I read about that last week. DCA? something acetate... whatever.. Apparently it works like most other chemotherapies but it doesn't harm healthy cells.. So far they've only seen that reaction in lab rats that had human cancers so the clinical trials (a requirement before it can be used by the general public) will have to be done.. and those cost an arm and a leg. Personally if I had cancer I'd be drowning myself in the stuff.. at 2$ a pop it shouldn't be hard to find an iliicit source for it.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Consider the nuclear industry. It's not giant explosions that we fear, it's radiation and toxic waste. Why? They cause cancer. Imagine a world where a simple inoculation or a handful of pills wold make it entirely safe to live next door to a nuclear waste site. Free energy forever would be the dream, one that might come true.

While an interesting thought experiment, your approach is not entirely true. Radioactivity has different negative effects, of which cancer is only the most feared. Radiation can lead to radiantion poisoning in high doses, but even small doses can e.g. irreparably damage the DNA, thus making you sterile.
Thus, even after a cure for cancer, nuclear waste would still be hazardous.

Wow Logan, that is one of the most twisted things I have read in a while.  

Cancer is not the reason we clean up toxic waste or fear nuclear weapons.  

Look people drive cars and honestly want to prevent the nasty emissions for many reasons.  Cancer is seldom cited as one of the reasons.  People clean up toxic waste not just because of cancer, but because it is TOXIC and can kill or destroy the habitat.  People fear nuclear weapons because they are the ultimate Earth destroyer.  It isn't the cancer per se, but everything.  And while people do fear and hate cancer, so many smoke cigarettes and live unhealthy lifestyles, risking their lives.  

I am not going to believe that cancer brings so much good to the world.  Right now, my only brother is battling cancer.  The sooner cancer is defeated the better.  

Wither cancer?  Whither cancer.

In a world where cancer is a treatable disease, some other health concern would take its place. People who smoke would be less likely to die of lung cancer, and more likely to die of heart debilitation and respiratory disorders. That trend will continue until medicine solves all seven morbidity problems*. After that, it'll be "all airbags, all the time," as death by stupidity becomes the number one concern.

* The seven, in brief: cell death without replacement; cell component death without replacement; DNA transcription error; abnormal cell reproduction; energy transfer among cells; energy transfer within cells; toxin removal. All cancers fall under "abnormal cell reproduction."

I have no clue about the validity of the claims for the drug, but it's clearly worth a good look.  Silly question: why aren't doctors prescribing DCA off-label for otherwise untreatable cases?  DCA's already approved for use in humans to treat lactic acidosis, so in theory any doctor who wanted to could prescribe it as a "hail Mary" treatment if nothing else.  If your patient's going to die anyway and is amenable to the attempt, why not?  If it fails, you've at least got data; if it succeeds, you've saved a life for pocket change. (I ask mainly because DCA sounds a lot more plausible than some of the wacky crap an aunt of mine who died in 2005 tried.)

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?