mor...

82 points by anxiousape 15y ago

The article seems filled with errors about basic biology, so here's the actual research: http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca

anxiousape 15y ago
Thanks for posting the real deal link
pg 15y ago
Replaced it with that.

stevetjoa 15y ago

Encouraging, but read this too, particularly the edit at the bottom, along with the link to ualberta.ca dated May 12, 2010: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/19694/has_cancer_been_cured_big_pharma_doesn_t_like_that_idea_very_much/index.html http://www.tweaktown.com/news/19694/has_cancer_been_cured_bi...

lostbit 15y ago
Yes... That's exactly where I ended too. The main page of the site, http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/ http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/, still points to the 2007 research/article. Maybe they didn't want to break the optimism.

willscott 15y ago

The text of the article is poorly written - with a focus too much on conspiracy theory rather than on actual science. The linked article is from 2007, and only reports on preliminary research. There's a reason we have the scientific setup that we do, and it is to filer the noise, and protect the authenticity of the science. If these guys from Alberta are able to come back with good results on human trials, then other labs will independently confirm the result. The fact that drug companies aren't picking up research at a preliminary stage on a drug that won't be profitable shouldn't be surprising, but it also doesn't mean that the research won't go forwards.

lostbit 15y ago
I also noticed the 2007 reference. However, further checking the Univesity site on News & Updates, one will find that it went further to Clinical Trials and a new article in 2010 shows interesting results for glioblastoma (a type of cancer).
pg 15y ago
(This comment refers to the original, crappy article this link used to go to.)
smokinn 15y ago
You're right that it doesn't mean the research won't go forwards since it's currently being funded by "philanthropic groups and individuals" according to wikipedia's article on Dichloroacetic acid which is a much better summary for lay people than the original article or this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Results_of_phase_II_clinical_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Results_of_...

extramoose 15y ago

May 12, 2010 - Edmonton, AB - Medical Researchers at the University of Alberta reported today evidence that the orphan generic drug Dichloroacetate (DCA) may hold promise as potential therapy for perhaps the deadliest of all human cancers: a form of brain cancer called glioblastoma. http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Updat...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

scythe 15y ago

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5166 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5166 This is a great article from the sciencebasedmedicine guys about the state of dichloroacetate as a cancer treatment. A bit long-winded, but totally realistic about the current prospects. The links at the bottom are all great too.

melvinram 15y ago
Great article. Here's a summary (or at least how I understood it) for those that don't read it (which I recommend you do): * Mitochondrias (an organele in our cells that is considered the battery of a cell) in cancer patients typically don't function as they normally should. * In 2007, University of Alberta researchers led by Evangelos Michelakis, announced a non-human trial that showed promising signs of stopping and regressing cancer using a substance known as DMC. * DMC is thought to work by fixing bad mitochondrias in cancer patients (obviously over simplified). * DMC is non-patentable and is easily made, so the news became a big anti-big-pharma story and spread like wild fire because the researchers were having trouble getting funds for doing clinical trials, since there was no money that could be made from this drug if it proved to work. * The hopes for many cancer patients skyrocketed creating demand for DMC. * A few ethically challenged entrepreneurs setup websites to sell DMC under the guise of DMC for Pets to get around FDA. * There are potential side-effects when DMC is mixed with other drugs so a lot of people put their their lives in danger by doing self treatment, but no results were ever posted to the forums. The suspected reason is that the forum admins removed all negative reports. * The websites were shut down by FDA after some time. * A couple days ago, Michelakis's team at UofA announced the results of a clinical trial in which they administered DMC to 5 patients. This published in a journal but you can see their announcement at http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Updat... * Of the 5, patient #1, #2 & #5 showed promising results. Patient #3 died (not attributed to DMC) and patient #4 needed a 2nd surgery 3 months after starting, which it didn't specifically say but I assumed to mean that it wasn't considered successful. * Key things to note: - the trials where a combination of phase 0 and phase 1 trials. -- Phase 0 = seek to determine if the drug is doing biochemically what it is expected to do based on preclinical studies, usually by taking a biopsy and doing chemical tests. -- Phase 1 "are designed to determine two things: dose and dose-limiting side effects" ... not efficacy of the drug. - all 5 were treated differently and in combination with other treatments. This makes the tests not reliable enough to make conclusions from. - Treatments often show very very promising signs when dealing with non-humans but fail when the rubber meets the road in real clinical trials. - DMC shows promise but it's dangerous for people to self-treat and inefficient to shortcut the scientific process of testing and evaluating treatments.

