Did Scientists CURE CANCER last week and nobody noticed?

[matcom]

<snip>

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 sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their “immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.

It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.

Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.

DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.

<snip>

The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap.


more......

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

[NMDemDist2]

1. Holy Crap!

wouldn't that just frost the BigPharma's cookies bigtime??

hope it works out, what a blessing that would be eh?

[rubberducky]

2. Is this for real??

If it is , why isn`t it on the "news"??

[matcom]

3. my question exactly

because it is in Canada?

because big Pharm can't make $$??

:shrug:

[walldude]

This was posted last week

and yeah it looks to be real. And yes you aren't hearing about it because there's no money to be made. The drug they are using doesn't have a patent so Pharma companies can monopolize it.

[NV Whino]

5. Bingo!

And guess who won't allow it to cross the border.

[ellie]

42. I have always

maintained that the drug companies never want to see cures for any illness because there goes their cash cows.

[SmokingJacket]

53. They only want to treat chronic conditions...

They LOVE depression because it always comes back... love anything to do with lifestyle (high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes).. or anything bothersome that won't kill you (hair loss, lack of libido).

[Exultant Democracy]

82. Then why do they develop so many vaccines?

Most of the scientist that I know who work in big pharm are well educated liberals who are doing their jobs for all the right reasons.

[SmokingJacket]

91. Because vaccines are the motherload: you treat people

who aren't even sick yet -- and you get to treat ALL of them. Look at the numbers: charge a million people for a vaccine, or charge a hundred people for medicine. Ka-ching!

Look -- I know scientists too, and they ARE all doing it for the right reasons, and praise God, I love modern medicine. I owe my life to it many times over.

It's the money men and the top of the chain that I'm talking about -- the ones who make the funding decisions. THEY have far too much control over the direction of research, and individual scientists have too little.

I have a friend who might just leave research science altogether because of the disaster than funding has become.

[sendero]

88. A belief I share...

... especially chronic diseases like diabetes, arthritis and the like. They make lots and lots and lots of cash selling maintenance items, they are not about to devote any serious effort to finding a cure, not on your life.

[tanyev]

6. The corporate sponsored news?

That's your answer.

[mconvente]

27. It is for real - actual published paper link here

From "Cancer Cell":

http://www.cancercell.org/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1535610806003722

Just click on full text or the pdf link at the upper right - the full text is free, i didn't click on the pdf but i figure that's free too.

For those of you with extensive science backgrounds, it seems like this would be a fascinating read. I'm gonna read it later just for my personal knowledge.

Cheers.

[Why Syzygy]

78. The PDF is $30.00 n/t

[mconvente]

90. Weird - I can click on the pdf and get it fine.

Though, I am using a computer in the Rutgers Network, so we probably have access based on our IPs for research.

[matcom]

4. can we get this on the greatest?

so we can maybe get some answers?????

PLEASE??

[seafan]

7. I'm wondering that too. WHY aren't we hearing about this???

I made it a priority to send this article to lots of folks since it was published. It would be a great submission to Olberman. People need to know this!

But, then again, with the clampdown and intimidation of our scientists, we probably won't hear about it in prime time.

Sometimes it feels like we are fighting with sticks and stones against this * fascism.



Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers, 23 January 2007


Here are a few clips from the article:

It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their “immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.

It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.

Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.

DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.

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).

The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap.

Read that last clip again for another answer to *why aren't we hearing about this?*.....
(Emphasis added..)

[no_hypocrisy]

8. PHARMA probably used more money to kill the story as there is

more profit in a lingering death versus a cure.

[havocmom]

9. Saw that too. Been waiting for the big whoop-la. Nothing.

Big Pharma strikes again.

[Taverner]

10. "pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines"

Bullshit.

Asprin isn't patented but that doesn't mean Bayer doesn't make a shitload of money every year.

They're just fucking lazy

Marketing, people, marketing! Can't you run stupid ads that show beautiful 20-somethings playing on the beach, cancer free?

[AllegroRondo]

13. More likely that they dont want to lose profits on their cancer treatments

why cure it, when we can sell them a pill to treat the symptoms for years?

