"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."
This article was written in 2013. It has no shortage of detail. It addresses a whole host of mechanisms (you can see that just by skimming the articles index on the right).
Does anyone have any more current articles on this subject? Where has this thinking evolved since 2013? Has it gained support among cancer researchers, or not?
Written by
cesanon
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
This is hardly the way to find out. I can assure you, it is now part of the conventional thinking of all serious biochemical researchers (although it is almost absent on sites like this). A quick search of "ROS" AND "cancer" AND "apoptosis" on pubmed yielded 7627 peer-reviewed articles on the subject, And you can try ROS AND T-cells AND cancer for several hundred more about how the immune system uses ROS to kill cancer cells.
Who are these "so many" Americans you speak of? If you mean the obesity epidemic, over-eating is certainly a problem. There is a middle ground between relying on supplements for nutrition and over-eating.
Walk through any mall in America and look at the large numbers that seem to have failed in taking care of themselves or just prefer carbs- to hell with the consequences.
All I can say is that the dose should be much much higher than any that can be obtained via diet. And if you are taking a dozen polyphenols, say, the combination may get you to a pro-oxidative level without needing a huge dose of all of them.
With PCa, one should not assume that all of the vitamins in a multivitamin are a good idea. IMO, each should be considered separately based on the PCa literature. Same with minerals.
I wrote a series of posts with titles that begin "Foods/Supplements-Vitamins:". You can search on that to find them.
"Why would anyone buy vitamins at a drug store unless they like being overcharged for minimal doses?"
1. Convenience. Walgreens, Costco, etc are convenient and have competitive prices.
2. Other than Lef.org, I pretty much distrust online sources of supplements, vitamins, etc. I much prefer getting them from an organization that is at least partially regulated as a pharmacy, in the hope that some of the institutional conservatism may rub off. It can be simple things like pretending temperature control might possibly be important. LOL
Because our food supply has been depleted of the beneficial vitamins and minerals we need to survive- You have to go to New Jersey to get a decent tomato. Breads have been loaded up with chemicals to keep them from getting moldy for weeks- I think that means it's already empty of any benefit.
There is no where in the US where you can't get adequate micronutrients from the general food supply. Flavor is another thing entirely - those who can afford it, shop at Whole Paycheck. If only bread had those antifungucidal chemicals you claim! I can't get a loaf to avoid going bad after more than a couple of days - the mfrs took out the good stuff that prolonged shelf life when all you Mr Naturals started protesting in the 1970s. They were happy to oblige. When food goes bad more quickly, they make more money.
I see myself as the voice of reason not the cranky old man telling kids to get off his lawn. Tall Allen's objection to healthy bread is that he would have to eat it before it gets moldy or it might cost him a few dollars more. They sell half-loaves these days if you get outside of Wal-Mart.
Don't be ridiculous. You said that the chemicals they used to add to bread to keep it fresh longer damaged its nutrient value. I said, what ever diminution in nutrient value you perceive would not be appreciated by kids who are starving. It is the "all natural" folks like you who have deprived those children. I would ask you substantiate such claims before you do more damage.
I have been following Dr Ornish's protocol from his study back in 2005. (not the fish oil) It calls for Vit. C and E and others:
"Experimental group patients were prescribed an intensive
lifestyle program that included a vegan diet supplemented
with soy (1 daily serving of tofu plus 58 gm of a fortified soy
protein powdered beverage), fish oil (3 gm daily), vitamin E
(400 IU daily), selenium (200 mcg daily) and vitamin C (2 gm
daily), moderate aerobic exercise (walking 30 minutes 6 days
weekly), stress management techniques (gentle yoga based
stretching, breathing, meditation, imagery and progressive
relaxation for a total of 60 minutes daily) and participation in
a 1-hour support group once weekly to enhance adherence to
the intervention.
10
The diet was predominantly fruits, vegetables, whole grains (complex carbohydrates), legumes and soy products, low in simple carbohydrates and with approximately 10% of calories from fat.
