LAURA KNIGHT-JADCZYK AND JOE QUINN
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
Pharmaceutical advertising is the biggest spender in media advertising. I doubt that the mainstream media will give this story the tailwind it deserves. Hopefully the internet will provide the exposure that this discovery should receive. It is an incredible medical breakthrough. I wonder if supplementary DCA would provide protection from developing cancer?
Remember the dimethyl sufoxide business? It featured recently in Sott Focus: [Link]
DMSO is in the same situation. Unpatentable but very useful medicine, increasingly hard to obtain as it gets outlawed around the world, simply because there's no money in it and it presents competition.
Sadly, I guess DCA will go the same way.
Yes, if it doesn't make money and could potentially make people better then we'll ignore it. That is what Big Pharma does. We need to start questioning our Doctors more and asking for alternatives that is the ONLY way we will bring Big Pharma to a realisation - they can't dictate to us. Read Ty Bollinger's book "Cancer - Think Outside the Box". Very well researched, easy to read and FULL of Cancer cures. We just have to be brave and know that that toxic medicines being forced on us as cures aren't our answer. Here is Ty's link [Link]
There is some serious controversy over this DCA stuff. Mostly a lack of larger scale trials. Even the researchers themselves levy some serious cautions about what they are finding, saying that it is VERY preliminary and that many more trials need to be done to understand what is going on here. The specific trial(s) being sited in this article are from 2007 ( animal tests ) and 2010 ( very small scale human tests on brain tumors only ).
From the research update on the University of Alberta website:
"No conclusions can be made on whether the drug is safe or effective in patients with this form of brain cancer, due to the limited number of patients tested by the study's leads Drs Michelakis and Petruk. Researchers emphasize that use of DCA by patients or physicians, supplied from for-profit sources or without close clinical observation by experienced medical teams in the setting of research trials, is not only inappropriate but may also be dangerous." ( [Link])
Original research is found here: [Link]
Free abstract is found here: [Link]
Previous "cures for cancer" ran into a lot of road blocks...
Gaston Naessens 714x/714x; Dr. Livingston-Wheeler [deceased](cancer is a virus); Dr. Royal Rife [deceased] (cancer is a virus); Dr. Kurt Donsbach (Ozone Therapy, and other therapies); and many other researchers.
Not to mention that a couple of these researchers made the most powerful microscopes of their day.
Road blocks, road blocks.
Just for the sake of accuracy, mitochondria are not "cells", as the author states. They are organelle - subsections that act as the 'organs' of certain cells. Mitochondrial organelle are found in all but the most basic cells and serve a variety of functions.
I don't have the appropriate background to elaborate further, but the Wikipedia article is well developed, for starters.
Aside from that, I look forward to following this treatment as it develops.
I recommend the article be amended to reflect this small but important point. Cheers.
I was forwarded this article on facebook and feel highly compelled to comment. I would like to point out that I am not a regular reader of this website (which upon further inspection seems to be full of highly erroneous information about cancer research). Nevertheless, here is my response:
This article is a ridiculous embellishment, and factually flawed. I'm not a fan of pharma either, but i am a cancer researcher. The original manuscript referenced describes tissue based work and a one arm non randomized administration of DCA to 5 people with a rare type of treatment resistant brain cancer. There is absolutely no data to support efficacy (is is simply a safety study) and certainly no evidence that this treatment is a "cure for cancer", just that it worked well in petri dishes and it didn't appear to make five people sicker than they already were (but there was no control group for comparison). That the pharmaceutical industry might not pursue this particular compound due to patent issues does not change the fact that cell metabolism pathways are the most important areas for drug development in solid tumor therapy and it is highly erroneous to imply that these pathways are not being explored
in attempt to kill cancer (via reactivation of apoptosis, anti-angiogenesis, etc), because this is the basis for most modern targeted cancer therapy. Finally, why is this being viewed as another opportunity to rip on pharma? It should be seen as a victory over pharma that a drug that is inexpensive and highly available *might* have the same properties as the most expensive therapies in the pipeline. Clinical trials are not limited to the pharmaceutical industry, any researcher can conduct them given appropriate ethical approval. If the research continues to be positive, the lack of involvement by pharma could be one of the best things to happen for accessible treatment options in solid tumor patients...