[Taverner]

14. Yep - but as long as the cat's out of the bag

They should be lining up to promote "the only safe cure for cancer that also stays crunchy in milk - Cancer-Os!"

[IronLionZion]

16. SOMEBODY, will find a way to make money from it

and then it will take off...if it's for real.

It's important to not overestimate the power of big pharma. They have limited influence outside this country.

[John Gauger]

63. They have plenty of pull in the WTO.

American, British, and Dutch Pharma managed to ban all Indian, Brazilian, and Argentine AIDS medication from the African market. Gore, while he was VP, visited the WTO on their behalf. However, Nelson Mandela lobbied in the other direction. He didn't succeed it getting other nation's drugs in, but he did get the price of the drugs down to $2 a dose from $1000. Canada, however, does not play that shit. They don't recognize other nation's pharmaceutical patents. A Candadian non-profit is currently manufacturing a cancer treatment patented by BritolMyersSquibb, but they can't sell it outside the country. Canada will probably start making this supposed 'cure,' only they won't be held up by international law. I think Big Pharma will try hard, but I don't think that they will be successful in stopping this drug.

[Stephanie]

76. Open-source medicine.

Why not? Sometimes it's hard to justify continuing to live in this country.

[Leopolds Ghost]

80. One of the things for which I can not excuse Gore.

Watering down the Kyoto treaty to pure ineffectuality was another thing;
Gore lobbied AGAINST the environmental lobby in favor of pollution credits
and energy credits and exempting all "developing countries" including China and Dubai.

[atommom]

24. If it's approved for a new use, they CAN get a patent for that use.

It's just nowhere near being ready. See my post below.

[Epiphany4z]

81. I thought so

when Prozac was Okay ed for PMS they called it sarafem or something like that..new patent ..wallah.

[mzmolly]

57. The drug approval process is paid for by drug mfgrs. They fund the so called 'independent studies'

quite often that lead to the approval process. Aspirin has been around for decades, and it's over the counter.

[John Gauger]

62. Aprin used to be patented.

Bayer held the patent. They were the first to manufacture it. Tradition has something to do with it. Marketing is extremely expensive for Big Pharma. They spent loads more on marketing than R&D every year. They aren't going to spend money marketing something that they won't turn a profit on. They would need to invest significant capital before they would be able to tell whether they could turn a profit. They may already be marketing a generic drug, but they aren't likely to attempt to start marketing any more because it is too risky.

[poverlay]

11. It's likely that anything can be cured, but there's no money to be made in cures...

I read that article too.
Keep your fingers crossed...

[Booster]

22. Agreed. I've always said if you pay someone to look for

something they will never find it. If you put a billion dollars in a fund and said whoever comes up with a cure gets the money, we would have a cure in a week.

[Morgana LaFey]

43. The old traditional Chinese physicians used to be paid to

keep you well -- if you got sick, they lost your pay.

[poverlay]

51. That's a great idea. We should start a "reward fund". n/t

[Sweet Freedom]

12. scientists in Canada find a cure for diabetes too

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a042812e-492c-4f07-8245-8a598ab5d1bf&k=63970

Diabetic mice became healthy virtually overnight after researchers injected a substance to counteract the effect of malfunctioning pain neurons in the pancreas.

"I couldn't believe it," said Dr. Michael Salter, a pain expert at the Hospital for Sick Children and one of the scientists. "Mice with diabetes suddenly didn't have diabetes any more."

The researchers caution they have yet to confirm their findings in people, but say they expect results from human studies within a year or so. Any treatment that may emerge to help at least some patients would likely be years away from hitting the market.

[Catherine Vincent]

15. That's always the bottom line isn't it?

"..pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines."

What's that saying? Money is the root of all evil. :(

[coznfx]

40. There's nothing inherently wrong with money.

The evil is in the 'love' of money.

[Staph]

17. Can we get a couple of gallons of this stuff

and send it to Molly Ivins? I can't think of a better patient for a clinical trial.

[atommom]

18. It's possible, but many drugs that show hope in initial tests turn out not

to work in real life. There has been a lot of hype about DCA ... more than it really deserves at this stage. I hope it does turn out to be a good drug, and I certainly don't dispute that Big Pharma is often evil. But the pharmaceutical companies could patent it for a new use, so I doubt that is the reason they aren't getting excited about DCA. For a little background, read this.