mazsa 15y ago

Science: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/31/31ra34.abstract http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/31/31ra34.abstract Full text: https://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/DCA%20and%20Glioblastoma%20May%20%202010.pdf https://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/DCA%20and...

iwitho 15y ago

The latest update which was about a year ago at the U of A site listed a 5 person clinical trial that had very modest effects on glioblastomas, only 1 type of cancer. Source: http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Updat...

crocowhile 15y ago

The DCA is a promising drug and there's many people working on it, on many kind of tumors. Be aware that this "it's unpatentable" thing is bullshit. You don't patent a drug, you patent the use of the drug for a certain purpose. In fact, Michelakis himself appears to have patented DCA for several cancer forms. http://www.google.com/patents?q=Michelakis&btnG=Search+Patents http://www.google.com/patents?q=Michelakis&btnG=Search+P... http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=RErGAAAAEBAJ&dq=Michelakis http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=RErGAAAAEBAJ&dq=M...

stcredzero 15y ago
Be aware that this "it's unpatentable" thing is bullshit. If there is a huge market for X, there is an economically feasible "unpatentable" enabler of X, then someone is going to make money doing X, and even the law won't be able to stop them.
- william42 15y ago
  But that's not really different for any other drug.

zem 15y ago

scienceblogs had a great piece on this: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_... quoting: What is most pernicious about the conspiracy-mongering stories being spread about DCA is that it builds false hope. People with cancer hear about this drug, and they think there's an amazing cure out there that's being withheld from them because of the greed of big pharma.

ams6110 15y ago
"Big Pharma" have to invest a lot of R&D in cancer drugs. Do they really make profits in the "greedy" realm on this effort overall? I'd think they rake in the $$$ on stuff like Viagra and Rogaine.
- pygy_ 15y ago
  "Big Pharma" invest more in marketing and advertising than in R&D. Even though some drugs are indeed more lucrative for them than others, they would not develop cancer drugs if they were not profitable.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > Big Pharma" invest more in marketing and advertising than in R&D. That marketing and advertising spending is dominated by free and discounted drugs for folks who can't afford list price. Are you opposed to that spending?
  - hga 15y ago
    "marketing and advertising" also means informing doctors about new drugs and therapies. Outside of "miracle" drugs or new drug categories (e.g. ED or the low side effecting SSRIs like Prozac) that get "promoted" by the media etc. a new drug will do few any good if doctors don't know enough about it. This is especially true for cancer drugs marketed to oncologists (which I suspect are never marketed directly to consumers...). The field is very complex ... and I recall that one of the major factors in the difference in outcomes between your local medical system and the major cancer centers is the better current knowledge of the practitioners in the latter.

gdilla 15y ago

Yes it is real. You can read the review article here: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v99/n7/full/6604554a.html http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v99/n7/full/6604554a.html The only problem is that most cancers develop mechanisms to block or inactivate apoptosis pathways of which there are several, so DCA will not work in every type of cancer since these apoptosis pathways need to be intact before cancer cells will die. It is never that simple and some scientists tend to oversimplify the story.

mvkel 15y ago

A lobby needs to be created to educate the public that each cancer is its own disease, and there can never be a cure for all cancers in one magical formula.

electromagnetic 15y ago
I can 100% guarantee that I have a cheap and successful way of killing all cancerous cells of any type with one simple and effective treatment, with only one side effect. I call the treatment plumbum-therapy. (Note: reported side effect to therapy includes death by gunshot wound) I think people would prefer to opt for a more expensive treatment plan.

FreakshowLee 15y ago

DCA doesn't cure cancer, you dopes. http://www.cancer.org/AboutUs/DrLensBlog/post/2010/05/14/More-On-Dichloroacetate-(DCA)-In-Cancer-Treatment.aspx http://www.cancer.org/AboutUs/DrLensBlog/post/2010/05/14/Mor...