Talk:Dichloroacetic acid/Archive 1

Origins
Can anyone one say where this chemical comes from? is it found in nature anywhere? or is it made in a lab or something? Murderbike 08:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As the introduction says, it is prepared by the reduction of trichloroacetic acid. The Wednesday Island 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't address the interesting question of whether it occurs naturally or not. --Michael C. Price talk 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Murderbike 19:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been found in one seaweed in a paper I discovered from the 70s. They specifically mention it as part of a family that includes iodine and bromine-based acetates. Here's the link the the article. Search for dicholoracetate and you'll find 4 references to it. 3 mention it being present in the essential oils, 1 mentions how they compared it with commercially available sources. --142.162.91.219 (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

How old is it?
Trying to find info about how long this has been used for other things. Footnote 7 looks promising, but you have to purchase the article to read it, and it was only posted two weeks ago. Any other info about prior usage? Thanks. 70.23.167.239 14:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Multi-decade prior use is described in the literature. See abstracts below. -- Alan2012 14:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

DCA in cancer therapy
Someone should point out that now the first results of the U of Alberta DCA study has been published:
 * http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2010-05-12_Update.cfm
 * http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/31/31ra34.abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.143.241 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You should be interested in this article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.175.176.208 (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

I find it interesting that U of Alberta has proven that the mitochondria is not "damaged" in cancer cells as had been long thought. DCA merely switches the mitochondria from glycolysis mode (now know as fetus mode and/or also cancer mode) to normal surgar utilization mode. This lays a ton of additional proof on Dr. Lairds work at USC whose work recently published in Nature Genetics, showed that cancer is caused by an embryonic stem cell that is "silenced", then later in life, it is reawakened. Laird claims that the silencing and the reawakening occur due to "epigenetic" effects, meaning effects that are not genetic. In other words, smoking, drinking, air pollution, water pollution, and food additive poisons, as well as processed foods probably. In Jan 2006, E. V. Gostjeva et al, (MIT) published a study that imaged and compared colon cancer stem cells, v.s. fetal embryonic stem cells that were making a brand new colon. They were identical in appearance, and both were making the identical cell types. Gostjeva discussed that cancer may well be caused by an embryonic stem cell that fails to mature, or, an adult stem cell, that reverts to its embryonic state. They then start to make a new organ in a fully formed body, we call this cancer. In a paper in 2006 USF researchers showed that telomerase activates glycolysis in melanonma cancer cells. Here we have a way to switch it off, despite the overexpression of telomerase, with little toxicity compared to chemo, radiation, and surgery. Also notice a fetus and an untreated caner have approximately the same growth rate. Astoundingly, DCA also reactivates the P-53 suicide gene, which kills the errant cancer cell.

The truth is out, to understand cancer will require the unrestricted study of all human cell types, including embryonic stem cells that are going to be thrown away, and adult stem cells. DCA still hasn't made the t.v. news. This is a broken system.


 * I would interpret the DCA data in MELAS as quite substantial clinical toxicity. I would interpret the absence of clinical data on the efficacy of DCA in treating human cancer as an opportunity for further study.  Researchers have a long track record of failing to convert promising preclinical molecules into cancer drugs; reporting the hard work of developing a new drug is part of what Wikipedia is all about.  Check out the story of imatinib or paclitaxel to appreciate how long it takes a drug to migrate out of the research lab and into the medicine cabinet.  The whole story of how DCA is a non-patentable molecule (implying that it is therefore not a candidate for drug development) is a man-bites-dog story.  The notoriety of "curing cancer" will be sufficient motivation for developing this drug.  BTW, "epigenetic" does not mean "not genetic."  For more information, see the Wikipedia article on epigenetics--Dr.michael.benjamin 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The toxicity may be a factor, but if the drug *is* shown to "cure cancer," the toxicity may be preferable to, well, death. Keep in mind that cancer patients are frequently terminal, and that the treatments available are expensive to a point where any normal person's life is substantially impacted, if not outright desstroyed, by undergoing treatment. The decision to risk the side-effects of the drug, possibly including death, should be left to the patient and physician. Chemotherapy carries its own risks, including death and utter ineffectiveness even in the face of other side-effects, yet it is not denied to patients. 68.166.19.237 (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that the drug used to aid the metabolic disorders and cancer therapy is sodium dichloroacetate, not dichloroacetic acid. It's a distinction as major as mistaking HCl for NaCl, and if people are self-medicating, it's a mistake that could cause major harm.

Dichloroacetate Abstracts (a smattering, not a systematic culling)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1533324

Environ Health Perspect. 1998 August; 106(Suppl 4): 989-994.

Research Article

Clinical pharmacology and toxicology of dichloroacetate.

P W Stacpoole, G N Henderson, Z Yan, and M O James

Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. stacpool@gcrc.ufl.edu

Abstract

Dichloroacetate (DCA) is a xenobiotic of interest to both environmental toxicologists and clinicians. The chemical is a product of water chlorination and of the metabolism of various drugs and industrial chemicals. Its accumulation in groundwater and at certain Superfund sites is considered a potential health hazard. However, concern about DCA toxicity is predicated mainly on data obtained in inbred rodent strains administered DCA at doses thousands of times higher than those to which humans are usually exposed. In these animals, chronic administration of DCA induces hepatotoxicity and neoplasia. Ironically, the DCA doses used in animal toxicology experiments are very similar to those used clinically for the chronic or acute treatment of several acquired or hereditary metabolic or cardiovascular diseases. As a medicinal, DCA is generally well tolerated and stimulates the activity of the mitochondrial pyruvate dehydrogenase enzyme complex, resulting in increased oxidation of glucose and lactate and an amelioration of lactic acidosis. By this mechanism, the drug may also enhance cellular energy metabolism. DCA is dehalogenated in vivo to monochloroacetate and glyoxylate, from which it can be further catabolized to glycolate, glycine, oxalate, and carbon dioxide. It remains to be determined whether important differences in its metabolism and toxicology exist in humans between environmentally and clinically relevant doses.