1. This drug has only been tested in cell culture and rats. Yes, the results were promising there, but that does not--I repeat, does not-- mean the results will translate to humans. In fact, most likely, they will not. Those of us who've been in the cancer field a while know that all too common are drugs that kill tumors in the Petrie dish and in mice or rats but fail to be nearly as impressive when tested in humans. In the 1980's it was immunotherapy. Man, some immunotherapies totally melted tumors away but, sadly, didn't do nearly as well in human trials. The same is true of antiangiogenic therapy, pioneered by my surgical and scientific hero Judah Folkman. In 1998, it was all over the media (see pictures below) that antiangiogenic therapy would be the "cure" (or at least would turn cancer into a manageable chronic disease). These drugs dramatically shrank tumors in mice in two major studies published in Cell and even induced tumor dormancy, as described in Nature. Guess what? They didn't do the same thing in humans. Don't get me wrong, antiangiogenic drugs have proven to be a useful addition to our anticancer armamentarium (not to mention an area of research interest for me). However, remember the saying: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Well, it probably is in the case of DCA.

Mouse.jpgCancer.jpg

2. Cancer is not a single disease. It is many diseases, and requires many different approaches. This drug showed activity against several cancers in vitro, but there are conventional chemotherapeutic drugs that also show activity against lots of cancers. In fact, the comparison to antiangiogenics becomes even more relevant here, because antiangiogenic drugs theoretically could act against any cancer. That's because they target normal cells lining blood vessels, which are needed to grow new blood vessels to supply tumors with blood and oxygen. These cells are very stable, and much less prone to the mutations that cancer cells undergo with such frequency that can lead to resistance. In contrast. DCA targets the tumor cells themselves, which are far more likely to develop resistance. Bloggers ranting against big pharma are showing magical thinking in assuming that this drug will work against nearly all tumors, given that at best only 60-90% of cancers even demonstrate the Warburg effect. Indeed, remember how I mentioned that in this study DCA inhibited tumor growth by 60% or more in rats? Pretty impressive, yes? Compare this result to that obtained by angiostatin and endostatin, both of which melted experimental mouse tumors away to a few dormant cells. Neither were anywhere as impressive against human tumors. That doesn't mean antiangiogenics aren't useful cancer drugs (Bevicuzimab, in particular is quite effective at potentiating the effect of chemotherapy in colorectal cancer, for example), but they are useful in the same way that a number of chemotherapeutic agents are usefu: as an additional weapon. They are not miracle cures, and I'd be willing to bet that DCA isn't, either.

3. Here's where the worst misinformation is being spread about this story. It will not cost $600-800 million to do clinical trials to test this drug, yet certain bloggers are acting as if that much money will be needed to to see if this drug works in humans. That's just a load of crap. That figure refers to the total cost of bringing a new drug to market, from idea to research and development, to synthesis, to cell culture and animal studies, to patent applications, to all the clinical trials needed, to filing the regulatory documentation, all of which together can sometimes approach $1 billion. It does not refer to the amount of money required to do a clinical trial to see if there is efficacy in humans, the logical next step after what has been published thus far. In contrast to what's being spewed into the blogosphere, to run a preliminary trial to determine if there is evidence of efficacy in humans could be done for costs that are well within the means of an investigator, if he's willing to apply for grants. All he would require is a few hundred thousand dollars for a small preliminary trial (less ideal) or probably between $1 and $5 million for an intermediate-sized Phase II study against one tumor (it's the Phase III trials, with thousands of patients, that cost tens of millions of dollars). Most NIH R01 grants are funded for between $1 and $2 million (mine's for a little more than $1.3 million over 5 years), and clinical R01 grants can be funded for up to a few million dollars. Thus, this is not by any means an unreasonable amount of money to be trying raise to do the trial to confirm in humans the preclinical data and, if the effect is as great in humans as it is in animals, should be adequate to detect the drug's promise. If that turns out not to be a big enough sample, then that would imply either that (1) this drug isn't effective at all in humans or (2) isn't any more effective than many other conventional chemotherapeutics that we already have. True, the funding climate sucks these days, but Michelakis is funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR), and Canadian Foundation for Innovation. He's perfectly free to apply to the NIH and other organizations for funding. Given such compelling preclinical data, hewould stand a very good chance of being funded.

