me. 61, DX 4/17 Stage 4,
I'm Taking
1. Pure Graviola
2. Green Tea Complex
3. Sulforaphan (alternating with Broccomax)
4. Tumeric
AND NOW THINKING OF ADDING 5-LOXIN
**DOES ANYONE THINK THIS SOUNDS GOOD? BAD? UGLY?
I TAKE TWO OF EACH...ONE IN THE MORNING WITH BREAKFAST AND ONE AT 4PM WITH A SNACK.
p.s. "I feel like a cat on a hot tin roof"
~~John
I take all except graviola and sulforaphan, --used to take sulforaphan, not sure why I stopped, why do you alternate betweem sulphoraphan and and broccomax?
joe
well...they are both "broccoli" things...and I thought I'd take one of each...just for variety...LOL. It really is "grasping for straws"..so I'm trying to grasp in all directions. Do you take the 5-Loxin? I've read it's a "miracle elixir"...LOL.. Just ordered it on Ebay and will add it to my "mystical regimen" soon.
The only one of those that I know has some actual proof supporting it is sulforaphane (if it is cold-extracted). I haven't seen any studies suggesting the others may be unsafe, so perhaps they may just give you expensive pee. You should be aware that it is well established that your body uses oxidation to kill cancer cells, and interfering with that by taking certain "antioxidants" or "free radical absorbers" may give your cancer free rein. But if that is a risk you are willing to take, it is up to you to decide.
Hi Tall_Allen
What are the certain "Antioxidants" you are refering to?
Antioxidants that interfere with the generation of "reactive oxygen species" that is the single most important defence your body has in fighting cancer. Here's a quote essay from Jim Watson, one of the top cancer researchers:
"22. Free-radical-destroying antioxidative nutritional supplements may have caused more cancers than they have prevented
"For as long as I have been focused on the understanding and curing of cancer (I taught a course on Cancer at Harvard in the autumn of 1959), well-intentioned individuals have been consuming antioxidative nutritional supplements as cancer preventatives if not actual therapies. The past, most prominent scientific proponent of their value was the great Caltech chemist, Linus Pauling, who near the end of his illustrious career wrote a book with Ewan Cameron in 1979, Cancer and Vitamin C, about vitamin C's great potential as an anti-cancer agent [52]. At the time of his death from prostate cancer in 1994, at the age of 93, Linus was taking 12 g of vitamin C every day. In light of the recent data strongly hinting that much of late-stage cancer's untreatability may arise from its possession of too many antioxidants, the time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer.
"All in all, the by now vast number of nutritional intervention trials using the antioxidants β-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium have shown no obvious effectiveness in preventing gastrointestinal cancer nor in lengthening mortality [53]. In fact, they seem to slightly shorten the lives of those who take them. Future data may, in fact, show that antioxidant use, particularly that of vitamin E, leads to a small number of cancers that would not have come into existence but for antioxidant supplementation. Blueberries best be eaten because they taste good, not because their consumption will lead to less cancer."
rsob.royalsocietypublishing...
Disagree on your end result. This article contains.no actual evidence speculation. First of a definitive study is needed. Secondly there are a series of meta-analyses already done demonstrating no harms and trend yo benegit. Another says may be a problem, but again simply speculating. I sm the founder of all-volunteer nonprofit Annie Appleseed Project. We provide evidence around natural cancer strategies. Big Pharma has no interest in.mpn-patentable substances or protocols. Most studies focus on active elements rather than the whole, or combinations of items, unfortunately.
That article is written by Jim Watson, Nobel laureate, co-discoverer of the double helix of DNA, and one of the foremost cancer biochemists. He was a professor at Harvard and Cold Springs Harbor Laboratories, and chairman of the Human Genome Project. If you scroll to the end, there are 55 footnotes of peer-reviewed studies published in professional journals to back up his assertions. He certainly has many ridiculous opinions, but his molecular biology is solid.
In my reply to George71 (below) I showed the high level of evidence that show that for some of these highly touted supplements they at best do nothing, and at worst may make the cancer worse.
As with all drugs, it is up to the drug pusher (whether a supplement manufacturer or a pharmaceutical company) to prove efficacy and safety. Those who tout "natural cancer strategies" must understand that Nature is not always good to us, nor is it always bad. It just is the given that we have to deal with. I agree, however, that the whole person must be taken into account when dealing with disease.