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.0M), or see the PubMed citation or the full text of some References or click on a page below to browse page by page.

--

URL: go medline + pmid

N Engl J Med. 1978 Mar 9;298(10):526-30.

Metabolic effects of dichloroacetate in patients with diabetes mellitus and hyperlipoproteinemia.

Stacpoole PW, Moore GW, Kornhauser DM.

Dichloroacetate is known to reduce plasma glucose and triglycerides in diabetic and starved animals and to lower plasma lactate under various experimental conditions. To investigate its metabolic effects in man, we administered oral doses (3 to 4 g) of dichloroacetate as the sodium salt to patients with diabetes mellitus or hyperlipoproteinemia or both for six to seven days. Dichloroacetate significantly reduced fasting hyperglycemia an average of 24 per cent (P less than 0.01) from base line and produced marked, concomitant falls in plasma lactate (73 per cent; P less than 0.05 to less than 0.01) and alanine (82 per cent; P less than 0.01 to less than 0.001). In addition, it significantly decreased plasma cholesterol (22 per cent; P less than 0.01 to less than 0.001) and triglyceride (61 per cent; P less than 0.01) levels while increasing (71 per cent; P less than 0.01) plasma ketone-body concentrations. Plasma insulin, free fatty acid and glycerol levels were not affected. Serum uric acid rose, whereas excretion and renal clearance fell. Some patients experienced mild sedation, but no other laboratory or clinical evidence of adverse effects was noted during or immediately after the treatment phase.

--

URL: go medline + pmid

Am Heart J. 1997 Nov;134(5 Pt 1):841-55.

Dichloroacetate as metabolic therapy for myocardial ischemia and failure.

Bersin RM, Stacpoole PW.

Sanger Clinic and the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville 32610, USA.

This article critically reviews the pharmacologic effects of the investigational drug dichloroacetate (DCA), which activates the mitochondrial pyruvate dehydrogenase enzyme complex in cardiac tissue and thus preferentially facilitates aerobic oxidation of carbohydrate over fatty acids. The pharmacologic effects of DCA are compared with other interventions, such as glucose plus insulin, inhibitors of long chain fatty acid oxidation and adenosine, that are also thought to exert their therapeutic effects by altering myocardial energy metabolism. Short-term clinical and laboratory experiments demonstrate that intravenous DCA rapidly stimulates pyruvate dehydrogenase enzyme complex activity and, therefore, aerobic glucose oxidation in myocardial cells. Typically these effects are associated with suppression of myocardial long chain fatty acid metabolism and increased left ventricular stroke work and cardiac output without changes in coronary blood flow or myocardial oxygen consumption. Although long-term studies are lacking, short-term parenteral administration of DCA appears to be safe and capable of significantly improving myocardial function in conditions of limited oxygen availability by increasing the efficient conversion of myocardial substrate fuels into energy.

--

URL: go medline + pmid

Metabolism. 1989 Nov;38(11):1124-44.

The pharmacology of dichloroacetate.

Stacpoole PW.

Department of Medicine, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville 32610.

Dichloroacetate (DCA) exerts multiple effects on pathways of intermediary metabolism. It stimulates peripheral glucose utilization and inhibits gluconeogeneis, thereby reducing hyperglycemia in animals and humans with diabetes mellitus. It inhibits lipogenesis and cholesterolgenesis, thereby decreasing circulating lipid and lipoprotein levels in short-term studies in patients with acquired or hereditary disorders of lipoprotein metabolism. By stimulating the activity of pyruvate dehydrogenase, DCA facilitates oxidation of lactate and decreases morbidity in acquired and congenital forms of lactic acidosis. The drug improves cardiac output and left ventricular mechanical efficiency under conditions of myocardial ischemia or failure, probably by facilitating myocardial metabolism of carbohydrate and lactate as opposed to fat. DCA may also enhance regional lactate removal and restoration of brain function in experimental states of cerebral ischemia. DCA appears to inhibit its own metabolism, which may influence the duration of its pharmacologic actions and lead to toxicity. DCA can cause a reversible peripheral neuropathy that may be related to thiamine deficiency and may be ameliorated or prevented with thiamine supplementation. Other toxic effects of DCA may be species-specific and reflect marked interspecies variation in pharmacokinetics. Despite its potential toxicity and limited clinical experience, DCA and its derivatives may prove to be useful in probing regulatory aspects of intermediary metabolism and in the acute or chronic treatment of several metabolic disorders.

--

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/327

Toxicological Sciences - Volume 14, Number 2 Pp. 327-337

c 1990 Oxford University Press other

Chronic Toxicity of Dichloroacetate: Possible Relation to Thiamine Deficiency in Rats

PETER W. STACPOOLE*, H. JAMES HARWOOD, JR, DON F. CAMERON, STEPHEN H. CURRY(th), DON A. SAMUELSNO, PHILLIP E. CORNWELL and HOWARDE E. SAUBERLICH

Metabolism), University of Florida, Colleges of Medicine, Pharmacy and Veterinary Sciences Gainesville, Florida 32610 Departments of Pharmacology, University of Florida, Colleges of Medicine, Pharmacy and Veterinary Sciences Gainesville, Florida 32610 Departments of Anatomy, University of Florida, Colleges of Medicine, Pharmacy and Veterinary Sciences Gainesville, Florida 32610 (th)Departments of Clinical Pharmacokinetics, University of Florida, Colleges of Medicine, Pharmacy and Veterinary Sciences Gainesville, Florida 3261 0Departments of Veterinary Opthalmology, University of Florida, Colleges of Medicine, Pharmacy and Veterinary Sciences Gainesville, Florida 32610 Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama Birmingham, Alabama 35294
 * Departments of Medicine (Division of Endocrinology and