4. Lastly, there was nothing stopping the investigator from patenting the idea of using DCA to treat cancer. I know someone who is doing just that for a use of a drug that's FDA-approved for treating something totally unrelated to cancer. indeed, I sincerely hope that Michelakis has, in fact, done this, because now that his results have published it's too late; the cat's out of the bag. If he had done that, he could then have licensed his idea to whatever pharmaceutical company was interested, and that pharmaceutical company would then have had a patent on the use of this drug to treat cancer. If Michelakis hasn't done that, well, I applaud his idealism (or curse his naïveté); he shot himself in the foot and made his idea less appealing to industry.

more: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php

[matcom]

20. i realize that BUT...

WHY no media coverage at all?

that to me is perplexing

[foo_bar]

21. there's no media coverage because there's no story

There's dozens of potential anti-cancer drugs that do wonders in test tube simulations, but don't actually cure cancer in the human body (or would kill the patient in the process). Speaking of Big Pharm:

Other potential applications are earlier stage candidates and the company cautions that much work remains to develop them. Although early results are promising, it may take years of research to prove efficacy in humans.

CMI is currently undergoing a round of financing and in discussions with strategic drug partners. The company is focused on unlocking the potential of this exciting drug and its related compounds.

This press release may contain forward-looking statements, including the Company's belief as to the potential of its products, the Company's expectations regarding the issuance of additional patents, the Company's ability to protect its intellectual property, and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which could cause the Company's actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements.

http://www.pharmalive.com/News/index.cfm?articleid=408336&categoryid=40 ("The Pulse of the Pharmaceutical Industry")

[atommom]

26. Yep. There's nothing sinister going on this time. nt

[John Gauger]

64. That's what I thought.

I know that the corporate media are influenced heavily in their reporting by the desires of the their advertisers, this does not seem like it would be an area of immediate concern. No sense in throwing your weight around without a good reason.

[Patiod]

87. This wouldn't be the first "cure for cancer" that didn't pan out

No one wants to raise the hopes of those suffering, only to find out that it worked in mice or tissue, but not in humans.

Think how often the media are bashed for publicizing research that ends up being wrong or contradictory: low fat or low carb? which is it?

[mike_c]

41. even if DCA doesn't work in humans these results suggest...

...a new theraputic direction if other drugs can be found that shift tumor cell metabolism back to mitochondrial dominance.

[northzax]

46. people have been working on that for years

it's long been known that human cells seem to have a suicide switch after a certain number of generations of replication, and that cancerous cells don't seem to have that same suicide switch. It's the holy grail of both cancer research and anti-aging research.

[eallen]

54. How would such a patent prevent off-label purchase?

I'm just curious about that, given that the drug that already is sold for another purpose. Surely the new patent wouldn't require companies already making the drug for existing purposes to pay a license? And if it doesn't require that, then how are physicians and patients who want to use it for the new purpose made to purchase it packgaged (and presumably priced) for that new purpose? (My question is aimed entirely at how the IP works, not at this particular drug.)

:hippie:

[Patiod]

83. Please keep in mind what "New Scientist" is

one of the most fascinating magazines around - stimulating, provocative, interesting, intelligent and one of the few legitimate outlets willing to float a lot of highly speculative theories, in addition to new, cutting-edge research.

They publish lots of wonderful pieces about the latest thinking in different areas of science and medicine, but many have caveats attached: "this may prove to be the cause of..."/"some have speculated that.../"researchers are looking at...". They don't pretend that everything they discuss will eventually pan out, but they are one of the few serious magazines out there willing to toss around stuff that isn't fully formed or researched yet. (One thing that sticks in my head is that one article floated the theory that dairy foods may cause osteoporosis because they change the PH of the blood, and calcium is then leached from the bones. Fascinating idea, but I haven't seen anything to back it up yet. I miss reading NS, but a subscription is $99/year).

This is not a case of the mainstream media colluding with Big Bad Pharma to keep the cure for cancer from leaking out. The MSM has been burnt over the years by announcing potential cancer treatments that didn't pan out, but DID falsely raise the hopes of suffering people. They aren't going to touch a story like this until there's some research backing it up.