I don't know if this is a cure for cancer but the previous poster is oblivious. His knowledge of anything is limited by what he is taught by a corrupt system of money and deceit. Big pharma are so powerful, there is so much money involved they think they can do whatever they want. There's so much money involved in the horrific fraud that is modern cancer treatment that these psychopathic people think they can do whatever they want.
There's many cures for cancers. Marijuana is a cure for cancer. Has the previous poster, being a cancer researcher bothered to look into the data regarding marijuana use and cancer? Let me guess. There is none or it's inconclusive or blah blah, etc, etc. Absolutely pathetic. Or how about the vitamin b-17? Of course that's also b.s. right?
Listen you fools. There's billions, not millions, billions, of dollars spent on P.R. in this world. Dollars spent on keeping you all lazy and stupid. If there's data out there that proves that something a huge multinational does or sells is not so good you bet your fat ass there's going to be P.R. to say otherwise. And usually that is what wins out. People are like rats scurrying around in a maze. That is how these "elite" view us. Are they wrong? Think about that. Really.
People keep asking, why don't big pharma do this, why doesn't government do that? Stop asking that question. It's a joke. Even if you knew why they're doing it, which is obvious, because they're psychopathic pigs who just care about money and are seemingly completely removed from the objective truth of our oneness with the universe and unlimited love, would it really matter? The fact is they are doing it. Big pharma is completely messing up everything. Just like big oil, big everything. That's what they do. They're insane. End of conversation.
What we're supposed to be doing is looking for alternatives. If someone is doing something really insane, the proper thing to do isn't to ask them to stop and do the right thing. You can ask them and maybe they'll change maybe not but that's not the point. All we've been doing, as a collective society, is "asking" these large corporate structures to change. Forget that. Ignore them and DO IT YOURSELF.
IGNORE THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF INSANITY AND DO THINGS YOURSELVES! Organize with people who are doing the right things and do it! Just shut up and do it.
Very well said. Thank you.
"I would like to point out that I am not a regular reader of this website (which upon further inspection seems to be full of highly erroneous information about cancer research)...." from "Whatever"
First off for someone who wants to be taken seriously they call themselves Whatever...second such a chronic "plant" and nay sayer we have yet to hear.... Let's play this game in 2012 - Hunt the Shill or Big Corp "plant" - Most may find it easier than than the card game Snap but much more invigorating.... have a good one one and all....and as for those that hang to the tail coats of Big Pharma, Fat Footsie, Crappy Corps and Flawed Flatulent One Percenters.... bye bye ol' buggers... go meet the dinosaurs who were far more intelligent as they stayed the course millions of years longer than you.
After just taking a molecular pathogenesis of cancer class this past semester, it makes me sad to say the writers of this paper do not know much about the function of the apoptotic pathway in cancer cells. The intrinsic (self) and extrinsic(from the outside) pathways of cell suicide are activated by mitochondrial cytochrome C release, which cascade with other enzymes activating the caspase 8, 9 pathways which cleave all the cells protein, killing it. However, a cancer cell, being a cancer cell, will have this pathway cut off--irreversibly--simply because it otherwise it would have been killed before it became cancer. The extrinsic pathway will be cut off due to faulty receptors or cascading proteins, and the intrinsic pathway--even if the mitochondria are "activated" and cytochrome C is released, will be to no avail because the cell either wont listen to the death signal, has an amplification of repressors to the apoptotic signal (BCL2, BCL XL), or the DNA coding for the proteins necessary to carry out the caspase activity of cleaving proteins has been mutated/deleted/rendered non-functional. Unfortunately, the first step toward cancer is an immortalizing event. Later, come proto-oncogene mutations leading to uncontrolled division. This means, the mitochondrial apoptotic pathway is destroyed. It isn't simply dormant, waiting to be turned on. Its like being asked to drive a car when its missing nearly all its parts, and has other parts that are deformed and beyond functional.
It is not the DCA that's missing in starting an apoptotic response. It actually has no play in the pathway whatsoever. It is other, real, parts of the mitochondrial cytochrome C pathway that are messed up in cancer. And in cancer, those things are missing/deformed, that's why the cancer cell is immortal and cannot die. Maybe you should look up what that pathway entails/looks like.