This is nonsense. If you are going to make incredible claims, provide some credible evidence.
They are not "incredible claims." See response to George71 below. Isn't the burden of proof on drug pushers?
The burden of proof is on those who make incredibly broad claims without a scintilla of evidence. See for example the list of 49 clinical trials involving prostate cancer that included "dietary supplement" as part of the intervention.
clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resu...
Your response to George71 shows a fundamental misunderstanding. "The highest level of evidence is a large, prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT), especially if it is replicated. That is the only kind of evidence capable of providing proof of cause and effect. "
Balderdash. RCTs are inherently incapable of proving cause and effect. A well designed RCT can demonstrate a correlation between treatments and outcomes, but correlation is not causation.
RCTs are required with ineffective treatments; you need a lot of samples for a treatment that helps only 3 or 4% of men.
Find an RCT for appendectomy, or parachutes. There aren't any, because you don't need an RCT when the treatment is effective.
A thorough debunking of RCT-idolatry was provided by Dr. Hickey and Roberts in Tarnished Gold: The Sickness of Evidence-based Medicine
amazon.com/Tarnished-Gold-S...
RCTs are ONE kind of evidence among many. Like all kinds of evidence, they have strong points and weak points.
In vitro studies provide valuable evidence and clues about how treatments might work. Mouse and other models also help understand the disease. Non-randomized trials are sometimes necessary because of ethical or practical limitations. Notes from clinicians provide evidence from people who concentrate on treating patients rather than begging for grants and writing papers.
We need all the help we can get, and ignoring most of the available information seems like a pretty bad strategy to me.
Once you step out of evidence-based medicine, you are in quicksand. I agree that many kinds of studies are valuable, but only RCTs prove cause and effect - how could anyone possibly know what would have happened if there is no control group to compare a treatment to? I'm not suggesting we ignore all the other studies - in fact, lower levels of evidence is all we may ever have for certain therapies. I AM saying that when a study with a higher level of evidence contradicts one of lower quality evidence, we go with the better study.
When one can't get an RCT to prove causality, the evidence for a treatment must have other qualities, called the "Bradford Hill" checklist. It doesn't prove causality, but can give us more confidence if we have to make a decision based on less than Level 1 evidence. The factors that ought to be considered are:
• Strength of Association (larger associations are more likely (but not necessarily) causal)
• Consistency of Data (independent studies all lead to the same conclusion)
• Specificity (a very specific population is differentially affected)
• Temporality (the effect has to occur after the cause)
• Biological gradient (too some extent, more drug leads to more effect)
• Plausibility (one can come up with a plausible explanation)
• Coherence (lab studies demonstrate a plausible mechanism for the observed effect)
• Experiment (has the effect been prevented by modifying the cause)
• Analogy (similar factors may be considered)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
It's not an either/or proposition. There are no "higher" levels of studies - that is a belief system, not science.
Science takes in all the evidence, from all sources. A theory that can explain all the available evidence is more likely to be correct than one that must cherry-pick from the types of evidence the proponents like. The cherry-picking approach is not science.
The factors cited in the PMC article are valid, but all of them apply to all kinds of studies, not just RCTs.
RCTs never prove cause and effect. The R stands for random - it is necessary because there are so many other confounding factors. All that any random trial can do is provide enough statistical power to resolve treatments that work some of the time, for some patients, from treatments that work a little bit less often.
Even then the confidence limits are such that spurious outcomes due to correlation and randomness are a serious concern. A typical p = 0.05 means that 1 in 20 study conclusions were caused by random variations, not fact, not cause and effect. How many RCTs are there? Throw out 5% of them - but which 5%?
Then lift up the covers and find an entire world of shoddy studies with fat fingers on the scale. The cohorts in the Provenge RCTs were adjusted during the study - a classic symptom of cherry picking data. The controls in the Provenge study died a lot more often than most men in similar conditions. That had the effect of making the drug look more effective than it was. It also made the company a boatload of money because it got FDA approval.
Provenge certainly works - in some men, some of the time. The RCT that was used to gain FDA approval was deeply flawed. Any study can be flawed. But we still use Provenge because some of us (with consultation from our doctors) conclude the potential benefits outweigh the considerable risks.
