here’s an lymphoma remission story using DCA B1 vitamine protocol:
forums.cancer.vc/hematologic-blood/54-ds-lymphoma-story.html
and here are other remissions:

forums.cancer.vc/hematologic-blood/62-case-non-hodgkins-lymphoma-apparent-complete-remission.html
forums.cancer.vc/genitourinary-cancer/48-wim-huppes-prostate-cancer-story.html
forums.cancer.vc/genitourinary-cancer/55-ps-kidney-cancer-story.html
forums.cancer.vc/lung-cancer/56-tom-mcghees-nearly-full-remission-non-small-cell-lung-cancer.html
forums.cancer.vc/lung-cancer/63-lung-cancer-remission-dca.html
forums.cancer.vc/digestive-gastrointestinal/47-colo-rectal-cancer-story.html
forums.cancer.vc/digestive-gastrointestinal/57-bills-bile-duct-cancer-story.html
forums.cancer.vc/digestive-gastrointestinal/81-gastro-intestinal-stromal-tumors-dca.html

for more info on alternative therapies and dca see forums.cancer.vc and for additional info see puredca.com and cancer.vc

[...]

To be blunt, it’s quite possible that an ‘open source trial’ of DCA could – in many ways be worse than Big Pharma’s business as usual. Getting people opposed to the ‘open source trial’ of DCA to speak – as well as those supporting and/or profiting from this ‘trial’ – could make for a very interesting debate.

I can say that if someone wanted to do a clinical trial of a closer to natural product than most pharmas create, I would likely volunteer to participate.

I can also say that the way the system is devised, I am fearful of discussing what it takes for me to navigate my health care. Ironically, as someone who has adhered to a very healthy lifestyle – natural whole foods, no smoking, very little alchoholic consumption, a life of exercise, etc – I must fear the system. I try in every way I can to keep my treatment as low-cost and as whole-health supporting as possible. I end up paying out of pocket for most of my health care, though I’m “fully” insured. You’d think I would be the ideal patient and insurance customer. In our system, the ideal patient/customer is one who doesn’t ask questions and just follows the doctors/insurers orders, regardless of whether they are wise. So, I can absolutely see why a group of patients would take things into their own hands. Particularly when they’ve been abandoned to die.

DCA: Cancer Breakthrough or Urban Legend?
Enthusiasm Outpacing Science in Possible Cancer Therapy Discovery
OPINION by LEN LICHTENFELD, M.D.
Feb. 5, 2007 —

“There is the medical equivalent of a tsunami wave building out there, only we don’t know where this one is going to land . . ..

In one group of rats where DCA was given after the injected tumors had been allowed to grow, the tumors immediately (in the authors’ words) decreased in size.

So far, so good.

But here is where things begin to get a bit dicey.

These are quotes taken directly from the article. The first is from a summary printed at the bottom of the first page of the report:

“The ease of delivery, selectivity, and effectiveness make DCA an attractive candidate for proapoptotic cancer therapy which can be rapidly translated into phase II-III clinical trials.”

In the discussion section of the paper, the authors conclude with the following statement:

“Our work & offers a tantalizing suggestion that DCA may have selective anticancer efficacy in patients. The very recent report of the first randomized long-term clinical trial of oral DCA in children with congenital lactic acidosis (at doses similar to those used in our in vivo experiments) showing that DCA was well tolerated and safe (Stacpoole et al., 2006) suggests a potentially easy translation of our work to clinical oncology.” (Emphasis mine)

In other words, the authors are saying that in their opinion these experiments in the lab and rats suggests that DCA may be a simple, effective treatment for cancer and we should move forward with clinical trials based solely on their theory and their results.

I am not being critical of the authors’ comments, except for describing this as a “potentially easy” process. Nothing in translation from the bench to the bedside is easy.

This is not the first time such suggestive statements have been made. In fact, these types of comments are not unusual in papers of this type.

What I am critical of is the lack of discrimination in judgment of other folks — not the researchers — who have picked up on these lines and rapidly circulated the thought that we have a cure for cancer at hand, and that we must stop doing everything else and get this simple, safe and effective treatment to cancer patients immediately.

. . . .

The Facts About DCA
Please try to understand that I am not saying this is a theory that won’t work. It may, and if it does prove valuable, that would be terrific.

It is just that I have been around a while and have seen this type of hope and hype just a few times too many.

I have seen cancer patients’ hopes lifted and dashed so often that I can’t help but be cautious and conservative in my thinking.

Let’s take a look at what we can say.

First, I did a literature search on PubMed looking for articles with the terms dichloroacetic acid and cancer.

Although I didn’t have access to all of the articles, one underlying theme stood out: DCA is an organic chemical that causes liver cancer in laboratory mice when put in their drinking water.

It is not nontoxic. It is a byproduct of another chemical called trichloroethylene (TCE), which has been a source of concern as a cancer-causing agent for some time.

Here is what the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has to say about TCE:

“HIGHLIGHTS: Trichloroethylene is a colorless liquid which is used as a solvent for cleaning metal parts. Drinking or breathing high levels of trichloroethylene may cause nervous system effects, liver and lung damage, abnormal heartbeat, coma, and possibly death.”

So before you start going out and adding DCA to your drinking water to prevent cancer, a degree of caution would be very prudent at this point.

. . . .

It is indeed a long, difficult road that must be traveled to demonstrate that an exciting new idea actually works in the treatment of cancer.

So, pardon me if I am a skeptic. As Jessica Rabbit said, “I am just drawn that way.”

But I am also an optimist, as I have said many times in these pages. I do believe that there are exciting new developments in cancer treatment emerging from laboratories around the world. Maybe DCA is one of them.

It’s just that I believe in patience, prudence and caution, because my experience has taught me that those are the best guidelines to follow in assessing reports such as the one in Cancer Cell.

It is way too soon to know whether this is a cancer treatment breakthrough or an urban legend or something in between.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6768799.stm

we like to think that we’ve come farther than this…shameful doesn’t even begin to describe it…pfizer!

In the Nature Clinical Practice item that duplicity links to, the writer notes that the structure of DCA can’t be patented, which is true. However, Michelakis does hold a use patent on the molecule, which essentially gives him exclusive rights to develop it for use as an anti-cancer agent. (There’s a link to his patent on thedcasite.org). If the drug showed any indication of becoming a blockbuster in treating human cancer, it seems likely that the major pharmaceutical manufacturers would be in a bidding war to license it from Michelakis. Moreover, academic technology transfer programs, which are becoming increasingly important sources of institutional revenue, are loathe to let go of a promising new agent; When you do the show, you might want to talk to someone from TecEdmonton, the University of Alberta’s tech transfer office, to see why they withdrew their sponsorship from DCA.

While DCA may be a great new tool in the oncologic armentarium it seems equally likely that it could be this era’s laetrile.