Thats great, but of course these big pharmaceuticals aren't going to give it recognition because then that makes them lose money. It isn't about saving a life, its about a paycheck for them, fattening they're bank account. If it was they're loved one, then they would no doubt give that person a cheaper guaranteed medicine so they dont go through the hell of the more expensive procedures and medicines. Its all about the money for them, everything is, and the thing is, the people here are getting more and more lazier and stupid, they just believe whatever they tell them. Everything is making people lazier, they improve on something then find a way to make it lazier. Then when your overweight and have these health problems you get to spend money on medicine to make you "feel better". It's a load of crap.
Your labeling of a whole industry of people you know nothing about but make assumptions on falls not much shorter than racism.
You just were taught this and you know so much about it? man what a laugh
Knowing about what a school book tells you about cancer does not mean you know cancer. There's reality, and then there's the story about reality. You need to be very careful about what you accept as your truth. Do you accept that there are electrons? Can you show me one? All this BS about scientists wanting double blind placebo controls and "there's just not enough evidence". Show me a picture of an electron! Why no controversy there? If a theory is repeated enough, it starts to get treated as fact. Like I say, be careful what you accept as your truth, as it will affect all subsequent judgements and assessments further down the line. If it wasn't a double blind study, why not use the rest of the population of the planet as your control group? Not enough people for statistical significance?
I wouldn't call DCA a cancer cure, but it's been around for a long time and it certainly can help in a lot of cases. I think the most likely way it is helping most is that it blocks the lactic acid (waste product from glucose fermentation) which has to go back to the liver to be converted (at great energetic expense to the body) back to glucose. This is why cachexia in late stage cancer is so fast. The person literally wastes away in the last couple of week as the process accelerates, as anyone who has observed someone die of cancer will be all too aware of (even if they've never read the school book explanation, and don't claim to be an expert or have letters after their name).
There are many more mitochondria in a cancerous cell (about 20 times), on account of its huge need for sugar (since it's not burning it with oxygen as normal, but fermenting it which is very inefficient).
For anyone that's reading this hoping for a cure for a cancer condition for them or someone they care about now, explore DCA for sure, but also explore Cesium Chloride, Budwig diet (please don't dismiss that one just because it's a 'diet', it's extremely effective), Gerson, Oleander, herb robert etc. There's many more.
There are many weaknesses in a cancer cell, and it's not insurmountable the way popular medicine would have us believe. There are several distinctions between a cancerous cell and a normal one, such as the mitochondrial angle mentioned above, or the enzyme P450 1B1 (from Cytochrome CYP1B1). There's stuff in the skins of natural fruit that will target this. Yeah that stuff, *Food*, remember that? Well it's not there now, because the way the fruit/veg develops the salvesterols in its skin that are so useful to the animal that eats them, is part of it's own immune system, when insects or fungi attack the fruit it develops this immune system. Us smart humans want fruit without flaws in its appearance and we spray it with chemicals. This keeps the insects/fugus away, but it also takes away the challenge to the fruit to develop its own immune system, so when the human eats it, (s)he's not getting that benefit. That's just one of a thousand ways we're spiralling down the plug hole.
As for it all being driven by money, I disagree. For the average person on the street where a million is a lot of money, they're controlled by money. They'll work for hundreds a week doing something they don't enjoy, just so they can comply with the system and use that money to buy said useless fruit. For those that are running this show (not government, big pharma, countries (which are corporations technically), but families that are behind all that). To them money is a joke. It's like a piece of tinsel to a kitten. Their power/control motivation is far more insidious than just owning numbers in a computer. In fact I'll gift you some numbers in a computer right now. 1234567890. Happy new year.
I've already posted several comments basically the same to attract more attention to the real root of the issue here. I hope you will take a look and get back to me
Cancer is a VERY hyped up misunderstood disease, Im gunna look into this this is very interesting, but cannabis, mdma, turmeric, milk thistle, and many other natural herbs & super foods, a diet rich in real nutrition & super foods will prevent it, so will using cannabis, our endocannabinoids are our natural defense ageist caner also which is why cannabis cures cancer, cannabis supplements our endocannabinoids with its own the only 2 sources found naturally with a system tied into just about every system in our body's
There are many things in that article that are just plain WRONG. Mitochondia are repeatedly referred to as cells. They are in no way cells, they are organelles - parts of a cell. That's like saying a liver or a lung is a whole human!
