Advanced Prostate Cancer

14,226 members17,427 posts


Kuanyin profile image

Spoiler Alert: Since the diet and supplement wars have often been fought in this forum with no one but the true-believers convinced by the arguments presented, I thought I would dedicate this post to the people who may agree with me. Of course others are free to voice their disagreement, but be warned in advance, I won't reply them.

Now that our Guru has left us for a Walkabout to frolic amongst his brethren crocodiles, to renew his spiritual and vital forces, apparently many of us are loathe to take up the cudgels in defense of diet and supplements for fear of being browbeaten by bullies who support the other side of the issue, being told how stupid and ignorant we are. Conserquently, I thought I would offer a little support for we, the unenlightened.

First of all, there is the question of diet and PCa. From what I have read, according to available studies of the diets of the many traditional populations ( before the “fast food invasions changed the eating habits of people), probably the best advice we can follow is, as a paraphrase of the popular song goes, “You have to accentuate the [flora] and eliminate the [ fauna-tive]...and don't mess with mister in-between.” Don't overeat, limit your caloric intake as much as possible and exercise—aerobic and resistance. As many of us know, often this is not enough, but we only have so-much control over our lives. We do what we can.

Secondly, many of so-called long term scientific studies involving thousands of people are probably wrong. Example, the wrong forms of Vitamin E and Selenium were used in the SELECT study. There is a good chance that the organic forms of Selenium--the form of selenium used in the SELECT study was l-selenomethionine at a dose of 200 mcg-- may not have been enough but also a form that some research studies indicate may be inferior to the in-organic form, Sodium Selenite. “Selenite-induced p53 Ser-15 phosphorylation and caspase-mediated apoptosis in LNCaP human prostate cancer cells.”

Vitamin E, for example, may have been another incorrect choice. Again, in the SELECT study, we know that the SELECT trial used non-natural and chemically-derived vitamin E (dl-alpha tocopherol acetate) at a dose of 400 IU per day. Any time you see an “l” after the “d” in a vitamin E product throw it in the trash where it belongs. But let's ignore this for the moment. We know that there are eight natural forms of vitamin E, 4 tocopherols (alpha, beta, gamma, and delta) and 4 tocotrienols (alpha, beta, gamma, and delta). While d alpha tocopherol is the most common form of vitamin E in dietary supplements, it is actually gamma tocopherol that is the most effective one. Unfortunately, the more Alpha Tocopherol one takes, the less Gamma Tocopherol becomes available: the tocopherols compete with one another for absorption. And, to further muddy the waters, recently we have learned that it may be the Tocotrienols, in fact, that are the most most effective with the Delta faction being the most important. In short, the SELECT study may have been flawed from the get-go by the ignorance of the supplements, on the part of the researchers, which they were studying.

Thirdly, one must really be careful re all of the current hoopla over ROS :

1- Chronic oxidative stress promotes aging and metastatic spread:

In last years, the “Stress and Cancer” laboratory has identified two new molecular players of the oxidative stress response, the miR-200 family of microRNA and the transcription factor JunD. We showed that a chronic oxidative stress accelerates aging through accumulation of HIF (Hypoxia-Inducible Factor) and modulation of insulin signaling (Gerald, Cell, 2004; Laurent, Cell Metabolism, 2008).

Consistent with the fact that cancer is one obvious pathology observed in elderly, we discover that persistent ROS increase tumour development and metastatic spread, by deeply modifying tumour micro-environment. Conversion of fibroblasts into myofibroblast result from ROS-mediated accumulation of pro-angiogenic (HIF) and pro-inflammatory (SDF-1/CXCL-12) components. These studies established that HER2 tumours, which are characterized by a high rate of nodal metastases, exhibit a high proportion of myofibroblasts and a signature of oxidative stress (Toullec, EMBO Mol. Med, 2010; Scholer-Dahirel, Cell cycle, 2013; Costa, Sem. Cancer Biol., 2014).

Remember science if falsifiable, always subject to change!

