digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Pharma Wont Fund Cancer Cure, But You Can. Cant Donate? DIGG!

clicktocure.org — DCA is one of the most promising leads to cure nearly all types of cancer. Yet is not receiving funding from the pharmaceutical companies because its inexpensive and not patentable. Don't allow this to cure fade from the headlines into obscurity, help FUND the cure directly by digging this site! it donates all revenue to funding the cure!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • lostmyleggins, on 10/11/2007, -20/+79ibuprofen inexpensive and not patentable and you can still make money selling it.
    • jamaster5243, on 10/11/2007, -7/+94Actually Ibuprofen was patented before it went through medical trials. The patent has since expired, but it is already a commodity, so they continue to sell it and make good money on it.

      http://www.ibuprofen-foundation.com/what-ibuprofen/patent.htm#
    • birkoph, on 10/11/2007, -37/+2Didn't they already cure cancer?

      http://www.studentprintz.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=c7794f20-dfb1-4494-892d-b529895da103
    • StellarlyAstral, on 10/11/2007, -15/+7@birkoph

      DiChloroAcetate, it's the exact same thing as in that article.
    • birkoph, on 10/11/2007, -35/+3If it's the same thing then WTF did some of you artarder bury my comment.

      dumbass kids.
    • orpheusj, on 10/11/2007, -22/+276BURY AS INACCURATE!!

      Although this may be a promising adjuvent chemotherapeutic agent, it is WAY TOO EARLY to tell. Furthermore, saying this drug won't be developed (IF it does end up being useful) is ENTIRELY FALSE. In fact, drug companies could make loads of money off us for a drug which has already benefited from reasearch welfare. Here's why:

      1) This has only been studied on tissues in a petri dishes!! Lot's of compounds have been promising in the petri dish and disappointing in clinical trials. This may be a great drug in the end but don't go crazy just yet.

      2) There already exists a number of patents for various uses of dichloroacetate from cerebral ischemia to metabolic disorders:

      http://www.freepatentsonline.com/search.pl?p=1&srch=xprtsrch&sf=1&query=dichloroacetate%0D%0A&uspat=on&date_range=all&stemming=on&sort=relevance

      3) Dichloroacetate already has funding from both the U.S. government and Europe as an "orphan drug" for indications much less common than cancer--congenital lactic acidosis and head trauma. If this drug is truly promising in animal models, then I'm sure the NIH, National Cancer Institute, as well as more prestigious universities will pick it up. The NIH will have more than $28 billion dollars this year alone to fund projects such as this.

      Feel free to look it up yourself.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug
      http://www.fda.gov/orphan/grants/previous.htm

      I should also note that the Orphan Drug Act provides a 7 year period of exclusive marketing for the company that gets FDA approval (of course charging whatever price they can squeeze out of the market). If the manufacturer can expand the drugs use to something common (i.e. CANCER) they can make fist-fulls of money.
    • rolosworld, on 10/11/2007, -14/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid

      DCA is a non-patentable compound. Concerns have therefore been raised that without pharmaceutical industry interest, trials of DCA may not be funded.[13][12][14][19] However, other sources of funding exist; previous studies of DCA have been funded by government organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and by private charities (e.g. the Muscular Dystrophy Association). Drs Michelakis and Archer have applied for a patent on the use of DCA in the treatment of cancer.[20][21]
    • blapierre, on 10/11/2007, -16/+10@FTA: "This isn’t a conspiracy; it’s called capitalism." No, it's not called capitalism. It's called the FDA.
    • KlayBorg, on 10/11/2007, -5/+48http://www.healthyontario.com/News_Tips/2007_3/Cancer_patients_told_to_avoid_DCA_drug.htm
      The Canadian Cancer Society is warning people not to self-medicate with dichloroacetate, or DCA, a cheap, widely available drug used to treat lactic acid buildup in children as well as people with diabetes and AIDS. The drug was never designed to treat cancer and has not been tested on human cancer patients.

      "The challenge is with this drug, we don't actually know whether this may hasten their death, and it may also seriously impact their quality of life for the months that they have remaining," Heather Logan told CBC Newsworld on Thursday. Logan is the director of cancer control policy at the society.

      People taking the drug at home may not be aware of DCA's side-effects, ignore the symptoms, and end up with permanent nerve damage, Logan said. Side effects of DCA include peripheral neuropathy that damages nerves in the hands and feet.
    • trump48257, on 10/11/2007, -6/+40@lostmyleggins

      People this is not some miracle cure. DCA is an organic chemical that causes liver cancer in laboratory mice when put in their drinking water. It is not nontoxic. It is a byproduct of another chemical called trichloroethylene (TCE), which has been a source of concern as a cancer-causing agent for some time. It has been suggested in one article on Lactic Acidosis (DCA is used to treat a genetic form of this) that it would be a good candidate for cancer research based on its ability to kill cells that use alternate metabolism pathways (like some, but definitely not all cancers). That's it. It hasn't proven to kill anything more than a couple strains of cancer cells in a test tube....killing cancer in a live patient is infinitely more complex. I am not saying it could not possibly be used in some instances---it very well might be good in some instances, but this, just like any other drug needs to be throughly tested before use.
    • arcooke, on 10/11/2007, -13/+6@orpheusj

      Regardless of how true the things you say might be, they are still donating all profits to cancer charities. And they are also raising awareness of this "potential" cure. Even if future tests of DCA fail, they at least made an attempt. What harm can come out of trying? No matter what comes out of it, money is still going to charities.