In fact this whole paragraph is CONFUSED!:
"In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective. Scientists used to think that these mitochondria cells were damaged and thus ineffective against cancer. So they used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in curing cancer and more wasteful. The drug manufacturers focused on this glycolysis method to fight cancer. This DCA on the other hand doesn't rely on glycolysis instead on mitochondria; it triggers the mitochondria which in turn fights the cancer cells" ????
What you mean is cancer cells make their energy by glycolysis instead of making it in the mitochondria. If you swich them to using the mitochondria, they kill themselves (apoptosis). Why this long confused para?
Basically even if a drug is going to come out of this, it's going to have to go through years and years of health and safety legal stuff. Then, as with many treatments today, you find the cancer becomes resistant to the apoptosis signal and, having shrunk initially, starts getting bigger again.
This article is misleading.
I was glad to read "whatever" and "recklessatbest's" comments on this, as they highlighted some of the poor science used to construct this story. I think the other major flaw is based on the assumptions about the way Pharma companies conduct their business.
At the top level, Pharma companies are motivated by profits, and their controlling officers make the majority of their decisions based on achieving the growth of their business. So yes, in this most basic sense it may be easy to call them "evil" because their industry is one where human wellness should take priority over profits.
However, in the labs of these companies, we find dedicated and passionate scientists and medical professionals who are committed to finding cures and helping people live healthier lives.
Pharma companies are not organizations that exist in their own little bubbles, and they very rarely work alone. Much of their research is done in collaboration with smaller companies or academic institutions. They often share molecules and research with independent labs to enable them to carry out trials that would be to costly otherwise.
The patent issue described in this story is not really an issue at all. In this case, the "ownership" of the drug wouldn't necessarily come from the compound itself, but rather the delivery method that the company would develop to administer the treatment. But again, if a scientist working at one of Pfizer's Centers for Therapeutic Innovation completed clinical trials on a compound that actually cured cancer there is nothing that would stop them from delivering it to the market. Even if Merck, Eli Lilly, BMS, and Johnson & Johnson all released clones of the same compound, they would still make a fortune. The PR value would be reason enough to do it.
As an occupy protester, I was fully ashamed to read someone bringing the rhetoric of the occupy movement into this poorly written and researched article.
any scarcity mentality now is going to be, what I call 'the age of the bypass' - it's going to get bypassed by the cooperative abundant framework of 'sharing is having more' ... that's just where it's going to go
pharma companies are in scarcity. they fund and control the medical journals and medical schools.
new cancer cure research has intention of 'getting out there - let's share it'.
the age of the bypass - in time, the systems that aren't working will be obsolete and the new cooperative network will emerge.
The problem I have with cancer is that we have no choice now. Cancer Prevention is impossible and if a cure is being held back because of the lack of capital gains then, we have to reconsider how medicine and economics operate. In order for us to pursue Prosperity and Liberty we must remain healthy. Are Alzheimer victims being denied better treatment? Diabetes? Are we being Guinea Pigs to the medical industry? Who came up with this plan? If this is the case then we need a major War to end this system as we know it. My sister quit The American Cancer Society when she realized donations were paying for her gas, her hotel rooms, her lunches, and expenses as well as the thousands of other employees hotels, lunches, gas, and expenses. Where was the rest of the money going?
I see where you're coming from...
The current medical/pharma system will continue the way it is, and will only be shifted by design revolution - not political or social revolution... We cannot fight a dysfunctional system, we can only create a new one... It will happen, there is just a lag (gestation rate) on this... Us being individuals can change communities, communities change nations, nations change the world - be a trimtab.
What happened in Egypt is classic - through our networks, we can bypass the scarcity mentality of corporations and politics, and cooperate and converge in support of a system that works for 100% of humanity.
[Link]
this documentary points out a lot re cancer cures which have been supressed...