That exact same decision making process - balancing potential benefits against possible harms - applies to supplements, to alternative medicine, and to conventional treatments. Lots of medicine gets done without RCTs - they are expensive, slow, and often too late to be helpful.
RCTs are certainly a valuable contribution to the problem, but the lack of an RCT is most certainly not a basis for dismissing a potential treatment. If it were, hundreds of thousands of men would not have been offered surgery, radiation, chemo, or ADT. Those therapies were in use for decades before RCTs on their effectiveness were completed.
There is a hierarchy. Not all studies are alike. Some are better than others. There is general agreement among scientists about this. All the major medical associations, journals, and universities agree. If you want to stand outside- that is up to you, but everyone will tell you you are misguided. Hey - maybe you're right and it's everyone else who's wrong and you'll have the last laugh. But for now, you're a Flat Earther.
There are flaws in many studies. But that doesn't mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater. In fact the standard Oxford system has two parts - a level of evidence and a grade based on how good the study is. I agree that we often have to make decisions without RCTs. But when we have them, they are the prime source of knowledge because nothing else can prove causation. What's more, even if there is a suggestion that a drug is harmful - we walk away - who in his right mind would take such a risk for a questionable benefit? That's why most drug studies are abandoned based on Phase 2 (small and usually non-randomized) clinical trials.
John, take a look at Cancer Control - the new Protocol, by Steven Evans. A lot of it is nonsense, as he is anti doctor, but he has interesting and well documented information about supplements. It’s a free download. Also look at Your Health Matters, Nutrition and Prostate Cancer, from ucsfhealth.org. This one is only about food.but very good.
I've struggled with the whole diet/supplement aspect of my life since being diagnosed with prostate cancer. There is so much conficting information and advice out there.
Here is my regimen: 12 scoops of IP6 powder in water on an empty stomach in divided doses two times a day. You must read Dr. AKM SHAMSUDDIN’s book “IP6 and Inositol” about his cancer research at Univ. Of MD. 2- A single dose of Beta Glucan three capsules of 500 mg, on an empty stomach. Always taken with vitamin C and Resveratrol. following Dr. Vaclav Vetvicka’s protocol. Read his text and you will learn he uses Tranfer Point’s beta 1, 3-D Glucan in his research. I also take 9 grams of turmeric, 6 grams of berberine, 8 grams of European milk thistle with isosylybin A and B. I don’t take take berberine and turmeric at the same time. I am76, G 8, 6 years since diagnosis as stage 4 with 2 bone Mets now gone. For the past 6 years I have been on Lupron. For the first 3 was also on Casodex.
My PSA for the past 7 months has been a consistent 0.06
CalBear74
I should have mentioned I am now a vegan following diet advice found at nutrition facts.org. Go through the videos on prostate cancer and the ones on “phytate” (aka IP6 or Inositol hexaphosphate).
Eat lots of pasta sauce and take cayenne pills to mix with all that lycopene.
Calbear74
GJ,
there was a study posted up here about Docs who did an analysis of 1000's of supplements for an effect against PCa and came up with Ursolic Acid (cranberry extract and apple peel extract), Resveratrol, Pterostilbene, and Curcumin. I think they were right.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/213...
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/204...
Gus
There have been many studies and doctors that support supplements based on research.
youtube.com/watch?v=kltZ0qB...
tall allen – said -- "Doctor Snuffy Myers and Dr. Bob's opinion is no better than yours – both lack the level of evidence necessary to make an informed judgment".
According to tall allen, the DOCTORS “lack the level of evidence [that tall allen has] necessary to make an informed judgment”. According to tall allen, tall allen is more qualified to determine these things than the Doctors are.
I disagree with tall allen – tall allen is not a doctor - can not legally prescribe treatment – and should not be telling others to follow tall allen’s advise over Doctor Snuffy Myers and Dr. Bob.
I’m sure the renowned, famous and highly esteemed, Doctor Snuffy Myers and Doctor Bob who each have 30 years experience and have treated thousands of patients in their practices, know a lot more about this than tall allen does.
I'm going to trust the doctor’s opinion, research and experience over tall allen’s on this one.
I know all the FDA approved pharmaceuticals @ $1000 per shot are all good and perfectly safe when taken as prescribed BUT - We’ve had 5 oncology doctors specializing in prostate cancer (2 with M D Anderson) tell us that ADT (the mainstay, cornerstone drug after 50 years and billions of donated dollars given to big pharma) does not extend life – makes the cancer more virulent (usually within 2 years) and has been shown to increase chances of heart disease, bone loss and irreversible dementia.
