Hey Guys, I know there has been a vigorous debate about pro-oxidants versus anti-oxidants. I must admit, I don't really understand the ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species) and why it's important, especially with regards to cancer. Someone on Facebook, sent me a message, which included the following link:
Within that link is a 36 minute video. It appears to be delivering scientific information, rather than snake oil (but what do I know). In the video, the presenter compares the product to a combination of Opdivo/Keytruda, but without the side effects. I would be interested to hear from the smarter guys on this forum, to see what others think about it. It seems to good to be true. Cheers Paul.
Written by
paulofaus
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
There is a lot of good quality research on the various benefits of Astaxanthin. Deciding to take it is one choice; choosing the brand and dose is another.
My understanding is that Astaxanthin is produced by a fresh water algae when it is stressed by sunlight, salinity, or lack of food. Salmon, flamingos, shrimp, krill, and other animals eat the algae and get their red color from it. In fact Astaxanthin is used as a red food coloring, although in the US that use is restricted to animal feed.
There are natural sources and synthetic ones. I prefer the natural source; I can't prove there is a difference but I believe there is. There are many brands. I try different ones, currently I'm trying PurZanthin, a 12 mg product at a reasonable price.
Thanks for your comments FCoffey. The guy in the video talks about starting on a dose of 4mg but moving to a dose of 12g (3,000 times more). He also said the substance is no longer regulated by the FDA and has been deemed 'regarded as safe' or something similar. Cheers PAul.
Definitely snake oil - preying on vulnerable cancer patients. They always SOUND like it is real medical data, but it isn't. That's how they dupe patients. Carotenoids have shown no efficacy in clinical studies on prostate cancer. It does the opposite of what you need to fight cancer. If you get advice from someone that sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If it were true, it would be written up in a prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journal.
Thanks Allen, I know your position on anti-oxidants versus pro-oxidants and I really respect your opinion, however the guy in the video, comes across as a man of science and describes in great detail how cell biology works, how cancer cells are different, how the immune system and specifically T-cells work to kill cancer cells, then he goes on to explain how cancer cells use PDL-1 receptors to block to the action of T-cells and lastly how high doses of astaxanthin stops the cancer cells from blocking the T-cells by binding to the PDL-1 receptors. I understand it would be preferable to see papers in peer-reviewed journals, but by the same token, I also understand the medical community is slow to adopt new protocols. If I go on PUBMED and search astaxanthin and cancer there are lots of hits, but not being medically trained (I'm a financial adviser) I wouldn't be able to interpret much of what's there. Given that I am age 51, castration resistant, with mets in dangerous places in my spine and that my cancer has morphed into the small cell variety, I am pretty desperate to find things which will keep me alive for my young family, but I also believe in evidence based medicine and try not to get sucked into every internet fad that comes along (B17/Laetrile, Baking Soda + Molasses, Shark Cartilage etc, etc) Can you recommend something to me where I can learn more about ROS and why it's important. Thanks Paul.
I admit I don't listen to videos - I only read peer-reviewed journal articles. But if I wanted to hoodwink you I would wear a white coat, use a lot of medical terminology and throw in just enough true stuff to make it SOUND plausible. The true stuff is that SOME cancers use PD-L1 to block the T-cell responsive. But there is NO clinical evidence that astaxanthin prevents the blockage. PD-L1 may come into play with small cell and there are several clinical trials in the article I gave you that examine that.
There are thousands of studies about prostate cancer in peer-reviewed journals every year. It's not that hard to get published. You should be suspicious of those who make claims that have not been published.
Here's a good article that discusses the role of pro-oxidants in inhibiting cancer:
Rickw and ITCandy mentioned themselves as "under qualified" or not at knowledgeable. Let me quibble with that. Almost everyone here is knowledgeable. Almost everyone here has a set of ears and or eyes and, most importantly, a gut. Read well and then digest and then follow your gut. If you are getting help from Malecare, such as this community, then you and your gut are well qualified to make choices about your own health.
I watched about half of the video but decided not to finish it.
I'm the kind of guy who imagines that the people he meets are mostly honest and decent. It took the Internet to demonstrate to me that there are lots of people out there who will stand up in front of you, without blinking an eye, and earnestly deliver outrageous lies right to your face.
