Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Harvard Scientists Aim To Stop Cancer In Its Tracks

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the take-that-and-this-and-one-of-these dept.

Medicine 87

Shuntros writes "BBC News is reporting progress from scientists at Harvard Medical School towards strangling the growth of cancer cells. By starving cells of a certain type of enzyme, growth essentially ceases. 'The fact that proliferating cancer are able to consume glucose at a much higher rate than normal cells was first discovered by the German Nobel prize-winning chemist Otto Warburg more than 75 years ago. He also showed that the amount of glucose the cells needed to keep their vital signs ticking over was minimal, allowing them grow and divide at the prodigious rate usually associated with foetal cells.' Certainly not a cure by any stretch of the imagination, but putting the brakes on cancer growth in this way is very much akin to the revolution that was AZT."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wonderful editorial work (4, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766620)

The editors missed the most important fact. This is the enzyme which is actually inhibited by DiChloroAcetic Acid which was recently reported as the Wonder Drug by other groups of scientists. So this discovery already has a matching (though rather nasty) drug which has been shown to work in at least some studies. On top of all the drug is not patent encumbered and you can order it from any large chemical supplier. All that remains is to figure out the therapeutic doze and improve on the drug (DCA does have its side effects).

Re:Wonderful editorial work (5, Informative)

Btarlinian (922732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766772)

The editors missed the most important fact. This is the enzyme which is actually inhibited by DiChloroAcetic Acid which was recently reported as the Wonder Drug by other groups of scientists.
DCA [] inhibits pyruvate kinases, not just the M2 variety discovered and reported in the Nature article. That's why its side effects are so problematic. After all, normal cells do undergo glycolysis (the Krebs cycle, i.e., aerobic respiration, cannot continue without the products of glycolysis), it's just not as large a fraction of their energy source as tumors. The activity of DCA is simply based upon the Warburg effect, not on the inhibition of this specific variety of pyruvate kinase.

Re:Wonderful editorial work (4, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766820)

The activity of DCA is simply based upon the Warburg effect, not on the inhibition of this specific variety of pyruvate kinase.

AFAIK the results so far could not be explained by the Warburg effect alone and that was the reason why many scientists questioned the DCA results. So this makes the DCA results doubly interesting.


jenik (1030872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22771166)

I'm sorry to piss on your parade but DCA inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase NOT pyruvate kinase. A big difference. Besides, the Cell paper on DCA was confusing at best - they observed an effect of DCA on a cancer cell line and then tried to explain it based on mitochondrial metabolism - without actually understanding much about mitochondria...

Re:Wonderful editorial work (5, Insightful)

kanweg (771128) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767076)

"On top of all the drug is not patent encumbered"

That means that no patient is going to be cured by the drug. Getting a drug to pass all the tests is so expensive, that no drug company is going to do that without patent protection for the drug. It is only then that they can earn their money back (and make a profit) .

Only if the government is going to step in and provide the funds does it give patients a chance.


Re:Wonderful editorial work (2, Insightful)

kesuki (321456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767426)

however, approval for use as a 'dietary supplement' is far, far, far more lax. After all, stevia was approved as a 'dietary supplement' years and years before coke/cargil got in on the game...

sold as a real medicine, not likely, but someone could probably get it approved as a dietary supplement with some 'fancy trade mark name' in however long it takes to get the paperwork through... and the websites touting it's use for blah blah blah, and how much to use etc...

since the cost and turn around times are lower, a company could be making money on this in a very short while. it also gives countries with even more lax laws the ability to market this stuff directly as an anti-cancer treatment. many of those countries have no 'affordable' cancer drugs, so this could be the third worlds cancer drug of choice by next week.

Re:Wonderful editorial work (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767594)

however, approval for use as a 'dietary supplement' is far, far, far more lax. After all, stevia was approved as a 'dietary supplement' years and years before coke/cargil got in on the game...

sold as a real medicine, not likely, but someone could probably get it approved as a dietary supplement with some 'fancy trade mark name' in however long it takes to get the paperwork through... and the websites touting it's use for blah blah blah, and how much to use etc...
Definitely not, it doesn't qualify as a supplement under the FDA's definition. Stevia definitely does qualify as a supplement. The only part that is even the smallest bit hazy is that last rule, and even that is pretty solid.

OTOH, there's no way at this point that DCA isn't going to run afoul of the definition at this point. It also isn't meant to supplement a person's diet. It just doesn't conform to the definition that the FDA uses for deciding whether or not a substance is a supplement. [] has more information on that.

Re:Wonderful editorial work (2, Informative)

kesuki (321456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767834)

well TFA fails to mention that DCA is Already an approved drug.
"DCA has been used historically to treat patients with lactic acidosis, and therefore could arguably enter phase 2 trials in patients with cancer"

no need to do phase 1 trials then the cost goes DOWN considerably. and consider that any generic drugs have to get through hurdles with the FDA as well... well, there could well be money to be made in the states...

and although it's not 'official' a pair of plucky Canadians have been using DCA with 'reported success' (not scientific of course) and Canada didn't bar them from doing this either.

Re:Wonderful editorial work (3, Informative)

glwtta (532858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768374)

no need to do phase 1 trials then the cost goes DOWN considerably

Phase I trials are actually only a tiny portion of the cost. Typically they involve giving the drug to a couple dozen or so terminal patients to asses the safety/side effects, find the tolerable dose, etc. It's kind of a touchy area, since no matter how many animal trials you do, you can never really be sure that the drug won't have severe side effects, or even kill a human outright (that one's unlikely, but you won't know until you give it to humans).

So the whole thing will usually run only a couple million dollars. It's when you get to phase II and III, with hundreds and thousands of patients, that the real costs come into the picture.