40 Replies

You are playing a dangerous game - but it is your life to play with. I only get involved when you are doing harm to others through limited or misinformation. The SELECT study used the form of Vitamin E most of us get when we buy Vitamin E supplements. You may believe you have some preferable form of the Vitamin at your disposal, that may well be true. However, the role of antioxidants in causing the very cancers you are trying to eliminate must be addressed. There is a vast literature on this that you ignore at your peril:

17. Blockage of reactive-oxygen-species-driven apoptosis by antioxidants

Although we know ROS as a positive force for life through their apoptosis-inducing role, for much longer we have feared them for their ability to irreversibly damage key proteins and nucleic acid molecules. So when not needed, they are constantly being neutralized by antioxidative proteins such as glutathione, superoxide dismutase, catalase and thioredoxin. Controlling their synthesis as well as that of many more minor antioxidants is the Nrf2 transcription factor, which probably came into existence soon after life as we know it started. Most importantly, at Cancer Research UK in Cambridge, David Tuveson's laboratory has recently shown that Nrf2 synthesis is somehow upregulated by the cell growth and division-promoting RAS, RAF and MYC oncogenes [44]. Biologically, this makes sense because we want antioxidants present when DNA functions to make more of itself.

The fact that cancer cells largely driven by RAS and Myc are among the most difficult to treat may thus often be due to their high levels of ROS-destroying antioxidants. Whether their high antioxidative level totally explains the effective incurability of pancreatic cancer remains to be shown. The fact that late-stage cancers frequently have multiple copies of RAS and MYC oncogenes strongly hints that their general incurability more than occasionally arises from high antioxidant levels. Clearly important to learn is what other molecules exist that turn on Nrf2 expression. During the yeast life cycle and probably that of most organisms, oxidative phosphorylation is clearly separated by time from when DNA synthesis occurs. Whether Nrf2 levels also go up and down during the cell cycle remains important to be known soon.

18. Enhancing apoptotic killing using pre-existing drugs that lower antioxidant levels

Already there exist experiments with haematopoietic cells in which the cancer-cell-killing capacity of the ROS generator arsenic trioxide (As2O3) has been shown to be inversely correlated with the content levels of the major cellular antioxidant glutathione [45].

As2O3 also knocks down the reductive power of thioredoxin necessary for several key steps in cellular metabolism. Its capacity to inhibit both thioredoxin and glutathione widens its potential for a successful deployment against many major cancers beyond promyeloblastic leukaemia. Also capable of enhancing the cytotoxic effect of As2O3 is ascorbic acid, which, though known for its antioxidant role in cells, is converted into its oxidizing form dehydroascorbic acid. Unfortunately, up until now, we do not yet have clinically effective ways to lower glutathione levels. Lowering its level through deployment of the drug buthionine sulphazine that blocks its synthesis leads quickly to upregulation of the Nrf2 transcription factor that in turn upregulates glutathione synthesis [46].

A more general way to reduce antioxidant levels deploys motexafin gadolinium, a member of a class of porphyrin molecules called texaphyrins. Through a process called futile redox recycling, it transfers hydrogen from antioxidants to produce ROS. Unfortunately, clinical trials designed to show its enhancement of chemo- and radiotherapies have so far shown only modest life extensions as opposed to cures.

Through selecting for compounds that preferentially induce apoptosis in cancer cells as opposed to normal cells, the natural product piperlongumine from the Piper longum plant was recently revealed as a potential anti-cancer drug [47].

Most exciting, it mediates its action through its binding to the active sites of several key cellular antioxidants (e.g. glutathione S transferase and carbonyl reductase 1) known to participate in cellular responses to ROS-induced oxidative stress. That piperlongumine failed to raise ROS levels in non-cancerous cells probably resulted from their inherently lower levels of these antioxidants which, in turn, result from less activation of the Nrf2 transcription factor.

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.


IF you were teaching a course in Harvard in 1959, THEN how old are you now ??

Assuming you were at least 18 then (probably older), you are 77 or more now ??

Thank you.

Where did you get the idea that I was teaching at Harvard in 1959? Those quotes were from Jim Watson, which I have given as the source many times:


Sorry, my bad :-(

Thanks for the link, Tall_Allen.

in reply to Tall_Allen

Tall Allen you may not be a doctor but you sure play one on this forum. Before you dismiss everything on diets and supplements trying doing a little research. You seem to be fighting against everything not approved by the American Medical Association or the pharmaceutical industry. As I have stated many doctors have praised me for my vegetarian diet ( I have included fish several years ago). I have received no scorn from doctors for taking many of the supplements I have taken over the years. I'm trying to figure out if you work for the AMA, the drug industry or the beef lobby.

I urge the members of this form to do your own research on diet and supplements. Learn to scrutinize research. Who is paying for the research, and that includes the NIH, we all know the government doesn't lie.

Do NOT use Google, it is a terrible search engine. Google receives money from clients to place their webpages in the first or second results pages of relevant searches. Not very scientific. Try a few searches on Google and look at the results pages. the first thing to come up is Wikipedia. I nice for baseball info but not for medical information.