But tall allen’s worry is about the potentially awful side effects of vitamin C, grape seed extract, curcumin or lycopene supplementation, and, whether you are getting the right amount for optimal therapeutic benefit and that the supplement company will make money off of people --- just like the pharmaceutical companies do.. And like ADT and all other pharmaceuticals, – each supplement may not be a stand alone cure or work either.
Anticancer and Cancer Chemopreventive Potential of Grape Seed Extract and Other Grape-Based Products
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
"In 2011, a study conducted by Subash D. Gupta, Ph.D., and his colleagues at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences revealed that resveratrol — a compound found in red grapes, wine, peanuts, plums, and other plants — can sensitize tumor cells to chemotherapy. (1)
In the study, resveratrol was found to act on cell-signaling molecules in the tumor’s resistance process to make the cancer more sensitive to chemotherapy drugs. (1) Resveratrol was shown to overcome this resistance in a number of different ways: It influenced how the cancer cells grew, communicated with each other, destroyed themselves, and infiltrated healthy cells, among other mechanisms. (1) In the lab, the researchers tested resveratrol on a long list of different types of cancers, including lung, leukemia, myeloma, prostate, oral, and pancreatic cancers. They showed that resveratrol helped make each type of these cells more receptive to chemotherapy. (1)
huffingtonpost.com/julie-ch...
turmeric, (curcuma longa)
"We are certainly not alone in our views on this antioxidant and powerful anti-inflammatory agent.
Professor Bharat Aggarwal Ph. D. in MD Anderson´s Department of Therapeutics has conducted a large number of studies, for example showing that in pancreatic cancer with patients having no chemotherapy, it reduced tumour size on its own. He believes it is effective against many types of cancer because it suppresses angiogenesis (the growth of blood vessels essential to a tumour).
Indeed he goes further: "No cancer has been found, to my knowledge, which is not affected by curcumin," Aggarwal says. "The reason curcumin is so effective against cancer is that it hits not just a single target or cell signalling pathway but dozens of targets implicated in cancer."
Curcumin is known to stop inflammation, a precursor to cancer. And it has been shown to play a part in glucose metabolism high blood glucose is linked to cancer risk. "
Effects of lycopene supplementation in patients with localized prostate cancer;
"subjects in the intervention group had smaller tumors (80% vs 45%, less than 4 ml), less involvement of surgical margins and/or extra-prostatic tissues with cancer (73% vs 18%, organ-confined disease), and less diffuse involvement of the prostate by high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (33% vs 0%, focal involvement) compared with subjects in the control group."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/124...
Prostate Cancer, Nutrition, and Dietary Supplements (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version
cancer.gov/about-cancer/tre...
Three clinical studies have examined the effect of interventions with pomegranate products on changes in PSADT in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer who had a rising PSA after surgery or radiation therapy for presumed localized cancer. The first study was a single-arm trial of 48 patients who drank 8 ounces (570 mg/d total polyphenol gallic acid equivalents) of PJ for up to 33 months. PSADT rose from a mean of 15 months (±11 months) at baseline to a mean of 54 months (±102 months, P < .001) on treatment (with a twofold increase in median PSADT from 11.8 to 24 months, P = .029).[19]
my brain "hurts" thinking about this...I scanned it...will have to try and read it when I'm a little further out from my Lupron Shot...just had it on Friday...I'm feeling "soft" and "sad" in the head...a little right now...LOL. ~~John
George , Myself I value Tall Allens insights, I have been in these forums for 12 years and pretty sure I have not heard so much good information from one person in the whole time. All respect to Dr. Bob and Snuffy as being revolutionary in thier treatment of APC, In the days of old. To each thier own. Peace!
One does not have to be a doctor to understand the facts and the evidence. Conversely, doctors who are known for going beyond the evidence to treat patients with unproven "remedies" may endanger their patients.
First, you have to understand the concept of "levels of evidence" which is at the heart of evidence based medicine. The highest level of evidence is a large, prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT), especially if it is replicated. That is the only kind of evidence capable of providing proof of cause and effect. All other kinds of evidence can only suggest association, but not causation. None of the studies you cited falls into the category of actual proof - they are all associational studies that prove nothing. About 90% of associational studies are later disproved by RCTs.
