Mordecai Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 No it isn't (if we're being specific as to what I'm talking about, which is specifically the claim that they have cured cancer).My issue was more the line of reasoning, "There are no clinical trials; therefore, there is no basis..." The lack of clinical trials doesn't mean you don't have a basis for an argument. To say it's a cure may be an overstatement. However, it seems to be cure-ish. All cancer cells have the mitochondrial issue in common, and that is the operative path for DCA. Regardless of the fact that there are many different types of cancer, all cancer is cancer, so all cancers must have things in common. In this case, DCA looks promising as something cure-ish, as its effect seems like it could be a universal treatment.It is a simple fact that they have not cured cancer.That's not a simple fact. It may be, somewhat accurately, called, "a cure." To say it's THE cure would be taking it too far, though. "While these results are intriguing, it is unlikely that this one compound represents “the cure” for cancer – and it is also unlikely that DCA is the “wonder drug” that the headlines portray. Cancer is a complex and multi-faceted disease, and it can be caused by a range of different faults within the cell. It is unlikely that any single drug could ever treat all forms of the disease."Unlikely, sure. But possible. In this case, it may be on the right track. Perhaps with advancements with the use of DCA, the substance itself or possibly the means by which it attacks cancer can result in the cure. This is a massive breakthrough, IMO. Link to comment
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.