"Cancer is a VERY hyped up misunderstood disease, Im gunna look into this this is very interesting, but cannabis, mdma, turmeric, milk thistle, and many other natural herbs & super foods, a diet rich in real nutrition & super foods will prevent it, so will using cannabis, our endocannabinoids are our natural defense ageist caner also which is why cannabis cures cancer, cannabis supplements our endocannabinoids with its own the only 2 sources found naturally with a system tied into just about every system in our body's"
It's not very easy to understand this very long and badly-written sentence, but I THINK you're saying that cannabis cures cancer.
Uh huh...
- so Bob Marley just didn't smoke enough then?
Have you seen this video?
[Link]
Whether this article is true or not, there are other cures out that are being ignored by the pharmaceutical companies.
If you haven't already seen this video, please take the time to watch "Rick Simpson's Run From The Cure"
[Link]
I have been reading about other Cancer research that came out of UBC, and the patents were bought by a US firm, a bunch of researchers I think. They formed a company called Tampimmune website Tapimmune.com if you want to know more.
The whole idea - and are going into Phase I clinical trials with the MAYO clinic on HER2 breast cancer research, but more importantly the idea is applicable to any cancer or even immunotherapy in general, i.e. aiding immune responses to anything really.
The basic simple concept? Cancer cells receptors are not found by our immune system, so our body cannot fight it properly. The idea they have tested in preclinical work, already has shown a 100-1000 increase in the ability of our body to find and respond to cancerous cells, or possibly in fighting many viral infections.
It is so simple. Raise the immune response by many multiples, and let our body be able to win the battle against foreign entities. I am hoping they prove the efficacy through their trials, and squash cancer and other ailments from killing us before we reach a ripe old age.
Cheers
Now I don't no much about cancer but from the sounds of things this article is complete B.S. It just quickly states something that obviously is going to get attention from people. Everyone wants a cure for cancer, even the big pharm companies if they could make one they would they would find a way to make money out of it or if big pharm couldn't smaller companies would be able to. The fact is this article is a cool sounding story but full of holes and misinformation but with such a controversial message if it gets out on Facebook millions will come here and buy the t-shirts this site sells, buy the hundreds of different conspiracy books this site sells subscribe to all their paid stuff and probably go to other similar sites that do the same thing. These sites that are supposidly all about exposing corruption are actually just as corrupt as the big pharm and all the other companies. They are just trying to get your money sure its not going to make as much money as selling drugs but its still an easy way to learn a substantial living.
Like curing cancer is HUGE if these guys new that It was possible and it was being repressed and they actually had a solid case for it and also had a desire better then any other money making company to cure it they would dedicate all their time just to that but instead you gotta find out about kennedy, 911, we never landed on the moon. Like come on why are all these "Conspiracy sites" So similar and how many people that have no education on what they are learning take it all from these places that tell you that whatever you learned in University or College is totally cooked information to send you on a wild goosechase but somehow these guys behind the letters know it all. Its just a joke sorry guys maybe this will help cure cancer maybe it won't but sites like these will do nothing but take your money. I bet they'll even delete this comment
Regardless of the terribility (fake word XD ) of this article, there are the New Scientist article and the REAL paper on the subject. These should have been the original sources for the post, but alas. Some of us just have better google fu i suppose *shrug*
[Link][Link]
Now come back and tell me something is wrong
This article could use a looking over by someone who actually knows a bit more about science and the functional mechanisms of dichloroacetate. Just basic revision I would like to point out: The mitochondria is not a cell. It is an organelle. It certainly cannot be accurately characterized as a cancer fighting cell, since its primary function is to provide nucleoside triphosphates such as ATP for the cell. The theme of the article, that an effective cancer treatment is largely overlooked by pharmaceutical companies due to its lack of profit potential, is accurate. However, the article itself is mostly biased and sensationalized.
I'm not a huge fan of Pharma, but this is just bad journalism. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't just run on hype and sensationalism. We are at a stage in our societal development where it's become fashionable to blame "them" (pharma, government, religion, bankers, whoever). It takes very little evidence to create a frenzy and we aren't particularly analytical in our opinions. Our education has been so watered down that many don't have the slightest idea how to evaluate information. So, let's take just a little time to consider a few things...
1. When you say "Pharma", you are actually talking about human beings. They have families. They have children with leukemia, wives and daughters with breast cancer, husbands and sons with lung and colon cancer. They have parents w/ Alzheimer's. If they are men over 60, they probably have prostate cancer. It's illogical to think that they care more about "profits" than cures.
