SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Another Cure for Cancer?

by Steven Novella, May 16 2011

In the last week I have received a flood of e-mails asking my opinion about an article, “Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice.” The sensational theme is a familiar one – scientists hit upon a cure for cancer, but since the drug in question is already off patent (or is “natural”) the pharmaceutical industry is not interested in developing it. The more conspiracy-minded take it a step further and declare that “Big Pharma” will keep anyone else from developing it either.

Most of those e-mailing me saw the skeptical red flags in this story, but still many found the idea intriguing. Like most urban legends – something about the story resonates with our hopes and/or fears. The story rides this emotional wave, now supercharged by social media.

In fact, this is an old story about DCA (which I will get into below). The article that has been going around is four years old – there is no date on the article itself, but I recognize the story from several years ago (it has made the rounds numerous times) and there are four-year-old comments on the article. But, someone posted the article on their Facebook page, and someone else tweeted it, and it was retweeted and linked to by other Facebook pages and voila – the magic of the internet has breathed life into a dessicated urban legend.

The Cure for Cancer

This story is a variation on the notion that “they have cured cancer” but the cure is being kept from the masses by greedy interests aided by the lazy and apathetic. This is a topic I have written about before at length. It has a certain psychological appeal (to that little conspiracy theorist inside each of us). There is something compelling about the notion that the powers that be are not acting in our interest. It gives us a (usually false) sense of empowerment to think we are peeking behind the curtain and seeing what’s really going on.

But on close inspection the story makes no sense. The core flaw in this notion is the unstated premise that the medical establishment is a monolithic entity capable of acting with one intent. Rather, like many aspects of our civilization, modern medicine is a complex organism with many independent parts, and no one piece has dominion over all the others. The pharmaceutical industry does not control all of medical research. It does fund a great deal of research, because it has billions of dollars to invest in R&D and it does direct its research funds to developing drugs that will make them money. But there is also billions of dollars in research funding from the government, and from private organizations, patient groups, and other sources. And of course, there are many other countries each with their own medical research infrastructure.

And research is not the only piece of the puzzle either. There are professional organizations, academic institutions, and disease advocacy groups.

The notion of “a cure for cancer” is also highly improbable. Cancer is not a single disease, but a category of disease with a great deal of variation. That is why there are numerous treatments for cancer, and treatments need to be specifically tailored to the cancer type, stage, and location, as well as the individual patient.

DCA Again

But what about this specific treatment – dichloroacetate, or DCA? Promoters of science-based medicine deal with many types of health claims. Some are purely magical, others are physical but are clear quackery. DCA is neither. It is a legitimate drug with an interesting mechanism of action and some potential as a treatment for some cancers and other conditions as well (but to be clear up front, it is not a proven and accepted treatment for cancer in humans).

DCA falls under the category of prematurely promoting an experimental drug before it has been adequately studied. It can sound very compelling to hear the story of how DCA works to kill cancer cells. It certainly sounds like it is a cure for cancer. But medical researchers have been here before. Many potential treatments look good in the test tube, but do not eventually work as treatments in humans. Cancer is complex, and biology is complex, and in a living person the net effects may not be what we expect.

There is also safety to consider. Medical decision-making is about risk vs benefit. There is a tendency for naive and sensational reports to hype a treatment by focusing entirely on the potential benefits. But before we can reasonably recommend or give a treatment, we need to know something about the risks as well. We want to make sure we are not doing more harm than good (I remember something about that in that oath I took when I graduated medical school).

That is why we need to perform those pesky controlled clinical trials. We need some reasonable measure of net clinical effects. The history of medicine has demonstrated this a thousand times over.

Orac has written a thorough series of articles on DCA. Here is the latest, which also contains links to his entire series of articles on the topic. In summary, some cancers survive by switching from burning oxygen to get their energy to deriving energy from anaerobic glycolysis. DCA forces the mitochondria in cancer cells back into their oxygen-burning state which triggers cell death. Again – sounds great in principle. This is a very interesting potential mechanism for attacking cancer, and there is solid basic science behind it.