11
The diet is intensive but
palatable and practical. In earlier studies most patients were
able to adhere to this diet for at least 5 years.
10–"
I have been on this since January of this year and have seen my PSA drop each time, being tested every 3 months. PSA is now at 3.8, (7/5/18) down from a high of 5 (10/13/17). I declined a biopsy, and chose instead the UMichagan MI-Prostate. That test indicated that there was a 93% likelihood of prostate cancer, and about 70% likelihood of it being aggressive. That test was done 11/15/17.
I'm confused by your reply. Dean Ornish is neither complimentary nor alternative. He if faculty I believe at Univ of California, and this protocol was used for his research study of 100 men with prostate cancer. You can see the study here, published in The Journal of Urology, American Urological Association.
I only began a whole foods plant based low-fat diet, after the results of the Univ of Mich Mi-Prostate exam. PSA has only declined since my beginning the low-fat vegan diet.
You wrote " fish oil (3 gm daily), vitamin E (400 IU daily), selenium (200 mcg daily) and vitamin C (2 gm daily)" - antioxidants have been implicated in prostate cancer. The combination of selenium and Vitamin E is particularly harmful. That constitutes complimentary medicine if used with standard treatments, alternative medicine if used instead of standard treatments.
2. Complex biological systems are not like most areas of engineering.
The data available is never definitive. You can test a piece of steel to failure - while holding all other variables constant.
You can't test a human to failure. And you can't ever hold all the variables constant. In fact, you don't even get to know what all the other variables are.
Unfortunately, that is how the biological sciences differ from many of the other sciences.
Yes. P53 or tp53 is the main gene responsible for triggering apoptosis (cell death) in damaged DNA. When it is aberrant, transcription errors accumulate and tumors occur. ROS is needed for apoptosis.
"Take so much of an antioxidant so that it becomes a prooxidant"
-"How much is that?"
- "A LOT - or take LOTs of them"
You see the circular reasoning, I hope - Since you have no idea what you are doing to your body at any of the doses, do you really think it's wise to just take more in the hope that it will somehow do some good?
"Since you have no idea what you are doing to your body at any of the doses, do you really think it's wise to just take more in the hope that it will somehow do some good?"
That's the problem. Without accurate data and accurate dosing (or test monitoring) you are shooting in the dark, even if you're right.
one size does not fit all. It's like the AMA saying 120/80 is normal blood pressure- for who? A normal pulse is 60-100. Can you imagine sitting there with your heart pounding away at 100 beats a minute and your Doctor saying it's OK- it's normal.
I've had a pulse as low as 35 and both a cardiologist and an electophysiologist told me not to worry about it as long as I'm not fainting. The white coat syndrome has a positive and a negative effect. It will raise your blood pressure but if the white coat says it's OK- not all, but many will relax.
Then they are not antioxidants. And you are substituting one poison for another. The clinical utility of a substance is based on whether it is safe and effective. Until you have such information, you are tampering in ways that may be dangerous o your health. You do NOT know better that your body, and until you have real clinical evidence, you may be causing problems that you think you are trying to fix. The biochemistry of cancer is beyond anything you know.
I’ve read quite a bit about supplements and so far the indications are that most seem to do more harm than good or do nothing at all. So far, the only supplement that seems to help us is vitamin D. Higher levels of D in the system seem to be correlated with longer life. Not proof of causation but pretty compelling. Tall Allen, your thoughts on D supplements?
Steroid biochemistry is very complex. There are receptors on almost all cells that are upregulated or downregulated based on the amount in the serum. There are binding proteins that regulate what gets into cells. There are also enzymes that regulate their interconversion. Vitamin D at very high levels can actually pull calcium out of bone to increase the calcium serum level - not a desirable effect if bone mineral density is low due to ADT. If levels are low, I think we should be taking the minimum needed to keep it in the normal range, at least until there is better safety data available.