      They're doing all this with good intentions, and all you can do is try to get everyone to bury it as inaccurate. That's really pathetic. Please digg him down guys.
    • DDarkfire, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5IMPORTANT: Turn Adblock Plus off! No use visiting the site of you dont!
    • tiedyeman, on 10/11/2007, -9/+83Here is a post I made back in January when all of this madness first turned up...
      Ok. This DCA thing has got to stop. Seriously. Please read this:
      http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php

      Apparently 90% of digg thinks medical research occurs in the following way.
      1) BigPharm has an idea.
      2) BigPharm checks to make sure the idea is profitable.
      3) BigPharm dumps 100 billion dollars into the idea using lab trials
      4) BigPharm test the drug out on the 1000's of cancer patients they have at their secret hospitals.
      5) BigPharm gives Dick Cheney $100mil, stomps 50 puppies to death, and pays homage to our alien overlords.
      6) BigPharm holds out on the new drug and only gives it to rich white kids.
      7) Repeat.

      In actuality, if a compound such as DCA were to prove promising in University Labs, (which for whatever reason the intarweb really really think this looks awesome, although in actuality this isn't a huge breakthrough browse www.pubmed.gov for awhile), it would go something like this:

      1) University lab scientists think they are on to something and they talk to their counterparts across the street, the clinicians of University hospitals (which may be themselves in the case of MD/PhDs).
      2) Doctors at University Hospitals ask NIH for a grant.
      3) Doctors at University hospitals treat their patients with new treatment, comparing it to the "gold standard."
      4) Doctors at University Hospitals publish their results.
      5) Doctors of Academic Societies read results, pow wow, and set protocol.
      6) Doctors all over the world are advised of new standard of care.

      Believe it or not, Big Pharma aren't the only people doing research! In fact in a situation like this, if a MD, or group of them, were to publish a paper claiming that the new drug Placebacor reduced tumor growth in a clinical trial, and then at the end disclosed that they received funding from Scienoheal, the multinational drug company and patent holder of Placebacor, it would be a HUGE knock on whether or not the paper carried any clout.

      And people "Cancer" isn't a single disease, its a bunch of them, caused by many many different factors (ie genetics, environment, carcinogens), some of which we are good at treating, some still have us stumped. Their is no magic bullet and if we someday find one, it most likely won't be DCA. I am rotating through a pediatric Hematology/Oncology service right now at a University hospital, and trust me these people would not let dollars and cents stand in the way of curing children of parents they have to tell will die.

      And RE: arcooke
      While their intentions would be noble, this would be like a bunch of people deciding that the best plan to end poverty was to use sunshine and wishes, and then trying to raise awareness and fund raise on the internet.
    • Fhwqhgads, on 10/11/2007, -14/+8Apparently 90% of digg thinks medical research occurs in the following way.
      1) BigPharm has an idea.
      2) BigPharm checks to make sure the idea is profitable.
      3) BigPharm dumps 100 billion dollars into the idea using lab trials
      4) BigPharm test the drug out on the 1000's of cancer patients they have at their secret hospitals.
      5) BigPharm gives Dick Cheney $100mil, stomps 50 puppies to death, and pays homage to our alien overlords.
      6) BigPharm holds out on the new drug and only gives it to rich white kids.
      7) Repeat.

      --------------------------

      Add to this list: "Pay off as many doctors and lawmakers as necessary to get your dangerous chemical ***** legalized, and tell everyone it's safe like Vioxx."

      and

      outlaw/discredit your competition (anything that is ACTUALLY HEALTHY for people) and doesn't make money for BigPharm. Marijuana is a perfect example of this, as are all the herbal remedies and alternative medicines.
    • xinit, on 10/11/2007, -9/+12There's also the "BigPharma" offshoots that sell BigHerbs which aren't patented, but make a boatload of money off the backs of fools.
    • elioty, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13Go to the following site to report Google Adsense violations. They're encouraging you to click for a clearly fradulent site and purpose. It's a scam. Click the link on the bottom of the page to report the violation.

      http://services.google.com/feedback/abg?url=http://clicktocure.org/sponsors/digg-this-to-fund-cancer-cure/&hl=en&client=ca-pub-2689675403875110&adU=www.cmarket.com/biddingforgood/&adT=Support+Cancer+Charities&adU=www.fundraising.entertainment.com&adT=Cancer+Fundraisers&adU=www.RocheExchange.com&adT=Cancer+Info+and+More&done=1&gl=US&oasu=true
    • dredwolff, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4@klayborg

      Hmmm... permanent nerve damage or death by cancer - yeah, I think I could live with a little tingling in my hands and feet.
    • dasilva333, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2@ orpheusj all your points are valid, except the fact that DCA has only been tested in petri dishes, fact is if you look in wikipedia they will reference many human studies where it has been tested, the risks of contracting something worse is possible but it does indeed control if not remove cancer

      for those of you interested in self medicating there is a very useful forum where people have posted their testimonials on their self medicating regimen and with what else they take it with:
      http://www.thedcasite.com/cgi/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID2&conf=DCConfID1
    • h4x0r1ng, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Bury ratios are too hard to hit since too many people digg based on the title without even reading the article or the comments.
    • imperium2000, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12If you want to do something, go donate to a legitimate Cancer advocacy group:
      American Cancer Society http://www.cancer.org/docroot/home/index.asp
    • pictureDIGGER, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9http://digg.com/health/ClickToCure_org_is_a_SCAM_Diggers_fill_a_scammers_pocket
    • roosterjm2k2, on 10/11/2007, -7/+31st, its likely just BS