Received April 21, 1989; Chronic Toxicity of Dichloroacetate: Possible Relation to Thiamine Deficiency in Rats. STACPOOLE, P. W., HARWOOD, H. J., JR., CAMERON, D. F., CURRY, S. H., SAMUELSON, D. A., CORNWELL, P. E., AND SAUBERLICH, H. E. (1990). Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 14, 327-337. The chronic use of dichloroacetate (DCA) for diabetes mellitus or hyperlipoproteinemias has been compromised by neurologic and other forms of toxicity. DCA is metabolized to glyoxylate, which is converted to oxalate and, in the presence of adequate thiamine levels, to other metabolites. DCA stimulates the thiamine-dependent enzymes pyruvate dehydrogenase and a-ketoacid dehydrogenase. We postulated that the neurotoxicity from chronic DCA administration could result from depletion of body thiamine stores and abnormal metabolism of oxalate, a known neurotoxin. For 7 weeks, rats were fed ad lib. Purina chow and water or chow plus sodium DCA (50 mg/kg or 1.1 g/kg) in water. A portion of the DCA-treated animals also received intraperitoneal injections of 600 æ thiamine three times weekly or 600 æ thiamine daily by mouth. Thiamine status was assessed by determining red cell transketolase activity and, in a blinded manner, by recording the development of clinical signs known to be associated with thiamine deficiency. At the 50 mg/kg dose, chronic administration of DCA showed no clinical toxicity or effect on transketolase activity. At the 1.1 g/kg dose, however, DCA markedly increased the frequency and severity of toxicity and decreased transketolase activity 25%, compared to controls. Coadministration of thiamine substantially reduced evidence of thiamine deficiency and normalized transketolase activity. Inhibition of transketolase by DCA In vivo was not due to a direct action on the enzyme, however, since DCA, glyoxylate, or oxalate had no appreciable effects on transketolase activity in vitro. After 7 weeks, plasma DCA concentrations were similar in rats receiving DCA alone or DCA plus thiamine, while urinary oxalate was 86% above control in DCA-treated rats but only 28% above control in DCA plus thiamine-treated animals. No light microscopic changes were seen in peripheral nerve, lens, testis, or kidney morphology in either DCA-treated group, nor was there disruption of normal sperm production in the DCA-treated group. We conclude that stimulation by DCA of thiamine-requiring enzymes may lead to depletion of total body thiamine stores and to both a fall in transketolase activity and an increase in oxalate accumulation In vivo. DCA neurotoxicity may thus be due, at least in part, to thiamine deficiency and may be preventable with thiamine treatment.

-- Alan2012 14:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry
"The chemistry of dichloroacetic acid is closely related to halogenated organic acids." I'm confused... I thought dichloroacetic acid WAS a halogenated organic acid? Geoff 06:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio
Several long segments of the article were copied and pasted directly from the pages linked to or referenced at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.45.72.17 (talk • contribs)

Expansion
I've tried to expand the "Therapeutic Uses" section and beef up the references. Specifically I've included the randomized, controlled trials in lactic acidosis, which have supplanted the earlier case reports. I've also tried to expand a little on the cancer study and reaction to it, both of which are notable topics. I'd like to improve the "adverse effects" section next - most large studies have reported few or no side effects (with the notable exception of the MELAS study). MastCell 18:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there's plenty of room for expansion on the cancer section, but not a lot that's based on actual science. The media reaction is probably the most interesting part of the story.--Dr.michael.benjamin 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential cancer applications
I thought it was important that Evangelos Michelakis got the idea for the experiment because he realized that mitochondrial function was disordered in cancer cells, and dichloroacetic acid restored mitochondrial function. I wrote that in an earlier version. Why did somebody take that out? Would anybody object if I restored it?

The important point is, he wasn't just screening everything in the chemical stockroom to see if it would cure cancer. He developed a strategy for finding anti-cancer drugs by considering the observed abnormalities. Nbauman 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a rational approach to cancer therapy design is an attractive story, and one that worked well with gleevec, and a few other so-called "targeted therapies" in oncology. The only problem is that people believe the story, so they believe in the medicine.  Take a look at the popular success of the "Airbourne" dietary supplement.  There's really no scientific information available on it, but it was "designed by a teacher," who was tired of getting sick in the classroom from the germs her students brought in.  People love that story--it's appealing, so they believe in the medication.  We should balance breathless storytelling--which has its place, even in an entry about a chemical--with respect for the scientific method as the preferred way of knowing things.  I wish that the journalist from the Globe and Mail had used better judgement when reporting on the U of Alberta findings in January 2007.--Dr.michael.benjamin 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So should I change it back? Nbauman 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Michelakis was not the first to get the 'idea' for using DCA against cancer. Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals was ahead of him. Here are two patents that showed DCA used with lipoic acid where the DCA doubled the rate of tumor kill. United States Patent 6,331,559 Bingham, et al. December 18, 2001

Lipoic acid derivatives and their use in treatment of disease "... This second reagent is preferably an inhibitor of mitochondria energy metabolism and/or one that induces apoptosis. Such reagents include metabolism inhibitory reagents. Many such reagents are known in the art. One particularly preferred reagent is dichloroacetate. This second reagent may be administered sequentially, simultaneously or separately, so as to amplify patient response to said treatment method."

and an example in an earlier patent:

..."This was tested in this Example with dichloroacetate (henceforth abbreviated DCA)(8)...." ..."We find that the cells of the experimental subset are killed approximately twice as rapidly as in the control subset."... The experimental subset had DCA while the standard had the lipoic acid by itself. 142.59.53.71 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