Re:Wonderful editorial work (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22775210)

well, from what i read online, a 'small' phase 2 study (50 people) cost about $800,000 to fund (and the person trying to patent it as a 'cancer cure' is doing this, and raised the money over the internet...)

maybe because it's being done in Canada and not the US that laws may be different... but, yeah also, keep in mind 90% of phase 1 studies are rejected by the FDA and those animal studies cost money too, so there IS a lot of money savings by it being an approved drug. You know for instance, a safe dose for humans (it was approved after all) and what possible side effects are etc...

Phase 2 and 3 studies don't 'involve hundreds of thousands of people' so I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from...the largest study I've personally heard of was 300 people... although yes, with small numbers the fda can deny your application and say you need more people etc...

Re:Wonderful editorial work (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22775244)

phase 3 studies are from 300-3000 people (max) I've never read about phase 3 studies so i didn't know, but i Knew they don't go to 'hundreds of thousands' of people

Re:Wonderful editorial work (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22777356)

From my post: "with hundreds and thousands of patients".

Large pharma will routinely run studies with thousands of patients.

Re:Wonderful editorial work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22767158)

"Certainly not a cure by any stretch of the imagination, but putting the brakes on cancer growth in this way is very much akin to the revolution that was AZT."


"The revolution that was AZT." !!!

You mean - AZT the failed chemotherapy drug, that failed because it was too toxic to actually use?

You mean - AZT that killed hundreds of thousands of gay men who were supposedly 'HIV positive', but obviously died from chemotherapy poisoning?

Read 'The trouble with Nevirapine'. []

I'm sure every Slashdotter who posts here believes the pharmaceutical industry's lies that 'HIV is the cause of AIDS', and would rather (literally) die, than read an alternative hypothesis...

Re:Wonderful editorial work (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22767748)

I'm sure every Slashdotter who posts here believes the pharmaceutical industry's lies that 'HIV is the cause of AIDS', and would rather (literally) die, than read an alternative hypothesis...
I've been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and even to me you look nuts. Seek Help

Re:Wonderful editorial work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22773178)

I've been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia

Yeah, I was wondering why you were making so many posts with different opinions

Re:Wonderful editorial work (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767458)

All that remains is to figure out the therapeutic doze
That sounds pretty good, I need a nap too... We can cure cancer tomorrow.

All Right! (3, Funny)

rhinokitty (962485) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766654)

I was going to go out and buy some nicorette, but now...

Re:All Right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22766708)

You can also volunteer for nuclear site decontamination. Just show up in jeans and t-shirt, we'll provide a shovel.

Re:All Right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22766974)

With Cuban Cigar?

I saw a documentary on this (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22766672)

It was called "I Am Legend." I think they should probably stop.

Re:I saw a documentary on this (4, Informative)

alzoron (210577) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766770)

actually, [] is what you're looking for.

This is a completely different approach, it only slows cancer using a drug to restrict the presence of a certain enzyme. In I Am Legend they used a retrovirus to control the cancer. (They used a modified version of measles which technically is a paramyxovirus, not a retrovirus

Re:I saw a documentary on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22768224)

Maybe they made their own retrovirus based off of measles?

We're gonna stop cancer! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22766716)

Whew, now that we published that bluff, our jobs are safe until we can get tenure!

Still need an inhibitor (5, Informative)

Btarlinian (922732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766720)

While this discovery is of great importance, we still need to find an inhibitor for this enzyme that will not also inhibit normal pyruvate kinases. BTW, if anyone is interested in reading more about the discovery, Harvard Medical School has a more detailed press release [] and the two related articles in Nature can be found here (protein structure) [] and here (relationship to cancer) [] . We haven't gotten to AZT yet, but this is a pretty large step towards finding a sort of "magic bullet" for tumors. At the very least, it's a common weakness most cancerous cells share.

Promising result (5, Informative)

Armakuni (1091299) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766724)

Apparently, the major problem with cancer is that it isnt't just one disease, it's a whole myriad of conditions with one common characteristic - uncontrolled cell division. Finding one factor that brakes or halts growth in all cancers is a bit of a holy grail for scientists, and this enzyme seems to have at least some of the hallmarks.

Re:Promising result (4, Informative)

protobion (870000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767436)

To extend that point actually, cancer is is characterized by a lot of secondary mutations in so called oncogenes, the most prevalent of these are now quite well characterized. This particular article talks about the metabolic side of cancer, but the genetic component still exists, and unlike the metabolic state, is more likely to be inherited in subsequent generations of cancer cells. Cancer is often a self-propagating cycle at the cellular level and so permit me the cynicism if I am a tad cautious of PKM2 being the crucial target that stops it all.

Re:Promising result (3, Informative)

cmaley (104167) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770176)

To further extend the point: While it is true that there are many types of cancer with different genetics, there is a further fundamental problem in cancer therapeutics. Tumors are composed of billions to trillions of cells with tens of thousands of mutations (by some measurements). Clinical experience shows that when you apply a drug to such a genetically diverse population, you often kill most of the cells but select for resistance mutations. Thus the tumor grows back from the remaining resistant cells and the patient relapses. This is one of the major reasons we have not been able to cure cancer. These results, while potentially important, will not solve that basic problem in cancer therapy. They will select for their own form of resistance mutations.

Re:Promising result (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770702)

One way to deal with the analogous problem which arises when treating microbial infection with antibiotics is to treat with several antibiotics simultaneously. One would think that the more anti-cancer drugs we discover, the more likely that using them in combination might greatly increase cure rates (assuming their modes of operation are actually "orthogonal" and not just several different ways to attack the same weaknesses). Or am I missing something?