The most recent analysis from the American Academy of Family Physicians counseled "Family physicians should also counsel patients on the recommended dietary allowance for vitamin D (600 IU per day in adults 70 years and younger, and 800 IU per day in adults older than 70 years), and discourage most patients from using supplements, especially in dosages near or above the tolerable upper limit of 4,000 IU per day."
There really is no consensus, and the level of evidence is poor. Vitamin D serum levels below 20-30 ng/ml have sometimes been found to be associated with incidence of prostate cancer, although several studies contest that finding. Even moderately high serum Vitamin D levels have been found to be associated with INCREASED RISK of aggressive prostate cancer in some studies. Other studies have found no consistent association.
I haven't seen anything that suggests that it could inhibit metastases in men already diagnosed with PCa. I've only seen a mouse study that suggests it may start by inhibiting the incidence of PCa, but with continued use, after PCa already exists, may actually increase the rate of metastases:
Those damn mice seem to have really poor immune systems. The first time I remember mice messing with me is in the early 70's when Canadian mice couldn't handle the huuugggeee doses of cyclamates they were fed so the FDA could ban it. Many studies are conducted the same way many southerners cook. If the recipe calls for 350 degrees for 1 hour but they only have a half hour they just crank up the heat to 700- same difference right?
The supposed normal level for D is 30-100 but that is for the general population.
Recently my lab work had D at 91 my primary Doctor told me she had never had someone that high so she told me to cut down to 2000IUs a day. Four months later I was down to 51 and she said that's good. My PSA has been less than 0.1 for 16 years so I don't know if that's good for everyone.
There seems to be a lack of numbers for Vitamin D levels in these research papers. In Finland are "very high" levels even possible. I've taken over 7,000IU a day and never tested over 91- just under the high end of normal. Scandanavian countries with limited sunlight would require even higher levels of intake. Without actual numbers or ranges of numbers the results can turn out to be whatever the goal of the research was. IMO. Are there studies saying high normal (whatever they determine that to be) is bad or are they saying levels above normal ( i.e. over 100 ) is what they're talking about? Some scientists talk a lot but say little or nothing. I know you're not a fan of supplements and I'm not a fan of our low nutritional value food. Any government study on nutrition or health is highly suspect to me given the control that Big Pharma has over the FDA. A Doctor using oxygen to cure cancer had his license taken away. No money to be made in that treatment.
The researchers have to declare any economic interests before they can get published in any peer-reviewed journal. Most researchers are not the bad eggs that paranoid people think are rampant everywhere - they are just trying to get at the truth. It is paranoia we have to be careful of - once someone goes down that slippery slope, all knowledge is equally suspect and unreliable and we are in the realm of voodoo medicine.
I remember when I was a trusting soul like you. A Harvard professor cured me when it came out that he took payoffs from the sugar industry to tell Americans sugar was no problem for them. Had a French name. He was not the long ranger.
You can probably make a list - perhaps there are hundred bad eggs - ever -That next to hundreds of research papers with multiple authors published in peer-reviewed journals EVERY DAY! I'd say the probability that the studies I've shown are righteous are pretty high, wouldn't you? And what do we have left if you throw them ALL out - YOUR judgment? Might as well predict based on tea leaves in a cup.
I didn't want to go to political stuff but Republicans are well known for going to one extreme or the other. So if we throw out the bad apples it will result in throwing out all of them? We need to split in two countries so some of us can get peace of mind. In my 80 years I've never had a time other than today where I had to check each morning to see if the buffoon 62 out of 125 million voted for has ceded us to Russia.
In the fist paper, the units are nmol/L. To approximate to ng/mL, multiply by 4 & divide by 10. Or use an online converter, as I did.