Try Gigablast, it is a neutral search engine with no greedy stock holder to scream about profits.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply to

Do you actually think I am critical because I've seen LESS than you on these subjects. I can assure you, my files are bigger than your files. There is NOTHING I've seen linked on this forum that is in a peer-reviewed journal, that I haven't seen before. Plus, I've made it my business to know how to evaluate those studies - something most guys on this forum can use some educating about.

Once you go to the dark web for information, you are in no man's land. I don't search on google, I search on pubmed, for the most part, supplemented from time to time with presentations to the top professional organizations - ASCO, AUA, ASTRO, the GU Conference and the like. If it isn't good enough to make it into a peer-reviewed publication or to be presented at a conference, it's just someone blowing smoke.

Incidentally, I never said a plant-based diet was bad for you, I just said that there's no good evidence that it does anything for prostate cancer. I believe that most doctors and their professional organizations, and the NIH, and the FDA genuinely want to help people. Your paranoid view of the world will only get you in trouble.

in reply to Tall_Allen

Does it make you feel good to say that you are bigger than others??? If you could sperate the big ego from the big brain then we all might benifit ..

adlerman profile image
adlerman in reply to Tall_Allen

How long do you think Linus Pauling would have lived if he hadn't taken 12-14g of C for many. many years? Poor guy passed away at the young age of 93. Only scientist to win

two Nobels.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply to adlerman

He died of prostate cancer - a disease that most men die with, not of. Thank God, we have learned a lot since those days.

adlerman profile image
adlerman in reply to Tall_Allen

He was 93- he was too healthy to die of something else because he used 12grams of C a day.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply to adlerman

It is dangerous to take an anecdote as evidence.

adlerman profile image
adlerman in reply to Tall_Allen

you think you have an answer for everything but it seems to be mostly BS. Metformin has a ton of bad side effects.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply to adlerman

When it comes down to ad hominems (the resort of those who don't have any real defense for their positions) , the conversation stops.

As for metformin, serious adverse reactions are rare and are easily monitored. The common side effects are not serious: GI side effects, headache, metallic taste, and rash. I'm not claiming any benefits for it, but if you want to take it, under medical supervision, I can't see any reason not to.

Dan59 profile image
Dan59 in reply to Tall_Allen

TA , I would suggest your time could be better spent helping those that value your broad knowledge in this disease, and not with the ones that will only see things the way they believe them to be, and not consider the possibilities of new research, especially when they resort to namecalling. It is unlikely you will have them change thier beliefs.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply to Dan59

Point well taken.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply to Dan59

Point well taken. Thanks.

adlerman profile image
adlerman in reply to Dan59

I never asked TA for any help. I just happen to disagree with him on almost everything. I will find another site. Thank you.

MontyB profile image
MontyB in reply to adlerman

Pls stick around if you will. I disagree with TA a lot also, but not always. He has some good points and provides some very good info.

However I believe he is in the same box as my MO. I consider my MO as brilliant and he saved my life, but at the same time I believe there is more that can be used in this fight than only his "inside of the box" treatments.

When my MO told me "Mr. B, this disease is going to take your life no matter what we do." and I asked about life style changes...and his response was "Some people think broccoli helps."...I knew there had to be more.

Two years ago I watched my brother restrict his fight to only inside the box treatments. He took no supplements and passed incredibly quickly. I could say a lot more about his "inside the box" treatments and poor results...but I won't.

So I decided to not follow the same path even though it may be considered dangerous by some.

Pls do stay and benefit from TA and others.

Take Care,


adlerman profile image
adlerman in reply to Tall_Allen

I don't want to take Metformin. I'm no longer Diabetic. My brother takes it and he has multiple side effects that ruin his quality of life- so you can down play Big Pharmas poisons all you want. My PSA has been less than 0.1 for 16 years. I was just coming here to see if there was any news that might help my brother. I'll look elsewhere.

Dan59 profile image
Dan59 in reply to adlerman

You are welcome to stay, I would hope you had total access to all information you need. Sometimes we all need to agree to disagree and move on, have a nice day.

in reply to Tall_Allen

Apc is dangerous. Chemo , adt, radiation ,chemicals are all dangerous. Anything in the naturalpathic arena pails toxically in comparison to our western remidies that dont include any nutritional standards. Its the american way.. Although you know the western med , your mind is closed to the rest.. What do i have to lose besides APC...? I appreciate your knowledge but your aproach towards others sucks when you disagree. Peace T_A good health to you...