Re:Promising result (2, Informative)

chooks (71012) | more than 6 years ago | (#22773404)

You are right -- for example, CHOP therapy for Hodgkin's disease. Wikipedia has a list of other chemo regimens [] . Combination therapy is usually much better for a number of reasons, among them being better outcomes.

creators ready to disempower corepirate nazis (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22766738)

none too soon for most of US. butt of course, many of US still pretend to think that everything's just ducky. let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [];_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE [] []

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events. []

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb); []

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones; []

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids; []

& pretending that it isn't happening here; []
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity; []

I'm afraid.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22767466)

that once the cancer reaches the brain, there's not much more that can be done.

Low Carb? No Really. (2, Interesting)

localman (111171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766756)

If glucose restriction impedes cancer growth, is it possible that extreme carb restriction (which forces the body to run off ketones instead) would imede cancer growth as well? There's still a small amount of glucose required for the brain, I believe, but perhaps the level would be low enough to slow things down, or help in conjunction with other treatments?

Just a thought.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (4, Insightful)

siddster (809752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766874)

Not a chance. Fatty acids in the body are broken down by a process called beta-oxidation. The short carbon chains then enter the Krebs cycle (the same cycle used for ATP generation from glucose) and ATP (adenosine triphosphate - the energy currency of the cell) is released.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (2, Interesting)

chooks (71012) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766910)

Since this is /., I can be nitpicky and say that the TCA releases very little ATP. Most ATP is generated via oxidative phosphorylation [] using NADH and FADH2 created in the TCA.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (3, Interesting)

siddster (809752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767132)

This is a tad off-topic but I think you are confusing the TCA cycle with anerobic glycolysis which results in the release of small amounts of ATP. The TCA cycle results in major production of NADH and FADH which enter the electron transport chain where oxidative phosporylation occcurs. "Oxidative phosphorylation" wouldn't occur if the TCA cycle stalled for any reason. (No NADH & FADH production)

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

chooks (71012) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769276)

Technically the TCA does not include the ETC. At least, not according to Stryer's Biochemistry []

From Stryer's:
The function of the citric acid cycle is the harvesting of high-energy electrons from carbon fuels. Note that the citric acid cycle itself neither generates a large amount of ATP nor includes oxygen as a reactant.

Again, nitpicky, but many points have been lost on tests on that technicality :)

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22766924)

Yes but can the cancer cells convert fat into energy as well as they can with glucose? Relative to how well a normal cell converts fat and glucose, obviously, as all cells prefer glucose.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (3, Interesting)

AlejoHausner (1047558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767264)

Your comments on beta-oxidation are confusing. Can you fill us in a bit more?

Personally, I find the idea of a low-carb diet for cancer makes some sense. After all, if cancer cells consume glucose at a prodigious rate, then bringing down the level of glucose in the bloodstream would be a good idea. I do know that lowcarb diets do indeed keep blood glucose levels constant.

Of course, this is "common sense", and the body doesn't always follow common sense. For example, exercise doesn't lead to weight loss, eating fat doesn't make you fat, etc.

One test for the low-carb-slows-cancer hypothesis would be if the growth rate of cancer were higher in people with high blood sugars. Do untreated diabetics tend to die of cancer faster?

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22767528)

Actually, there are reports of a correlation between diabetes and cancer, the first one I found offhand can be looked at here:

Wolpin et al. Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Cancer Res. 2007; 67:(16). Aug. 15 2007

I seem to recall reading one about breast cancer a while ago as well, but cannot recall the citation. I was reading about this for my research a few months ago, but have since moved on, so its a bit rusty.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

matt4077 (581118) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767644)

There might be correlation, but blood glucose levels are regulated rather tightly. If you have a low input, it is first released from stored glycogen and then synthesized from fatty acids. If I remember correctly, the brain adapts after a while and uses ketons, but the heart still requires glucose, which is why the blood level should never fall lower than a certain level. You'd also get the same problems as you get from an insulin overdose, so there's probably no way to reduce glucose levels enough without killing youself in the process.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

francisstp (1137345) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769502)

Actually, virtually only the brain requires glucose to function, about 150 grams per day. The heart and other organs requires none. If dietary glucose is low enough, organs other than the brain can switch to fat and/or ketones for energy requirement.

So in theory, if all the glucose you ingest/produce is used by your brain, there is none left to nourish tumors.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22774878)

So in theory, if all the glucose you ingest/produce is used by your brain, there is none left to nourish tumors.
Except, of course, your brain is playing nice and the tumors aren't, so in practice perhaps all the glucose is used by the tumors and there is none left to nourish the brain.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (2, Informative)

siddster (809752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768050)

Good question and in fact it appears that diabetics have a lower incidence of prostate cancers in epidemiological studies. A note about carbohydrate and fat metabolism.

Carb metabolism = glycolysis >> TCA cycle / Krebs cycle >> Electron transport chain
Lipid (Fat) metabolism = beta oxidation >> Krebs cycle >> Electron transport chain

Since the lipid molecules have longer carbon chains, the by-products of beta-oxidation can enter the Krebs cycle several times over which gives fat the ATP advantage.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

vuo (156163) | more than 6 years ago | (#22777112)

It does follow common sense. Both glucose and fatty acids metabolize into acetyl CoA (which is just plain acetic acid in a more suitable form) before they are "burned" in the citric acid cycle. You'll get acetate whatever you eat.

Giving dichloroacetate instead of acetate is a throwing the monkeywrench (DCA) into the works of Krebs cycle. Instead of hydrogen atoms on the methyl carbon, you have nasty electrophilic chlorines. Metabolism gives poisons like oxalic acid.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (3, Interesting)

tie_guy_matt (176397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767068)

Gary Taubes sure thinks so. You should read his book "Good calories bad calories." He points out that cancer is one of a set of diseases that used to be called "diseases of civilization" (along with heart disease, obesity and a bunch of others) because they were extremely rare in tribal people from around the world until they became westernized.