2. A great deal of research is funded by NIH, not Pharma. NIH is part of a federal government. They make no profits from chemo treatments. AND... they get cancer too. You really think they are turning a blind eye?
3. The federal government is going broke. From a financial perspective, they NEED cures. The politician who presides over the curing of cancer will be a powerful person. And remember, only a very small fraction of government employees are "elected" (and potentially gaming the system). The rest are average Joe's and Joanne's... who get cancer and/or care for those with cancer.
4. This study is about as basic as it gets. My middle school son could have done a better job. No control group. VERY limited numbers. Oooohhh... I killed cells in a petri dish. What? Tumors shrunk. Wow. Did they actually disappear? Forever? Or did they start growing again 3 months later (as is often the case). It hasn't been repeated anywhere else, meaning it's not a 'validated' study.
5. It doesn't take much investigation to discover that Pharma actually IS looking at the same pathways to curing disease. It's one of the most promising approaches. Triggering the body to identify and kill cancer cells has been the goal for YEARS.
6. There is an assumption that the only money to be made is by Pharma. Listen, if someone (or some hospital) comes up with a "cure" for breast cancer or some other cancer... they money will POOR in.
7. There is also an assumption that ALL hospitals stand to lose money with cures. But MANY hospitals don't make their revenue on treating cancer. They have little to lose by curing cancer. Why wouldn't THEY want to go down in history as the place that cured breast cancer.
8. We hear about JAMA and New England Journal. They have a great deal of say in what gets published and what doesn't. They also influence (albeit indirectly) where the research goes. One could argue that they are part of the conspiracy, but "why"? And even if they were, there are countless other very solid medical journals that would love to scoop the study that cures cancer.
We've become a very cynical country (myself included). But I've decided to be a little more thoughtful and analytical in my cynicism. This article fails the sniff test. That said, I would be THRILLED to find out that they are really on to something... I'm getting older myself and would love to know there are cures out there!
And no, I'm not a "plant". Just a dad home w/ a sick kid who had a little time to kill.
PEACE
FIRST of all, it's POUR.
Well here is the REAL sources, second-hand and first hand:
[Link][Link]
Now come back and tell me something is wrong
It's hard for me to understand why these conspiracy theories continue. I have a PhD in biology and have studied cancer biology for almost 10 years. I promise you that there's no cure for cancer anywhere on the horizon. We just don't understand cancer well enough yet. In fact, I doubt there will never be one drug that cures all >100 different types of cancers. Lung cancer and breast cancer, for example, are totally different diseases.
Also, I can tell you about a LOT of drugs that have shown to kill cancer cells in a petri dish or in lab animals. Until they can work in a human being, you can't get too excited.
Lastly, it's simply not true that pharma wouldn't be interested in something that actually helps cancer patients, patent or not. As a commenter noted above, the PR benefit alone would be invaluable. Additionally, many pharma companies have divisions that produce generic drugs now. So if people are willing to pay for it, (even if forced to sell it cheap due to competition) there's no question that at least a few of them would make it. But given how large the cancer patient pool is (>12 million in the US alone), they'd be all over it.
Regardless, even if it were true that pharma isn't interested, there would be dozens of labs and hospitals around the world running small clinical trials in humans to see if it works. It's not that difficult to convince a doc to try something "off label" in a terminally ill patient. They're obviously desperate for anything that will prolong their life. A quick check of clinicaltrials.gov (a database of nearly every clinical trial that is happening) shows that it is indeed being studied in human trials by a number of institutions (none are pharma, though). Expect them to swoop in if the results are good.
Now what I find suspicious is that this group from Canada completed a clinical trial (in people with brain cancer [glioblastoma multiforme]) in August 2009 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00540176?term=dichloroacetate&rank=5) and there's still no published article anywhere in the medical/scientific literature. That usually means that the study findings were negative (ie. DCA didn't work). Trust me, a group that can publish its preclinical work in a prestigious science journal like Cancer Cell, will find a journal to publish their work--or they'd just post it on their website for the world to see. That doesn't mean that it won't work in other cancer types, but again, I wouldn't get too excited until we see results in humans.
