The University of Alberta Discovery (new inexpensive cancer treatment)

University of Alberta website ^ | March 15, 2007 | Dr. Enagelos Michelakis

[Danae]

Ping!

This is AWESOME!!!!

[pepsi_junkie]

Until recently, researchers believed that cancer-affected mitochondria are permanently damaged and that this damage is the result, not the cause, of the cancer.

So a majority of scientists agree. We have consensus. The debate is over.

But Michelakis, a cardiologist, questioned this belief and began testing DCA, which activates a critical mitochondrial enzyme, as a way to "revive" cancer-affected mitochondria.

Crazy! Crackpot! He's just like a holocaust denier!

The results astounded him.

Michelakis and his colleagues found that DCA normalized the mitochondrial function in many cancers, showing that their function was actively suppressed by the cancer but was not permanently damaged by it.

More importantly, they found that the normalization of mitochondrial function resulted in a significant decrease in tumor growth both in test tubes and in animal models. Also, they noted that DCA, unlike most currently used chemotherapies, did not have any effects on normal, non-cancerous tissues.

Whaaaa...?! Scientific consensus was maybe not correct? Hmmm.

[gcruse]

The University of Alberta seems to be to science what the University of Florida is to sports. Those particular Canucks come out with good stuff regularly.

[Red Badger]

Lessons learned: 1. At 20 yards, you might scare a dog or some other animal, but you sure wouldn't break the skin. 2. At 10 yards, you might break the skin with a couple of grains, but nothing very serious. 3. At 12 feet, you might get the desired effect, if the desired effect is to "burn" the target with the rock salt. 4. At 4 feet, you might cause a wound requiring a visit to a hospital for a human, or maybe death to a small animal. 5. Movie plots that show someone "burning" a bad guy at across-the-yard distances are hogwash. 6. Rock salt makes a pitiful personal defense load, as if we didn't already know that.

It's intent is just to scare, not kill or maim. If that is the intent, I'd say it passed the test.............

[gcruse]

“Scientific consensus was maybe not correct?’

That’s the nature of it. Unlike religion, you aren’t stuck with having to believe whatever they say or going to hell.

[phs3]

ping

[Getready]

Would think that government agencies/insurance companies/
state sponsored clinics would want to fund the studies.
There is a category of drugs called “orphan” drugs which
cannot be patented but the developer is granted very long
marketing times. I believe someone will step up if the
chemical agent proves to be somewhat successful.

It would be much less expensive than other anticancer agents,
and in this era of hospitals eating their profits due to
the cost of paying for costly drugs, the trials might
be sponsored big time.

[A. Pole]

Bump

[Getready]

Disagree. If you don’t agree with the scientific consensus
you are usually marginalized big time. Which is probably
OK. But there are big consequences to pay if you go
against consensus. Scientists are not always egalitarian.

[Zakeet]

Rock salt does indeed work.

One night, several high school students that I know well attempted to liberate some watermelons. The local farmer shot the person carrying the largest prize squarely in the *ss from what looked like about 15 feet. Poor old Chuck dropped the melon, grabbed his buns, and ran off as fast as his feet could move.

We picked Chuck up about a half mile away, and took him to a favorite hangout while he regained his composure. It was several hours before he was "presentable."

FWIW, Chuck was a tough jock who didn't bawl even when he blew out his knee in a football game (I was the student trainer who helped load him on a stretcher). At our 10-year reunion, we were talking about the incident and Chuck said that it hurt more than anything else he had ever faced, including the knee and a leg wound in Vietnam.

[Red Badger]

...Chuck said that it hurt more than anything else he had ever faced...

What hurt was probably 'splainin' to his parents how he got a buttful of rock salt............

[dangerdoc]

Don’t get too excited about every year some new compound wipes out tumors in vitro or animal models. Lets see what happens in humans.

[gcruse]

“But there are big consequences to pay if you go
against consensus. ‘

Really? How about the guy who proved ulcers were actually caused by a bacteria, and not stress? He overturned a century of consensus. There is a technique to flipping science upside down — outrageous claims demand outrageous proof. If you got the proof, go for it.

[redhead]

"OOps. That won’t get much air time here. Too many pharmaceutical companies and doctors with too much to lose."

My first thought...GMTA.

[redhead]

And REALLY cheap...look here...

[itsahoot]

How about the guy who proved ulcers were actually caused by a bacteria, and not stress? He overturned a century of consensus.

Do you remember exactly how long it was before antibiotics fully replaced surgery? Hint more than a little while.

[gcruse]

I didn’t know they did. But what’s your point?

[yevgenie]

Table salt, Sodium Chloride is not even close as the bond is an ionic not a covalent one.

IIRC the compound in question is associated with neuropathy and neurotoxicity.

The article is very misleading.

[itsahoot]

But what’s your point? Acceptance of anything new is a very slow process, in the medical profession.

[Lancey Howard]

Don’t know but it sure sounds promising. I would think the key factor in testing will be any toxic effects. Of course conventional therapies are so toxic now. But chlorine compounds are generally not tolerated well by the body.

But then, cancer is often toxic too, so there will be no shortage of patients who are willing to take a risk.