External link
I would like to add the following link to the external links section. The article discusses other scientific studies using DCA (many of the studies are NOT referenced on Wikipedia). Many, many comments in the blogosphere reflect the belief that DCA is a cancer wonder drug and is intentionally being withheld from the medical community due to lack of patent. Indeed, many people are actively trying to obtain DCA to treat themselves or others. The article was written to try and balance that hype with existing knowledge of DCA. The article also includes links to other educated discussions (scientists and cancer researchers) regarding DCA use in cancer treatment. Wikipedia links to external pages that contain further research which is accurate and on-topic, and I believe this to be one. Comments? Wjjessen 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think the "adverse effects" section should be expanded to say something about DCA's toxicity/carcinogenicity in animal models, although the experience in human trials has not completely borne this out (and, of course, many currently used anti-cancer agents are carcinogens themselves, e.g. alkylating agents). I agree with the link's point of view, and what it has to say. My concerns would be that it appears to be self-published/a blog (I'm basing this primarily on some grammatical/diction errors which make me think an editor hasn't seen it), and we generally discourage such links - although there isn't a blanket prohibition. I'd be interested to hear others' comments. MastCell 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is interesting, and cites reputable, peer-reviewed sources, but it does seem to be a blog (it accepts comments and links to other blogs—some of my favorite blogs in fact), and blogs are a no-no under WP:RS. It also contains what could be considered an objectionable amount of advertising: besides regular Google Ads, the most recent post as of 02/26/07 actually seems to advertise a particular brand of vitamin C supplement. Any other thoughts? Fvasconcellos 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The site may appear to be a blog because it uses WordPress. However, unlike a blog (which is a chronological log of personal thoughts), the articles discuss scientific findings for a given topic. Additionally, unlike a blog and more like Wikipedia, the entries are maintained and updated when new data is published. Fvasconcellos, I don't think WP:RS applies here as the section indicates that blogs must never be used as third-party sources about living persons. Articles written about specific topics including vitamins and some supplements do include a recommendation because they come from a company that publishes their research on those products, consistent with the format of the website. I would like to point out that the DCA article that I think should be added to the external links section does not have any product recommendations. The article was written as a critical, unbiased assessment and interpretation of the research literature to supplement the information found on news sites as well as Wikipedia. Wjjessen 19:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I do find the article interesting, and it does not appear to contain any advertising. WP:RS (now superseded by/merged into WP:ATT) has gone through a flurry of edits lately, and I'm stil not acquainted with the new (?) synthesis of policy it presents, so I apologize if my objection was not relevant. My only concern about adding this link is the possibility of setting a "precedent": other editors, well-intentioned or not, may think (as I did) the site is a blog and start adding irrelevant links all over the place. That said, I do think it could be added as an external link as you asked (i.e., not used as a reference), though I'd like to hear what other editors have to say. I'd also like to thank you for discussing this on the Talk page. Fvasconcellos 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I'm going to add Dichloroacetate Research - Adverse effects reviewed at HighlightHEALTH.com to the external links section. Wjjessen 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I object. The site fails some parts of WP:EL (I object to the amount of advertising), and I am not sure if it complies with WP:A ('Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process;'; who wrote this article?).  Moreover, information of this type can be incorporated into the wikipedia, and the references cited on that page are better and more reliable than the article itself.  Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that WP:A refers to references, not external links. I agree with you that the information can be incorporated into Wikipedia. However, what I don't agree with is the inclusion of the article's interpretation of that information. An encyclopedia is impartial and objective. The difficulty with research articles is that Wikipedia has no way to assess various viewpoints in the research literature. The article does just that and takes the position that dichloroacetate is not ready for theraputic use in the treatment of cancer; it substantiates that interpretation by referencing a number of scientific studies. The article provides an interpretation of information that can be found on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia should not be the one making that interpretation. This is the reason why I believe the article should be included as an external link. Wjjessen 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a link from the Edmonton Journal, which in WP terms is a reliable source. It had a quote from a medical school professor which pointed out one of the central dangers. That should solve the problem, although it probably deserves additional discussion. Nbauman 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Need editor
I've removed this content from the article, because it isn't formatted right. Can someone familiar with WP citations work it in, please? --Mdwyer 02:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are reports that gait disturbances and peripheral neuropathy can be prevented or resolved by discontinuing the drug for ten days, or administration of a thiamine supplement:


 * Thiamine supplementation in rats: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/327
 * Large Dose, short duration in humans: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/10/526


 * Done. I may have editorialized a bit while trying to expand the paragraph, and it needs copy editing, but the refs are formatted :) Fvasconcellos 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The last reference did not support the statement "gait disturbances and peripheral neuropathy can be prevented or resolved by discontinuing the drug for ten days, or administration of a thiamine supplement". On the contrary, I found two human studies that show that peripheral neuropathy occurred with coadministration of thiamine. Additionally, I found and added one reference regarding gait disturbance. Wjjessen 04:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I didn't have access to the article. Fvasconcellos 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've seen the reference to thiamine before and had been meaning to look into it. Glad to help. Wjjessen 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-medication
I added a section on self-medication, and included a summary of the New Scientist's reporting on thedcasite.com. To anticipate any objections, I think it's important to name the site, because


 * people will find it anyway


 * people should know who's behind it -- Jim Tassano, an exterminator -- and what his potential vested interests are

In all fairness, before allegations are made as to Jim Tassano's 'potential ve$ted interests', a price comparison ought to be executed between what his site charges, and Sigma Aldrich, or a compounding pharmacy charges. At about a dollar a day, www.buyDCA.com is charging a small fraction of their price - less that a quarter actually. Jim Tassano is also a biologist and collaborated with Dr. Joseph Ryan (a PhD chemist) in synthesizing NaDCA. Libertytorch (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * this is not promoting a web site, quite the opposite


 * the fact that DCA is being promoted on the Internet is a significant part of the story


 * Wikipedia is against censorship.

If somebody is considering using DCA, they're likely to start their research with Wikipedia. I think our job is to give them all the facts and let them decide for themselves. Nbauman 16:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that giving them all the facts is important. I think that care should be taken when presenting anecdotal evidence, both for and against the treatment.  When reading the article, the only anecdotal account was from "an anonymous 48-year-old physician".  Without actual verification of the individual described, this could very well be a propaganda entity with no actual history of usage.  Could we strike that description? - Robert Rapplean 23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the New Scientist did take care in presenting anecdotal evidence -- they investigated it as thoroughly as possible, verified it where possible, and found important additional information. The New Scientist made it clear, exactly as you say, that it could be a propaganda entry with no actual usage. Why strike it? They're making your point. Isn't it better to report it, and point out your warnings, to people who have already found that site and are looking for more information on Wikipedia? The remedy for bad speech is not deletion (censorship), but good speech.