Quintile 1 is 12.8-42.5 nmol/L. Converts to 5.1-17.0 ng/mL. Risk: 1.00
Quintile 2 is 42.5-51.3 nmol/L. Converts to 17.0-20.6 ng/mL. Risk: 1.12
Quintile 3 is 51.4-60.5 nmol/L. Converts to 20.6-24.2 ng/mL. Risk: 1.61
Quintile 4 is 60.6-71.7 nmol/L. Converts to 24.2-28.7 ng/mL. Risk: 1.42
Quintile 5 is 71.8-129.5 nmol/L. Converts to 28.7-51.9 ng/mL. Risk: 1.32
I believe that 1-20 ng/mL is deficiency; 21-32 ng/mL is insufficiency.
Even in the 5th quintile some had insufficient D. Perhaps most. I doubt that many were in the 25-50 ng/mL range.
It is absurd to think that we could protect against PCa by aiming for <17 ng/mL.
Notice how the risk declines as we get above 24 ng/mL.
Who knows what the relative risk would be for >50 ng/mL.
The supplement naysayers jump on studies like this, but how many here would throw away their cholcalciferol based on those numbers.
My pet peeve is that quintile 1 is always used as the reference point, rather than the quintile nearest to the recommended range. In this case, it makes extreme deficiency look attractive.
Thank you pjoshea13. A shame it couldn't be done in a scale that's in common use by the public. Even though it's easy to look up it's not easy dealing with it in my head. Similar to using Farenheit in a Celsius country (like everywhere Americans go)
These U-shaped & J-shaped findings are, frustratingly, in populations where the complete range of observed 25-D levels simply doesn't occur. The Nordic populations have an added problem - the angle of the sun during the long winter months pretty much guarantees deficiency for a great part of the year. Some studies normalize the data by adjusting for the month of blood collection - as though summer levels can compensate for significant periods of deficiency.
The studies may have great value, though, if researchers asked why men with basement-level D seem to be protected, compared to men at the mid-point of the insufficiency range? At such levels, there must be repercussions throughout the body.
Only one of those studies was based on Finnish men. Most were representative of the US population. In the PLCO trial they did look at combined seasonal cut points, and in the SELECT trial they adjusted for seasonal differences.
Yes, I know. Also note "Excess intake of vitamin D can also be harmful, elevating calcium levels in the blood (hypercalcemia)." Their maximum allowance is 84 iu/100g milk - well below what people on this site are taking as a supplement.
You know? You posted that Vitamin D was no longer added because the rickets scourge was ended. This started with you saying you threw away your Vitamin D because you "understood it's biochemistry". I asked if God made a mistake by adding Vitamin D to sunshine. No response. I said the government disagrees with you because they add Vitamin D to milk. you claimed they no longer did that because rickets was no longer a problem. They actually increased the amount of D in 2016- so yes it is still being done. Be careful you don't stumble while backing up.
You misconstrued all the conversations -- on purpose? I did not say it was no longer added - I said it was a relic of the days when rickets were a problem. God did not add Vitamin D to sunshine - we evolved to manufacture as much Vitamin D as we can reasonably need from sunlight. (BTW - we lost the ability to manufacture our own ascorbic acid through an accident of evolution - but we can leave that for another time). You have decided to go beyond what the FDA or evolution has deemed reasonable. You do so at your peril. If you understood steroid biosynthesis and the steroid transport and feedback mechanisms - and i hope you take the time to learn about it - you will be humbled by how much you do not know right now.
your post- "That was done when malnutrition was a problem and rickets was a prevalent disease. It no longer is." Sounds to me you're saying they're no longer adding D. I'm not misconstruing anything. You're doing some plagiarism too. Didn't give credit until someone called you on the job teaching at Harvard in 1959.
I know that I know nothing but I go by how the supplements affect me- not by some guy who was paid off to do negative studies on them.
Your "theory" of us making D from sunlight- only as much as we need- is unique.
That's what I call most of what trump says too.
I find out what the FDA backs and do the opposite -they're run by and funded by Big Pharma.