But again – we cannot leap from compelling basic science to clinical claims. We need to do the actual research, and clinical research proceeds in stages. The reason for this is to sort through the hundreds of interesting potential treatments to see which ones are reasonably safe and promising. Then we proceed to larger and more elaborate trials, and if drugs still appear to be safe and effective then we go on to definitive trials. And then even after that we need to do further study and monitoring to see that the effect of a treatment in the real world is working out. Each step exposes more people to the treatment, and so more and more subtle risks and effects can be detected.

It’s a messy and frustratingly slow process, but the alternative is to be buried in potential treatments, most of which will be useless or harmful. Without this research process we would be doing more harm than good. It’s like going bankrupt playing the lottery, hoping to score big, when instead you should be making sound long-term investments.

Right now the preliminary evidence for DCA is weak but there is still a glimmer of promise. It looks like the cytotoxic potential (ability to kill cancer cells) is low, and therefore any clinical effect may be limited. Further, serious side effects are also coming to light. The drug has been linked to serious encephalopathy (brain dysfunction) and neuropathy (nerve damage).

Meanwhile researchers are experimenting with chemical variants of DCA that may have higher anti-tumor activity and less toxicity.

What all of this research also shows is that – DCA is being researched. Contrary to the core claim in the article making the rounds, DCA is getting just the research attention it deserves.

Conclusion

DCA is just one of many potential future cancer treatments in the pipeline. It is an interesting approach, focusing on cancer cell metabolism, specifically mitochondrial function, and that may be the most interesting thing about DCA. But in its current form its activity seems to be low and its toxicity high. It may still find a role in cancer treatment. There may be specific cancers for which it has high activity, especially when combined with other treatments. There is a lot of research to be done. And we may find derivatives that are even better. Or, it may ultimately fail as a treatment.

A common story in the cancer-treatment world is that a new potential treatment, based upon a novel approach, is sensationalized as a cure for cancer. But then 5-10 years later we still haven’t cured cancer. But what has often happened is that the new treatment works, it just has a limited role in a subset of cancers. It prolongs survival and is being used – it’s just not the “cure” that it was originally hyped to be.

The history of cancer treatment has taught researchers to be humble and realistic. New treatments are great, and they are each contributing to the slowly increasing survival of many cancers. We are making progress with a lot of singles – just not the grand-slam home-runs that the media wants for good headlines.

So don’t believe the conspiracy-mongering and the hype. The research is happening. It is being targeted largely to therapies in proportion to their promise. But unfortunately research progresses much more slowly than rumors spread through Facebook and Twitter.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.9/5 (35 votes cast)
Another Cure for Cancer?, 4.9 out of 5 based on 35 ratings

Recommended Reading

32 Responses to “Another Cure for Cancer?”

  1. Expect this link to be copied and pasted to numerous facebook posts! :) Well done and thank you for the write up.

  2. Berend Quest says:

    Thank you Steven!

  3. Max says:

    When they find a new use for an old drug like aspirin, can they get a new patent for it?
    If I find a novel use for a brick, can I patent it?

    • MadScientist says:

      It is not the use which is patentable but the specific design of the physical object. So you can invent a new brick and patent it – but you have to convince the examiners that it is somehow different in function from any other brick. In the USA you can also apply for a ‘design patent’ – so you can patent a particular shape of brick if you wish.

      • Max says:

        If bricks were previously used to build walls, and I want to use it to hammer nails, it’s a different function. It just happens to be manufactured the same exact way.

      • MadScientist says:

        Oops – I shouldn’t have written different in function. It must be different in construction (preferably, but not necessarily in a way which affects its properties as a brick – for example, resistance to high temperatures). As an example, if Company X produces a wire by extruding it in a horizontal direction and you build pretty much the same machine but extruding in a downward direction, you might be able to get around copyright infringement claims if you can demonstrate, for example, that your method of extrusion produces a superior product (and hence going from horizontal to vertical was a stroke of genius which the other patent holder was unaware of).