 * Now that you mention it, the entry should make it clear that there was no way of knowing that he was a doctor, and we should add that. I think the New Scientist article said so, and we can quote them as a RS. Would that be satisfactory to you?


 * I also think it's important to point out that thedcasite.com is run by Jim Tassano, the same person who runs buydca.com, which sells DCA apparently illegally, and we should not delete that. This is a conflict of interest which for some people would cast further doubt on the reliability of thedcasite.com. Some people might also be better able to judge the reliability of the site if they knew that Tassano is an exterminator.


 * If Tassano or somebody else wanted to promote DCA, and silence their critics, he might delete this section himself. Nbauman 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Robert, I've removed "anonymous" since the doc is named in the sources. I'm not sure we should name him in the article since, barring a miracle, he will eventually die from cancer. AvB &divide; talk  07:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * www.buyDCA.com is not selling DCA illegally. The site is now up and allowed to ship DCA anywhere but the US and its territories. Libertytorch (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you know www.buyDCA.com's sales are legal? They don't make that claim on their web site. Nbauman (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The FDA shut them down and have now allowed them to re-open the site for sales, with the exception of the US and its territories. Libertytorch (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But how do you know any of that is true? How do you know the FDA has allowed them to re-open their site? How do you know their sales are legal?

It was shut down July 17, 2007 and came back on-line after complying with FDA requirements (pages and pages of paperwork) April, 2008. Libertytorch (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-reports
Patient self-reports from a web forum have now been reinserted repeatedly. Self-reports from the web are in no way a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, see Reliable sources. Their inclusion violates No original research and Verifiability. In this context it does not matter if another source has cited them. Please read those official Wikipedia policies and refrain from adding that content back. Thanks, Cacycle 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point about the reason for including that section in the entry, Cacycle.


 * DCA is an unsafe drug and it is unlikely to cure anyone's cancer without years of clinical research. We're not promoting its use -- just the opposite.


 * However, it is being heavily promoted and sold on the Internet. The New Scientist wasn't promoting the use of DCA in this article either; rather, they were explaining the dangers and the way it's being promoted. The doctor's account is not verifiable in the way a scientific report would be verifiable; that's the point the New Scientist was making. These are the unreliable claims that people make. This is like writing an entry about laetrile.


 * In my reading, Verifiability allows us to report the claims that people make about DCA. How can you refute false claims and rumors without saying what they are?


 * I wish you would discuss this first here in Talk rather than getting into a revert war. Nbauman 04:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a huge difference between reporting about ongoing self-administration and citing them in an extensive and detailed fashion (including dosages). Details about these self-experiments are neither verifiable nor reliable and as such not encyclopedic. Cacycle 06:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What about Baby Gender Mentor? Nbauman 09:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good example. It illustrates why Reliable sources, No original research and Verifiability are the basis for including this information rather than a reason to delete it. There is a huge difference between WP editors citing a patient forum and citing the New Scientist's extensive, balanced coverage of the entire subject, which addressed both the majority (scientific status quo) and minority (self-treatment) viewpoints. AvB &divide; talk  13:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I agree that the 15mg paragraph should not be in the article. AvB &divide; talk  13:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the diff-views are confusing, here is the objected content (can be removed later):


 * At least eight contributors to the chatroom claimed to be taking DCA or giving it to a close relative, including a 48-year-old physician with a cancer that had spread from his thigh to his lungs. The physician started taking DCA on 27 February, but was disappointed after the lung tumors grew larger and more active. On 21 March he stopped taking DCA because of adverse effects, but the adverse effects continued to develop, and on 24 March he developed numbness in his hands, which he believed were a sign of neuropathy, and a hypoglycemic attack. He advises people not to medicate except under medical supervision. Other self-medicated patients have reported dramatic responses of their cancer to DCA. Many have used doses 15mg/kg/day or lower in order to minimize side-effects, and, that lower dosage seems effective both in minimizing side-effects and in causing tumor reduction. Some have experienced tumor lysis syndrome due to the effectiveness of DCA in killing the cancer. Tumor lysis syndrome is very dangerous and requires urgent medical attention. All these data are anecdotal and are not part of formal clinical trials. The chat participants were swapping tips on how to get DCA, how to prepare it for human consumption, and what supplements they should be taking to minimise side effects, according to the New Scientist.

These are the relevant Wikipedia policies:

Verifiability - Sources of questionable reliability:


 * "In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves."

A web forum has definitely no fact checking in place. Additionally, self reports have inherently no fact checking in place. When a non-scientific (in the sense of missing peer-review) magazine quotes from the forum and/or the person that wrote that posting, there is no fact checking in place (beside possible establishing that an author exists). A magazine follows other rules for inclusion of sources than an encyclopedia does.

Wikipedia:Verifiability - Self-published sources (online and paper):


 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. (...) Self-published sources, such as blogs, should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."

The content in question presented a forum poster as a reputable expert (a physician) and cited his medical advice.

Wikipedia:Verifiability - Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves:


 * "Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as: (...) * it is not contentious; (...) * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it."''

The content is contentious and there is doubt about who wrote it on the web forum. That a magazine might have checked his identity is irrelevant, we have no information if and to what extent.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples - In science, avoid citing the popular press:


 * "(...) Also, newspapers and magazines frequently publish articles about scientific results before those results have been peer-reviewed or reproduced by other experimenters. They also tend not to report adequately on the methodology of scientific work, or the degree of experimental error. Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not reliable sources for science and medicine articles."

Wikipedia:No_original_research - What is excluded?


 * "(...) Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. (...)

That web forum postings are cited in a magazine does not make the cited content encyclopedic and includes no fact checking.

