A CHEAP AND SIMPLE CURE FOR CANCER?
New Scientist has received an unprecedented amount of interest in this story from readers. If you would like up-to-date information on any plans for clinical trials of DCA in patients with cancer, or would like to donate towards a fund for such trials, please visit the site set up by the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board. We will also follow events closely and will report any progress as it happens.
It is rare to find a drug that sweeps away decades of assumptions and reveals a radical approach to treating all forms of a disease. But a simple, small molecule called dichloroacetate (DCA) has done just that - and to that most dreaded of diseases: cancer.
The new findings, might also force a rethink on what actually causes cells to turn cancerous in the first place.
In 1930, biochemist Otto Warburg, proposed that cells turn cancerous through a fundamental change in the way they generate their energy. Normally, cells use specialised organelles called mitochondria to supply their energy. Cancer cells shift to a process called glycolysis which takes place in the main body of the cell. Glycolysis is an inefficient system of making energy which normal cells employ only when oxygen is in short supply, switching to mitochondrial energy production when oxygen levels increase.
Curiously, Warburg discovered that cancer cells continue to use glycolysis even when oxygen is plentiful. He called this the �Warburg effect�, and claimed it was common to all cancer cells.
His ideas were dismissed and buried long ago, not least when another famous biochemist, Hans Krebs, said the Warburg effect was a symptom of cancer, not the primary cause. This scepticism was reinforced by the belief that cancer cells switch to glycolysis because their mitochondria are damaged and don�t work any more.
Enter DCA, which has been used for years to treat people with mitochondrial disease. The drug boosts the ability of mitochondria to generate energy. When given to cancer cells it did the same: the cells switched from glycolysis to mitochondrial energy production. What's more, functional mitochondria help cells recognise functional abnormalities and trigger cell death.
In tests, the DCA caused cancer cells to lose their �immortality� and die. When the drug was given to rats with human tumours, the tumours shrank. Warburg may have been right after all - glycolysis may be more than just a symptom of cancer.
So why not rush straight into clinical trials with this drug? It is cheap, does not appear to affect normal cells, we know its side effects, and it should work on all cancers.
There's a hitch: dichloroacetate is an old drug and so cannot be patented. The upshot is that pharmaceutical companies can�t stop rivals making and selling it more cheaply, so it�s not worth their while to go to the huge expense of testing it in clinical trials.
This is not a new problem. Many drugs are left on the shelf because companies cannot make lots of money from them. It has happened for diseases that affect mainly poor people, such as TB, although there are now an increasing number of initiatives to help deal with these cases. But cancer is historically a disease that chiefly afflicts the rich, and testing DCA will need a one-off effort.
Drugs companies will be falling over themselves to find a patentable drug with similar action to DCA. Any of these that reach the market will be hugely expensive. It would be a scandal if a cheap alternative with such astonishing potential were not given a chance simply because it won't turn a big enough profit. https://www.newscientist.com/blog/sho...or-cancer.html
Dichloroacetate (DCA) is a drinking water disinfectant by-product commonly identified in municipal water supplies. Concentrations of DCA in finished drinking water have been reported as high as 133 [micro]g/L (1), although concentrations < 25 [micro]g/L are more common (2,3). DCA is a metabolite of certain chlorinated industrial solvents and of several pharmaceuticals (4). DCA has also been used for decades as an investigational drug to treat numerous cardiovascular and metabolic disorders in humans, for example, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and amelioration of lactic acid during liver transplantation (4-6). Recently, DCA has been used in clinical trials to treat congenital or acquired lactic acidosis in children (5,7). Human exposure to DCA ranges from ~1 to 4 [micro]/kg/day through consumption of drinking water and up to 50 mg/kg/day from the use of DCA as a therapeutic drug (4).