Is Sam Shepherd a liar? I don't know, but I do have questions about him.
Why, for example, can I find no publications in Pubmed using the terms Shepherd and astaxanthin?
He lists a paper entitled “Astaxanthin Affects Cancer and Electro-Chemical Effects On Cellular Structures” in his Linked-In resume. The PDF looks just like one that might appear in a scientific journal except that there is no journal title and no collaborators listed. An Internet search for the title only finds his website. Why does does this paper seem to have been published only on his website?
Why does he assert that inflammation is the cause of cancer when the National Cancer Institute says: "Many studies have investigated whether anti-inflammatory medications, such as aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, reduce the risk of cancer. However, a clear answer is not yet available." ( see: cancer.gov/about-cancer/cau... - and note that we're only talking about "reducing risk", not "cure")?
Why does he talk about a cure when the publications on astaxanthin on Pubmed seem only to talk about some beneficial effects?
Why is he telling a Rotary club that he cured a woman's breast cancer when he hasn't told the scientific world? He says that it is illegal for him to have given this woman the big dose of astaxanthin so she shouldn't tell anyone that she got it from him, but then he confides the information to N-billion YouTube viewers.
What evidence does he have that all of a long list of diseases from cancer to dementia all have the same ROS root?
If I'm maligning the man then I humbly apologize. But, in spite of his smooth presentation and clear scientific knowledge, I'm not going to believe his presentation unless and until he takes the kind of steps that any honest scientist would take to publish his results in a reputable peer reviewed journal.
Thanks Alan, I really appreciate and respect your input, you make very good points. I know you have to be cautious and suspicious of anecdotal evidence as it isn't science, that's why I posted it here, so people smarter than me could give me their thoughts. If nothing else I think I learned a lot about cell biology and how cancer cells block the immune system from killing cancer cells. He compares the substance to Opdivo/Keytruda but without the side effects. Sounds lovely. I have a somatic genetic test on tumor cells in my prostate recently and I may be offered Oliparib as a result of the test results. I communicated with a guy on Facebook a while back who claims to have 'cured' his CRMPC with Opdivo, cannabis oil suppositories and Artesunate. Anyway, I'm rambling, thanks again for your input Alan.
I didn't watch the video. I can read much faster than any video can present information, and I don't suffer people who can't be bothered to put their arguments and evidence in writing.
That said, the statement that "Why does he assert that inflammation is the cause of cancer when the National Cancer Institute says: "Many studies have investigated whether anti-inflammatory medications, such as aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, reduce the risk of cancer. However, a clear answer is not yet available." " is unfair and takes the quote out of context.
If you go to the NCI page with that quote, the more complete text reads
Over time, chronic inflammation can cause DNA damage and lead to cancer. For example, people with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases, such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn disease, have an increased risk of colon cancer.
Many studies have investigated whether anti-inflammatory medications, such as aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, reduce the risk of cancer. However, a clear answer is not yet available.
So the NCI explicitly says that inflammation can lead to cancer, which is consistent with what the man in the video says.
I'll also note that the NCI web page isn't from a peer-reviewed journal, or supported by double blind randomized clinical studies. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It's also dated April 2015. A more recent paper, published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences in August 2018, is titled Clinically Relevant Anti-Inflammatory Agents for Chemoprevention of Colorectal Cancer: New Perspectives
In that paper, you'll find the following statements:
"Several epidemiological, clinical and preclinical studies to date have supported the chemopreventive potentials of several targeted drug classes including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (aspirin, naproxen, sulindac, celecoxib, and licofelone), statins and other natural agents—both individually, and in combinations."
"Although several of these agents showed good to profound effects, only a handful of them entered clinical trials. The main reason for this is the high bar for toxicity in the cancer chemoprevention trails. "
"Evidence from epidemiological studies also clearly indicates the chemopreventive effects of NSAIDs against colon cancer. "
"In the PreSAP Trial Investigators, Arber et al. [99] showed that use of 400 mg of celecoxib once daily significantly reduced the occurrence of colorectal adenomas within three years after polypectomy. "
In fact there is considerable evidence that inflammation is associated with at least some cancers, and that NSAIDs - nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have "profound" effects against colon cancer.
