NOTE: Vitamin C may inadvertently protect cancer cells more than normal cells.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576650980601014152.html
"The first red flags started emerging nearly 20 years ago. Researchers thought from early work that extra beta-carotene could help prevent lung cancer, but two randomized trials published in 1994 and 1996 showed an increased rate of lung cancer among smokers who took beta-carotene supplements.
Oncologist Mark Heaney of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York showed in laboratory work in 2008 that vitamin C appeared to inhibit the effect of chemotherapy drugs for cancer treatment. Subsequent research has shown vitamin C may inadvertently protect cancer cells more than normal cells.
A study published this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association, known as the SELECT trial, found that vitamin E—previously thought to lower risk of prostate cancer—actually increased the chance slightly. The risk could be mitigated by the simultaneous consumption of another micronutrient, selenium, the study says."
PLEASE CONFIRM THAT ALL SUPPLEMENTS ARE SAFE BEFORE USING THEM DURING TREATMENT!
Comments
-
A review of studies done in 2004
came to a similar conclusion:
Antioxidant supplements for preventing gastrointestinal cancers
"Authors' conclusions
We could not find convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, antioxidant supplements seem to increase overall mortality. The potential cancer preventive effect of selenium should be tested in adequately conducted randomised trials."0 -
thanks , I'll have a read
i appreciate you sharing the news and i personally check take all my supplements with the guidance of a few very knowledgeable people. i like these articles because it means that i continually have examine my routine. i like being challenged to keep an open mind and to stay informed. that said ironically i am pushing the envelope myself personally with vitamin c. not having injections but oral doses approaching the normal daily limits.
i personally apply the same standard to what i eat now, that is making sure it is safe. so i nolonger have meat or processed foods or alcohol or coffee. thats my choice and i am happy with it. getting solid advice about supplements is essential for me, i don't want the stress and pressure of doing it all myself.
thanks again for posting the news, and i will read the study more fully when when i get home from this 10 day meditation and diet retreat i am on. i am, really trying and feel its important that i do not waste money and time on useless supplements, the supplements i take i have faith in. in a way this news make having a healthy diet more important.
hugs,
pete0 -
IV C different than oralSundanceh said:Thanks, Alice:)
This sure might be of some interest to folks that get their vitamin C via IV. I've also heard about the E and selenium for prostrate as well.
-C
Molecular structure of ascorbic acid is similar to sugar and when cells uptake it, it turns to hydrogen peroxide which cancer cells cannot handle as well as normal cells. Very different pathway.
This is the protocol I follow:
http://integrativemed.kumc.edu/ivvitaminc.htm (sorry link not working; I'll look into it)
another link:
http://www.cihh.net/index.php/services/iv_therapy
all the best, Leslie0 -
Thanks, Leslielesvanb said:IV C different than oral
Molecular structure of ascorbic acid is similar to sugar and when cells uptake it, it turns to hydrogen peroxide which cancer cells cannot handle as well as normal cells. Very different pathway.
This is the protocol I follow:
http://integrativemed.kumc.edu/ivvitaminc.htm (sorry link not working; I'll look into it)
another link:
http://www.cihh.net/index.php/services/iv_therapy
all the best, Leslie
That's good to know. I know you and a couple of others I've met are strong proponents of this, so I'm glad to know that it behaves differently. You looked so good when I met you. I think you're still doin' much better than me:)
Thanks for the link...I'll be sure to check it out.
-C0 -
Negative statements inBuckwirth said:A review of studies done in 2004
came to a similar conclusion:
Antioxidant supplements for preventing gastrointestinal cancers
"Authors' conclusions
We could not find convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, antioxidant supplements seem to increase overall mortality. The potential cancer preventive effect of selenium should be tested in adequately conducted randomised trials."
Negative statements in papers often reflect that the combination tested did not reach therapeutic or formal significance, even when the results are highly favorable, and appear in an "inverted form" as a negative.
The reported "negative" cimetidine paper that I found quoted actually created graphs similar to the screaming success papers. However because it was a small, shorter test, the test had only finished with a favorable trend (p=0.11) rather than achieving formal significance (p<0.05). Almost certainly it would have a screaming success if the authors had run the results for 5 years instead of 3, the survival stats already were clearly graphing much improved survival.