    • Max says:

      Here’s an answer from some lawyers.
      http://www.invention-protection.com/ip/publications/docs/New_Uses_for_Old_Products_&_Substances.html
      “New uses for old things must be carefully phrased as ‘process’ or ‘new use’ claims.”

  4. MadScientist says:

    One of the biggest problems is always specificity – if it kills a cancer cell, odds are it kills any other cell. The good ol’ platinum complex is still in use despite its extreme cytotoxicity which makes the patients incredibly sick – you can bet folks would jump at any opportunity to replace it with something with milder side-effects but I haven’t heard of any great breakthrough yet. Many of my colleagues have been involved in developing new drugs and testing them for use in the treatment of various cancers. In 20 years they had synthesized and tested hundreds of drugs, most look good in initial tests, but I haven’t heard of any success stories yet.

  5. Bob Miller says:

    I have successfully used DCA for my MCC. My colon cancer DX was in November of 2006 after a colonoscopy and biopsy with resection in December 2006 when 12″ of my Sigmoid colon was removed.

    NO standard chemo till April 2011 or 5.4 weeks ago when I started Folfiri and Avastin. Until then I had NO symptoms of cancer, felt fine, rode my bike, BP of around 110 over 76 normally and excellent blood work with a stable and low CEA of around 6. Actually I stopped DCA because of rising PN, peripheral neuropathy, back in early November of 2010. Since then my tumors have been growing.

    I have been followed closely my an oncologist at one of the top two cancer centers in the country, also by my primary physician and been seen and tested by at least 30 other doctors at other top cancer centers in the process of trying to get into clinical trials and looking for quick surgical, electronic (Nanoknife), robotic surgical, cryogenic and radiation fixes or reductions in size of tumors.

    After long use of DCA my primary doctor actually gave me a prescription for DCA. He was very surprised that his computer would even let him do it. Problem is NO one would fill the prescription. I had to go overseas to get my refill.

    I have had a Pet scan and very many CT scans, have copies of all.

    The doctors who have seen me know DCA worked for me. Some acknowledge it and some will not comment but do so my their actions in recommending treatment which was NONE for a very long time. If your tumors are not growing how do you measure chemo effectiveness? You need growth which chem either slows, stops or reverses. If your tumors are already getting smaller or not growing chemo is measurable.

    Is DCA a cure for cancer? I don’t think so but it may be when used with other things. Can it prolong life for some cancers with little side affects? Yes.

    Is it being tested in clinical trials for cancer? Yes.

    How does it work? Could be via the Warburg effect or possible a new theory, the Reverse Warburg effect. With that theory the cancer cell does not get its energy via glycosis but through oxidative stress inflicted on stroma cells surrounding the tumor which creates lactate and ketones which the cancer uses as fuel.

    DCA eliminate lactate which may be why it works but more important why does DCA stop working.

    Maybe taking DCA, Metformin and NAC (radical anti-oxidant), all inexpensive things is a cure for cancer.

    Am thinking about betting my life soon on just such a thought.

    • WonderBear says:

      @Bob Miller, I have a few comments. Your post suggests that you took DCA after surgery. When you started there would have been so evidence of residual cancer if my understanding of your situation is correct. Apparently, at some point after surgery and prior to the cancer returning in 2011, you started taking DCA. It is possible that DCA kept your cancer at bay for several years, but there’s no way to know that for sure. Some cancers take much longer to return than others. There’s no way to know what would’ve happened if you had received no specific treatment. I don’t strongly disagree with your assessment; I just want to add some mild skepticism. I wish you success with your current treatment.

      • Rev says:

        @WonderBear
        Random off-topic reply- does your name derive from the children’s book of the same name, or is that just a happy coincidence?