      2nd, big pharmaceuticals have no reason or motive to ever fund/create/sell a cure. There is no money to be made in curing a desease, but a TON of money to be made treating them. (think of it, a few months of pills to cure aids....vs....the rest of your life on a drug cocktail)

      I'm all for privatization most times, but there are some things that shouldnt be allowed to be private companies, or for profit companies. Healthcare and medicine are 2 of those things.
    • DavidBGie, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1This one is easy..... How can you make a profit off a cure? You can't! If you want to make a profit you TREAT the disease not CURE it. We need some type of reward system. $20 billion for the first confirmed cure to cancer. All countries donate to this.
    • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3@roosterjm2k2

      Pharma companies produce cures for diseases all the time, especially infectious diseases which don't have a genetic component. Also, most early stage medical research goes on at public universities, pharma companies do more development and HT-screening.

      You obviously have absolutely no knowledge of HIV research, so you probably shouldn't state things as though they are matter of fact. Other impressionable, uneducated people may read it and think it's true.
    • Tiak, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2@roosterjm2k2

      1. That may be the case with diseases like AIDS and diabetes, but it's quite a bit more difficult to keep treating someone with cancer just to the point where they're living for a long time without killing them... Cancer treatments kill sells, so if they keep treating someone, they die, if they get rid of all apparent cancer, then the person no longer needs treatment, if they stop treating someone and don't get rid of all apparent cancer, they also die... Much harder to make continuous money off of that. It'd be better just to have one larger cure to get rid of it as it pops up.

      2. Do you honestly think a company wouldn't profit from curing cancer even if the product itself wasn't largely profitable?... They'd make billions off of the PR alone... I sure as hell would prefer the aspirin from the cancer-curers.
    • anthonyy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8why the ***** are people on digg so gullible? this is inaccurate and lame, extremely likely to be a scam. DCA IS NOT A MIRACLE DRUG.
    • greenspans, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1... just some ***** that's taking advantage of the hype. If you setup a charity you only have to setup 65% of the proceeds to the cause. That's why Donate-Your-car ads get $30 a click on google. He might be taking 100% of all ad revenue and shop revenue and just calling the extra money support for keeping his website up and making more people more aware for the speculated cure and legitimate sites to donate on the right sidebar.
    • greenspans, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Also he had already submitted this trash. http://clicktocure.org/?page_id=7 with only 17 diggs. He just reposted it and turned it into an "optimized for adsense" doorway page. This is grossly deceptive.

      The same thing happened on digg earlier too. There was a story with a lot of hype about a black background google and how much energy it would save. Then comes ninja.com which is nothing more than a black page with google adsense for search customized in black and along come 3000 diggs to nothing but SPAM.
    • nosht82, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0"ibuprofen inexpensive and not patentable and you can still make money selling it." Ya but if say 1 bottle of ibuprofen cured your headache for ever it wouldn't be profitable.
  • jamaster5243, on 10/11/2007, -15/+1DUGG, This is a great idea. Good to see someone trying to do something about it rather than just complaining. Wonder how much it will raise though? Looks like the have a "SHOPtoCURE" section also, seems to be a amazon affiliate.

    http://clicktocure.org/shop-to-cure/
    • appurtenance, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3It definitely is a good thing that we're able to put numbers behind a cause... unfortunately, we're not presented an unbiased perspective. I love how our digg community fixes that problem.
    • appurtenance, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5On another note... it sucks that there are users, and I know a few myself, that regularly visit digg.com but don't have an account. Number ploys would be undoubtedly more effective... so c'mon and join already, you goons!

      I hope they read this and sign up just to digg me down for callin' 'em all goons. ;]
  • bobsocool, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0The only thing about this site is it looks like they don't really have ads yet. But I guess you can still donate.
  • pictureDIGGER, on 10/11/2007, -4/+44so we trust you? Non of your ads say public service, I call SCAM. Don't believe everything you read on the internet people.
    • pictureDIGGER, on 10/11/2007, -3/+49Plus I believe this is in violation of Google AdSense TOS. Encouraging Clicks for whatever reason. Advertisers do not like that.
  • consonance, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5I'm all for DCA, but call me crazy if I'm skeptical of a person that claims I will fund DCA just by looking at a website.
  • xtraa, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12The difficulty or why DCA does not work atm is the problem to get it directly to the cancer cells. You cant simply swallow a pill, because nothing would reach the tumor.

    It is maybe a good thing but it is too early to give people a hope.
  • Aurostion, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15How many times does this need to come up before people let it go. If it truly had potential it would be snapped up my Pharmaceutical companies. If the compound itself isn't patentable, who cares, the methods by which it fights diseases and the various applications of it (ie, what it fights) are.

    This is verging on urban legend status.
    • xtraa, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2No this is too simple. You have to see how much trillions the companies already invested in the development of cancer medicine, searching for the one thing to get it patented and to get paid. They do have a very good reason for not being interested in DCA. And that would not be the first time, so I am missing the point.

    • ooblez, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2@ xtra: you ***** moron. you think just because their paying out loads doesn't mean their not getting more. and the drug companies recieving the money for insurance? once they find a cure the money stops.
    • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7"once they find a cure the money stops."

