Repost from OOT: Cancer Cured

[Borodog]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

Got this from kyleb in OOT. Anyone with background in the field care to comment?

[vhawk01]

Pretty amazing.

[m_the0ry]

Yeah I read that article a few days ago. Probably the best news is that its an already known drug which means it can't be patented and monopolized and made to cost outrageous amounts of money.

The chemistry of its functionality is interesting.

[madnak]

My bio professor hugely emphasized apoptosis. I guess he had good reason. I'll get my hopes up only when the treatment is verified and approved and all that, but it's very neat from a theoretical as well as practical perspective.

[m_the0ry]

Another huge advantage is that since it is an old drug it has already been approved by the FDA as far as lethality and interaction in the human body. That means the FDA only needs to approve it as a cure for cancer (which could take weeks, months, or years, it really depends) for it to hit the shelves and start being prescribed.

[Phil153]

Not particularly impressed - the articles mentions that it kills cancer cells outside of the body. To my knowledge there are other drugs that do that, it's just that quantities required aren't safe or effective when used in the body.

The only hard evidence I see is a short reference to deliberately implanted humor tumors in mice - really not enough information to call this a cure. At the least we probably have another chemo drug on our hands though, so good news.

The mitochondria stuff is interesting though: it also lends support to what natural medicine advocates have been saying for a long time: cancer starts with unhealthy conditions in the body.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Not particularly impressed - the articles mentions that it kills cancer cells outside of the body. To my knowledge there are other drugs that do that, it's just that quantities required aren't safe or effective when used in the body.

The only hard evidence I see is a short reference to deliberately implanted humor tumors in mice - really not enough information to call this a cure. At the least we probably have another chemo drug on our hands though, so good news.

The mitochondria stuff is interesting though: it also lends support to what natural medicine advocates have been saying for a long time: cancer starts with unhealthy conditions in the body.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many causes of cancer, some known and others not, but of course it starts with unhealthy conditions. I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at with this. Cells go through a cell cycle, and there are different genes which regulate how often a cell will enter the cycle. These are tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes. Mutations in these genes lead to certain types of cancer.

I think that the pathway they are talking about, and the switch from oxidative respiration to glycolysis as the main source of energy, is more related to the growth of tumors, not the origination of cancerous cells.

[Phil153]

Here's the key quote:

[ QUOTE ]
Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis’s experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020).

Michelakis suggests that the switch to glycolysis as an energy source occurs when cells in the middle of an abnormal but benign lump don’t get enough oxygen for their mitochondria to work properly (see diagram). In order to survive, they switch off their mitochondria and start producing energy through glycolysis.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never bought the mutation-as-the-main-cause-of-cancer line that the medical community takes - there's a lot more to it than that. The differences in cancer rates between certain countries are astonishing and they have to be attributable to diet and exercise - yet the official word is that these things can only prevent about 30-40% of cancers. I've long believed that almost all cancers are due to unhealthy preconditions in the body (caused by things like poor diet, little exercise, eating meat). Yet the scientific consensus, as quoted above, has been that mutations from everyday life eventually damage a cell irreparably, causing unchecked growth and cancer. This view appears to inaccurate or at least incomplete.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the key quote:

[ QUOTE ]
Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis’s experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020).

Michelakis suggests that the switch to glycolysis as an energy source occurs when cells in the middle of an abnormal but benign lump don’t get enough oxygen for their mitochondria to work properly (see diagram). In order to survive, they switch off their mitochondria and start producing energy through glycolysis.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never bought the mutation-as-the-main-cause-of-cancer line that the medical community takes - there's a lot more to it than that. The differences in cancer rates between certain countries are astonishing and they have to be attributable to diet and exercise - yet the official word is that these things can only prevent about 30-40% of cancers. I've long believed that almost all cancers are due to unhealthy preconditions in the body (caused by things like poor diet, little exercise, eating meat). Yet the scientific consensus, as quoted above, has been that mutations from everyday life eventually damage a cell irreparably, causing unchecked growth and cancer. This view appears to inaccurate or at least incomplete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its certainly incomplete. And I don't think the idea that diet (at least, out of your list) leads to an increase in cancer risk is controversial. Especially for things like stomach and colon cancer, there have been studies which show a correlation between groups of people who eat certain types of foods (certain grains and rices, I think?) and an increased risk in cancer. East Asians, for example, have a much increased risk of colon and stomach cancer.

But there certainly are genetic influences on cancer. For instance, genetic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are heritable mutations passed on hereditarily, lead to a nearly 100% lifetime risk of breast cancer. There are also diseases like Li-Fraumeni and neurofibramatosis, which are germ-line mutations in genes like p53, that cause a drastically increased risk of certain types of cancer.

But your point about diet and unhealthy lifestyles is certainly a good one. All we need to do is look at skin cancer. Many things you do can impact your cells mutation-repair mechanisms, and we certainly don't know enough to eliminate things like obesity or anything else.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never bought the mutation-as-the-main-cause-of-cancer line that the medical community takes - there's a lot more to it than that. The differences in cancer rates between certain countries are astonishing and they have to be attributable to diet and exercise - yet the official word is that these things can only prevent about 30-40% of cancers. I've long believed that almost all cancers are due to unhealthy preconditions in the body (caused by things like poor diet, little exercise, eating meat). Yet the scientific consensus, as quoted above, has been that mutations from everyday life eventually damage a cell irreparably, causing unchecked growth and cancer. This view appears to inaccurate or at least incomplete.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the incompatibility. Diet, or stress on the body, cause mutations. One uncontroversial example is eating a lot of barbecued meats - charred meat contains free radicals which cause mutation.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never bought the mutation-as-the-main-cause-of-cancer line that the medical community takes - there's a lot more to it than that. The differences in cancer rates between certain countries are astonishing and they have to be attributable to diet and exercise - yet the official word is that these things can only prevent about 30-40% of cancers. I've long believed that almost all cancers are due to unhealthy preconditions in the body (caused by things like poor diet, little exercise, eating meat). Yet the scientific consensus, as quoted above, has been that mutations from everyday life eventually damage a cell irreparably, causing unchecked growth and cancer. This view appears to inaccurate or at least incomplete.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the incompatibility. Diet, or stress on the body, cause mutations. One uncontroversial example is eating a lot of barbecued meats - charred meat contains free radicals which cause mutation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Phil's contention is more like "There are almost no cancers that AREN'T directly the result of unhealthy lifestyle choices."

I think thats hard to support. Lots of cells, lots of replications, lots of opportunity for random mutations to accumulate. Throw in a genetic predisposition, either in the form of malfunction repair mechanisms or mutated cell-cycle-regulation genes, and you have a recipe for cancers which are caused through 'no fault' of the patient.

Phil, are you trying to just assign blame or pass some sort of moral judgment, along the lines of "cancer patients get cancer through their own choices and actions?" Surely this plays a role in some (or many, or most, I don't have any data on that) cancers, but certainly not all.