hi
@rodgergrummidge
Seemingly the Canadian health system enables doctors and medical centers (at least in some cases) to take drugs that are approved (and known) against ANY disease - and re-use these against other diseases. I believe it is the same in the US. Definitely not in Europe.
http://medicorcancer.com/ - small Toronto based clinic that has been using DCA against various cancer types for years with moderate but statistically significant results - they had a few complete remission, most of the times it was helping but not curing
Hi
@sinas I think those guys treating cancer patients with DCA are probably exploiting patients with false promises. They claim to have treated over 2000 cancer patients and to have had remarkable percentage response rates (%RRs) including >60% response rates for some advanced cases. They also claim to have completely cured a significant number of patients. While they have published a few isolated case studies where DCA was given to cancer patients, unfortunately those studies appear in predatory journals that allow publication of weak, uncontrolled or even incorrect data.
Given that they have such high response rates, it is concerning that they have not published their results in a reputable scientific journal so that other scientists or oncologists could independently repeat the findings and support their claims.
They claim that they want to share their results openly by publishing them on their own website "so patients and physicians everywhere to benefit from this knowledge, and learn to use DCA safely and effectively." But their website’s ‘published’ results are uninterpretable. No physician examining their DCA data on their website would be able to interpret whether DCA is effective or ineffective. There is no indication of which drug combinations are used, how DCA compares to other treatments, no definitions of what a 'response' is and how it is measured, no statistical analysis of whether responses are significant, no indication of the time to first response, etc, etc, etc. It may be that the purpose of the ‘data’ posted on their website is not for convincing physicians but it is used as a marketing tool that provides a ‘sciencey look' in order to convince patients that the treatments are evidence-based.
They claim their ‘Observational Studies’ (eg. case-control studies, cohort studies and case series) shows that DCA has anti-cancer activity. This is not correct. 'Data’ published on a company website does not constitute an ‘Observational Study’.
Claims of full remissions and cures using DCA would be highly significant and exciting. However their explanation for why they do not submit their data for peer review and publication is somewhat strange. They suggest that they have embargoed their own research reports because if they were published they would “get headline news and the stampede that will happen will destroy our centers”.
Such potential stampedes have not prevented other groups from conducting DCA clinical trials. To date over 40 DCA human trials have been conducted including cancer trials (Invest New Drugs. 32:452; 33:603) and trials in metabolic diseases (Pediatrics. 117:1519). Importantly, the results from these trials have been published in reputable journals and findings can be validated or invalidated by independent researchers. The suggestion that investigating the anti-cancer activity of DCA has been blocked by those with a political agenda clearly hasnt stopped other investigators from publishing their results.
Another treatment marketed by the same group called "safe chemo" has been recently banned by the Canadian government because it was being offered to patients as a first-line treatment with insufficient clinical evidence.
as to why and how it is useful against cancer;
https://www.cancertreatmentsresearch.com/dichloroacetate-dca-treatment-strategy/
(this is an unbiased cancer blog written by a knowledgeable guy with scientific background and not selling anything...)
Unfortunately, the internet is a minefield in trying to evaluate the quality and reliability of medical information. sorting reliable from unreliable medical information is a nightmare. Today, anyone can write a blog on cancer treatments. Many are just complete rubbish. Just because a blogger seems unbiased is not selling a product, doesnt mean that they are able to provide an overview of a complex field in a knowledgable and accurate way.
For example, the blogger cites a number of papers that only examine the
activity of DCA in vitro to support its anticancer activity. The blogger also cites the
same papers published in the predatory journals that do not support the anti-cancer activity of DCA in patients.
There is no question that DCA is an interesting drug. It may well turn out to be an important drug that either directly kills cancer cells or indirectly increases the activity of other anti-cancer drugs. There are 8
clinical trials either recruiting, underway or completed at the moment. Results are coming. However, companies with no interest in providing evidence-based anti-cancer therapies will exploit jurisdictional grey areas so they can give unproven therapies to vulnerable cancer patients. Sometimes with disastrous outcomes.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I guess it raises an interesting problem that is important to discuss in these forums.
How do we find high-quality reliable and evidence-based information so that we can select the best treatment plans for ME/CFS? How can we avoid opportunistic companies that charge excessive fees for ineffective treatments? Some of the most bizarre and far-fetched 'treatments' that some 'doctors' have recommended to me for ME/CFS were easy to spot. Cupping!?! Coffee enemas?!? But what if a treatment
sounds valid? How do we work out if it has any evidence behind it or is complete rubbish?
Food for thought
Rodger