Of course there is a lot of controversy surrounding DCA. There is a lot of controversy surrounding just about everything. If I was dying of cancer and the doctors said there is nothing they can do for me I would be more than willing to try something like DCA.
Here is one persons experience with it, this is from a medical journal, not some quack site. It is well worth reading
[Link]
and may look unrealistic to self-called "I have studied this for 10 year" or "I just finished a course of being told everything about cell in university and now know everything".
But thanks to their comments, The Laughing Man responded to with really nice two links that shows ignorance of the above mentioned people.
Thanks, The Laughing Man!
"I promise you that there's no cure for cancer anywhere on the horizon. We just don't understand cancer well enough yet. In fact, I doubt there will never be one drug that cures all >100 different types of cancers. Lung cancer and breast cancer, for example, are totally different diseases."-bionerd.
1) "i doubt there will never be one drug that cures all..." means that you think that there will be.
2) "i promise you...we just dont understand cancer well enough yet." means that you know almost nothing about it; therefore, cannot affirmatively say that a cure cannot currently exist or possibly might exist in the near future
3) a cure means that you eventually stop treatment. they would make more off of 1000 people not getting cured using ridiculously overpriced treatments than 12 million people paying fair prices for generic medicine
4) you quoted a .gov and the government wants us to pay our taxes and die as soon as possible when we are not. so saving millions of lives is not likely on their agenda.
ps: not to mention big pharma lobbyists and such for number 4.
My couzin brother has been diagnosed with stage 4 bone marrow cancer, can you please please tell me whether can it be cured by DCA???
you folks that don't believe that cures for cancer have been snuffed out by big money...need to do your research...cures for cancer have always been around, but there is way too much money to be made in the cancer industry to allow cancer to be cured. check out documentaries: "Thrive" and "Healing Cancer From Inside Out"...for starters (and Run From the Cure is a good one too)...it's time to wake up folks.
Rush, DCA is available very cheaply, from commercial vendors like Sigma Aldrich (1gm pure drug for~ $16). I have actually worked with this drug in a lab setting. I cannot verify if it has any clinical advantage. The way it works is simple - it inhibits an enzyme called pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK) which is responsible in reducing the activity of the enzyme (group) pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH). The activity of PDH is drastically reduced in some (~20 - 30%) type of cancers (eg. neck and squamous cell cancer). In these cases, DCA will restore the activity of PDH - restore the metabolism of the mitochondria - ultimately allowing the cancer cell to undergo apoptosis, or cell death. If I had cancer, I would buy this for myself and administer it no matter what. Keep in mind any (every) drug/chemical has a threshold, which if crossed will make the drug toxic. From the company (Sigma) website: LD50 Oral - rat - 2,820 mg/kg - meaning about 3 grams of DCA per Kilogram of body mass can kill 50 rats out of a sample of 100. Humans will have a different tolerance. Compared to some drugs out there that are either expensive as diamonds or have side effects like heck, this is definitely worth a shot. Why companies won't touch it is pretty obvious, why you and me shouldn't try it doesn't make sense. Some other side effects are skin irritation and a potential damage to mucosal layer in the mouth, nose and gut (you've been warned).
One last thing - there are some legit researchers sounding off here, and I agree with them. They ARE voices of reason and statistics. For those who vehemently attack them, get a life, there are some over here seeking actual answers and not some ideological argument material. The author of this article did a poor job of conveying the message, but the message may have some truth.
Is the cure kept from us because cancer is used as a controlled form of mass oppression and financial gain by the elite and their corporations? Or are we just subject to the innate fear of unexplained death, similar to what caused us to burn people alive for 300 years during witch hunts.
... I will say this though. If it's found that there has been a cure denied to us for any length of time, I won't be hesitant in seeing those responsible suffer horribly until their existence is complete, as I'm sure you'll agree. Might be of some benefit to keep important issues like this separate from the hindering influence of 'economy'.
I found this site researching symptoms of throat cancer. If I have it, I'll take DCA. If I survive, I'll let you know.
The university of Alberta has a page on DCA. But it dates from 2007.
[Link]
With the help of wikipedia, here's a 2010 update that is encouraging.
[Link]
This Canadian research team seems to be the only one anywhere working on this particular alternative therapy.