[Avalux]

19. Perhaps. It must be tested on humans to know for sure.

Sometimes what works in cell cultures and animal models doesn't necessarily work in the human body. Since the drug has previously been given to people and is relatively safe, it will be interesting to see how all of this develops.

[davsand]

23. I think the big problem is funding the research, actually.

Yeah, big pharma stands to make less if it can't get patented. They are not terribly interested in funding research that they don't see a big return on. As somebody else already pointed out, however, there is still enough cash to be made for them if this was an Over the Counter med simply because the need is so great.

The REALLY big hold up on non-patent drug development, however, is there is no money to fund the clinical research needed to verify safety and results. Without somebody paying the bill there is no cash on hand for the clinical trials needed to get it approved for patient use outside the research labs. They have to be able to demonstrate that the long term on it is ok--no problems AFTER treatment concludes for instance--and they have to be able to prove that it actually is the reason these patients improve.

This absence of funding for long term research manifests time after time with things like research into Fish Oil as a help for Arthritis and Heart Disease, CoQ10 for Congestive Heart Failure and St Johns' Wort for Depression. Just to add even more fuel to the fire, I'll even mention one that will generate a huge stir on here and that is Marijuana research. Because of the political furor AND the lack of profit that particular substance hs been left unexplored for a number of areas of medical application ranging from HIV/AIDS patients all the way to Glaucoma.

I'm glad as heck to hear that SOMEBODY is looking at some of this stuff.


Regards!



Laura

[oblivious]

52. Avon alone has raised $450 million in its Breast Cancer Crusade.

That's just one fundraising organisation.

But try to find information on the web about how much money has been raised overall for cancer research and how it has been spent.

I gave up.

I'm wondering if it is a scam.

edit to include Avon link
http://www.avoncompany.com/women/avoncrusade/2007_BC_funding_guidelines.pdf

[grace0418]

25. I wonder how long before some Big Pharma sponsored group conducts "studies"

that find the drug is "useless" or "dangerous."

[Patiod]

84. And single orphan hermits will be conducting that research

because most of the other people working at Big Pharma have parents, spouses, children or friends that have cancer, which might motivate them to want to get a potential cure out to these folks.

[ananda]

28. Does Molly know about this?

I want her to live so bad.

[mzmolly]

59. Unfortunately, once cancer has taken it's toll, it's already damaged the body

to the point of no return. :(

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. No.

It's just an interesting article which may pan out. Probably won't.

Cold fusion type stuff.

[truedelphi]

30. Maybe you should check out the real truth on the fusion story

That is another one that the media ran so fast from that there were skidmarks all across town

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Heh.

The real truth to the cold fusion story:

Some scientists thought they discovered cold fusion because their machine put out more electricity than it created. They didn't do their analysis properly. They went to the media. The media went nuts. Other scientists looked at their results, did their math for them. It turned out the machine didn't produce more electricity than it created. Story debunked.

[truedelphi]

32. I thought so too (the debunking that is)

Then I discovered a fifteen minute video that explains it a far different story about cold fusion than the one presented by the DEBUNKERS.

In watching the video, I discovered how the same EXACT pattern of "industry science" "independently examining" an issue (in this case cold fusion) in order to obfuscate the truth was operating around the cold fusion issue much as for years it had operated around the pesticide issue.


Over the past twelve years I have investigated the "scientific community's" handling of the risk in pesticides issue (googel Carol Sterritt + RoundUp)

This has extended into the risk of Genetically Moddified Foods. (Google: Carol Sterritt + Genetically Modified)

Here is the pattern: industry discovers something that makes them a profit. Let's give the weed killing product a name and call it RoundUp.

In order to get it licensed, industry lies, and omits the ingredient formaldehyde from its data sheet on the list of chemical s making up the product. Since formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, it is important not to disclose this fact. (No product with formaldehyde can be sold as an over the counter weed killer to the public)

EPA then goes ahead and approves the product. In doing so, EPA does not test the products at all - but relies on the written ingredient sheets and other testimony provided by INDUSTRY to determine what its stance (ie approval or disapproval) will be.