I am in neither against reporting the ongoing self-medications nor am I against a critical appraisal or linking to the article. I object to the unnecessary and unencyclopedic detail and the cited medical advice. Your motives might be noble, but we must adhere to the existing guidelines to make this a better article. Cacycle 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what you seem to think, I (for one) am not against discussing the amount of detail or space given to the minority viewpoint, or against deleting medical advice. I only object to your repeated deletions of consensus material and especially to the reasons you gave in your edit summaries and repeated above. But the discussion you're proposing now sounds like a plan (although I do not think we should write a critical appraisal; that's OR and the reason why we need sources such as the New Scientist).
 * If I understand you correctly, I would describe your problems with the disputed text as mainly WP:WEIGHT issues. Have you read the articles in question? They did not simply cite the forum but provided a balanced account of the status quo both scientifically and societally. I'm sure we can come up with a concise text here. AvB &divide; talk  19:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cacyle, let's take your "medical advice" objection.


 * I didn't see anything in the quote from New Scientist that I considered medical advice.


 * I don't consider general statements by doctors that it is dangerous to take a particular drug, because it is untested, to be medical advice in the Wikipedia sense.


 * What is the specific medical advice quoted from the New Scientist that you object to? Nbauman 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, reports from a web forum are being inserted into this article about a medication. I do not see see how this could adhere to WP:RS or to WP:V.  There may well be questions raised in the future by these selfreports, and unfortunately the source is just not reliable.  If there are real concerns about DCA as a pharmaceutical agent, then a reliable source is needed. If a reliable source cannot be found, then I doubt the information should be in the article. - Dozenist  talk  19:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question, but I'll respond to your objection anyway.


 * A reporter for the New Scientist read that web chat and didn't simply repeat what he saw -- he went to considerable lengths to verify it, by speaking with independent experts, etc. The editorial staff of the New Scientist, which has more PhDs than a lot of university biology departments, also reviewed it and checked it out. So they do have fact-checking in place.


 * The New England Journal of Medicine has published letters to the editor about heart attacks and deaths from athletes who took ephedra.


 * Do you accept a letter to the NEJM as a reliable source? If so, why not accept the report in the New Scientist, which was vetted at least as well as the NEJM letter?


 * One of the problems with complementary and alternative medicine is that you can't always find out about dangerous products through normal peer-reviewed channels. If you get the truth out, as best as you can and as fast as you can, you can save lives. If you conceal the best available truth, people will die. By the time the journal articles are written, the problem will be long over. That's why I think this New Scientist story is sufficiently reliable for these purposes. It's the best we've got, it's pretty good, and the alternative is to ignore it. Nbauman 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please specifically address my objections against Wikipedia policies from above. I have never objected against referring to that article in general. Also: journalistic source checking is not the scientific fact checking that we require here. That a magazine article cites from self-report from from a web forum does not make a self-report or a web forum reliable sources. Cacycle 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * journalistic source checking is not the scientific fact checking that we require here. -> We only require scientific fact-checking when publishing scientific information as the majority viewpoint.
 * That a magazine article cites from self-report from from a web forum does not make a self-report or a web forum reliable sources. No one is arguing that it does. AvB &divide; talk  11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You quoted WP:RS above, "Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." This article deals with, among other things, the web site itself. So it should be an acceptable use of a web site in a Wikipedia entry. Nbauman 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Court judgments on unapproved pharmaceuticals
The article says "The Supreme Court of the United States has made a decision that dying cancer patients have a right to procure unapproved pharmaceuticals." I can't find a reference for this; a ReligionLink article (possibly biased of course, but I'm only using it as a basic summary not as a true reference) says it was reheard by the D.C. Court of Appeals in March 2007, which seems to make it unlikely that it would have made it as far as SCOTUS, and FindLaw doesn't list it among that court's recent opinions. Could somebody with a better grip on US law than I please add a reference and/or correct the claim of which court is involved? Colin Watson 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such Supreme Court case. If you believe that, try smoking marijuana. There's an federal appeals court case  brought by the Abigail Alliance. I don't think that statement is from the New Scientist article, and it's confused for more reasons than I have time to explain. I would delete it. Nbauman 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought it seemed bogus. Deleted. Colin Watson 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Medcor links
(I am moving this message from my talk page to here which is where the discussion should be. Nbauman (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

I agree that the links to Medicor are duplicates, but by leaving them in the External Links section, it would be much easier for someone with cancer to find a doctor who will prescribe and monitor them while taking DCA. Time is an issue for someone with cancer, and self-medication is not the preferred choice here. Thanks for your understanding. Libertytorch (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read the discussion in Talk above, you'll see that Wikipedia doesn't give people medical advice, or refer people to medical services, or promote commercial organizations. So it's a violation of many WP policies, including WP:SPAM, to include that link. If they want to find Medicor, they can find it from the article, and including it as a separate link is promoting Medicor.


 * Furthermore, I don't think it's good to help or encourage cancer patients to go to Medicor. If you read the links to articles about Medicor, you'll see that Akbar Khan has been uniformly condemned by every outside doctor who has an opinion, including the developers of DCA, as engaging in unethical medical practices because he is using an untested, unproven medication outside of clinical trials. And he's not an oncologist, so he's not competent to treat cancer patients. If Khan was an ethical doctor who was primarily interested in saving lives, he would have written up his results in a useful report and published it in a peer-reviewed journal, and he hasn't done so. I will give him credit for a partial report in which he said that half of his patients had died at that earlier time, although he doesn't give enough details in his report to be useful in evaluating DCA.


 * This is an irresponsible treatment that is condemned by doctors and more likely to do harm than good.


 * If desperate cancer patients, even after they've been informed about that, insist on making foolish decisions and throwing away their money, then I reluctantly believe that they have a right to do so.


 * But it's a violation of WP policies to promote Medicor by singling them out in a separate external link. You'll see in talk above that the consensus is against it. In fact the consensus came down more strongly than I do. The consensus was not to include any links at all to DCA suppliers. Nbauman (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies for not following proper protocol in discussing this - I'm new here - sorry. I was surprised though that you removed both the link I added, and one for Medicor that had been added in External Links April 18th 2008 by Marcelo1229. No complaints had been logged about that link being up.

For the record, Dr. Michelakis is also not an oncologist, he is a cardiologist - yet he is heading up the clinical trials at the U of A. DCA is not a cytotoxic drug and does not carry the same risks as other chemo drugs do Toxicological Review of DCA. Elevated liver enzymes and peripheral neuropathy are the well documented side effects. Compare that with common side effects of any chemo drug. Chemotherapy Drug Manual including risks of secondary cancers.