I'd be willing to critique the antaxanthin pitch if I could get a transcript of the video, or similar written evidence. But my criticism would be fair; if the bar is publication in peer-reviewed journals, then my criticisms need to meet that same bar. Incomplete quotes that give the opposite meaning to what was written is unfair and not at all convincing.
I think your criticism of my posting is reasonable. I limited myself to about a half hour of research in order to answer it and I certainly haven't done sufficient research to refute everything that Sam Shepherd said. Based on your criticism I've now done another half hour, including looking at the other NCI article cited in the one I cited and also the one you cited in your reply.
I am convinced by all of that that aspirin (not necessarily other anti-inflammatory drugs) indeed has a clearly demonstrated role in preventing colorectal cancer. Beyond that, as far as my limited reading goes, I can only say that there is evidence that it might be helpful in preventing some other cancers and no evidence of preventing many others.
The article you cited only discusses colorectal cancer and discusses chemoprevention, not treatment.
Here are some quotations from the other NCI paper linked from the article I cited that shed more light on the conclusions in the first article:
> The jury is still out on whether aspirin has a future as a way to reduce the risk of cancers other than colorectal.
> Findings that regular aspirin use is associated with a reduced risk of other cancers "have been hit or miss," Dr. Hawk said. In the recent Harvard study, for instance, aspirin use was not linked with a reduced risk of the other most common cancers. There was also no overall reduction in cancer risk in the Women’s Health Study Exit Disclaimer—a randomized clinical trial that tested whether every-other-day use of low-dose aspirin could reduce cancer risk in nearly 40,000 women aged 45 and over.
> And for colorectal cancer prevention, there is also evidence from clinical trials and laboratory experiments to support its use. But for many other cancers, "there isn’t much supporting experimental data in humans to rely on," he said.
On the other side, the article next says:
> Even so, findings from observational studies continue to hint at aspirin’s anticancer potential beyond colorectal cancer, including those linking aspirin to a lower risk of melanoma, ovarian cancer, and pancreatic cancer.
So there are "hints" of "anticancer potential beyond colon cancer" and three specific cancer types are mentioned. Breast and prostate cancers are not among them and, I presume, they qualify as being among the "other most common cancers" that the Harvard study mentioned above.
I think that my criticism of Sam Shepherd's presentation still stands and I suggest that you look at some of it to see why I am so negative about him. He specifically claims to have cured a case of breast cancer with astaxanthin, but we see that the Women's Health Study, a randomized clinical trial of nearly 40,000 women, found no chemopreventive benefit to low dose aspirin. He claims treatment benefit in breast cancer with lower doses of astaxanthin and a cure with a high dose but offers no evidence except a claim concerning one unnamed person - with only his questionable word that that person actually exists. He says that "cancer" (not even a specific type of cancer), arthritis, dementia, and other non-infectious diseases are all caused by ROS, a theory that, to the best of my knowledge, is unsupportable by current evidence. We know for sure that anti-inflammatories have very limited or non-effects in curing many of these diseases. For that matter, although I'm prepared to believe that anti-inflammatories may have some useful treatment effects for colorectal cancer, the studies you cited ONLY talk about prevention. Shepherd claims that he can increase the dosage of astaxanthin enormously and get proportionally greater effects - something that is contrary to what we know about drugs and, I suspect, contrary to what we know about inflammation.
Finally, I'd like to say something about the sources for the original article I cited from the National Cancer Institute. I worked as a computer programmer at NCI for 26 years. The projects I worked on mainly involved the production of the information that appears on the NCI website. Those articles are produced under the supervision of the NCI editorial boards containing around 130 or so scientists and clinicians selectively drawn from the U.S. and Canada, who typically meet (in separate meetings for different boards) about 5-6 times per year for each of the 6 boards. NCI reviews ALL of the published literature on cancer (averaging 2,000-3,000 articles per month) as part of the process of preparing their statements. More than 60% of that published literature never passes the initial reviews and doesn't make it to the board members, but the rest does with articles on particular cancers and particular topics (treatment, screening and prevention, pediatric cancers, supportive care, etc.) routed to specialists in those cancers and topics. For many of their publications intended for health professionals, the work they produce is extensively, I'd even say definitively, supported with citations. They leave those out for most of their patient oriented documents such as the one I cited because they know that the vast majority of patients can't understand and won't be helped by the technical detail and want only to see the conclusions.
