Healthy Skepticism Library item: 9062

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Geddes L.
Cancer pharmacy for the desperate and vulnerable
Short Sharp Science (New Scientist Blog) 2007 Mar 29
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2007/03/cancer-pharmacy-for-desperate-and.html

Full text:

Almost two years ago my aunt died from ovarian cancer. At age 53, she was younger than my mother and, the last time I saw her, I remember her producing a pile of computer print-outs of alternative cancer therapies she had read about on the internet. She was desperate, and she wanted my advice on whether the science behind their claims was robust or not. After examining the literature, it was with great sadness that I told her that, in my opinion, their claims were unfounded.

Pouring cold water on someone’s hopes is a terrible thing. In the case of DCA, I have to say there are at least some grounds for excitement. Lab studies have shown that it can kill cancer cells by reactivating mitochondria, which will then recognise a cell as cancerous and destroy it. But until we see whether this mechanism applies to cells in the human body it is impossible to know whether it will work in human cancer.

We also have no idea of the doses that could produce this effect; of their side effects in cancer patients, or about whether DCA interacts with existing cancer medications. DCA is not a harmless drug – as Lawrence Burgh’s example illustrates, it can have side effects. Fortunately, Burgh is a physician whose oncologist was aware that he was taking DCA. He was taking supplements to try and reduce side effects, and at the first sign of trouble, he stopped taking it.

Not everyone who is experimenting with DCA is so cautious. Self-medicating with DCA could cause nerve or liver damage, and perhaps even death. People with terminal cancer may feel that they have nothing to lose – but there may be a different option.

Statistically speaking, if a cancer drug has passed initial safety tests in phase 1 clinical trials, it has a one in 20 chance of being approved. If it has passed phase 2 trials (the stage before large scale trials in patients with the disease) it has a one in 5 chance of being approved. Yet doctors are struggling to recruit patients into these trials. In the US, fewer than 5% of adult cancer patients are enrolled. True, not everyone can take part in clinical trials because they have other physical ailments, their insurance companies won’t cover them, or because they live too far away from trial centres. But it seems at least worth trying, before opting for the ultra-gamble of DCA.

Sadly, many of the posts I came across while researching the DCA site, expressed a feeling that their doctors didn’t care – that they were made to feel like “dead men walking”. I’m sure that most doctors do their utmost to listen to their patients concerns, but for those who fall through the net, it should be noted that website communities seem to be filling a gap in providing at least some of the comfort, support, and hope that impersonal hospital visits may lack.

When this drives people to campaign for a drug like DCA to be put through clinical trials, or to push doctors to try the latest approved drugs, this can be a great thing. But people should treat what they read on the internet with care. There is a risk that these forums could push an already vulnerable person to make their shortened life even more painful.

So what is the answer in a situation like this? Should patients have the ultimate say in how they choose to treat their own bodies; or should these most vulnerable of people be protected from the exploitative promises of untried therapies?