One thing that always happens when people become westernized is that they eat more sugar and processed carbs. Gary claims that the sugar and cancer relationship has never been tested because it has been assumed that sugar is good while fat is bad. Yet if fat is the problem then why did Eskimos not get these diseases on their diet of largely whales and other animals until after they were westernized and started actually eating a lot less fat but tons of sugar and carbs?

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (4, Informative)

siddster (809752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767182)

And he would be wrong. The link between a high carbohydrate diet and cancer is tenuous at best. Not only that but high-fat diets have been implicated in raising the risk of some cancers. (Specifically prostate cancer) You could try reading these research studies. Long story short, cancer is a bunch of incredibly heterogenuous disorders and tumour growth is driven by totally different set of chemicals and enzymes depending on the type of cancer a patient has.

E. Giovannucci, E.B. Rimm and G.A. Colditz et al., A prospective study of dietary fat and risk of prostate cancer, J Natl Cancer Inst 85 (1993), pp. 1571-1579.

P.H. Gann, C.H. Hennekens and F.M. Sacks et al., Prospective study of plasma fatty acids and risk of prostate cancer, J Natl Cancer Inst 86 (1994), pp. 281-286

D.A. Snowdon, R.L. Phillips and W. Choi, Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer, Am J Epidemiol 120 (1984), pp. 244-250

A.W. Hsing, L. Tsao and S.S. Devesa, International trends and patterns of prostate cancer incidence and mortality, Int J Cancer 85 (2000), pp. 60-67

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

tie_guy_matt (176397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767938)

Well Taubes claims to have took into account all of the major (and many of the minor) studies that seem to agree or disagree with his thesis. His bibliography alone is over 60 pages long. In the text he discusses why he disagrees with studies that seem to show a link between cancer and fat. If you can point to studies that weren't in the bibliography it is likely because his publisher insisted that he cut the size of the book considerably (I think he cut it in half.)

Like I keep saying, agree or disagree the book is worth a read. I could come up with a long list of references that don't show any link between cancer and fat but I guess you could always argue that even though there might be no link between fat and cancers a-x there may be a link between fat and cancers y-z.

The fact is that over the last several decades we have been beaten over the head with the idea that fat is this big evil that is the cause of countless diseases. It just doesn't seem that this issue is as black and white as we have been told it is.

Maybe it is time we spent more time checking that tenuous relationship between sugar and cancer because we sure as hell spent and huge amount of time and money studying fat and cancer with surprising little results. Otto Warburg did win a Nobel prize for proving that cancer cells get their energy from sugar.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

siddster (809752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768346)

If Taubes was right and carboydrates were all that they were cracked up to be then most of the South Asian world would be in deep trouble since the major macronutrient in their diet is carbohydrate. (their cancer rates incidentally are much lower than most of the world) It doesn't matter if his bibliography is 60 pages long.. all you have to do is search on Pubmed or Medline for yourself and you'll see that a majority of the studies would state otherwise.

That being said, there is an interesting relationship between sugar and cancer cells and it appears that certain kinds of tumours (Ex. an astrocytoma - a type of brain tumour) appear to be sensitive to a ketogenic diet; but you have to keep in mind though that brain tissue is almost totally reliant on carbohydrates for it's energy needs. There were some interesting results when ketogenic diets were used on 2 kids with astrocytomas but that sort of evidence is anecdotal at best and needs careful scrutiny followed by a double blind trial to confirm the benefits.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

eggstasy (458692) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767402)

Did they compare the average lifespans as well? :)
Because if I'm gonna die of a heart attack at 50 instead of living to get cancer at 70, I'd rather stick with sugars than change to fats.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (3, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767630)

He points out that cancer is one of a set of diseases that used to be called "diseases of civilization" (along with heart disease, obesity and a bunch of others) because they were extremely rare in tribal people from around the world until they became westernized.

Purely out of curiosity, how frequently were these non-westernised tribal people examined by doctors for cancer using conventional technology when they developed an illness? And how many accurate records of death (and particularly cause of death, determined via an autopsy rather than via a witch doctor) were kept?

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (2, Informative)

tie_guy_matt (176397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767742)

Taubes based his observation on the accounts of western trained doctors who set up hospitals to treat the members of these tribes. So according to his book the answer is: quiet frequently and quiet a lot of records.

However, many of those accounts were from doctors practicing in the late 1800's and early 1900's which explains why other people may ignore these accounts. It is likely though that even those old doctors would know some forms of cancer when they saw them and yet there are accounts of doctors spending years at hospitals servicing thousands of tribal members and yet the doctors would only see one or two cases of cancer (or in some cases none at all) during the entire time they were there, or until the tribes got more money and became westernized or switched to a more western diet. They would then go to a hospital in Philadelphia (as one example he mentioned) and see hundreds or thousands of cases of cancer from people of all races (discounting the idea that these tribes are genetically predisposed to not get cancer or that doctors at the time didn't know many forms of cancer when they saw it.)

All I can say is, even if you are skeptical you should read the book.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (5, Insightful)

siddster (809752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768438)

Cancer typically kills older people. In large swathes of the developing world, as life expectancy increases, cancer starts to become a major issue. But that doesn't in itself mean that the diet caused it. Just that people are now living long enough to get the disease. Correlation does NOT equal causation.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

matt4077 (581118) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767676)

Cancer is primarily a desease of civilization because only civilized people live long enough to die from it. If there's a strong relation between sugars and cancer, we should find it in the data from different countries with different eating habits, i. e. the US and Japan. As far as I remember, the US has a higher rate of cancer in the digestive tract (thought to be related to fats), but other cancers don't vary much.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

tie_guy_matt (176397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769332)

You guys all assume that none of people, not in developing countries, but in tribes living as they had for thousands of years, down't live very long at all. For some strange reason you also assume that Taubes and the doctors whose accounts he cited were too stupid to figure that one out on their own. The fact is that in these tribes there still were at least some people living long enough that you would expect them to start getting cancer and heart disease had they lived in the western world. And yet many of these doctors would work for years in these areas see plenty of elder tribes people and not see one case of cancer or heart disease or obesity or type 2 diabetes. Not one.