      Yeah, because nobody would pay for a cure. Are you retarded?
  • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -17/+11Cancer is a multi-billion dollar industry. Nobody is going to be allowed to cure it.
    • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Explain why hte insurancecompanies that are PAYING those billions would not be funding the crap out of this or ANY of hte supposed cures?

      And also exaplin to me why pharamaceutical companies ARE spending tens or hundreds of millions resaerching a cure for cancer?

      Those are the FACTS. You can provide the standard ***** if you want, but how about using some facts?
    • GottIstTot, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1You're retarded. Cancer is a losers market, pharma would love to have a one-size-fits all cure so they could exclusively move on to lifestyle drugs such as Viagra and such. Please, don't spout ***** which you know nothing about.
  • phenidate, on 10/11/2007, -3/+39This article is crap. Buried as inaccurate.
  • IceZZ, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Yeah, sorry, everything on DCA so far says it is too poisonous for humans to cure any cancer in them. While this may chance with development of treatments, lack of patent will not stop the drug from being sold and money made. Many common drugs today like aspirin are patent-free and sell huge quantities.

    While a patent would help, this isn't going to stop a company from going ape over it.
  • kirakun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I don't get it. If this drug has such potential as being claimed, would not somebody (or company) try their best to be the first to get it to work so that they'll get all the glory such as the Nobel Prize? Yes, it may not be billions of dollars in sales, but the immortal fame of having developed a cure for cancer is priceless.
    • Angostura, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1To be honest, if it was a cheap effective cure, you would have massive amounts of research going on in the UK universities and NHS (hurrah for socialized medicine). I call shenanigans.
    • joshshu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0the fact is all those big Pharma corporations poisoning people not cure them even not treating
  • edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5thats faulty logic. If one company came up with the cure they could capture a huge market share. Is the board of directors and stockholders going to vote against that kind of opportunity. Is a company going to not develop and market a product because they might wipe out the rest of the industry and make Microsoft or Google profits? I kind of doubt that. There is a lot of profit motive to come up with a cure. Even if there are barriers in the US a company that really could cure cancer could do so in easier markets and eventually make it thru the more stringent US and EU certification process.


    • ooblez, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0its patented so anyone could simply copy them
  • LucidHawk, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1I believe there is a definitive reason cancer and many diseases have not been cured and in general it's not a conspiracy carried out by a small group of individuals plotting your doom or being greedy. It's the same reason cheap alternative energies haven't prospered. It's the SYSTEM itself; in big business most actions are driven by the ability to justify profit. A lot of people in industry don't know they are screwing the entire planet with their small bottom line thinking but they are. unfortunately capitalism at it's heart isn't as moral as people want to believe;.if the company goes under because they weren't able to turn a profit because they chose to spend millions on something that would not get them money; what then???
    They do in fact need donations and sponsoring government funding is worthwhile...
  • zomgflamer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2you can donate some money to me and i will cure anything with power of Jesus Christ.

    Just use paypal.
  • checksumz, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18If the blog owner is honest this is a noble gesture, but encouraging people to click on AdSense (which is pretty much what he's telling you to do) is fraud, plain and simple. And who's to say he donates it to his cause? There's no way to find out.

    If he cares about this he should be submitting a legitimate website that has been put together for the same cause.

    Buried.
    • thefat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Well they didn't even setup an about me page so I am with the people calling scam.
    • paraxion, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Besides which, for me at least, a lot of the AdSense ads were charities anyway - isn't that like taking money from one charity and giving it to another?
  • tkilljoy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23NOT ACURATE!

    DCA s not used on people regularly because it is wildly detrimental to health!
    - DCA Causes Periphreal Nerve Damage, this means you sense of touch, taste, etcetera will be permanently and irreversibly damaged by DCA. There is no known way to counteract this effect in humans, only rats!
    - DCA is only able to reduce the size of tumors, it cannot eliminate tumors. Size reduction is not a form of treatment as it is a wildly unreliable, short term symptom relief.

    DIGG CURES, NOT CRAP.
  • yeastbeast, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13As per my previous comments on the earlier DCA story, this is pure bullsheeto! The science is weak, the appeal to public outrage is high.... I smell a scam.
  • checksumz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Everyone here should be reporting his site to Google for breaking AdSense terms (encouraging people to click on ads). You can do it by clicking on the "ads by Google" logo that appear with the ads, after that navigate to the bottom and report the violation.
  • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Is the average digger really THAT stupid as to buy this ***** that this site is spewing?

    If htere was something that was really as promising as they claim, you know who would be ALL OVER it? The INSURANCE companies. They have just as much, if not MORE money to throw around than phramaceutical companies, have just as much political power, and have EVERY desire to see cancer cured, since a cure would be far less costly than decades of treatment.
  • Canaduh, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Others have debunked the patent myths, so let me explain the primary methods of testing.

    1.) In vitro: cells in a petri dish, the most basic level. Culture some cancerous cells, add in your prospective drug, see what happens. Well, the thing with the petri dish model is you could add sulphuric acid and watch it kill cancer cells. Does that mean it is a prospective cure for cancer? Not really.

    2.) In vivo: use of a model animal, usually a mouse. Great, you've seen that sulphuric acid works in vitro, so how does it work in the rat? Hey, why is my rat melting?! Because a biological organism is complicated, you need to see not only if the compound has the effect on the cancer, but also if it can be specifically delivered to the site of the cancer, how it affects the systems and cells of the organism, how it is processed by the body and how the body metabolizes the chemical and what those metabolites do, etc.