I admit that I am biased. I met some of the people on those boards and a lot of the staff at NCI that supports them. I consider their outputs to be authoritative.
Thanks for the critique. Although I still strongly believe that Sam Shepherd at least walks and talks like a charlatan and probably is one, I do think that your arguments are well taken.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. We can disagree and discuss while remaining respectful.
I agree that the evidence is rather against Mr. Shepard. Claiming to have cured a cancer, even in one patient, is an extraordinary claim, and that demands extraordinary evidence. I don't see anything like that here.
I don't doubt that NCI puts a lot of effort into reviewing and curating research. They certainly have access to most of the top talent in the field.
I've also worked with review panels drawn from scientists at top universities. Different field, but very similar process. Some really good work got done. Some really awful stuff also slipped out from time to time, often as not due to the efforts of a well organized clique or faction with some agenda. Nothing and no body is perfect, but we can agree that NCI tries hard.
Dumbing down patient oriented documents is a pet peeve of mine. I realize that many or most patients don't share my interests, but too many times I've listened to or read summaries for patients that are reduced to meaninglessness and gobblygook. In one case I sat for a presentation from a chief surgeon at a major research hospital on a recent finding. He dumbed it down so badly that I literally couldn't tell what he was talking about. It took me 3 days of research to finally link his name with what I think was the relevant paper.
Is it really so hard to include references in footnotes or endnotes? Patients who aren't interested will skip right over them; those who want more details have a place to start that should be better than Dr. Google.
There's a difference between translating medical terminology and talking down to patients. Patients are scared and vulnerable, but most of them are emphatically not stupid. They may not know the terms and jargon, but if given frank, honest information about their options most will make quite well-informed choices.
People like Sam Shepard are successful because they don't talk down to their potential customers. They present ideas and explain them in ways lay people will understand. If clinicians and researchers spent a bit of time studying the methods of the Sam Shepards of this world and learned to communicate more effectively, we would all be better off.
Communicating with patients is a hard problem. I've had a lot of the same criticisms of NCI patient oriented documents too but I came to trust the editors' decisions more than I trusted my own. I'm a reader. Although I'm a non-scientist, I believe in science and try to understand it, even to the extent of having read some serious textbooks in chemistry and molecular biology. You may do the same. But most patients aren't like that. The NCI people have a lot of experience with patients. Some of the editors were formerly oncology nurses and, of course, many are doctors who see patients almost every day.
One thing they do in all of their "state-of-the-art" summaries (there are about 750 of them covering almost all cancer types) is produce two versions, one for patients and one for "health professionals". They are VERY different. The patient ones are not only dumbed down, but they also avoid telling the naked truth about what's going to happen to the patient. I remember reading one treatment summary for patients that said - if you have this condition your doctor may do that. If you have this other condition he may do this other thing. The health professional summary said right off that 95% of patients presenting with this cancer will die within five months. That wasn't mentioned in the patient summary. However, every patient summary has a link to the health professional summary for people who want to see the unvarnished facts and the supporting study citations.
I have a cousin who is an oncologist. I asked him once about all of this and he told me that about half of his patients, the more educated ones, want to know all the details. However many others don't want to know anything. They tell him, "Doc, do what you have to do but I don't want to know anything about it." The NCI tries to cater to all kinds of readers.
I agree with you that Sam Shepherd is a guy who offers a more intellectually sophisticated view. I'm just not convinced that he tells the truth.
Deceiving patients is no better, and no different, than what Sam Shepard appears to be doing. The people at NCI may be well intentioned and with no direct financial interest in the outcome, but withholding information and telling radically different stories to two different audiences is just plain wrong. It's lying. It gets you in big trouble in a courtroom; are these matters any less deserving of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I'll grant that these folks have seen a lot of patients, but that doesn't make them experts in either patients or communicating. I find it interesting that a substantial number of medical professionals refuse conventional chemo, surgery, and radiation when they are diagnosed with cancer. They know all too well what is going to happen, but they've never been honest with their patients.