    • Bob – I am glad you are doing well. But as a scientific point – your doctor cannot know what effect DCA had on the course of your cancer, if any. There is no control, no way of knowing what would have happened had you not taken it. And you were receiving other treatment, which adds other variables.

      Anecdotes will never be compelling or definitive. They may be interesting – but not enough to make recommendations.

      • Max says:

        If someone said that chemotherapy saved his life, would you also say that his anecdote is not compelling or definitive?

      • Jaykwon says:

        It’s neither compelling nor definitive, an anecdote is an anecdote, regardless of its area.

        What’s important to remember is that chemotherapy is not based on anecdotal evidence but rather science.

      • tmac57 says:

        Taken in isolation,it would still be inconclusive,but chemotherapy drugs have been through RCTs and FDA approval processes,adding plausibility to their efficacy and safety factors.Certainly,that would not be an equivalent to Bob’s individual experience.

      • Bob Miller says:

        Anecdotal evidence is just that and individual experiences could be just a miracle but when you start getting more than one you have to take notice.

        Here is a story on Medicor. Seems they are about to publish papers on three complete remissions they call cures using DCA and regular chemo.

        http://www.livescience.com/14206-big-pharma-ignoring-potential-cancer-cure.html

        “We currently have three patients with incurable cancers who are in complete remission, and are likely cured, from using DCA in combination with conventional palliative (non-curative) treatments. We are in the process of publishing these cases,” he said.

        I have long thought and said that if DCA is going to be a cure it will be in conjunction with other things. And I have been looking for them.

        On my list are Metformin, Folfiri, Folfax, Avastin, NAC, Macrobeads, Reolysin, Curcumin, EGCG, G-202, CT-011, blueberries, broccoli etc, etc.

        And I would take most of them at the same time if I could. How long will it take BIG PHARMA and the FDA to check out these possibilities and the various combinations do you think? Maybe in 2929. And there are millions of combinations to check and we are checking them in an incredibly safe and incredibly slow way.

        I wonder how many millions and millions of lives would be saved if we did our search in a faster and less safe way? More chaos, fewer lawyers, more co-operation less competition.

      • Dr Greengage says:

        Bob – I’m maybe with you on the “safe”, but I am in favour of insisting on rigorous trials. Cancer treatment is full of uncertainty, and many potential anticancer drugs have horrendous side effects.

        We need to be vigilant to prevent fraud and needless suffering – worse, fraudsters and the deluded profiting from causing needless suffering.

      • Dr Greengage says:

        As others have said, the “standard chemotherapy cured me” anecdote is still an anecdote. We might believe it more than we believe Bob’s DCA story, because it’s more consistent with our prior beliefs that are based on thorough investigation, but it doesn’t have any more information content – it shouldn’t influence our beliefs any more than Bob’s story does.

        Actually, the standard chemo story is of less value than Bob’s story, because it just reinforces our existing, relatively confident position, while Bob’s story, anecdote as it is, challenges our existing knowledge.

        Some anecdotes are more than interesting – for example, if we think that a certain cancer diagnosis is invariably fatal, yet someone recovers completely, then that’s a solid counterexample to our beliefs (although there are other explanations, for example the diagnosis may have been wrong).

        There are no simple rules here. In the real world, we all have to make decisions based on poor information.

        Obviously, trust is a big factor to. Bob, at this point, is just a name on the internet.

      • tmac57 says:

        The problem with anecdotes of any kind is that you are probably more likely to hear about the positive ones rather than the ones that were negative or neutral,simply because they are more compelling.The same problem arises with research.The file drawer effect distorts the true overall view.
        How many people out there are using DCA and aren’t getting a positive result,and or are having significant negative side effects?Until we have reliable data,we don’t really have a good handle on it’s safety and efficacy.These kinds of stories have come and gone for decades,and usually end up a dead end.I hope this one turns out successful though.