    3.) Human trials: hey, you nixed your "sulphuric acid as cancer cure" and found some other promising compound that didn't cause the mouse to melt! Now, generally, depending upon the severity of the disease, etc, you can proceed in several different directions. You can go through all the rigorous testing, paid human guinea pigs vs. control groups to see if there are hazardous side effects, begin testing in clinical trials, and you end up coming to one conclusion: a man is not a mouse, what worked great in vitro, and in vivo models, probably won't work in humans. Even if your compound DOES show some statistical benefit in the clinical outcomes of patients, it likely won't be a "cure".

    Cancer is an insidious beast. It is your own cells gone wild, with 5 or 6 of the controls that keep cells from dividing aggressively and to terminate disabled. Moreover, recent research has indicated that stem cells may be responsible for some cancers, the infinitely splitting seed that will cause the cancer to keep coming back no matter how well you deal with it so long as a few of those cells are left.

    Moreover, there are hundreds of varieties of cancers afflicting many different systems. And each of those types of cancers is virtually identifcal to your other, healthy cells (some difference at the genetic level of course). Which makes cancer immensely difficult to cure, ignoring the hundreds of different varieties.

    Personally, my money is on targeted nanotechnologies or altered organisms that can be designed to lock onto the specific protein differences that exist in just the cancerous cells. THen maybe we'll have a cure for "a" cancer.

    But the lack of a cure for "cancer", the hundreds of different forms it can take, is not because of some conspiracy. But like HIV (yeah yeah, apples to oranges) it has proven to be an immensely difficult disease to do battle with, and using our current method of testing random compounds to see if they work we won't find one. Once technology progresses to where we understand all the underlying mechanisms, and understand ways to design (and not just test out various witch's brews) drugs or compounds from the molecular level to specifically attack the cells at the molecular level, we may be able to cure cancer. But we ain't there yet.
    • sweetloli12, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0You confuse me with that much text! What is this? School?!
    • Canaduh, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Cancer and medicine are complicated. Many people want simple answers. Thus, why every 2 weeks there's an article on how cancer is cured!

      Alas, reality does not work that way. More satisfying to posit some drama involving shadowy figures ruining peoples lives than understand the all to mundane reality.
    • fuzzybutton, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0They say that colloidal silver kills all virus and all but eight bacteria and one spore in a petri dish. I have been taking it for years and have yet to find that ninth bacterium. Make me sick!
  • Nameless1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Here we go again... big pharmacy companies are not ignoring the compound because it wouldn't yield profits, they're ignoring it because its either bogus, rubbish or untested properly for human consumption.



    Any company that would market a "cure-for-cancer" would have it's name engraved in mankind's history.


    And for those extra mad conspiracy theorists, why yes, I do work for the man.
  • photonload, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0The key to this work is that cancer cells do no use the TCA cycle to generate energy in the mitochondria but instead use a divergent non-oxidative form of glycolysis in the cytosol to produce energy. This is because; cancer requires two kinds of mutations to live. First, cancer cells must lose the ability to suicide when things go wrong, and second cancer cells must grow and divide unchecked. This work takes advantage of the first mechanism to kill cancer. That is because many of the pathways for cell suicide reside in the mitochondria--to live cancer cells must subvert the mitochondria and find a new way to produce energy--in this case, non-oxidative glycolysis in the cytosol. Researchers are banking on the idea that reactivating the energy pathways of the mitochondria using TCA or other methods might also reactivate the cells ability to suicide. The results of the experiments have been mixed. TCA seems to slow the growth of cancer tumors in vivo, (by a mechanism that isn't entirely understood) but it does not appear to completely kill cancer. A lot more work needs to be done, but this is a very interesting angle. That work is going on at universities and in big pharma all over the world for certain. Don’t let the ignorant deceive you.


  • photonload, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0In my comments above the first two TCA's are for "tricarboxylic acid" the second two should actually read "DCA" for dichloro acetate.
  • davin510, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0You're right, it really is that simple.

    The majority of cancer research today is in cancer targeting and drug delivery through monoclonal antibodies (proteins which specifically target cancer cells). It's frustrating that people put so much hype in "miracle" drugs such as DCA when they don't realize that the biggest problem in cancer research isn't how to kill the cell, but rather how to get the drug to and into tumorous cells (and only tumorous cells).
  • sciencebase, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2As has been alluded to above, DCA is not a panacea, no single intervention will "cure nearly all types of cancer". Cancer is not a single disease but an umbrella term for a range of diseases, albeit linked by the facile description of runaway cell multiplication.
  • Angostura, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Buried as inaccurate.
  • ackza, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1SOOOO many drugs on the market are so bad for you, just look at the anti-pyschotic or depression sector.

    Huge drug companies and the FDA make so much money they don't give a ***** if this drug does cause cancer, it could make so much money from it off of the hype on sites like digg alone, look how much this site probably made it.

    Eleven years ago Pfizer used 200 children as guinea pigs on an experiment which left many of them dead or deformed.

    Also I'd rather take this than have radiation shot at me and make my hair fall out, just seems a little unsafe.
  • silviu-lucian, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1In all seriousness if this is indeed accurate:

    ***** SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS *****

    GO TO THE TABACCO COMPANIES!!! D'OH!!!

    ***** SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS *****

    I can just picture the commercial now:



    This is little Jimmy...
    He's eleven years old.
    He used to have leukemia.
    That is ... until he took up smoking.



    Got a light?