The medical industry likes to throw around the phrase "informed consent" a lot. Informed consent can't happen if the patient is not informed. If a patient doesn't want to hear it, that is their choice and their right. But presenting pablum while using the authority of the NCI to legitimize it borders on criminal.
We're both digressing, but that's what forums threads are for.
I'll close with this true story. Harvard Medical School was a client of mine several years ago. I spent a lot of time interviewing researchers and heads of departments about their needs in my area of expertise. I spent one day a week on the campus for quite a few months.
I was assigned a contact person, a student nearing the end of his tenure at the school. He and I got to know each other. One day I asked him what was the most important thing he had learned at Harvard Medical School.
He thought about it for a minute or two, then answered. "They taught me how to lie really, really well. When you face a patient, you have very little idea what is going on, and less what is going to happen. Even the most cut and dried case has surprises and unusual complications. But we are taught to use all of our authority, all of the trappings like white coats and stethoscopes, to lie to the patient. We convince them to do what we think is best. We tell them only the good things about what is going to happen. We don't try to discover what is important to each patient, even though we know every one is different. Lying, lying well, and lying often is the most important thing I've learned."
The quote is a paraphrase; I didn't record it, but that is pretty close to what he said. He wasn't bitter or angry; he enjoyed his education and his work. He was being frank.
That's one of the reasons I'm perhaps a bit more tolerant of the Sam Shepards of the world. Whether or not he is lying, his motives are clear enough and I can judge for myself whether what he has to offer might be valuable to me. But when an entire industry institutionalizes lying and prevarication, it becomes much harder to make well informed choices. The fact that an institution with the stature of the NCI abuses its authority and trust by offering completely different information about the same topic is strong evidence that this is a systemic problem and not an isolated incident.
Give me an honest flim flam man any day over a million practiced liars.
I understand your reaction to the NCI policies. My initial reaction was similar to yours. However, while I still prefer the warts and all approach for myself and if asked I would vote for it, I have come to understand that what they are doing at NCI is deeply considered. There are a lot of patients who freak out when they learn all the details of what will or could happen to them, and a lot of their families too. There are a lot who want to know some generalities, but don't want to hear the bad things. I still incline towards your view but I have come to think the NCI policy of providing a bland view with a link to the hard realities has some arguments for it. And I don't think it's at all the same as lying. What they say is nothing but the truth. But it's not the whole truth.
Here's what I think is a related problem that may help shed light on it. Personally, I don't believe in souls, supernatural beings or events, or life after death. When my grandfather died, my grandmother came to me and asked me if I believed that she would meet him again in heaven after he died. She was obviously in agony. Personally, I thought that she would not survive and meet my grandfather and I could have given a ton of arguments why, but I could not bring myself to say so. I also couldn't bring myself to lie and say Yes, she would meet her husband. So, feeling miserable, I said that I didn't know - which is technically true but hardly a full statement of what I believed.
What would you have done in such a case?
Now imagine that you're working in a cancer ward and facing this kind of question every day. This is not a problem if you're a believer in life after death. But if not, what would you say? The cancer information problem is different but I think it has some of the same emotional elements in it.
I think the NCI really isn't lying. They're dealing with some very difficult issues. It is the "honest flim flam man" who is, in fact, the practiced liar. But I understand that you had no intention of defending him.
Many comments get lost in this forum but this content of yours is excellent. I’m surprised how trusting persons are off everything doctors say. I used to be like that until they damaged or killed me. Note, I have done tons of research and I realize that doctors are usually like smart car mechanics but without the car diagnostic machine.
Celecoxib (Celebrex) as a single agent had no effect whatever on advanced PC in the relevant STAMPEDE randomized clinical trial. That rules out at least that anti-inflammatory as beneficial for PC. One of the errors often made is in lumping cancers together.
I didn't lump cancers together. That's your gambit. I objected to taking quotes out of context. Neither AlanMyer's quote nor my response referred or limited the discussion to prostate cancer.
"I didn't lump cancers together...Neither AlanMyer's quote nor my response referred or limited the discussion to prostate cancer." If you didn't limit the discussion to prostate cancer, you lumped it together with other cancers. You can't have it both ways.
Cheers Andrew. Yes, on the one hand he says it is good as a preventative, for all manner of inflammatory ailments, then later he leaps to how high doses have cured his own cancer and that of several 'patients' he's treated with very high doses. AlanMeyer has made some good points below that his credentials are hard to verify. Cheers Paul.