DCA is rapidly and completely absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and is extensively metabolized both in rodents and in humans, with glyoxylate, oxalate, glycolate, and C[O.sub.2] being the major metabolites (8,9). Only a small percentage (< 3%) of the dose is excreted as the parent compound (8-10). DCA metabolism occurs primarily in the liver (11), mediated through a recently characterized class of glutathione S-transferase, GST[zeta] (GSTZ1-1) (12). DCA is also a mechanism-based inhibitor of GST[zeta], and prolonged exposure to DCA in rodents causes both reduction in metabolism and depletion of immunoreactive GST[zeta] protein levels from the liver (9,13-15). Thus, in repeated dosings of DCA, the first dose is always cleared more rapidly than are subsequent doses because of the inactivation of GST[zeta]. This has prevented measurement of oral bioavailability of DCA using a crossover experimental design because the second dose is always eliminated more slowly regardless of the route of administration (16).
DCA has been associated with a number of toxic effects in animals exposed to high doses, including testicular abnormalities, birth defects, and liver cancer (17-20). Consumption of chlorinated water has been linked to increased risk for certain cancers in humans (21) without any specific correlation with DCA or other haloacetates. DCA presents an interesting dilemma for risk assessors because it has a history of safe use as a therapeutic, but it has created regulatory concern because of its carcinogenicity in animals. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified DCA as a likely human carcinogen based on the hepatocarcinogenic effects observed in rodents (22). Because of the prevalence of halogenated acetic acids in finished drinking water and their possible link to human cancer, the U.S. EPA has set standards permitting a combined total of 60 [micro]g/L of five common halogenated acetic acids (HAA5) in drinking water. The goal of the U.S. EPA is the virtual elimination of DCA from drinking water under stage I regulations (22). https://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...10/ai_94041410
Promoting cancer suicide?
A model of a molecule, looks like globes held together by sticks For more than 70 years, scientists have known that cancer affects mitochondria, the tiny structures that process energy inside cells. Mitochondria normally get their power from oxidizing the sugar glucose, but in tumors, the mitochondria quit functioning, and tumor cells resort to breaking down glucose without oxygen.
Dichloroacetate (DCA) is a simple molecule with two oxygens, two chlorines, and two carbons. DCA has been used to treat a rare illness in mitochondria, which process energy inside cells. Unlike many new cancer drugs, you can take DCA by mouth. Courtesy University of Alberta
Although most scientists thought mitochondrial malfunction was a result, not a cause, of cancer, it now seems that it could be integral to the disease process.
This matters for two reasons. First, mitochondria are critical triggers of a cancer-killing mechanism called programmed cell death, AKA apoptosis or cellular suicide. In a healthy body, tumor cells should commit suicide, not grow.
And second, the new understanding could reveal new targets for cancer drugs.
Managing mitochondrial malfunction
These implications are the background for a new study from the University of Alberta, showing that the cancer-induced decline in mitochondria can be reversed. Writing in Cancer Cell, associate professor of medicine Evangelos Michelakis and colleagues describe experiments performed on human cancer cells -- in lab dishes and in experimental animals.
Researcher: The drug 'DCA can be selective for cancer because it attacks a fundamental process in cancer development that is unique to cancer cells.'Under normal conditions, mitochondria "burn" -- oxidize -- glucose to make usable energy for the cell. When oxygen is absent, cells resort to glycolysis, a breakdown process that liberates lactic acid. Lactic acid helps cause muscle cramping during exercise, but it can also help cancer cells move in the body -- to metastasize.
Scientists have long known that mitochondria play a role in cancer, says Michelakis. When the mitochondria quit producing energy, cells cope by breaking down glucose outside the mitochondria. Because this process is inefficient, it needs abnormal amounts of glucose, which happens to be why cancer cells can be detected with PET scans. Positron emission tomography measures glucose usage, Michelakis says. "PET detects cancer because tumors have shut off the mitochondria, and have to rely on less efficient means of generating energy. The cancer cells are drinking glucose like crazy, and this distinguishes them from normal cells."
As evidence mounted for a major role of mitochondria in cancer, Michelakis, a specialist in cardiology who specializes in energy metabolism inside cells, Sebastian Bonnet and their colleagues began to wonder if they could restore the mitochondria and thereby affect cancer. They focused on dichloroacetate (DCA), a drug that pushes glucose metabolism back toward normal oxidation, and is sometimes used to treat mitochondrial problems.
Computer image of large tumor on right hand side of body, shrinking over time
After three weeks, the tumor is much smaller in the DCA-treated rat than in the control rat -- showing either shrinkage or slower growth. Courtesy University of Alberta
Cancer: shrink thyself!
