The Cure To Cancer?

What do you guys think of the so called cure for cancer?
D.C.A ?????? Dichloroacetate

DCA and How It Works

Dichloroacetic acid is a small molecule, basically acetic acid with 2 chlorines. The molecular formula is Cl2CHCOOH.

How does DCA work, briefly?

The Michelakis team reports that DCA turns on the mitochondria of cancer cells, allowing them to commit cellular suicide, or apoptosis.

Cancer cells shut down the mitochondria, which is the part of the cell that is involved in metabolism and, incidentally, initiates the cell suicide.

A non-cancerous cell will initiate apoptosis when it detects damage within itself that it cannot repair. But a cancer cell resists the suicide process. That is why chemotherapy and radiation treatments do not work very well and actually result in terrible side effects?????? the healthy cells actually die much easier.

Michelakis and his team discovered that they could re-activate the mitochondria of cancer cells. Not only that, the DCA is very effective in doing it: To quote from the Michelakis paper: ??????The decrease in [Ca2+]i occurs within 5 min and is sustained after 48 hr of DCA exposure.?????? The mitochondria are so sensitive to DCA that just 5 minutes of exposure reactivates them for 48 hours.

More info on DCA and its research can be found here: http://thedcasite.com


I've been researching this for a while now and I've become very interested in it. I think its great what they're doing and how they're developing treatments without backing from the FDA or other national drug associations. I also find it interesting how the news of this so-called cure isn't discussed that much and sort-of put to the side. Apparently this has been helping many desperate cancer patients who are able to get the prescription. What are your thoughts on this?

Does this seem at all similar to I Am Legend?

^yeah... not a bad movie by the way haha.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Eh. There have been 17 different cures over the past 2 years and I haven't seen a damned thing. Be careful when you read these articles.

Also when it comes to science breakthroughs if a solution can be said that simply, it isn't the whole picture.

^That is especially true with cancer. "Cure for cancer" is a widely-used buzzword. What we're actually searching for is the set of most appropriate treatment options for the type and stage of cancer someone has developed. The process will be very long and difficult, and having a one-size-fits-all cure simply won't happen.

A recent PhD comic summarizes this entire issue better than I ever could. Check it out!

hey, i'll support it when its actually proven to work

[gouldy]

I might be the odd one out here when I say this, but as a race, we humans genuinely need Cancer, aids and homosexuality. Aids is doing its best to wipe out Africa as we speak and homosexuality is doing it's best to highlight religious extemists so they can also be killed. But, we seem to be working really hard to try and destroy natures final attempts to help us. Do not underestimate just how much we NEED these things.

yeah i'll have to agree with gouldy, we need these things because the world would be even more overrun with people than it already is. but a cure for cancer would still be nice y'know?

[Coasterkidmwm]

You say that until YOU get cancer.

[gouldy]

Well, I know that yes. If anyone remembers, my dad died of cancer, three years ago now. My grandad died of cancer the year before that. Probably the two most influencial people in my life. So it has affected me pretty badly. But for me, unless we perfect space travel and move to another planet, we still need cancer.

Yeah this drug will never happen. I remember basically this same topic two years ago.

And we need Aids? WTF? Yes it probably is natures method of controlling population but it's not working properly if you look at the increase of actual population numbers these days.

Not being sinister or anything but the moment the numbers starts dropping I'll agree with you.

Have you by any chance been reading anything written by Thomas Malthus?

jigsaw from the saw quadilligy found the cure for cancer............ imortality

[gouldy]

Originally posted by rcking04

Have you by any chance been reading anything written by Thomas Malthus?

Who? Does that answer you question? Another point I would make is that I don't read books, I find it to be a brain numbingly dull activity.

Originally posted by dj-dj

And we need Aids? WTF? Yes it probably is natures method of controlling population but it's not working properly if you look at the increase of actual population numbers these days.

Not being sinister or anything but the moment the numbers starts dropping I'll agree with you.

Do you not think that without these things, the population of earth would be VASTLY greater than what it is now? We have a problem in some areas with overcrowding as it is atm, imagine what the problem would be like if 33% of people 1000 years ago hadn't died early because of cancer. One less person to reproduce 1000 years ago = potentially 1000's less people alive today as a direct result. Seriously buddy, think about it for a bit, it would be a huge huge huge shot in the foot if we were to genuinely cure cancer in all it's forms.

Originally posted by rcking04

Have you by any chance been reading anything written by Thomas Malthus?

? ROFLMAO I'll pass on that one.

Gouldy: True now that you mentioned that but it's very seldom you hear about someone dying of old age alone anyways, usually some disease is involved. The human body just gets weaker over time and your immune system starts to loose the fight. Hospitals battle for years on end to keep an old poop living for some doff reason. But when a healthy smart young kid gets an incurable sickness it's a shame IMO. People should just start realizing reality and place there money where it is worth something.

^Think about what you just said: people haven't ever died from old age, but it wasn't until recently that we've been able to properly diagnose disease. Also, the location of currency does not alter its value per se [;)]

Originally posted by gouldy

Another point I would make is that I don't read books, I find it to be a brain numbingly dull activity.

You've been introduced to the wrong books, then. There are few activities more thought-provoking than reading.

I believe the word "need" is being misused in your argument. Sure, cancer is a population control mechanism, and it is wonderfully random and is unlikely to ever be "cured" (see my last post). But are cancer/AIDS/etc required for our existence? Are we unable to live without them? If so, how does one explain life prior to the emergence of HIV?

A better phrasing of your argument would probably be along these lines: Disease is a natural damper to population growth, without which our species would have an unsustainable equilibrium point, perhaps resulting in our extinction. If you say that, the argument and chain of logic are much easier to follow!

Location does indeed matter. It's the same terminology that is of investing in something that is absolute for example a dying business or in property where the land value will drop without question. And as you stated, now it's getting thrown away in order to diagnose the inevitable.

[gouldy]

ok then:

Disease is a natural damper to population growth, without which our species would have an unsustainable equilibrium point, perhaps resulting in our extinction.