    Jokes aside, I picked up the habit when I was 17 and am still going at it (I'm 22 now) one pack a day. I'm not saying smoking is a good thing (far from it, I definitely regret lighting up) but one could view it as ones contribution to curing cancer **denial?**
    • uptown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I view it as contributing to the fees I pay to have insurance so they can cover your dumb ass......
  • ucdbunny, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1oh god not again
  • sayagain, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0Gates and Buffet put Billions aside for Curing Diseases, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13541144/

    How about curing CANCER.... Duh?
    • Avalontor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Hey sayagain

      There is only so much money and Cancer is not the only illness or disease in the world. Why do you think cancer should get it first? Because it's in your face? There is a huge % of the worlds population that may disagree with you.

      Maybe Bill and Warren want to spend their money in areas of the world where there is no money from other sources. There is already a ton of Cancer research going on and I'm sure little Pedro in Guatemala would like his non-cancer disease cured as well..

  • kidcodea, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2true socialism never looked bad, else it wouldnt give nice books like the ones of william morris. its all in the implementation and or executibility of the theory. when ideals clash with institutionalized real world and status quo, they have no unpainful way to "marry".
  • dvoraktsyn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2People should read more about DCA: http://abw.mee.nu/cancer_cure_carnival

    The same spam came through Digg last week. All this hype and nonsense about how The Man is keeping the People down by letting cancer kill them is sad. Maybe one day they'll get a cure for stupidity.
  • bucha2004, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3If the blog owner is honest this is a noble gesture, but encouraging people to click on AdSense (which is pretty much what he's telling you to do) is fraud, plain and simple. And who's to say he donates it to his cause? There's no way to find out.

    If he cares about this he should be submitting a legitimate website that has been put together for the same cause.


    http://patio.com.ua
  • rlh1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I assume that the families of the pharmaceutical companies get also cancer.
    Why would they let their own children die if there is an easy cure?

    Inaccurate story.
  • SopMan99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2The medicine companies don't make money on a cure.... Money is only made on treatments. Why do you think our medical bills are as high as they are? The medical system is run by big corporations who care more about the bottom line than about helping people.

    Imagine it this way, what if a tire could be made that never wore out or went flat? Sure they'd sell a bunch at first, but then the market would dry up.
  • bigjimslade, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2If I could bury this and any other article ever written about this I would.

    "Big Pharma" - what a load of crap. Guess what, folks: family members of "big pharma" get cancer, too. Oh wait - they're "secretly" cured, right?

    Buried as a complete load of utter *****.
  • vancanucksfan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1If DCA was the cancer wonderdrug

    Bob: Hey Tom are you almost here? The game is starting.
    Tom: I just gotta drop by the drugstore to pick up some DCA for my cancer
    Bob: Oh cool cool,yea I had that last week.
  • rrll222, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Sorry if this is a repeat comment. Has anyone checked the WHOIS for clicktocure.org? It was registered on May 19th, 2007. It looks like a scam to me as well.
    • tmak73, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Just because the site was just set up does not mean its a scam. the donation links are all to well known organizations, not our site. Click to cure is a new site, it is not a scam. I'm trying to find out how to prove this. To admit, I have never set a site like this up before, if anyone has suggestions on how I can assure people this is not a scam, please e-mail me at tim@clicktocure.org. Thank you to all those who have sent us supportive e-mails.
    • pictureDIGGER, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I didn't, but none of the features for the website work either. (comments, about page) and again I say none of the ads are public service ads so there isn't that available guarantee from a reputable name that this is charity. Diggers aren't very smart.
  • tmak73, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3@orpheusj

    I am one of the creators of this blog, almost everything you say is right... and I agree that some of the past posts have been a bit misleading. But I have to ask, did you actually read the front page? Nothing is inaccurate. You do seem to know alot on the subject, so I invite you to reply.

    the site does not claim that the drug will not be developed, just that PHARMACEUTICAL companies are opting out of FUNDING the necessary research to get it FDA approved for cancer treatment. And for most drugs that spells improper research due to low funding and no FDA approval.

    1) VERY TRUE, this is stated on the front page of www.clicktocure.org

    2) AGAIN TRUE! but none for use in the treatment of cancer.
    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/search.pl?p=1&srch=xprtsrch&sf=1&query=dichloroacetate%0D%0A&uspat=on&date_range=all&stemming=on&sort=relevance

    3) TRUE, but do some research on how much it costs to put a drug through complete human trials. 28 billion isn't going to cut it.

    I understand there is alot of hype, and I want to state that DCA isn't yet proven to be a CURE, and it may fail human trials! but it is promising, and we have simply provided a portal for people to assist the funding of human trials if they wish. If in fact it is proved to be a dud, our site will shift to another prospect.. perhaps another disease.

    @Klayborg

    We do not recommend self medication, this drug needs to go through clinical trials. it is not yet a cure!!!

    @elioty

    Nowhere in the site do we encourage people to commit click fraud. There is a disclaimer on the site and I will say it here, the purpose of this site is not to rip off Google. please do not click links arbitrarily. there are 2 Google adsense box's on this site. the rest of the ads are pay for performance (when you click and buy something a % goes to the cure) and we are having conversations to replace the adsense links with paid advertisements from sponsors.

    If you report us, I have no idea if we will be shut down... this isn't my full time job and I can assure everyone that 100% of anything made here will go directly to charity. If this gets shut down, I don't have the time to fight it... and I cant imagine why anyone would want to try and shut this down...