The main difference I often see in these discussions is between "studies" (in petri dishes or lab mice/rats that are often cited for various alternatives and supplements, and actual randomized "clinical trials" that have been conducted in humans to produce a much higher level of evidence that is sufficient to establish both safety and efficacy, and lead to FDA approval for the treatment agent or combination of agents.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". An old concept. See also:

As omnivores, there are lots of things that we can eat with relatively little harm, due to the wonderful evolutionary power and flexibility of our digestive tract, our livers, and our immune systems. Sometimes we have to balance biological nutritional value vs. potential toxicity (including the occasional "financial toxicity"). Throwing "cancer" prevention, cure, or treatment claims into the mix is even more problematic.


I was once where you are now. I would say it's a very natural starting point - your cancer diagnosis created a panic mode when one button - FIX THIS NOW! It is only natural that you would turn to our greatest information source - of both information and misinformation. Since my diagnosis, I've studied and learned a great deal, including how to read and how to misread a "study." (They are not all alike - yet you put forth a single mouse study as if it proved anything about human intake.) Supplements ARE drugs. Even Nalakrats admits as much. They are just unrefined and contain other co-toxins. They are not something that a beneficent Nature has bestowed upon you for our own good. You would never take a drug of unknown composition, unknown safety, and unknown efficacy without excellent clinical proof and reliabilty that what is in the bottle is what they say. Yet, owing to an FDA loophole, that is exactly what you are doing.

You know the curious thing, Tall_Allen, is that I have yet to come across a qualified medical doctor who wholeheartedly approves of supplements/anti-oxidants.

adlerman profile image
adlerman in reply to Tall_Allen

the supplements are drugs argument has been going on for about 40 years with Republican congressmen (who else) continually trying to classify supplements as drugs. Not outlawing them, just changing their classification so Big Pharma can get in on that flow of cash.

Thanks for the informative post.

It deals with some issues I am struggling with at the moment.

Are any of the authorities that you are relying studies with live animals? Are there any with people?

Having read a lot, I think the anti-oxidant issue is more complex than either side admits. But I don’t believe anyone seriously disputes that inflammation is generally a bad thing. Some of the best anti-inflammatory supplements are also anti-oxidants. So I compromise and opt to take resveratrol and curcumin, but I skip vitamins C and E.

In terms of studies, I would note, as my former MO did, that the efficacy of Zytiga AFTER early Docetaxel in castrate sensitive patients has not been proven yet, but lots of us are on that protocol.

I would ask Tall Allen where you are on the off label use of Metformin, Avodart and statins?

Lastly, I think this whole supplement debate has gotten a little too vitriolic, with too many opinions expressed as absolutes. My training is to be skeptical if any views expressed without some equivocation. That said, huge thanks to all the contributors, because we all benefit from the exchange of ideas. And since no one is more interested in our survival than we are, we should all make our own decisions.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply to Canoehead

I am fine with metformin, NSAIDs and statins. Although the evidence is equivocal, none of it shows any harm to low dose amounts. To me, any evidence of harm is a show stopper. Avodart depends on the situation, and is too complex an issue to be discussed in a short reply.

And yet there are limits to how far pure reason can take one. There is only one way to be sure - and that is to look at clinical evidence. At one point in time, it "made common sense" that antioxidants could fight cancer. Then, after the bulk of evidence showed us the opposite was true, most of us (people on this board seem to be about 5 years behind) changed our thinking. No shame in that. Where there is shame is in not letting clinical evidence drive opinions.

The example you is actually a good proof of why it is a bad idea to let an epidemiological study decision-making on the drugs we take. Looking at the weak evidence between Vitamin D intake and prostate cancer, these researchers did a meta-analysis and found that it is some property OTHER than Vitamin D generation in the skin that is responsible for the salubrious effects of sunlight:

In fact, it has since been discovered that sunlight activates the immune system completely independent of Vitamin D. In fact, the influence of light on T cell motility and the generation of H2O2 (an ROS inhibited by the antioxidants you think are helping you) is what accounts for lower rates of cancer in sunny climes:

This is not a conclusion you would have reached by "common sense." And your "common sense" approach may be doing you more harm than good.

I was once in your position in that I lived and breathed I know the desperation you are feeling because I felt it myself - both for myself and for both my parents. I studied and learned, and I hope you will too.