When the researchers injected human lung cancer cells into rats, tumors shrank significantly in animals that got DCA, compared to the animals that did not get the drug. Tests showed that apoptosis was operating in the tumors in these DCA-treated animals, but not in the control animals.graph with varying degrees of incline
The drug DCA reduces tumors but does not eliminate them. Green: DCA was given when the rats are injected with tumor cells. Red: DCA was given two weeks after tumor injection. Blue: Control animals got tumor cells, but not DCA. Data from Bonnet et al (see below).
DCA affected tumors when it was given either before or after the cancer cells were injected, indicating that it may have a role in preventing and curing cancer.
Biochemical tests showed that mitochondria in the DCA-treated cancer cells were releasing compounds that stimulate apoptosis -- cellular suicide. Many cancer drugs work through apoptosis, but cancer cells often resist committing suicide, at least partly because the shut-down mitochondria cannot start the suicide processes. The results support a relatively new line of studies showing that mitochondria play a major role in regulating apoptosis.
While this treatment has not been tested in people or any animal except rats, DCA has a number of theoretical advantages over expensive, highly toxic cancer treatments: It is not patented, and therefore cheap. It is a small molecule that can be taken orally. And more than 30 years of medical use has revealed minimal side effects.
Programmed cell death with DCA
Two sharply sloping graph
DCA-treated rats had smaller tumors due to an increase in programmed cell death, as measured by TUNEL (don't even ask what that stands for!) and a decrease in proliferation, which is part of metastasis. Data from Bonnet et al (see below).
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the discovery is this: Damage to mitochondria is widespread in many types of cancer, Michelakis says, indicating that DCA could have broad use -- if it works as well in people as in rats. The next step, he adds, is to start a small trial among patients with the three cancers already tested (glioblastoma, green-tinted photo of cancer cella type of brain cancer; non-small-cell lung cancer; and breast cancer). The details of upcoming trials "will depend on funding," he adds. Because DCA, cannot be patented, "industry is not particularly interested" in funding research.
But because DCA is already on the market, the first trial could begin in a few months.
Breast cancer cell. Photo: NIH, courtesy National Cancer Institute.
At this point, Michelakis is enthusiastic that energy metabolism may point to ways to overcome cancer. "DCA attacks a fundamental and unique property of cancer. It puts the mitochondria back in the normal condition, and because the mitochondria can control cell death, that also comes back into the picture."
One possible therapeutic approach, he says, would use DCA to sensitize tumor cells to apoptosis, and then attack the cancer with standard chemotherapy drugs. Ideally, lower doses of the highly toxic chemotherapy drugs would be effective once tumor cells lose their immunity to programmed cell death. https://whyfiles.org/shorties/225cancer_drug/
There's a hitch: dichloroacetate is an old drug and so cannot be patented. The upshot is that pharmaceutical companies can�t stop rivals making and selling it more cheaply, so it�s not worth their while to go to the huge expense of testing it in clinical trials.
I don't see how the cholorine will affect cell/mitochondrial metabolism, but the acetate sure gets easily converted to products that can enter the tricarboxylic (Krebs) cycle for energy production (acteyl coenzyme A, for one).
We can get chlorine from a lot of sources, particularly salt. And we have all the variants of vinegar, which contain acetic acid.
I wouldn't be suprised if acetic acid alone, or for me, citric acid (starts the Kreb cycle) from lemons and oranges and other citrus fruits, could be the secret ingredient for all cell metabolisms. :wink:
As for the article against DCA, it seems the guy just wants to promote another commercial product, resveratrol. But why buy commercial. Wouldn't we rather enjoy the wine?
DCA a pollutant? Sounds like arsenic trioxide, which is now being used for cancer (Trisenox) as well.
As for the article against DCA, it seems the guy just wants to promote another commercial product, resveratrol. But why buy commercial. Wouldn't we rather enjoy the wine?
Gerry
I read somewhere that once a bottle of wine was opened, the resveratrol became oxidized within 1 day,
but wine that was packaged in a collapsible plastic bag remained potent.