People in Japan do have lower rates of heart disease than people in the US and western world. However people in Japan DO have higher rates of colon cancer. While we have been spending all of our time trying to lower our cholesterol the Japanese at some point figured out that if they raise their cholesterol then their colon cancer rates will go down. Now the Japanese are trying to eat more fat than ever before. I understand that mayo is like a 5th food group over there now (note though that unlike what you have been told the link between eating fat and your cholesterol level isn't as strong as you have been told! In fact except for trans fats most fats will actually raise your good cholesterol and many will lower your bad -- even saturated fat will raise you good cholesterol even if it does raise your bad somewhat.) With this change of diet the Japanese have been able to lower their colon cancer risk without raising their heart disease risk.

Also note that we tend to eat Uncle Ben's converted heavily processed so it doesn't stick together rice. While people in Asia tend to eat less processed rice. More processing equals higher GI index which would make the carbs more potent.

Anyway this Asia versus the US thing is where the entire low fat idea got started, right? Japan low heart disease rates high carb diet while the US has a higher fat diet and higher heart disease. So it must be the fat that is causing the heart disease (and you guys are accusing ME of not knowing that correlation doesn't equal causality.) Of course if they looked at the US versus the French or the US versus the Eskimos they may have come to the opposite conclusion.

But no, somehow we got convinced that it is the fat and not the sugar that is bad. So now we have to constantly come up with new ways of killing off the evidence that shows that we might be wrong about that. So we come up with new theories. Maybe the French don't get fat because they use garlic, maybe it is the wine, or that they don't cook their veggies as long. Could be the Eskimos are getting so much omega-3 from the fish that this is what is stopping them from getting heart disease as we think they should. Each time we try to protect our theory then our theory gets more and more complicated. Of course one simple answer may be that we have been wrong all along. Maybe fat isn't bad for you, maybe it is the sugar? There has always been a minority of scientists that have said that and now their ranks are growing. And if you are on the low fat side of the debate then you should be happy that there is this challenge coming. Show downs like these in the end strengthen the theory that eventually wins.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769436)

Regarding the rice thing, in my experience Asians eat white rice almost exclusively, and it is heavily processed. If you go to Thailand or China, you'll see that they have fairly carby diets overall, a lot of rice and gluten-based foods.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

tie_guy_matt (176397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769566)

The rice might be white but is it polished with glucose like in the US? Do they add sugar and high fructose corn syrup to the rice or what they eat with the rice like we would in the US during our "obesity epidemic?" I am guessing that if this is their main staple and they aren't getting Beri-Beri then it probably isn't what we would call polished white rice. Also note that while Asians don't get heart disease as much as we do, they do get cancer.

Some of these tribes I mentioned before did get a lot of their calories from carbs. It was unprocessed carbs that also came with loads of fiber. This lead to the theory that fiber somehow protects you from fat and we should all eat so much fiber that we have to poop every ten minutes. Another theory is that the fiber does help because it lessens the impact of the carbs by lower the GI index. So I guess if the second theory is right then if you are eating lots of sugar then maybe you should eat enough fiber that your insides feel like they are glued together? Constipation is another "disease of civilization" that didn't show up in the tribal communities.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770280)

Yeah, I really don't know. Speaking only for myself here, I'm sort of an amateur athlete, and I eat a lot of protein, and I get nearly all my carbs from vegetables, brown rice, and a little bread (1 slice per day). And I don't skimp on the fat. But I'm very lean regardless. My point is you are probably right - the real culprit is sugar, which I avoid almost completely - but carbs themselves aren't necessarily bad, nor does eating well require a whole lot of rocket science. Eat more or less how we evolved to eat, and you'll be okay. Avoid sugar and heavily processed foods, and eat lots of protein.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (2, Interesting)

AshtangiMan (684031) | more than 6 years ago | (#22774792)

My experience is much the same. When I stopped eating sugar, but ate a lot of fat (mostly in the form of clarified butter, olive oil, and grapeseed oil), vegetables, brown basmati rice, and protein (fish and lentils), I could barely keep weight on. Mostly from a lot of calorie burning exercise I guess. I could eat as much as I wanted though and not gain weight. Now I am about 40 pounds heavier and have been eating a lot more sugar and processed foods. I exercise less, but still a lot, and have to really watch how much I eat or I'll gain weight. For me, the diet is the culprit, and now that I'm done with my Master's degree I can start having more time to do the simple things that matter, namely cooking and eating unprocessed foods every day, every meal. I'm hoping that one year from now I have dropped 30 lbs and am on my way back to the great health that I experienced previously.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22767170)

As a cancer patient for whom conventional treatments have been exhausted, a extreme sugar // carb restricted diet is the primary alternative treatment that I'm currently trying. There are a huge of alternative/homeopathic theories that work from this premise, and many different diets. Anecdotally, I have heard of people for whom carb restriction has worked wonders. Personally, I have a tumor under the skin on my back that literally seems to grow overnight if I eat sugar (esp processed) the previous day.

Given the broad, although not clinically verified evidence, I find it extremely discouraging that none of my half-dozen oncologists has EVER mentioned this as an option. In fact they have never mentioned anything about diet. Doctors are often blind and/or dismissive of options that are not within their training/experience.