Vitamin E looked great on an associational study. So great that NIH funded a large RCT to provide proof that it and selenium were useful in prostate cancer. It found the opposite: the dose and kind of Vitamin E normally sold as a supplement actually promoted prostate cancer:
jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...
Since then, most doctors have refrained from suggesting antioxidants to their patients.
A few other examples...
Pom Wonderful promoted pomegranate juice for prostate cancer. But then an RCT showed that there was, in fact, no efficacy:
nature.com/articles/pcan201532
Here's the RCT for green tea extract showing no efficacy:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
As for lycopene:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
academic.oup.com/jnci/artic...
And an RCT on the combination of lycopene, green tea catechins, and selenium concluded:
"Administration of high doses of lycopene, GTCs, and selenium in men harboring HGPIN and/or ASAP was associated with a higher incidence of PCa at re‐biopsy and expression of microRNAs implicated in PCa progression at molecular analysis. The use of these supplements should be avoided."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...
The RCT on curcumin found "The median off-treatment duration was 16.3 and 18.5 months in the curcumin and placebo groups, respectively." Men with PC did BETTER with the placebo.
jurology.com/article/S0022-...
Curcumin may have a masking effect on PSA:
scientificamerican.com/arti...
Resveratrol has not been studied by an RCT. However, the following lab study in mice suggests a possible harm in prostate cancer patients. They conclude, "Based on these preliminary data that resveratrol may be harmful, caution should be advised in using resveratrol for patients until further studies can be conducted."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
There is an ongoing trial of grape seed extract, but it is not an RCT. Until then we have no idea what its efficacy and safety is.
Supplements are drugs. We should be cautious about taking drugs of unproven efficacy and safety. Unscrupulous drug pushers in the guise of supplement manufacturers will not tell you the rest of the story, or provide proof of what is actually inside of those expensive pills you are buying. They take advantage of cancer patients because we are willing to try almost anything.
As I have stated before I cut out all meats and poultry right after diagnoses. I take vitamin D3 and garlic. In the past I have taken Essiac Tea, Selenium + Vitamin E, IP-6. and Resveratrol. My feeling is Just as prostate cancer finds a work-around for Casodex, Zytiga, Xtandi, etc., it finds a workaround for supplements. When one stops working, move on.
Magnus1964,
Cancer does not work around IP6 because of the nature of the IP6 molecules already present in all your cells. However, you must adjust your dosage until you get to an effective level as IP6 is a dose-dependent supplement. Read AKM Shamsuddin’s text on IP6. Similarly, I do not know of any research showing Beta 1,3-D Glucan from Transfer Point having a resistance problem. Read Vaclav Vetvicka’s book on Beta Glucan: Nature’s Secret.
CalBear74
Chocolate chip ice cream....
GOOD LUCK AND GOOD HEALTH.
j-o-h-n Sunday (make that a Sundae) 04/22/2018 12:13 PM EDT
Hey calbear,fancy seeing you here! Been taking that ip6 gold, and the transfer point beta glucan. Wondering, has the skin n your hands started peeling? My derm thinks it’s a fungal infection but I think it may have to do with the sups.
Also, been thinking about picking up nitro 250 Resveratrol- that a good version to get?
Visual deadlock,
I have not experienced any problem with my skin as a result of supplements.I use natures answer resveratrol which is augmented with quercetin and vitamin C, making it ideal to take with beta glucan.
CalBear74
Yeah you mentioned on the Cancercompass forum..the 637 mg blend from natures answer. This revgenics resvaretrol is “micronised” so supposedly a lot more bioavailability. But that could be marketing speak for give me your cash....
Add cayenne pepper (capsaicin) and tomato (lycopene). Leave the rest.
Tall_Allen --- just curious, do you take ANY supplements at all?
This just published today about metformin -- apparently we should have all been taking it like Snuffy said.
Here is his video on Metformin
Yes. I have been taking metformin for about 4 months
Informal Poll Regarding Treatments Used for Stage 4 Diagnosis
Newly diagnosed metastatic PC treatment options
Active Surveillance Is Over For Me
Post RT decisions on ADT and relative risk benefit 
I Feel Great, What's Wrong With Me?