    @Picturedigger
    I understand your concern, there are alot of scams out there. But i can assure you and anyone else that everything made here will go to cancer charities. if you think its a scam don't visit. The donation sites I link to are official sites of charities and universities, the money does not cross my hands at all. The ad revenue will have to cross my hands until i figure out a way to send it directly to the desired charities. I like good Karma.


    The common theme I'm seeing among all the whistle blowers is the claim that DCA isn't the miracle cure. and everyone needs to stop talking about it. THEY ARE RIGHT about it not being a miracle cure. It has not yet been tested. But it is promising, and therefor should be talked about until it gets PROPERLY RESEARCHED.

    Please be more careful, and read through the article before you blow the whistle.

    • imperium2000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I would prefer to donate to a legitimate cancer advocacy group that can actually do some good with the money.
      American Cancer Society http://www.cancer.org/docroot/home/index.asp
    • pictureDIGGER, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@tmak73 - http://digg.com/health/Pharma_Wont_Fund_Cancer_Cure_But_You_Can_Cant_Donate_DIGG#c6791667
      "@Picturedigger
      I understand your concern, there are alot of scams out there. But i can assure you and anyone else that everything made here will go to cancer charities. if you think its a scam don't visit. The donation sites I link to are official sites of charities and universities, the money does not cross my hands at all. The ad revenue will have to cross my hands until i figure out a way to send it directly to the desired charities. I like good Karma."

      Again you are asking me to take your word. Ill tell you what, if you send me all the revenue generated from your site, I will make sure it gets into the right hands. Paypal to picturereader@gmail.com I am awaiting the money. I'll give you a couple days. Its also funny to point our that the date you registered your digg accoun is: May 17, 2007, the same day the domain went up.

      And since your showing your face, be a little more descriptive of what charities this money is going to. Since your trying to save face...

      Why aren't they public service ads? Stop avoiding the obvious
    • pictureDIGGER, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5tmak73@http://digg.com/health/Pharma_Wont_Fund_Cancer_Cure_But_You_Can_Cant_Donate_DIGG#c6791667

      Whats your non profit id? Show some ***** proof! Your article is dupe, lame, and innacurate.
    • orpheusj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ tmak73

      No, you need to do your homework sir. Yes there has been a patent for it's use in cancer by the doctors who published the study you and the other DCA fanatics have been citing:

      http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2006108276

      The fact of the matter is this drug has been documented to CAUSE CANCER IN RATS AND TOXIC NEUROPATHY IN HUMANS.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid

      As a medical student, I can tell you that cancer cannot be cured with a silver bullet. Each kind of cancer has different genetic causes and therefor require different strategies to cure them. There are many other VALID reasons to decry the drug companies and what they fund but this is not one of them. Who do you work for? Do you work for one of these sites making money off poor desperate cancer patients by selling them this snake oil?? It's not the pharm companies I'm worried about here.... It's the supplement industry. They aren't funding any research but they certainly are funding the marketing.
    • tmak73, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@orpheusj

      That is a patent application. Not a patent itself.

      If you read the front page of clicktocure.org. you will notice I also point out that DCA is not the silver bullet. But it is promising, and deserves the attention it is getting. Over reacting and saying it is not a cure is almost as bad as screaming it is the cure. the fact is, no one is sure yet either way. And right now more research needs to be done to determine its effectiveness. there are many drugs in use right now that cause undesired effects at the wrong doses, the fact that DCA is harmful at high dosages is not a reason to stop testing.

      The fact of the matter is extremes should be avoided in matters like these. On one side we have people screaming conspiracy, silver bullet, cure for all cancers. And in reaction we have the equally extreme opposition screaming it is ineffective, causes cancer etc. The truth is that DCA is a drug that has been around and in use for other metabolic disorders, and is young in its gauntlet of necessary tests on human cancer. Our goal is to help (as little as it may be) to make sure that happens.
    • orpheusj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1tkak.... You need to realize that there are serious dangers to this drug and there are people out there trying to make a buck selling bottles of this to desperate cancer patients. I'm still not convinced that you aren't one of them. If you are sincere, I'm sorry to inform you that it isn't as promising as you would like to think.

      Yes, it is an application and it's one they can win IF they show that it works, which I sadly doubt. My point being it CAN BE PATENTED for use in treating cancer.

      I agree. We should avoid extremes such as:

      1) Calling DCA a cure: Such as in the title of this post, 3 times in the description and as website URL. You're couched statements on the website give little comfort.

      2) Saying DCA is safe:

      Multiple studies have shown DCA to cause cancer through several mechanisms, at the lowest doses tested and even at doses that aren't detectable!!!! You either haven't done your homework or you are lying:

      http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16966105

      3) Saying DCA is used in metabolic disorders safely:

      Trial of dichloroacetate in MELAS: toxicity overshadows the assessment of potential benefit.
      Neurology. 2006 Feb 14;66(3):302-3.
      ------------- Toxic peripheral nerve damage was worse than any potential benefit of lowering lactate levels.

      4) Implying there is a conspiracy to ignore this drug:
      Again, any company can research it combiine it with any other drug. Researchers recognize this study on DCA for the interesting mechanism of tumor action. There are many drugs that have interesting actions.


      If you want to make a real difference, give to the American Cancer Society or another reputable group that does this for a living.