Hi While some may see the man in the video as a "man of science," I see him as a flim flam who looks like Colonel Sanders younger brother. Not to make fun, but, from the few minutes I watched, I see he's just wrapping nonsense around credible looking slides and lingo. I'm sure he and others would say "we" are just trying to hide "the truth."
There are lots of fast talking, or credible sounding flim flamers. We're all VERY hungry for an easy treatment or cure. We are susceptible to sleaze, spammers and scum. AND, that's why Malecare communities are so damn helpful...for the collective wisdom we all create to caution all of us, to guide all of us, and then and only then, to support whatever choice each of us individually makes for ourselves.
There is usually a kernel of truth in all these wonder cures, and that kernel becomes the basis for exaggeration and false claims. Authors, including some respected posters here, and salesmen typically have an agenda. Even the most scrupulous will present their evidence in a one sided way.
With that caveat it is not hard to discover that Astaxanthin may be a useful supplement, although not necessarily against cancer. It certainly is a proven anti inflammatory and anti oxidant.
I for one have chosen to believe that cancer has an inflammatory component, just as I have chosen to believe that nutrition and supplementation can have a beneficial effect. I don’t need to wait for the double blind studies that will never come (financial constraints, big Pharma, etc), nor am I dissuaded by those that say anything will kill cancer in mice. I try to understand the biological processes and make best guesses. You can know for sure, however, that anyone who claims to have the ANSWER either way is stupid or lying. You decide which of those is worse.
The debate about the efficacy of anti oxidants vs. pro oxidants is real, there is evidence on both sides, and the answer may depend to some degree on where you are in the treatment process.
The fundamental debate, where a lot of the answers to the questions implicit in this and similar threads will eventually be found, is about the metabolic vs. genetic basis of cancer. That started with the work of Otto Warburg almost a hundred years ago. It was primitive and over simplistic, but probably contained some key kernels of truth. His legacy has heated up lately, and there is a lot of thought provoking recent literature for those who are so inclined. Some of those books, in increasing order of technical difficulty and complexity, are Tripping over the Truth, The Metabolic Approach to Cancer, How to Starve Cancer, and Cancer as a Metabolic Disease.
And while all the authors of the listed books present to some degree a one sided approach, the truth is that metabolic considerations are slowly gaining some acceptance in mainstream oncology. What convinced me is that the value of Metformin, statins and beta blockers has long been touted by the metabolic disciples based on logic and biological principles, and now evidence is starting to trickle in that they are right. Even my Doc at a teaching hospital, who says “standard of care” several times during an appointment, approves of my use of these meds.
Contrary to the beliefs of the metabolic theory authors, I think we are still very early in understanding all this. An example is that earlier writers advocated what is essentially a Vegan diet, and now there is a trend toward Keto. They can’t both be right, and those diets seem about as opposite as you can get, but what they have in common is low processed carb and sugar intake. And that commonality takes us back to the work of Warburg...
Sorry to ramble, but I don’t believe any of it completely, and I don’t dismiss any of it totally either. We are each the captains of our own treatment teams, so my message is read and study as much as you can, ask questions about what you don’t understand, and make informed choices.
Thanks for your comments Canoehead, much appreciated. I too take Metformin (and a statin), but I think the jury is out on sugar in relation to prostate cancer. I try to limit excess sugar and processed foods, but I eats lots of fruits. Cheers Paul.
As a counterpoint to my hypothesis about the slowly growing acceptance of metabolic therapies, you might want to look at a surprisingly readable and informative article in Sciencebasedmedicine.org about 3 deaths in an integrative cancer clinic in Germany in 2016 that were likely related to the use of 3-BP, a Warburg effect drug developer at Johns Hopkins, not yet trialed, but touted by some as a suppressed cancer cure. I still believe in the validity of metabolic approaches, especially in conjunction with mainstream modern oncology, but be advised that the metabolic theory is particularly susceptible to overstatement and abuse by quacks.
