The rantings of the clinically cheesed off

Now I’m not a scientist and I don’t hold any advanced degrees.  I do, however, read new scientist whenever I can.  Now while reading it I came across a couple of articles on a drug called Dichloroacetate (DCA for short).  Now it would appear from lab tests that this shows huge potential as an anti cancer drug.  Unfortunately it may never see the light of day for one very simple reason. It’s an old drug and therefore unpatentable.

Now I’m going to bore you a bit with how DCA works.

In the 1930 there were two scientists who theorised on the cause of cancer.  Otto Warburg stated that cells turn cancerous by changing the way that cells generate energy.  In normal, healthy cells, this is done through the mitochondria to generate their energy (think back to your science classes at school).  Cancerous cells switch to a process called glycolysis.  In this process the cell begins to produce energy in the main body of the cell.  This process normally happens when oxygen is in short supply.

Warburg found that cancer cells continue to use glycolysis even when oxygen is in plentiful supply.  This is known as Warburg effect and he argued that this was the defining property and cause of cancerous cells.

This idea was never taken up because of the work of another scientist called Hans Krebs.  He argued that the Warburg effect was a symptom of cancer and not the defining element.  He believed that cells only transferred to glycolysis because there mitochondria fail or become irrevocably damaged.  Kerbs theories have therefore become the basis of cancer research for over 70 years.  Scientist have believed that it is mutation in a cell that causes it to be cancerous and not (as in Warburg’s model) because of metabolism.

Now at this point I want to say that the mitochondria appear to have a duel purpose in cells.  It is in effect the power plant of the cell.  It is also responsible for telling a cell when to die.

I would like to examine the two theories above using the scientific precept that all things being equal the simplest explanation is normally the truth.  Which is more likely?

1.       A cell starved of oxygen turns off its own mitochondria and switches to glycolysis in an effort to survive.

2.       An unknown force or substance causes a cell to mutate and in the process damaging the mitochondria.

I believe that the first is more likely.  Now it is an unfortunate side effect of the cell wanting to survive that causes it to become cancerous.  A side effect of the mitochondria being turned off is the cell is now ‘immortal’ and when it multiplies its child cell also use glycolysis and the cancer grows.  It can also explain why cancer can spread so readily. Glycolysis burns sugar rather than oxygen and as a by product produces lactic acid.  The lactic acid can break down the cellulose membrane that holds cells together and the now cancerous cell can spread to unaffected parts of the body.

Now DCA is used in the treatment of rare mitochondrial and metabolic disease.  It has the effect of boosting a cells ability to burn oxygen.  In test carried out in the University of Alberta it would also appear that it can effectively turn on the mitochondria in cancerous cells.  This would therefore seem to prove that the metabolism argument is correct. The mitochondria cannot be irrevocably damage because it now appears to be working.  As a result the cancerous cells loose their ‘immortality’ and die, the mitochondria now telling the cell its time to die.

Lab test have proven that DCA can kill lung, breast and brain cancer. As all forms of cancer appear to display the ‘Warburg effect’ there seems no reason why it would not work on all forms. It also appears to have no effect on healthy cells.  DCA is a proven drug and is already used in certain treatments.  We already know its side effects.  There is, however, one problem.  It has never been used in clinical trials to treat cancer. That is the rub and the purpose of this rant.

Despite the fact that in lab test it shows huge potential to treat cancer no drug company seems willing to take it to clinical trials.  The reason for this is that it is an old drug and therefore no patent would be granted.

So it would seem that because they can’t make a fortune out of it they won’t bother.  They would rather spend billions a year researching new drugs which that can patent and sell for obscene amounts of money.

DCA is easy and cheap to produce.  DCA is in fact a bi product of water chlorination.  Now there are concerns of the use of DCA.  Previous research shows that it can, ironically, be carcinogenic.  There are, however, cancer treatments today that are carcinogenic so this is not a major issue.

After all if you were a terminal cancer patient what would you choose?

1.       We have a drug that may cure you completely, but, stands a slight chance of causing more cancer.

2.       Death

Frankly I know which I’d choose.

I find it totally obscene and abhorrent that this potential cure is being overlooked purely because of money.

I know no-one that hasn’t been affected by this disease in some way.  I’ve seen my cousin’s wife degenerate from a health and vibrant person to a shell of a person hardly able to get out of bed and constantly in pain before, thankfully, she died.  I’ve had a friend who has had to live for a time with the knowledge of cancer (thankfully now it appears to have gone away).  My own brother has had skin cancer.  Cancer not only affects the sufferer but all around them.

Frankly if anything show potential to finally remove this disease its worth investigating.

Any drug company that refuses to investigate should be shut down and their board should be put on trial for crimes against humanity.  Once more it seems that the worst part of our humanity appears hold sway.  And all because the CEO’s and directors of these companies want a flash new car!!!!  Still as long as the share holders are happy !!!!