      • Max says:

        Websites like http://www.askapatient.com let patients rate drugs and share their experiences and side effects. My impression is that there are more negative anecdotes than positive ones, because patients with negative experiences are more likely to complain about them. Even when a clinical trial finds few side effects compared to placebo, you can look up the drug on askapatient.com and find a ton of side effects.

      • tmac57 says:

        Max,I was particularly thinking of people who take their healthcare into their own hands as an act of empowerment,and are trying alternative or unproven methods that may be contrary to mainstream practice.These people may be less able to or willing to admit a negative result do to the fact that it was self selected which can cause cognitive dissonance.When a Dr. prescribes a treatment on the other hand,they make an easy target for blame when something goes wrong,even if the treatment was not the direct cause,(witness the anti-vaccine mindset).

      • tmac57 says:

        That should have been ‘due to’ not ‘do to’.That’s what I get for not proof reading.

  6. …because there’s only one kind of cancer right? Right?

  7. Bob Miller says:

    Wonderbear

    I misrepresented my situation, sorry.

    After surgery and for two years I had no chemo because my oncologist thought surgery had cured me. In December 2008 my oncologist said I was part of the general population as to cancer risk, NED.

    In March of 2009 I decided to get a hernia fixed that had been caused by the initial laproscopic resection I had in 2006. A pre-op chest X-ray showed a Hylar mass and a right lung mass that was confirmed as MCC by needle biopsy on May 20th. The next day before confirmation I started taking DCA. I had asked my primary doctor if I should try DCA and he had told me “don’t touch the stuff”, naturally I ignored him.

    I had DCA in my refrigerator because it had been in the news only weeks after my initial surgery when I still thought I was near deaths door. Someone I called about DCA had sent me a free sample. For two years I considered giving it to my father who had prostate cancer but my siblings (and myself) dithered over doing so till the day he died.

    So my taking of DCA for an apparently very aggressive MCC was the proximate cause of it reducing in two months, July 2009 CT scan, by 30%. I called my primary doctor and confessed that I had ignored his warning and taken DCA and since in June they had given me a CT scan of only my abdomen I asked him if he would authorize a CT scan of my chest to see if DCA had had any affect.

    To be honest I did not expect much. I had very little faith in DCA. I was dodging chemo by asking for a second opinion and getting dental work done to prepare for chemo. This delay lasted from May till September.

    It was because of this three month plus delay that I was tempted to do something, try the DCA.

    So when my primary doctor called and told me my tumors had reduced by 30% I was dumbfounded as much as he was. He said that he did not know what to say. I had had a persistent cough when he first saw me after the biopsy, the first cough or any kind of malady except cancer I had had in thirty years. I believe he and my oncologist thought that I was end stage right then though they both quoted statistics that gave someone in my condition six months to a year with no chemo and maybe another year with chemo.

    The second opinion was at a major cancer hospital in early September and they gave me a CT scan that showed that my Hylar tumor had reduced by another 25%. Their numbers not mine. Numbers like that get branded on your brain.

    That was two years ago and other than side effects of the chemo I started five weeks ago I am in great shape and though my tumors were growing before I started chemo, the Hylar tumor is still smaller than it was in May 2009. The lung tumor, small, really never did anything until I stopped DCA, now growing.

    DCA worked. My experience seems similar to others. First a reduction in tumor size then a period of stability followed by the tumors regrowing or people stop because of peripheral neuropathy like me.

  8. Bob Miller says:

    Steven Novella

    Steve,

    I was receiving NO other treatment before or during the period that I took DCA.

    Before DCA there was the surgery in 2006 and two years of nothing.

    DCA started with the discovery of MCC in May of 2009.

    After DCA, stopped last November, there was nothing but a baby aspirin a day till start of chemo five plus weeks ago.

    From August of last year till November I cut my DCA dose in half and took it only half as often due to peripheral neuropathy. My November CT scan showed a small increase in my lung tumor size but I was still characterized as stable. Still I stopped DCA November 3rd per my oncologist suggestion.