Again - erroneous conclusions are made by conflating different kinds of cancer. Prostate cancer is minimally fed by sugar, until late stages. That's why FDG PET scans aren't sensitive to PC mets. On the other hand, they do feed on fats, which is why choline and acetate PET scans are useful; and proteins, which is why fluciclovine (Axumin) gets uptaken. But what is one to do - eliminate carbohydrates, fats and proteins from one's diet? We can't live on air and water. More importantly, there is no credible evidence that cutting back on any nutrients changes outcomes.
Hey! If it wasn’t true they couldn’t put it on the internet, right? Most of those You Tube videos on cancer cures are pure hokum, and prey on patients desperate for a “cure” for their metastic prostate cancer.
However there are some legit ones. I have recently seen You Tube videos by some doctors who attended the 2018 ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) confab in Chicago, discussing their findings and the directions that prostate cancer research and treatment might head in the near future.
I don’t know about PCa, but there’s a doctor (Dr. Ima Quak) in Indonesia (or maybe it’s Nepal...it doesn’t matter) who developed a new miracle drug called “placebo”, which has worked wonders for my hypochondria. The pills look strangely like jelly beans or gummy bears. The only side effect is that being made almost totally of refined sugar, my blood glucose levels have shot up to diabetic levels. (Ok...just kidding, but trying to make a point before you all run out to buy some, that the same principles apply to the purveyors of wonder cures with baking soda and hydrogen peroxide, et al).
I ran into an old friend of mine last week at my 50th high school reunion up in South Dakota. He has prostate cancer (not Stage 4). He told me about a cancer treatment center in Tijuana, Mexico called CHIPSA. One of their treatments is with a 50-1 mix of Vitamin C and Vitamin K3, with the proprietary name “Apatone.” They also use Gerson immunotherapy, Laetrile, and Coley’s Immunotherapy. Snake oil? Who knows? But it costs $35K for the treatment, none of it covered by Medicare or private insurance.
Point is, read it, analyze the source and the claims they make, and make your own decisions. Just be careful to not go the alternative medicine route at the expense of conventional medically proven protocols.
Thanks Litlerny, all very good points. I would never ignore what conventional medicine can do for me, but so far, it has kept my PSA down, stopped my bone mets progressing in number, but by the same token, I now have burned through virtually all standard of care treatments in 2.5 years and I am now dealing with castration resistant disease and treatment induced small cell cancer. As a 51 year old with young children, I am always looking for things that will keep me alive for my family as I fear conventional medicine will tell me there's nothing more they can do for me before too long.
That is a very tough place to be in, especially at your young age. You have my prayers coming your way...wishing I could offer you more. Go for anything you think will help you!
Like others in here, I keep looking for that major breakthrough that will be a quantum leap in metastatic PCa treatment that will (like AIDS) turn it into a chronic and manageable disease...or maybe even a cure? Probably not in my lifetime, but every new advance that comes out buys us a little more time for that discovery to be made.
I'm curious about why you say you burned through all the treatments, Paul. You still have several options: Jevtana, Taxotere (again), Zytiga, Lu177, rechallenges of both Zytiga and Xtandi after chemo (some guys here were very lucky with it and got extra time), BAT, and the chemo regimens for small cell cancer too which are the same used for lung cancer I believe. There's also a chance you might get a long run with Xtandi since it's still working after 9 months and you still have more radiotherapy. All of this translates into several years of life and in the meantime new drugs will be developed.
Hi Dalph, I don't believe I responded to Taxotere, my PSA went down briefly then started rising quite rapidly (part of me thinks it caused the rise as I had been very stable). Now that I have small cell cancel, those treatments may or may not work for me, as small cell PCa doesn't respond to hormonal therapies. I understand BAT is only available for guys with no pain and who are asymptomatic, that's not me. You might be right, but I have never gotten very long out of anything I've tried before, so my concern is, I will exhaust all treatment options in quick time, but I truly hope that isn't the case.
I understand where you are coming from and I'm sorry for your situation but if Xtandi still currently works then there's a good chance Zytiga might work too, that means you probably have a mixed type rather than a 100% small cell disease, hence why your MO is trying to combine the treatments.