This article is encouraging, if simply for the fact that it shows people are exploring avenues outside of the typical chemo/radiation/surgery modalities.

Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

localman (111171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769178)

My mother is pre-diabetic (type 2). All the professional suggestions were to eat low fat, low sugar, high complex carb, and get on some medications. Since it wasn't at a life-critical point, we instead tried going low carb and staying off the drugs. We have been successful in keeping her blood sugar well below the dangerous 140 point 24/7 for the past year. This is better than any of the doctors expected, better than many drug taking patients. I've found many reports of people online having similar results. The home blood sugar testing kits have made hacking your own diabetic diet through continuous testing possible. Still, it's not considered a serious option.

Doctors are people. Health is complex. As much respect as I have for their work the medical community very often falls short.

Best of luck with your cancer.


Re:Low Carb? No Really. (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767172)

You do get a handful of people (not doctors, from my experience, but patients who have read random things) who suggest going low-sugar or low-carb when doing chemo to help with the process, or who take that approach themselves.

(Personally, though, my attitude was "I'm going through fucking chemotherapy, I feel like shit, I will eat whatever the hell I want." Maybe not the most health-conscious approach, but sometimes you have to cling to the little things in life, especially when steroids are making you ravenous.)

Two articles down (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766806)

I wonder if we can use the microRNAs of the zebrafish mentioned two articles ago to controll cancer growth.

Then we could see if there's a way for cancer cells to becone regenerative somehow.

Really disappointed in our Cancer researchers. (0)

zymano (581466) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766830)

No real alternative to chemo yet = failure.

Antibody therapy = failure

Gene therapy = failure.

Nanodrugs = failure.

Our immune systems are interfering in these therapies. Why not put down the immune system and put the patient in a clean room free from germs and then try antibodies & gene therapy?

Re:Really disappointed in our Cancer researchers. (5, Informative)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22766950)

Gene therapy = failure.
You're not keeping up. Chronic Myeloid Leukemia has been cured by gene therapy [] . The problem, as another poster pointed out, is that "cancer" is a broad label for many thousands of individual diseases. A particular gene therapy targets only one kind of cancer.

Re:Really disappointed in our Cancer researchers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22767496)

You know, your sig sure makes you sound like a jerk.

Re:Really disappointed in our Cancer researchers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22767554)

You're not keeping up. Chronic Myeloid Leukemia has been cured by gene therapy.

I don't blame you for considering a PBS documentary to be a reliable source, but the particular piece you're linking to is preposterously wrong.

Re:Really disappointed in our Cancer researchers. (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769150)

You're not keeping up. Chronic Myeloid Leukemia has been cured by gene therapy.

Your link is completely mistaken. Gleevec is a great drug, but it absolutely does not "fix DNA". Wikipedia explains [] its mechanism correctly.

Re:Really disappointed in our Cancer researchers. (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767200)

All the people with types of cancers with 90%+ survival rates would be surprised to hear about this.

No, we don't have the "magic bullet" yet. Yes, current therapies have lots of side-effects, both short-term and long-term, although many modern therapies have fewer than they did 20-50 years ago. But to declare all of cancer research a failure is pretty silly.

Also, I don't know anything about immune systems and antibody or gene therapy, but I'll bet the idea of a clean room hasn't gone completely unexplored. Considering that both donor and allogenic bone marrow transplants are already common treatment for some cancers, and that involves killing off your immune system and regrowing it in a clean room, so it's not like it's a new idea.

Re:Really disappointed in our Cancer researchers. (1)

chooks (71012) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767226)

A clean room and antibiotics? Somebody has been watching a little bit too much House lately... :)

Re:Really disappointed in our Cancer researchers. (2, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767270)

Yeah, you'd think curing cancer was hard or something. Face it, western medicine has already picked all the low hanging fruit. We should consider ourselves lucky that we live long enough to develop cancer.

If you live long enough, you will accrue mutations that will lead to cancer. Cancerous cells are your cells, so it's bound to be difficult to kill one and not the other. It's a hard problem, compounded by the fact that there are almost as many types of cancer as there are cancer patients. There's never going to be a magic bullet, but we're getting better at understanding and detecting the subtle genetic difference between cancerous and healthy cells and many types of cancer are far less fatal than they were a couple decades ago.

Re:Really disappointed in our Cancer researchers. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22767418)

We have reduced cervical cancer from the number one cause of cancer deaths in women in the 1930's to causing only about 5000 deaths annually in the US. A geeky pathologist named Dr Papanicolaou saved the lives of more women than any doctor in history. Of course now we've got a cancer vaccine which decreases the remaining risk by 2/3.

And we've had significant drops in colon and breast cancer death rates (despite similar rates of diagnosis).

I should also mention that the reason that we call leukemias either acute or chronic (as in acute lymphocytic leukemia - ALL versus chronic lymphocytic leukemia - CLL) was that fact that people (usually kids) with ALL uniformly died very quickly and the ones with CLL lived a few years. Now kids with ALL have a 75% chance of survival.

And we don't have 'clean rooms' like on TV. There are PPV rooms, but they are hardly going to protect you completely. We also don't have tricorders, which sucks greatly. But hey, if you are so dissapointed, why not go out there and invent one yourself.

Re:Really disappointed in our Cancer researchers. (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768092)

Ah yes, the armchair cancer scientist: solving one of the hardest problems in medicine is just a matter of randomly combining words you've heard on House!

Curious (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22767398)

Just curious, but what kind of person relies on the BBC for scientific news? Epic fail.

Great News (1)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767486)

As has been said before to vanquish an enemy one must truly know the enemy. This is a point that the U.S. government fails to understand time after time.