    Since stopping DCA all CT scans and a PET scan have shown tumor growth both Hylar and right lung. All CT scans during DCA use showed either reductions or stability except for the November scan which showed slight growth of one tumor after DCA dose reduction of 75% over the previous three months.

    • Max says:

      Are there clinical trials of DCA you could volunteer for?
      I found a few for other cancers
      http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=dca+cancer

      • Bob Miller says:

        clinicaltrials.gov is a great place to check out what is going on.

        And believe it or not you can call people, researchers, doctors etc. They will TALK to you.

        I have spent hours on the phone with top researchers and doctors.

        And you get different opinions from top researchers like recently a top researcher told me that “If I were you I would run not walk from what you are taking now”. Avastin and Folfiri first line FDA approved chemo for MCC.

        I am not running but I am thinking real hard.

  9. Bob Miller says:

    Here are a few DCA things in the works other than you could try the University of Alberta, there is more.

    Synergistic Antitumor Effect of Dichloroacetate in Combination with 5-Fluorouracil in Colorectal Cancer

    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jbb/2011/740564/

    Phase II Study of Dichloroacetate (DCA) in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Breast or NSCL Cancer

    http://www.bioportfolio.com/resources/trial/69953/Phase-Ii-Study-Of-Dichloroacetate-dca-In-Patients-With-Previously-Treated-Metastatic.html

    In vitro cytotoxicity of novel platinum-based drugs and dichloroacetate against lung carcinoid cell lines.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21239354

    Test Kit for Dosage Determination
    For Safer Administration
    Of Dichloroacetate

    Trials I am interested in are for G-202 a targeted pro-drug, Reolysin the use of a virus that normal cells are protected from but which cancer cells are not and Macrobeads based on a new cancer theory that says cancer cells are not just wild uncontrolled growth but do talk to each other via primordial protein signaling and if you don’t mind having your abdomen filled with mouse liver cancer cells it may be a cure for or control for cancer. Species and cancer independent. Doesn’t matter what cancer cells from another species you use and it doesn’t matter what species you put them in. Other than you don’t want to put them in the same species you got them from I think.

    Remember do your own homework you never know who is giving you BS on the Internets. For example I am an old fart with chemo brain who never had a class in biology.

  10. Gary says:

    I encountered some guy at a Christmas party about 5 years ago claiming that some “doctor” had developed a cure for cancer but it was being kept a secret by “doctors”. From later reading it was probably the notorious quack Hulda Clark (who ironically later died of cancer)

    I said to him, “You mean that doctors will not only not give their patients this life-saving cure, but will withhold it from their friends, their families, and will even refuse to cure themselves”? He could not explain that.

    So the next time someone claims that “doctors” have a secret cure for anything, ask them the above question.

    • tmac57 says:

      I was in a cancer support group for caregivers of cancer patients,and of course, often the topic of new therapies that offered hope would come up during discussions.One evening a couple that attended were going on about a procedure that they had heard of that used radio frequencies to treat tumors.I had heard about radiofrequency ablation for tumors,but didn’t know anything beyond that,so I was interested.They promised to bring in some more information about it next session.When they handed out their packets of information the next meeting,I was shocked to see that it was about the Royal Rife Radionics machine,a well known scam (well known to me at least).I still don’t know if the couple were duped by this, or if they were trying to con the other members.The second choice is almost too creepy to contemplate.

  11. G says:

    The University of Alberta discovers that dichloroacetate (DCA) causes regression in several cancers, including lung, breast, and brain tumors – March 15, 2007

    http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2007-03-15_Update.cfm

    The University of Alberta’s DCA Research Team publishes results of Clinical Trials – May 12, 2010