I also wanted to address the valid question you raised about how to assess data when there is no Level 1 evidence available. There is a consensus set of criteria called the Bradford Hill criteria. While it does not prove causation, it can make a convincing case. The factors that must 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)

Since the 17th century, it has been acknowledged that reason alone is inadequate to decide upon scientific/medical propositions.

adlerman profile image
adlerman in reply to Tall_Allen

If Big Pharma looked at clinical evidence none of us would be taking statins. ,

Currumpaw profile image
Currumpaw in reply to Tall_Allen

Interesting that you mentioned that sunlight activates the immune system. Much of the immune system starts in the skeletal systems marrow. "Form Follows Function" is how personal trainers describe how exercise causes a person's body to adapt to the stimuli that an exercise places upon it. Those who run on a surface have a small impact shock as their feet hit the surface. This transfers through their skeletal system. Those who do run have excellent bone density as their body deposits the minerals to make stronger bones. The immune system begins in bone marrow. Those who run on a cushioned treadmill, or those who use an elliptical or bicycle type of equipment do not get this impact. The combination of running and running in the sun might increase the immune system's ability to fight disease.

As far as supplements it is of course best to get our nutrition or as much as possible from what we chew. I do rely on high quality, powdered, supplements derived from plants. I would have to eat and prepare foods for hours daily. For example, Bill Clinton to deal with his heart issues, has a STAFF --plural--that plan his menu to provide the nutritional requirements directed by his doctors. They select the ingredients for his meals and prepare them so as to maximize the nutrition. I read an article where he was at conference or whatever that was being televised. There was food being served. Bill Clinton received a call from his cardiologist who told him in no uncertain terms that he should not eat the food that was being served. I just don't have that kind of supervision of my health nor could I afford the chefs and kitchen staff--unless that Powerball ticket in my billfold does something magical.

I often make a blended drink with seeds, nuts, blueberries, a bit of raw wheat germ, Maximum Vibrance and some Garden of Life Raw Meal among other things. It has a lot of nutrition that is easily digested as it is blended.

I get intravenous vitamin C infusions. I have had artesunate infusions. I also do hyperbaric training, the LIVE O2.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply to Currumpaw

I applaud your getting your nutrition from food. Actually, they think that while you're right that white blood cells are generated in bone marrow, it is sunlight striking the skin that mobilizes T cells there and sends them around one's body.

Sadly, many people on this site take supplements that are anti-oxidants. Such supplements interfere with the cancer-killing effects of exercise, as well as interfering with apoptosis and t-cell killing. It is interesting to me that ascorbic acid infusions act as a REDUCING AGENT rather than a pro-oxidant when infused rather than taken as pills. There are currently running clinical trials investigating whether it helps. Artesunate (artemisinin) also seems to generate more reactive oxygen species (ROS) and its beneficial actions in cancer control, if there are any, seem to get blocked by high doses of anti-oxidants. I'm not aware of any clinical trials for it.

Well said on both sides of the coin.

My thoughts are we are all Brothers in this forum fighting this battle. No matter what stage it is its still cancer and deals a devastating blow to our lives.

I trust in my Doctors, research our condition and weigh all options.

No information is bad information unless you partake of it. I truly look forward to the debated options we have in this forum and respect all the Brothers in arms that contribute them.

Never give up never surrender. Leo

Yep 😜😜😜

I won't respond to you so you don't have to reply to me.

Good Luck and Good Health.

j-o-h-n Monday 07/09/2018 8:42 AM EDT

Excellent point about research. At least half, probably more, is just wrong. Slavish devotion to double blind placebo controlled clinical trials is little more than a religion, a matter of choice and faith rather than demonstrable outcomes.

I have always found it amazing that those who are quickest to insult and name call when people discuss supplements have no response to very large scale studies like the PROTECT trial, whose results are consistent with previous trials, and so more likely to be correct. PROTECT showed no difference in overall survival, no difference in cancer-specific mortality, for surveillance vs RP vs RT after 10 years. The odds of those treatments preventing metastases after 10 years are between 3% and 4%. The odds of life changing negative effects are close to 100% - its more a question of how bad than if.

Those are dreadful odds. If I developed a supplement that performed like that, I would expect to be put in prison, and I would accept that punishment as just. But RP is the gold standard, because the urologist keeps the gold, patient benefit be damned.

With supplements, those odds are reversed. The odds of benefit are modest, often unknown, as there is little potential for profit, and money is required for large scale studies with sufficient statistical power to resolve small effects.