As time goes by, SOME (very few) scientists look into things surrounding the product.

In ROundUp's case you have Warren Porter of The Univ. Of Wisconsin. He does numerous studies that show the impacts that RoundUp has, especially on in utero, infant, and adolescent populations.

Industry DEBUNKS such a scientist's claims. They run the same tests that Porter does, they leave out bits of data, improvise others etc. Let me add a caution to the above statement - often they do not even run any tests - they just say that Porter's sample was not big enough, his methods were questionable etc. (With all their money, Monsanto could well afford to run Porter's same tests with larger samples - but why should they - they control the politicians who install the needed "scientists" to the panels at the EPA that approve such things. Look at Reagan's history with NutraSweet, ie Aspartame and the FDA.)

This same pattern was used to DEBUNK cold fusion. The Universities that provided the "independent scientists" physics majors and other scientists looking into fusion all have ties to Big Energy. (Just as Novartis, a leading Big Pharma player is now controlling UC BERKELEY in its science research - you better believe it will be hard for any UC science major to question if Novartis' produced pesticides cause cancer with Novartis controlling Foundation monies)

Anyway, fusion expert Gene Mallove died as a result of the need to keep fusion secret.

(Google Mallove + fusion + murder)

I will try to find the link I have on my hard drive about the fusion video.

Carol

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Yeah, see...

after the scientists debunked cold fusion, every pseudoscientific nutjob thought he was a genius and decided to go out and reinvent cold fusion. Go to a scientific convention and theirs some Art Bell-esque kook setting up his cold fusion display out in the parking garage. They usually go on about how there's a big conspiracy too.

As for Round-up- formaldehyde is a synthetic precursor. It is not an "ingredient." A bottle of Round-up you buy at the store does not contain formaldehyde.

[blueDachi]

39. Not debunked but torpedoed.

MIT fudged their figures and later recanted. In short what they did was make the data from their control experiment look like the data from the fusion cell. It was this false data that was then used in part to discredit Fleischmann and Pons. But few noticed as the media attack worked and cold fusion cynics across the land danced in glee at the "debunking" of Fleischmann and Pons.

See Richard Milton's link for an excellent summary on this topic.

http://www.alternativescience.com/cold_fusion.htm

Another excellent resource about the reality of cold fusion is to be found in the book "Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed" by Charles G. Beaudette.

Research on this promising new science still goes on today despite the ignorance of the general public and the mainstream media.

[truedelphi]

56. Thanks - and gosh I admire your ability to be concise! n/t

[blueDachi]

92. Thanks! I try ... :)

[northzax]

50. no, see

there is a grand conspiracy among the eggheads to keep cold fusion down, destroy religion through the so-called 'evolution' and destroy capitalism through the ridiculous 'global warming' baloney. only a few brave souls dare stand up to the Nobel Prize mafia and call them on their constructed bullshit.

[truedelphi]

55. Chemically speaking - if a bottle of RoundUp that

you buy at the store DID not contain Formaldehyde - it is my understanding that it would be in solid hard cake form and not able to be aerosolized.

I am one of only twelve or so people who knows about this - a scientist who is a forensic witness for court cases was presented with papers that Monsanto normally keeps secret - he was never to reveal that Monsanto detailed the formaldehyde use in the product RoundUp

However for whatever reason this scientist, decided to tell me about it, breaking his oath to the court.

RounddUp's active ingredient is glyphosate - that has health problems for users including Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

It's other active ingredient is water.

The inert ingredient in RoundUp is Polyoxyethalenamine or POEA, and you have to have an understanding of the industry's use of the word "inert" to usnderstand this part of the discussion - in short, for purposes of pesticide regulation, if the chemical inside a formulation "acts" to produce the desired effect, let's say kill a particular type of bug, it is the active ingredient.

Now let's say that a secondary effect is needed - they want this particular bug spray to disperse evenly, so they add another ingredient for dispersal effetcs, then they can call this secondary in purpose chemical an "inert" (as it is not about killing any bugs) and it might take you a long time to discover what this is (unless you go to the expense of a gas chromotographic and/or spectographic analysis of the product)

Industry keeps mum about far too much

Industry does not have to list the "inerts' - of course with the internets up and running, you can now go to many sites and benefit from other people's years of campaigning to find out the inerts of a given product - but in the old days (circa 1990-1996) it wasn't so easy.