Most of the canned red salmon from Alaska comes from Bristol Bay, where this year they had a 40 million run of wild natural red salmon (largest Natural red salmon run in the world}. Most of the Yukon fish is used for subsistance in rural villages, and to feed dog teams. the red salmon is best for canned salmon as it is number 1 grade, and caught in the Ocean before they reach the spawning streams, always buy wild salmon from Alaska
John, I do beleive the greatest of sled dogs, Balto, who led the early 1,000 mile serum run to nome mid winter to save the town from diptheria in the early 19th century, whom the Iditarod is based on ,has a statue in Central Park Manhatten , his stuffed body is in Cleveland at Museum of Natural History,
Good Luck, Good Health , and thank you for all you have contributed.
Andrew, I spent a lifetime fishing salmon in Alaska commercially ,at 3 to 4 feet, those must have been kings. All salmon is best before they go into spawning mode and have all the valuable fats needed for spawning intact. I would love to have seen those fish. I know the yukon is also famous for thier chum salmon as well as their world class kings that migrate over 1,000 miles to spawn, those fish caught near the mouth prior to 1,000 mile migration without food would be awesome. I had no idea you were raised in AK
Nothing to do with cancer, but since salmon was brought up. First West Coast salmon is a different critter than Atlantic salmon which spawns more than once in its lifespan. The West Coast version spawns only once and then dies. It always returns to the same river to spawn that it was born in and this is a significant factor since it doesn't eat once it enters the river. This means there is a real difference between Copper River which only has a 300 mile length but a couple of thousand feet of rise and the Yukon with a 2,000 mile length and less than a thousand foot of rise. The salmon needs different muscle/fat for those two (as well as others) and that translates to different tastes.
It gets a bit quirky with competition for the first Copper River or the first Yukon River (similar to the first nouveau Beaujolais).
Here in Oregon we can get salmon year 'round and my wife and I eat a lot of it because, especially when cooked on a cedar plank Indian style, it tastes really, really good. Do you need another reason?
All very true, first I will say that Atlantic salmon is not harvested commercially in the wild and that all Atlantic Salmon are farm raised in pens, harmful to the enviroment, have color added and basically known as toxic. IN regards to Pacific Salmon mentioned I am a bit biased being 30 year Copper river fisherman, what sets that apart is a smaller run being handled one at a time as they come in, all fish are floated in slush bags preventing bruising from piling weight onto other fish ,immediately chilled in 32 degree water after pressure bleeding in bleed tank ,and 1st class handling procedures of this fish with very high oil content and it is more than 300 mile trip over the Chugach mountains to spawn, with Jet service to market it can be delivered to Market next day after caught,is why it sells out in fish markets in May for $35 a lb. Check out the website paradigm seafood on facebook for video on copper river handling procedure.As opposed to other runs that get mass quantities step all over the fish ,do not live bleed in bleed tank ppile bags full and bruise fish and quality suffers. Copper Kings are the best, there is a reason they sell for 75 dollars a lb in the markets in Seattle. Yukon Kings also have great oil content and flavor, though they are later, and take much longer to get to market, and I suspect do not have the stringent handling requirements of Copper Kings.Other areas are learning how 1st class handling procedures by fisherman can greatly effect shelf life and flavor on the fresh Market.Copper river is the first salmon in Alaska, so not only the best, it is near 100% fresh market fish, needs no seasoning. Bristol Bay has come a long way in handling procedures, but when you get 40 million fish in a month it is hard to handle them one at a time, many are canned ,though they are learning about the benefits of superior handling for fresh market. I know Oregon has salmon, was not aware salmon came in there year round, do they have any kings other than Hatchery Kings, and do they get any natural sockeye.I did long ago troll silvers out of Newport.Hatchery salmon do not compare, but certainly better than no salmon. I would always avoid Atlantic farm raised salmon, as they have been found to be unhealthy.
I am currently in hospital, platelets crashing, exhausted all treatments, no real pain,
Did you ever learn more about Astaxathin? Wouldn't the equivalant human dosagebe 7-8 grams per day (I'm 77kg), which would be about 50 tablets of the 12mg tablets? That's about a half a bottle per day.
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.
Discontinue all antioxidant supplements on early signs of biochemical recurrence?
Beneficial supplements?
On treating micro-metastatic disease 
Effects of fenbendazole and vitamin E succinate on the growth and survival of prostate cancer cells 
What is this miracle treatment of which the New York Times speaks today? Clue: it starts with LU