I cannot control how you construe what I wrote - it speaks for itself. I did not plagiarize anything - I quoted Jim Watson (as I have done frequently on this site). My "theory" is not unique - it is called "evolution" and was first put forth in the mid 19th century by Charles Darwin. It is a much better explanation than "God added Vitamin D to sunshine."
In reading the reply# I go back to my doctors advice, eat what you can, drink lots of water , and don’t try to self medicate. A healthy body can fend off some of the poisons we put in the body but a sick body can’t Thanks Tall Allen for your data 😜
So j-o-h-n, being a representative of the class of voters who are unable to vote in their economic self interest....
Can you explain why you people continue to vote for Repubs who refuse to permit Medicare negotiate drug prices.
You guys are literally killing your brothers. It can't be mere racism, as you were doing it prior to Obama.
I'd feel better about it if you were weeding yourselves from the gene pool, but most of you are too old for that.
So please enlighten us further about your political thought process (but please skip the moronic Trumpian name calling thank you, we all know who is doing all the lies, and un-Christian acts, even if you are blissfully unaware of it)
Long live Administrator Pruitt. Only through him can we obtain the carcinogenic levels to which we all deserve.
Man oh Man... you're on a roll... especially since my post was not directed to you. All that pent up hate... is not helping with your Pca. Chill out a bit and smile... see, don't you feel much better now?
"Humor is my hobby....try to laugh.... best medicine..... They say It takes less effort to smile than to frown...."
Dear j-o-h-n
Good clean fun, huh?
I would submit that willingly serving as an echo chamber for gratuitous Russian Troll Farm messaging may be a hobby, but it is a dangerous one and is not in the least bit humorous to me.
That's kind of a sexist comment there john. Old guys think all old guys think those jokes are funny. That's barely above scatological humor (if there is such a thing above the age of 12)
I'm not saying that some of them don't self-educate which is probably what Dr. Myers did. Most Doctors I've dealt with treat sickness- they're not into health care.
Our health system, governed by laws put into place by the Representatives we vote for, permit them to incorporate dietary content into their practice only with great effort and at personal out of pocket cost.
And so few patients are willing to pick up the extra cost, that it isn't possible to scale up the economies (and resultant quality) of doing it on a large scale.
adlerman was speaking on topic and veered away a little into making reference to an in-office politician who is a constant topical news presence... in a somewhat topic related matter.
j-o-h-n had no good reason to respond with an isolated, mindless Repub call out... one that is pretty much limited to campaign events and to fake news broadcasts by a network that proudly considers its main mission to be one of disseminating political propaganda. He didn't even pretend to put it into a prostate related context.
35C x 9/5= 63+32=95 I worked in meteorology for over 20 years- normal range conversions are still stuck in my head. 35C I still have to use the formula.
That was a response to ITCandy who posted about the difficulty in changing from F to C temperatures. My post followed his so I thought readers would get the connection.
I started broccoli sprouts today, I grew them in a glass jar from seeds. It took about 5 days to complete the process, I am trying to find out how much of them should I consume a day.
Five days of sprouting is about maximum before they start to mold, from my experience. Broccomax is a pretty good complement or alternative if you get tired of sprouting.
I think it might be similar to religious beliefs. Many people still have the same religion they were born into. So they follow the wide path- following the majority. Some switched and follow the beliefs of their new group. Some gave up religion (not the same as giving up ethics or morals) and are off the beaten path. There are two many examples to list them here but one for me would be never giving up eggs. Eventually science came back to me.
I gave up drinking milk many, many years ago because I couldn't buy certified raw milk anywhere but California- also available in Georgia with a Doctor's prescription (hard to believe that). Milk was pasteurized and homogenized to increase shelf life and make it easy for farmers who didn't want to keep their cows clean and healthy. They also allowed them to sell milk with anti-biotics in it- the same as our meat supply- again to make more money for the seller- not healthy for us though.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Confused about how all the different PCa drugs work?
Genistein for PCa hormonal control.
Immunosuppresion in cancer microenvironment
Omega-3 rehash 