Interesting that all of the money for the clinical trials came from private donation, rather than pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Michelakis filed the use patent application 2 years before he went public with his findings. If this drug were patentable, cancer patients would be using it already - I've talked to people in his trial. This is the root of the controversy surrounding DCA's use - money - not safety/efficacy.

Dr. Khan has been condemned for prescribing DCA ahead of the clinical trials, but people with cancer who have exhausted all other treatment cannot wait a couple years for these results. In such a situation, is it more wrong for a physician to offer an experimental treatment, or withhold such and send people home to die? Should fear of professional censure be a doctor's reason for providing or withholding treatment? Stage I of the clinical trials for DCA were skipped because the drug is relatively safe. Here is a quote directly from the U of A's website, "Also, because DCA has been used in both healthy people and sick patients with mitochondrial diseases, researchers already know that it is a relatively non-toxic molecule that can be immediately tested patients with cancer." U of A DCA Website

I'll leave the link alone. Libertytorch (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Polevoy removal
I just removed the paragraph that talks about Terry Polevoy's objections to the off label use of DCA. As far as I can tell, Polevoy is not known as an expert in the field of oncology, medical ethics, medical oversight, or any similar field. Only 2 sources were provided. One is a good, reliable source (canada.com, a part of Postmedia News), but it doesn't provide any rationale for quoting Polevoy specifically, and his opinion very clearly comes off as a personal one, given that the organization he says should take away Khan's license completely rejects his call for action. The other source was Polevoy's website itself. Thus, I think including that information there is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. While it is common for newspapers to randomly quote this or that doctor to get alternative opinions, this does not make those doctor's opinions noteworthy enough to appear in our articles, as we govern the inclusion of information by stricter standards. If anyone disagrees with the removal, please let me know here; if anyone reverts me I won't re-revert unless we get a clear consensus to remove (our outside input indicating as such). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Added info about misreporting
Hi, I added a section to this page to flag up some of the misreporting that's taken place on certain blogs over the last few days, which has let to a lot of confusion/error on Twitter and other social media channels. HenryScow (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that all of your sources, including those that dispel the mistakes, seem to be from blogs. Do you have an reliable sources that verify that 1) these blog mistakes are actually notable and 2) what the correct information is?  Without that, the section should probably come out. We're not here to correct mistakes people get from reading unreliable blogs. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just checked the sources. Scientifically illiterate blogger copies a scare headline from another scientifically illiterate blogger. I don't think that meets WP:WEIGHT. If somebody doesn't come up with a good reason to keep it in within the next 24 hours, I think it should go out. --Nbauman (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I see where you're coming from, but two things - firstly, does this count as a reliable source? and secondly, although I admittedly have a massive conflict of interest here (I work for them), I wouldn't necessarily describe the Cancer Research UK blog as an unreliable source! Just because its on Wordpress doesn't mean it's unreliable - that 'blog' has won awards! :) Also, our web traffic (and New Scientist's) on relevant content over the last few days has certainly been 'notable!! HenryScow (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Final point - a BBC-owned Twitter feed also 'reported' it - highly unusual and somewhat alarming HenryScow (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The New Scientist blog seems to be borderline RS, and the Cancer Research UK looks good. But that brings us back to Nbauman's point: is the fact that a bunch of blogs got the story wrong, and then were corrected, important enough to the core subject matter of DCA to warrant inclusion here?  In other words, it seems to give too much weight to the false reports, which, after all, were just blogs.  I'm on the fence.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to the New Scientist and I think they also said the same thing in their printed edition. If not, the New Scientist blog should satisfy WP:RS as a blog from a magazine that is a WP:RS.
 * The Respectful Insolence blog, which the New Scientist blog cited, has a good writeup. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/dichloroacetate_dca_and_cancer_deja_vu_a.php If this can be justified as a WP:RS I'd like to put it in. But it is an anonymous blog.
 * This is a complicated story, there's lots to tell, and most of it is more important than the detail that a blogger who couldn't even get her dates right got the rest of the story wrong too. --Nbauman (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Henry and others for taking time to correct misconceptions. The very fact that this discussion is here on the Talk page means that anyone who tries to add the misconception about the Alberta research here on WP will see it refuted. Whether to include a paragraph on the misconception is difficult, but my feeling is that the article is about the topic, not about misconceptions about the topic, unless those misconceptions get very large-scale and get significant mainstream media coverage. Otherwise, articles could be bloated with misconceptions (no shortage of mainstream media errors on scientific topics). Deciding the notability of a misconception is a contentious question on Wikipedia. I think it's crucial that the article get clear that there weren't new unreported data, without necessarily getting into what people wrongly claimed. How about describing the paper as reporting the "final results" of the trial? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Side Effects
I think there is an error in the statement "Short-term, infused, bolus doses of DCA at 50 mg/kg/day have been well-tolerated.[41] However, at sustained, higher doses(generally 25 mg/kg/day taken orally, or greater), there is increased risk of several reversible toxicities...", since 25 is less than 50, not higher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.166.125 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't necessarily a contradiction because the 50 mg/kg/day refers to short-term use, and the 25 dose refers to "sustained" use. It would not be unusual for the the safe dose of a drug for short term use to be higher than the safe dose for long term use.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The passage is comparing two different delivery methods, therefore the dosages can't really be directly compared. 25 mg/kg/day taken orally could quite possibly end up as a higher dosage actually taken up by the body than 50 mg/kg/day delivered from a slow-release bolus. I'm also having some difficulty finding anything in source 40 that supports the statements in the second sentence of this excerpt. It mentions nothing about dosage or the toxicities/side effects mentioned. "DCA is generally well-tolerated, even in children.[41] Short-term, infused, bolus doses of DCA at 50 mg/kg/day have been well-tolerated.[42] However, at sustained, higher doses(generally 25 mg/kg/day taken orally, or greater), there is increased risk of several reversible toxicities, especially peripheral neuropathy, neurotoxicity, and gait disturbance.[40][43]" -- 128.163.195.218 (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the free link to the pubmed document for those without a subscription
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567082/ I know this is a very controversial article and my edits will probably get reverted, so if there are any admins who want to take a look at this article, it is the "gold standard" of medical research for all intents and purposes. It is peer reviewed, and of highly encyclopedic quality. 67.77.168.127 (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Patented?
The question is, has DCA been patented for use as an anti-cancer drug?