Anyhow we're learning more and more about the various cancers out there, and it seems that many have common features that will enable us to knock them out. I see a brighter future for mankind coming, but the transitional period will be a struggle. It is interesting to be alive during this transition.

Warburg's other effect (4, Informative)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 6 years ago | (#22767932)

Warburg got two Nobels (IIRC, 1928 and 1931), in part by studying the role of oxygen in cell metabolism. Cancer cells use an anaerobic mechanism for metabolism. Flooding them with oxygen disrupts this anaerobic activity. This may account for at least some of the glucose effect in TFA. This can be accomplished using hyperbaric oxygen (high O2 content greater than 1 atmosphere's partial pressure).

It can also be done using superoxides (ozone, which produces hydrogen peroxide in the body, or H2O2 itself). Superoxide production is a normal part of the immune system, and cancer cells don't increase their SOD production proportionally with their growth rate. This is because the superoxides work on mitochondria, where metabolism occurs. The main cell is what's cancerous, not the mitochondria.

Another way to increase H2O2 in the body is to inhibit the enzyme that protects cells from high levels of H2O2, superoxide dismutase (SOD), allowing natural or infused levels of the substance to increase. Penicillin is one such SOD inhibitor, and other antibiotics are being tried. The effects are variable but generally positive. This can be facilitated by including manganese, selenium or zinc, around which the SOD builds itself, explaining the role of minerals containing these to be helpful in fighting infections.

Yes, the increased H2O2 levels can be harmful to cells, or else the body wouldn't have a mechanism to keep it in check. This is the role antioxidants play. Excessive H2O2 is an earmark of autoimmune diseases. There is an optimum level for normal cells. But cancer cells are much more sensitive, and a little damage due to superoxides is preferred over a lot of damage due to cancer.

I found some of the above information while researching my dissertation. It was based on inhibiting another oxygen scavenger, monoamine oxidase (MAO). The MAO inhibitor I looked at is trimethyl naphthoquinone (TMN), and this substance can protect the body from at least one autoimmune disease, Parkinson's. It is ironic then that one common source of TMN is in smoking tobacco. An anti-carcinogen effect isn't seen in smoking (though it may in fact occur) because of the other chemicals in smoking which are carcinogenic to an extent orders of magnitude greater than TMN's. Its MAO inhibition plateaus at low doses whereas the carcinogens don't, so getting TMN is better accomplished other ways. This, and other MAO inhibitors might be helpful in fighting cancer. These are not being widely tested, but the little research so far (mostly in other natural products) is showing some anti-carcinogen effect. SOD inhibition is probably much more effective than MAO inhibition, however the MAO inhibitor effect supports the hypothesized role of oxygen via a second if less effective mechanism.

What a mess... (1)

jenik (1030872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22771276)

Warburg most certainly got only one Nobel prize - 1931. There are no superoxides - just superoxide, O2-. SOD most definitely does not protect against hydrogen peroxide - as a matter of fact it PRODUCES it! (by dismutating superoxide). Not sure why cancer cells should be more sensitive to SOD inhibition considering they usually don't use their mitochondria and that's where most superoxide is produced. MAO is not an `oxygen scavenger' whatever that means, it's been shown to PRODUCE superoxide. There are MUCH better MAO inhibitors than your TMN, which judging from its chemical structure would produce a ton of superoxide itself (c.f. menadione). I strongly suggest you study a bit more before submitting your dissertation.

Another chemotherapy... (2, Interesting)

ruinevil (852677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768832)

It appears that DCA [] screws up nerve cells permanently. Even though most cells aren't affected by the drug, if you damage cells that can't replicate, it's bad. Neurons cannot replicate. If they can stop that it might be viable. Until then, stick with your old chemo drugs, that screw up hair, skin, and marrow stem cells, stuff that is rapid growing and replaceable.

Re:Another chemotherapy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22899404)

This is not true. At doses up to 13mg/Kg DCA is very effective against cancer, and causes no side effects. Higher doses might cause periheral neurosis (PV), which is reversable as soon as you stop getting DCA for 1-2 weeks.

The protocols used right now at suggest doses of 10-12 mg/Kg/day + caffeine + B1, 5 days/week. It is very effective and safe.
You could find there every information you need, plus details of all possible drug implications or side effects. In a few words, it is not 100% safe, but it is 1000 times safer than chemotherapies.

As a matter of fact, most chemotherapies cause PV even worst than DCA, and of course many more problems. However they are all FDA approved.

Dr John Holt's Cancer Treatment (3, Interesting)

scooma (973630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769410)

As Harvard is likely treading in Dr Holt's footsteps, they might want to examine his published papers. Note that whilst practising, he only took on patients that other doctors had given up on. His *cure* rate was around 98%. All cases documented.

Holt, JA 1979, "The cause of cancer: biochemical defects in the cancer cell demonstrated by the effects of electromagnetic radiation, glucose and oxygen", Med Hypotheses, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 109-143.
Holt, J 1983, "Cancer, a disease of defective glucose metabolism: the energy for mitosis appears to come from a gluathione mediated glycolysis", Med Hypotheses, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 133-150. [Holt83]
The rest are at: []

Cure for Optimism (2, Interesting)

RonBurk (543988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770490)

No cure for cancer, but at least a partial cure for unfounded optimism about finding a cure for cancer can be found in this talk by Lee Hartwell, Nobel prize winner and head of the Fred Hutchinson cancer center in Seattle: []

Not only is it wrong to view all cancers as a single disease, it may be wrong to view the cancer in a single patient as a single disease. Cancer is genetically unstable, and it may turn out that the nature of the stability is plausibly modelled by assuming the cancer is using genetic (oh the irony) algorithms. IOW, past a certain point (e.g., metastasis), the cancer cells (at least a small minority of them), may be constantly spitting out all manner of genetic mutations at a high rate. This would help explain the extreme adaptability of most forms of cancer metastasis to whatever treatment you care to throw at them. As Judah Folkman said, every time a patient's cancer returns, it seems to have learned about new growth factors.