One of the properties of POEA is that it breaks down into Dioxane, a carcinogen - and bioremediation groups who were wondering why they always discovered a lot of evidence of dioxane on government properties (ie cyclone fencing used to perimeter off a Navy base etc) were pleased when I informed them about the fact that RoundUp and its POEA is responsible for the break down into Dioxanes, as they had never been able to figure this part of the puzzle out.

Now technically speaking it may be the truth that the bottle of RoundUp you buy here and now in 2007 DOES not contain formaldehyde - but that is only because of some recent reformulation that might well been brought about by activists such as myself screaming their pretty heads off over the fact that since its inception way back in the late '60's or '70's - RoundUp did contain Formaldehyde.

It may also be that my initial unnamed source has also had some sway - after all, he has the credibility within the science community to get ahold of those who
are in the EPA and really do want to be straight shooters.

In my viewpoint, the story of the licensing of RoundUp is as important as the story of Love Canal.

Whereas Love Canal made people get off their duffs and look around their neighborhoods as the impact that industry has on local community health, ROundUp's history should make every person who ever buys anything chemical (be it a beauty product, air freshener, pesticide etc) think twice and then again about the harm they may be doing themselves
and their children. (Ironically those of us who try to persuade people to double think their product selection find that people are more willing to switch products for the health of their PETS than for the health of their CHILDREN!)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. If cold fusion was a true wonder then Iran and Korea and Bangladesh would have it.

It doesn't work. There is some science to be done investigating the phenomenon, but it if truly was a simple power source, then North Korea and Iran and Chad and Uruguay would be exploiting it. They are not beholden to "INDUSTRY", as you put it in capital letters.

[knitter4democracy]

44. My dad worked with one of the scientists who checked their math.

He's an amazing physicist who has probably retired by now. The government asked him to check the figures because, of course, they were interested in cold fusion. Remember, the scientists went to the media first, which bought it lock, stock, and barrell. This guy, who does all the math in his head (freakin' brilliant) had an assistant read him all of the math, and he found their errors. When he re-did it, he found that it didn't make sense.

Then, other scientists confirmed his results after checking through it all independently, as well, and that was the end of their version of cold fusion.

[truedelphi]

33. Video on Google (THe link to Cold Fusion Vid)

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2229511748333360205

It's been a few months since I watched it - it should still work

[librechik]

35. I noticed! --Can't get anybody to cover it though.

[TZ]

36. Keep in mind please

that while these are indeed very positive signs, actually being able to work in a human body can be significantly different than in just tissue culture. And just because it worked in rats does not mean it will work with humans. I would say its promising but as for a cure? Well we shall see. Also bear in mind that many cancers aren't tumors but are problems with the body making too much of a type of cell and making them wrong (leukemia is the bone marrow working incorrectly to make too many white blood cells that don't work correctly). So no, this is not a cure for cancer.

[mikelgb]

37. FDA will never approve it

[Triana]

38. IF they did they need to get it to Molly Ivins - STAT! (n/t)

[tabasco]

45. I hope big pharmaceuticals doesn't shut this down

like the US car companies shut down alternate energy research.

[Patiod]

85. Car company execs wouldn't lose loved ones

if alternative energy was quashed.

People at pharmaceutical companies, however, will lose loved ones, maybe their own lives (yes, these "monsters" even get cancer themselves!) if they "shut down" promising cancer research.

I don't work for a phama company, but they are our clients, and this is not how it works - they don't "shut down" research that could cure disease. Admittedly, they don't pursue everything that they might, but that's another story (ex: no pharmaco, so far as I know, is doing research on islet cell transplants for diabetes, because transplants aren't what they do. It might cure diabetes, but pharmacos don't spend money researching it)

[tabasco]

89. Your perspective is one perspective.

Thanks for the info on how you see things.

[cassiepriam]

48. No clinical trials yet that I can find. That means about 10 yrs before it can be given to patients.

Sadly, Bush has consistently cut cancer research funds so who knows
when it will get to clinical trial.