The answer, as far as I can tell, is "no", which is why I removed a sentence at the end of the "Planned and ongoing clinical trials" subsection which stated that "The use of this compound as an anti-cancer agent has been patented." The statement cited a dead link, and upon further investigation, though it was clear that multiple applications had been filed, I was unable to ascertain the truth of this statement. However, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about patent law to bring a decisive judgment to this question, which is why I ask that someone more knowledgeable examine the issue briefly.

The most straightforward source of information I came across was this page on the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) website. It states that the national status of this patent application in the United States was "Published" in May of 2009 under the number 11911299. Similarly, the European Patent Office lists the legal status of Michelakis' application as "entered into national phase" in only the US and Canada.

A search of the US Patent Application Information Retrieval system reveals that this application (number 11911299) was rejected in May of 2011, following which an appeal was filed in November of the same year.

A search of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office suggests that a patent has not yet been issued in Canada either. I understand that the patent process in Canada is much slower than in the US.

Thus, answering the question of whether or not this patent has been granted is complicated by a) the bureaucratic mess that is intrinsic to intellectual property law and b) the fact that some databases seem to provide out-of-date information (such as WIPO and EPO with regards to the status of the US patent application). Therefore, investigation of this matter by someone more familiar with the patent process would be appreciated. Victor of Gaugamela (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In the  {{Cite patent|  template, the number= parameter has to be just numbers (e.g. no commas). I made that change and reverted Victor of Gaugamela's good faith edit. If someone more familar with the patent process wants to show that the citation is bad, please do so. Lentower (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Update 2013-14
It would be nice if someone would update the article with a new information. Dmatteng (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

**Concerns about pre-trial use**
I checked the sources that were linked and I quote: "DCA treatment caused significant apoptosis under normoxia in SW480 and Caco-2 cells, but these cells displayed decreased apoptosis when treated with DCA combined with hypoxia"

So this actually says that DCA was detrimental when it was combined with oxygen deprivation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.110.113 (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits of December 23 2014
I have removed about 2/3's of the content of the article as it was based on
 * Animal and in vitro studies, in violation of WP:MEDANIMAL, and
 * Case reports, other primary literature references, and popular media reports, in violation of WP:MEDRS

I searched for, and was unable to find, high quality secondary sources that would justify the detailed discussion of early phase research results previously found in this article.

I urge anyone who disagrees with this decision to review WP:MEDRS in detail to better understand Wikipedia's standards for inclusion of health-related content. We are not here to provide publicity for the latest medical breakthroughs or to publicize promising areas of future research. We report only material that is presented in high quality, third party review papers published in peer reviewed journals. Campaigning for greater awareness of and more research into whatever potential dichloroacetate may have as a cancer therapy is better handled through other outlets. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * An IP editor invited me (on my user talk page) to comment here. In general, I endorse Formerly 98's edits to remove material that was not well-supported by high-quality secondary sources (per MEDRS) or which was repetitive.  In particular, the content and tone of the text promoting the use of DCA as a cancer therapy was extremely problematic.
 * I might be inclined to add back in the information about DCA's role as a likely carcinogen, as that information is sourced to reputable organizations (EPA, CEPA, ACA). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

IP Editor: I see then. So Wikipedia has a "higher standard" of referencing medical literature than he National Library of Medicine / Pubmed? Very interesting. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.66.225 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It serves a different role. Encylopedias summarize what is known about an area, and are not intended to be comprehensive. If you will read WP:MEDRS, you will see that the editors who have built this encyclopedia have by consensus decided not to include early stage research results including case reports and primary research reports in medical articles. This is in part because such results are often not reproducible or suggest linkages that are due to chance only.
 * If you think it should be different, go over to the WP:MEDRS talk page and try to convince the other editors there to change the rules. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Most unfortunate that medical sections of Wikipedia have been hijacked by an Old Boys Club. We need fresh thinking in medicine, since the old ways of cancer therapy still work poorly like they did 30 years ago. Didn't Einstein say that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?" That's what we have today with toxic chemotherapy being the mainstay of cancer therapy. By limiting the dissemination of new concepts to the world, you are doing the public a disservice. I am sure you think you are protecting the public against questionable publications, but your need to open your eyes to new concepts, and stop suppressing knowledge, and stop thinking you are better than the people who run NLM/Pubmed. Anyway, there are other ways to get the message out. I see the same type of Old Boys Club has written Dr. Burzynski's page too. Hmm, not one positive thing to say? What about references to independent publications (real clinical trials!) that show sodium phenylbutyrate actually works as a cancer therapy? If someone posts those, will you remove them too? (No need to answer, that was a rhetorical question) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.66.225 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can rest assured that if anyone posts that phenylbutyrate, bee venom, laetrile, or the powdered eyebrows of an 84 year old virgin cures cancer based on anecdotal evidence, animal data, or studies performed in a test tube, I will delete that in about the same amount of time it takes me to delete first hand reports of alien abduction. And in the one in a thousand chance that one or more randomized, double blind clinical trials demonstrates that phenylbutyrate, laetrile, or bee venom significantly extends the lives of people with cancer, and there is evidence of widespread acceptance that the trial was properly conducted and the results are reliable, I will be the first one to write an article here about it.
 * I'd suggest that if you want to be this opinionated, that you work a little harder to become more informed. And to better understand what the NLM is and what its criteria for acceptance of papers into Pubmed are.  Formerly 98 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

IP Editor: So "rhetorical question" has no meaning to you. OK. I only have 3 words: "Old Boys Club!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.194.14 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)