If you're worried about cancer, focus on prevention, not on the hope of a cure.

There already exists a cancer cure... (1)

Berkana (471619) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770958)

The thing that is very frustrating to me about all of these efforts to find a cure for cancer is that they fixate on drugs that can be patented and sold at high prices, or replicating exotic substances from exotic locations. A cure for cancer that is inexpensive and very effective is already known: Curcumin.

Curcumin is the active component of turmeric, the spice that gives curry and old-fashioned mustards that yellow color. And turmeric is not only rather cheap, but the process for extracting and concentrating curcumin has been around for a long time, and cannot be patented and monopolized.

Curcumin induces apoptosis in cancerous cells without harming the healthy cells around them. (Not that Wikipedia is a medical authority, but apparently, this observation has been noted there as well: [] ) This is something many chemotherapy drugs can't even claim. The mother of a friend of mine was slowly dying from both a metastasized cancer and the chemotherapy she was receiving, which, in theory, was supposed to kill the cancer before it killed her. She then gave up on chemotherapy, and went onto curcumin therapy, taking large doses of concentrated curcumin with piperine [] (the spice from pepper) to boost absorption (since curcumin doesn't absorb well through the intestines without it). What happened after that was that her health improved, and the cancer was less and less present every time her doctor examined her, and she is still alive today.

One woman's experience with curcumin therapy is described in her cancer blog: Life with Myeloma
Here's her account of going onto curcumin therapy [] .

Right now, the problem for sponsors of cancer research isn't that we don't have any medicines that kill cancer cells without harming healthy cells; their problem is that the medicine that does this won't make them the kind of money they want. Our problem is that without corporate sponsorship, nobody knows about the cures.

The other pair of cancer cures is the combination of inositol hexaphosphate (usually abbreviated as IP6) taken along with inositol; both of these substances are naturally produced by our cells, and cannot be patented. However, the margins of this comment are too small for me to expound on this amazing cure. Google it. ^_~

Re:There already exists a cancer cure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22772532)

I've worked on Curcumin for some years including some trials. Your assertion that it is a cure for cancer we already know about is just not true. It may have an effect on certain cancers, but its incredibly low bioavailablity means it can't get to a lot of them and even when it does it is not a cure. Certainly it has positive effects in many trials, but a cure it is not.
A cure for cancer is - person has cancer - gets treatment and then doesn't have cancer anymore.

Re:There already exists a cancer cure... (4, Informative)

RonBurk (543988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22773962)

I call BS. No less authority than MD Anderson (#1 cancer facility in U.S.) has been studying curcumin for years (which the woman points out is how she found out about it). MD Anderson has not found it to be "a cure for cancer" so far. MD Anderson studies far outweigh the data point of "a friend of my mother's". I can find nothing in her blog that indicates she had "metastasized" cancer. Please don't go around telling people she cured metastasized cancer with curcumin; you may give false hope to, for example, someone with metastasized breast cancer, a disease that has a nearly perfect kill rate at Stage IV.

Cancers differ based on the type of cell that originally became cancerous, just like car wrecks differ depending on the type of vehicle. She has multiple myeloma, and some varieties of MM are so indolent that doctors recommend no treatment. If your doctor recommends "let's wait and see if it actually gets worse", then knock yourself out with curcumin.

This is not a knock against curcumin, which may turn out to be a useful anti-cancer agent, and I certainly put it my wife's adjuvant therapy (amongst a *great* many other substances) to try to prevent metastasis. It's a knock against claiming a cure for cancer exists and is cheap and is just ignored because of financial reasons. Before you do that, please spend a few years studying cancer and walking the cancer wards. If you don't have great respect for how far the problem of cancer thus far exceeds our intelligence, then you don't understand cancer.

Ditto for IP6. If you get cancer and want to forgo treatment in favor of phytochemicals, despite the clear evidence that your body has allowed a cancer to grow unfettered and needs some major help, then good luck with that and let me know how that works out for ya. But don't tell other people to do that. Some desperate fool might think you know what you're talking about.

Re:There already exists a cancer cure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784510)

You have a good point, but you didn't point out, or don't understand that with the exception of blood cancers, cancer is a function/mis-function of epithelial cells. The cells that make up the lining of ALL the organs in your body.

To that extent at least, all cancers are the same. Having done some research motivated by the fact that I have cancer, I think it is safer to say that the great varience in cancer has more to do with the process of mutation. There isn't just one, single defect in a cell's dna that causes it to be cancerous. The defect may occur in a different place or there may be multiple defects. That is what is really maddening about this disease. Even if you have two patients with the same diagnosis, one may respond to a certain chemotherapy and the other will not.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this article does not claim they found a cure. They claim they stopped cell growth and/or division in cancer cells. This would make cancer a chronic, managable disease. While it is good news, it may also be bad news. If medical science can "manage" cancer, the search for a full cure would go on the back burner. I really do believe cancer is cureable and completely preventable, but most like likely not in my or any other current patient's life time.

I cure friends and relatives of cancer, etc (1)

goodsamaritan55 (1263008) | more than 6 years ago | (#22878012)

I cure my friends and relatives of cancer, and other incurables (my expense).
So I decided to make a website to teach people how to cure cancer themselves.
There is no catch. I'm a Pro-life volunteer and this is just an extension of my charity.

Please read and view the videos, tell me how I can improve on it in terms of relaying information to you so that more people will understand that cancer cures exist, right here, right now. []
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?