      If you want to get mad at the drug companies about something real, read Marcia Angell's book, The Truth About the Drug Companies. Or look at the high price of the HPV vaccine and then read about how it came from 20 years of research from the NIH. There is some real, righteous indignation:

      http://ott.od.nih.gov/current_issues/issues-ended-09-18-2006.html


  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4It's amazing how easily people are suckered by this kind of scam over and over. A fool and his money are soon separated...
  • kafus, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0Definitely more than snake-oil and trials will the done soon.
  • collegefreak89, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1If this is a scam, I say we find the owners and hang them publicly on the web for all to see.

    If they are OK with that bargain, then I will gladly click,
  • sined, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0I respect everyones opinion about this. Has anyone else heard how cancer vaccines have been blocked by lawmakers??

    STD shot stuck in center of U.S. culture war
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1876927
  • Rethcir, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Can't use apostrophes? Capitalize Every Word!
    • demonotaku, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Well capitalizing every word is actually correct seeing as it is a title. You are correct on the apostrophe bit though.
  • tmak73, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Picturedigger,

    Please take a closer look at the site, most of the adsense ads are PSA's : https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=32745&topic=8526
    that is googles choice, not ours.

    Currently I have the site set up to link directly to the Cancer Society, University of Alberta (research facility for DCA), and the Leukemia and Lymphoma society. Ad revenue goes to those 3 as well. I might consider expanding this list.

    And I did sign up for DIGG after creating the site. Its the best way to get the word out.

    I'm not trying to save face, but i am addressing your concern, as it is valid. But I think you are going about asking in the wrong way. I'm not asking people to send me money. Just putting up an informative site, with links to official donation sites that have nothing to do with me or ClicktoCure. I suppose I could take the ad revenue for myself, for providing this portal, but I'm not, I'm donating it... thats my choice. Im not an organization, I just noticed that with all the information, and MISinformation going around about DCA, it wasn't abundantly clear how I could help. So I did something about it. You are invited to do the same and set up a similar site if you don't trust mine. Ill even link to it on my site if you wish :-).

    Cheers,
    Tim
    ClicktoCure

    • pictureDIGGER, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4There are ways to assure the end user that the money gets there. Again, why make people trust you when you can make them feel secure. All these long responses are meaningless. You just had a catchy title. For your unreputable site that encourages click fraud (clicktocure.org) Talking about sponsers and ad revenue... Its a subliminal message
    • tmak73, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0If you have any ideas, besides "send the money to me" e-mail me at tim@clicktocure.org. Again, because im not doing this for profit, i don't have the time to go out and incorporate, get a non-profit license (which by the way is just a tax shelter, you don't need one to donate money).
    • pictureDIGGER, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I am not emailing you. I want to be heard, you might want to do a little research before setting up a website of this nature. You are asking us to trust you. Who knows, you might be the same guy that told me about Great Uncle Ishkalabernone who had Millions that was left for me. Why don't you try linking to places that donate proceeds from their sales to your designated charity(companies that "wasted"(as you say) their time). Google AdSense is for publishers. About the other ads, you say they are pay per action, but that is taking your word. The only assurance that anybody gets from your website is to take your word. And in my opinion, I am more credible than you for the simple fact that I am calling you out. Why would anybody be against any type of charity? I am calling you out because you say you donate to a charity. And you are looking to be a major contributor to some charity but you aren't willing to take the time to make it legitimate? For all we know, you are taking the revenue for yourself. If on some crazy chance this is legitimate (of course this is just ignoring the fact that all signs point to SCAM) you are probably donating to a charity for your own Tax Deductions.
    • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1picturedigger...why you are right in 99% of what you said, your last part is just silly. Donating for tax purposes does NOT increase a person's take home pay. If he made, say $50,000 a year in a "real job", and then mdae $100,000 in this charity and donated it all, it would not increase his take home pay from that $50,000 one bit.

      All donating to charitydoes is decrease your before tax earnings. So if you take in extra money and donate it all, you are not changing your before tax.

      A lot fo ignorant people seem to think that by making large donations, people, or large corporations can someone INCREAES their profits. This is simply not true. And when a company makes a sizeable doantion, they are still LOSING profits. Like if Microsoft were to make a $10 million donation to some charity, while that donation may not cost them $10 million, it DOES cost them at least $6 million in actual profits. All they "save" is whatever tax they would have had to pay on that donation. So, to "save" 35% of whatever, they are losing 100%.
  • Modizzle, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Wait a second. I post an obsolete HD DVD key I get 20,000 diggs, but I post a potential cure for cancer and only get a fraction!? Do you people all work for big pharmacy as well?
  • Torsteinator, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1okay...
  • RanTanPlann, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1If you had so good intentions: *WHY DO YOU HAVE --ADS-- IN YOUR SITE?*

    I say bury....
    • hiimsneeze, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0to fund the site and the treatment. its quite simple
  • Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1why do people digg this *****? DCA is not a cancer cure. Buried for inaccuracy.
  • hiimsneeze, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0Ray Martin, an iconic Australian news-program presenter was forced to resign after refusing advice and continuing to investigate an apparent cure for cancer. Although I don't know if it is the same, the treatment was not only inexpensive and simple, it was regarded highly by many experienced doctors and scientists.

    It's no surprise then when you find out that trillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies who secure their interests by destroying patents and treatments from some cheap, esoteric root or magnetic gizmo, also have large influence over many of the main-stream media outlets in America and Australia.

    look it up.
    • demonotaku, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2How about YOU look it up and show us the proof for what you are saying? Wouldn't that make you seem a bit more truthful?
    • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You are very naive hiimsneeze
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.