But the odds of negative outcomes are quite small, so small that again large trials are required to even detect them.

Anyone who reads the actual SELECT study will quickly learn that the popular media portrayals, boosted by the medical industrial complex, is just wrong. They were able to detect small changes because the study was very large, but the public pronouncements invariably tout relative risk. That's misleading to the point of dishonest, because the odds of negative outcomes were very small, and the number of negative outcomes in the control groups was also small. Divide two small numbers and you might get a big one, but that isn't the same as a big risk.

If you want to base your treatment choices on what was known 10-20 years ago, by all means limit yourself only to the results of large-scale studies, but don't look too closely at their actual results. Just listen to the doctor and submit without question.

If you choose to try low risk but potentially high payoff options that are very unlikely to harm you, then the problem becomes one of which to choose from, there are so many.

I just started radiation last week (for the purpose of attempting to wipe out oligometastatic disease), and had a conversation with my RO about supplements today, specifically curcumin and resveratrol. To paraphrase her, she said, “antioxidants can interfere with radiation, anti-inflammatories can help with side effects, but at typical label dosages, you’re not getting enough of either effect for it to make a difference. So do what you want.” Suggests to me that some of this debate we’re all having here may be more theoretical than practical.

I am new to this disease and to this forum so please take my comment for its <2-cent value, but for me, actively participating in my treatment just makes more sense than accepting my stage 4a diagnosis and doing only what the doctor-priests tell me. For me, at this early stage (dx May 2) involvement is the antidote to anxiety and feeling sorry for myself. Involvement by reading books, actively picking through this site among others, following research links and making my own notes, investigating diets and supplements, listening to friends with experience and other experts, and getting out to walk and/or swim every single day. Plus keeping a daily treatment journal.

At diagnosis I also consulted a functional medicine MD for advice on how to survive standard ADT-radiation treatment, I've had hypertension for years and his blood work identified several additional issues. He read me the riot act about diet and exercise, and gave me a daunting list of supplements to take through radiation. I did my own research on the whole list and asked questions to be sure it all made sense to me. My rad-onc agrees with Canoehead's above, nothing I eat can interfere with the blast they are shooting into my sacral chakra.

So, while I have learned much from Tall_Allen's posts as well as from Nalakrats', I don't really care if there is no peer-reviewed evidence for any of the supps I eat nor the exercise (and psychological) rituals I take on. Learning more and focusing attention on what I can do for myself is what matters right now, and I am betting it will make a survival difference somehow. Meanwhile most days I feel better than I have in years (I'm 72).

I read the “slavish devotion” comment regarding double blind controlled studies, and I thought to myself, why is there such a toxic feeling toward science in some these days. Science has given the human race so much. One of my thoughts was, this happens because someone has continually bashed science in favor of a more ambiguous feeling about fact and convinced some that there is no such thing as a fact, and there may be such a thing called an alternative fact. That was the most ridiculous time ever in the history of the US, save the Salem witch trials.

Most who do not understand the importance of scientific research and the tremendous value of finding causality seem to be more interested in relying on individual experience rather than the power of examining a population, which when research finds consistent results, growth and success eventually comes. The individual experience becomes more important for them rather than reason and fact. When the individual experience becomes more important than anything, they paradoxically become more vulnerable to exploitation. That exploitation comes in the control over thought and reasoning of the individual.

All kinds of predators are then waiting to control them politically and economically. That results in losses for them from then on. This is exactly what the supplement industry wants, they make money from fear and distrust of the individual, and while they have to prove nothing, not effectiveness, not reliability, not validity, nor value. Now I am seldom a fan of pharmaceutical companies, but at least they are regulated by the FDA approval process. And don’t people think that if any supplement would be found to be effective and reliable, they would be doing everything they can to get ahold of it? No conspiracies please. I am not in the pockets of “Big Pharma” nor do I believe that Dr.s or the “government” are profiting from conspiracies. Those ideas are the rhetoric of the people who want to control and believe only what they believe, and akin to wide spread voter fraud.

Cancer is a complicated and evolving disease, which is why there is no accross the board cure for the disease. It is a way too dangerous disease to risk failure or bankruptcy on chemicals which call themselves natural or organic, with no evidence of effectiveness beyond chance. That is why I put my energy and support into science and evidence, and I have done my surveys of the literature in the field for any topic that has to do with me or for that matter, anyone who is suffering. If there are strong results for anything that could help, I may try it, because I then know that it may provide assistance and that the probability is greater than chance or what some would call luck.

You may also like...