[redqueen]

61. according to the article it's been in use for years. n/t

[cassiepriam]

67. For metabolic disorders, not cancer. Has to undergo clinical trials

to be used for another purpose.

[redqueen]

68. Ah I see.

Thanks.

[cassiepriam]

69. Off label prescriptions for cancer treatment would not be reimbursed

by ins companies, and could get the docs into trouble!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. This dovetails with the role of inflammation and high calorie diets

Modern research has been showing the large role that inflammation plays in disease process, including cancer. It has also shown how high calorie and high sugar diets are connected to inflammation.

[EFerrari]

58. Do you have a link, Bernardo? Having psoriatic arthritis

the topic is of interest to me. My onset was about two years ago.

I switched over to a vegetarian, no sugar and low calorie diet and the psoriasis has nearly disappeared and the inflammation has decreased significantly. But, attribution is always problematic. :shrug:

[davsand]

73. Read up on the Zone Diet.

Dr. Barry Sears has done a lot of work with diet and how it impacts in health. Here's a link to an interview with him that will give you a feel for what he's talking about:

http://www.shareguide.com/Sears.html


His book on inflammation is well worth reading, and he does talk about several medical issues--including arthritis--and how they are impacted by diet.

Regards!


Laura

[Bernardo de La Paz]

75. There are many links. Use Google and engage a skeptical mind.

There are many links. Use Google and engage a skeptical mind.

I searched with "inflammation disease" (no quotes) and one of the first was:
http://www.consciouschoice.com/2004/cc1706/healthconscious1706.html

It references Andrew Weil and as a rationalist, I respect him a lot for rationally drawing from alternative traditions and sources of knowledge information that can be verified and reconciled with modern research. I have gotten about 90 percent vegetarian (compared to average American diet) and I feel it is healthy for me. Here are some suggestions on his site about anti-inflammatory diet: http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/ART02012

I also find D'Amado's blood type diet theory intriguing and compelling. He claims it is based on scientific studies, primarily clumping behavior in a petri dish, which is not definitive but very indicative. He ties it in to anthropological studies and blood type distributions. I am a rationalist, but I seek out interesting connections. When they pass my skeptical scrutiny, I pay attention. http://www.dadamo.com/

[mzmolly]

60. I've read that.

Interesting, so it boils down to anti-inflammatory practices/agents???

[Bernardo de La Paz]

74. Partly. Part of the reason why low dose aspirin (an anti-inflammatory) is effective

Partly. Part of the reason why low dose aspirin (an anti-inflammatory) is effective against artheriosclerosis as it relates to heart attacks and strokes.

The "meat and potatos" mentality often includes high fructose corn syrup products like soda pop drinks and heaping sugary deserts. It is amazing when you see that sugar is added to many products like peanut butter. So the meat fat deposits in the arteries and the sugar irritates them and everything else.

[Patiod]

86. Inflammation is going to be the key to a lot of disease

We've already seen a change in thinking about arteriosclerosis - cardiologists now think about managing inflammation as well as fat and cholesterol.

Diabetes is another inflammatory condition (along with the obvious ones, like arthritis)

[Canuckistanian]

65. Maybe pharmaceuticals won't pay, but what about hospitals?

Are there not privately-funded research hospitals?

What about institutions like Sloan Kettering? Are they owned by Big Pharma too?

[madrchsod]

66. dam near

looks real promising

[leftofthedial]

70. no. the pharmas don't stand to make any money off it

so it doesn't exist. never happened. nothing to see here. move along.

[Dead_Parrot]

71. Why d'ya think the NCI just had it's budget slashed?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2707199

[HappyWeasel]

72. At least we know what to do in the Black Market if the great pharmacuetical satan smotes this.

[QMPMom]

77. I may be a diehard American from Indiana, but I am so proud to live

in Edmonton where the University of Alberta is located. They are doing fantastic work over there in all medical areas and are steadily recruiting the best and the brightest the world has to offer. Stay tuned for news of The Edmonton Clinic, a new venture that is to be right up there with The Cleveland Clinic and The Mayo Clinic.

The University of Alberta is THE place to watch for medical news and progress.

[AverageJoe]

79. KICK!

K & R

:kick:

[Alameda]

93. donate

I donated....they sure don't seem to be getting much funding otherwise.