    http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm

  12. Scott Hankes says:

    To combat the peripheral neuropathy, I have read that it is important to supplement thiamine (Vitamin B1) which can prevent and even reverse the PN. Additionally, it is suggested that DCA does in fact affect the mitochondria as claimed but it is not quite powerful enough by itself and needs an accelerator which apparently caffeine from black or green teas works wonderfully. Caffeine depletes thiamine levels at a much faster rate so, again another reason for the supplementation. Also Acid R (+) alpha lipoic acid (ALA) and Omega-3 acid may be used as well. ALA and Omega-3 acids have anticancer uses. Moreover, ALA prevents a side effect of PN as well. It is also important to make a change to the typical western diet and cut out all sugars which feed the cancer providing fuel. This includes all carbohydrates like bread, white rice, pasta, etc. and even so-called ‘good’ sugars from fruits. Based on my research, I believe that cancer is basically a fungi/yeast problem. Years of eating gluten, which we are not equipped to completely digest, and other processed foods, taking antibiotics, stress, irregular sleep patterns etc. lead to an imbalance in the gut flora, allowing yeast such as candida to become predominant. The gluten slowly over time will create ‘leaky gut’ syndrome which allows all sorts of toxins to travel through the wall of the gut into your system where it then starts attaching to first connective tissue (including blood) then organs, etc. Left unchecked, candida albicans will change to it’s more dangerous fungal form. We know that fungi and molds are very powerful and adapt and change what ever it is they take root on and they feed on sugars just like cancer cells. Because they adapt to their ‘host’ they take on the same characteristics which make it hard to distinguish as separate from the host cell. Many fungi also are known to dramatically alter the functioning of an entire organism such as the ‘zombie fungus’ that overrides the brain of ants in order to use them as transportation from the rainforest floor to more hospitable conditions for reproduction / sporing further up a tree or similar, so it’s no great stretch to imagine that fungi can hijack normal cells in a body and switch the metabolism from oxidative to glycolic, shutting of the apoptosis switch in the mitochondria which allows for the rampant overgrowth, a defining characteristic of a cancer cell. Thus, keeping your internal system as alkaline as possible makes complete sense as fungi will die instantly when the PH changes from acidic, which it requires, to alkaline. This also falls in line with the long-known but seemingly recently forgotten or buried knowledge about baking soda as a cancer treatment because it changes the environment around the cancer from acidic to alkaline.

    All of this illustrates what is fundamentally wrong about our modern ‘disease-care’ medical system that simply documents the symptoms, then finds the appropriate synthetic, expensive and often dangerous pharmaceutical drug to treat (notice the word used and it’s true meaning) the symptoms instead of trying to determine the actual root cause of the health issue which is often based in nutritional deficiencies, improper stress management and lifestyle combined with environmental pollutants and an over use of too many untested chemicals in our foods, clothing, shelters – everything. An interesting fact I recently came across is that yeast such as candida albicans, when subjected to electromagnetic frequencies like those used by cell phones, wi-fi networks, cordless phones, microwave ovens, digital TV signals, etc., double the growth rate of the candida.

    Just some things to think about. And I was able to reverse my Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension through the use of DCA, eliminating gluten and limiting other dietary sugars, adding pre/pro-biotic supplements and avoiding processed foods, fluoridated products including water and having my amalgam fillings properly removed along with some other lifestyle changes. I have never felt better and I was told 3 years ago when they diagnosed my PAH, that on average the prognosis is 3-5 years from the time it’s discovered and there is NO cure. I discovered the DCA / PAH link via a recent study posted on PUB MED which lead to hundreds to studies about DCA which keep getting ignored or buried under the cash heavy hands of big pharma and their extremely dangerous products. Currently there is a clinical trail for DCA as a treatment for PAH at the University of Alberta.

    If anyone would like additional information or links to the research I used, please feel free to contact me at scott.hankes@gmail.com. I’m not dismissing conventional treatment, however I wanted to present this information so that people may then do their own research and then RE-SEARCH some more until your heart and your head agree and no longer question or doubt allowing you to make a responsible, informed decision about YOUR HEALTHcare and any path of treatment your may need. Good luck and remember knowledge protects, ignorance endangers and in many cases, kills.