Quote:
It is not uncommon to see 3-liter boxed wines selling at fine wine shops and even wine bars for $20 to $40. These are premium products, available for the equivalent of $5 to $10 a bottle, but comparable to wines that sell for $7 to $12 a bottle or more. https://seattlepi.nwsource.com/food/210264_wine02.html
Even Dr. Mercola used to recommend an item like this on his site ... but alas, he doesn't like alcohol and now he sells a grape extract that is intended to provide the benefits of red wine without the alcohol.
DCA is coming back to the USA via Mail from Canada
DCA and sodium chlorite activated are similar in chemical composition. DCA will be back on the market soon if it isn't already. The company that was closed down by the Feds is moving to Canada where DCA not a problem
The problem with this and many cancer treatments, is that they treat cancer as a disease, which is incorrect. Cancer is a reaction, in fact, cancer is the body's way of isolating rogue or irregular cells. keep treating cancer as a disease and you will NEVER find a cure. Treat it as a symptom and cure is EASY.
Thats easy to say unless your the one who has cancer. I know. Been there done that. Been down that road.
Yep, keep looking for the cure. That is fine. But when they handed me the diagnosis I wanted every dam thing to get rid of the disease I thought was potentially sensible.
Many people are given a very short rope when that diagnosis if given. Sometimes just weeks to months.
I have seen people go through all the cleansing, raw diets, meditation, herbs, and they are now quite dead. Those who found ways to go after the disease also, well, some of them are still alive, including me. Some used ozone, some rife, some herbals, some chemo, some surgery, and various combinations there of.
If DCA will be a significant addition to arsenal then I say make it available and use it.
When the diagnosis lands in your lap the time to be philosophical on theories and causations and cures is past. Neither camp, wholistic or conventional has a great track record. I would still put my money on the wholistic but when you go down to those clinics in Mexico that have higher than average cure rates and take on advanced cancer, well they are not sanctimonious. They do what they have seen work and often it is an exceptional blend of alternative and conventional medicine and with all the diagnositics that the conventional camp offers and the conventional medicine is applied in creative ways and often with greater skill and inpact. You see the practice of "alternative medicine" which many don't consider on these boards, which consistes of new protocols and adaptations for current drug use that is not permitted by the US FED and other medical regulatory boards. Some of it is very effective in destroying the disease, Then, with the knowledge applied to diet, exercise and boosting the immune system from wholistic health they have a greater success rate on serious cancer.
Last edited by Arrowwind09; 12-10-2007 at 06:16 AM.
When the diagnosis lands in your lap the time to be philosophical on theories and causations and cures is past.
This is why I think it's useful to have the idea, based on the trophoblastic thesis of cancer, that everyone has cancer all the time as part of the healing process. It's only when control mechanisms (our immune system, nutrition support, decreasing damage) fail that cancer flairs up.
One way or another, cancer is a deficiency disease -- deficiency of nutrients that keep our immune system functioniong, deficiency of proteins that keep our enzyme systems up, deficiency of nutrients like amygdalin that kill cancer cells (proliferating stem cells), deficiency of oxygen, etc. We don't wait till we have scurvy or pellagra before we start taking vitamin C or niacin. Neither should we wait for cancer before we start taking up a nutrient. Amygdalin/B-17/laetrile is one such nutrient that can be taken regularly (from lots of food sources) that kills cancer cells directly. There are others, but they're not as commonly available, but we should still use them.
As for those who get cancer, then just like any deficiency disease, response to "treatment" by providing the previously deficient nutrients will depend on how much damage has already been done. Unfortunately for cancer, this can also involve damage from chemotherapy and radiation.
Prevention is always better than cure. Those who do not "have cancer" (remember, everyone of us has it) should not just remain idle until a diagnosis arrives. There are working theories that we could easily apply against this deficiency disease and the trophoblastic thesis of cancer is one that keeps being "proven" as time goes on. It shows us that we need nutrients to keep our immune system functioning at peak, nutrients to kill wayward proliferating stem cells which escape our immune system, and nutrients to keep our body's enzymes up.
DCA may just represent our need for a couple more nutrients: chlorine (which we can get from salt) and acetate (vinegar) which we might need more of to directly produce energy (though it might just be serving as a carrier for chlorine).
A CHEAP AND SIMPLE CURE FOR CANCER?
sigh! 
Linear Mode