Glad that I checked the actual data, rather than just the abstract.0 -
It's amazing...
how the "mainstream medical experts" publicized in the tobacco ad medical press always figure out how to fail a minor test, perhaps skipping a few ingredients or doses, and their own "failures" are then generalized in the tabacco press as universal laws. Sometimes the Soviets didn't get so obvious with their BS.
The vitamin C wars start over 70 years ago. And apparently the good doctors and "scientists" that are funded and publicized can't read because they can't even read (or follow) the frigging instructions right, if at all. At least on the "tests" that the tobacco med press chooses to promote. Oral C vitamin, taken around the clock, with other adjuvants, does have some important effects, but is not the "cure for cancer". The MSM statements seldom properly address this.
If one judged "mainstream" medical by Readers Digest pharma friendly stories, then a benighted captive of a certain "skeptic" medical editor, synthetic beta carotene was the coming mainstream darling in the 1980s. The juicers always told us to stick to the natural carotenoids and associated plant compounds. Substituting beta carotene for these other natural compounds with inadequate antioxidants IS a sure loser, solely using synthetic beta carotene was conceptually flawed in several ways from the start. The success stories (and epidemiology) were really complex natural sources that were eventually twisted into a single marker compound as "the answer".
"Sand makes great concrete" Would you say the same after leaving out the cement, stone and water? If all the sand grains were round, too?
--------
If I listened to these guys and acted (inert) accordingly, my wife would already be stone cold dead, months ago. And you know what, she never suffers from the myriad side effects that I see swell these cancer sites. I focus on finding papers that tell how to succeed, while carefully analyzing failures to avoid repeating them.
In corporate research, a 1000 combinations may fail, the reward is nominally for those rare combinations that best succeed. The tobacco medical press has reversed this proposition. For sure, some combinations of (cheap) vitamins and supplements conflict with, or replace, expensive advertised medicines.
Be sure who you consult also knows wtf they are talking about and how to do something well, or successfully. Anything can be screwed up.0 -
Tanstaafl,tanstaafl said:It's amazing...
how the "mainstream medical experts" publicized in the tobacco ad medical press always figure out how to fail a minor test, perhaps skipping a few ingredients or doses, and their own "failures" are then generalized in the tabacco press as universal laws. Sometimes the Soviets didn't get so obvious with their BS.
The vitamin C wars start over 70 years ago. And apparently the good doctors and "scientists" that are funded and publicized can't read because they can't even read (or follow) the frigging instructions right, if at all. At least on the "tests" that the tobacco med press chooses to promote. Oral C vitamin, taken around the clock, with other adjuvants, does have some important effects, but is not the "cure for cancer". The MSM statements seldom properly address this.
If one judged "mainstream" medical by Readers Digest pharma friendly stories, then a benighted captive of a certain "skeptic" medical editor, synthetic beta carotene was the coming mainstream darling in the 1980s. The juicers always told us to stick to the natural carotenoids and associated plant compounds. Substituting beta carotene for these other natural compounds with inadequate antioxidants IS a sure loser, solely using synthetic beta carotene was conceptually flawed in several ways from the start. The success stories (and epidemiology) were really complex natural sources that were eventually twisted into a single marker compound as "the answer".
"Sand makes great concrete" Would you say the same after leaving out the cement, stone and water? If all the sand grains were round, too?
--------
If I listened to these guys and acted (inert) accordingly, my wife would already be stone cold dead, months ago. And you know what, she never suffers from the myriad side effects that I see swell these cancer sites. I focus on finding papers that tell how to succeed, while carefully analyzing failures to avoid repeating them.
In corporate research, a 1000 combinations may fail, the reward is nominally for those rare combinations that best succeed. The tobacco medical press has reversed this proposition. For sure, some combinations of (cheap) vitamins and supplements conflict with, or replace, expensive advertised medicines.
Be sure who you consult also knows wtf they are talking about and how to do something well, or successfully. Anything can be screwed up.
Since these are dealing with supplements (rather than treatments), it makes sense that the studies and the reviews look at consumer grade supplements. Not sure where you are getting the "tobacco ad medical press", while the WSJ may run tobacco ads, the Cochrane Collaboration does not.
Funny you have Vit C as a 70 year controversy, while it was only discovered 80 years ago, its use as a supplement goes back to the 18th century, and even after James Lind showed that citrus fruit prevented Scurvy it took another 50 years for the British Navy to mandate that limes be kept on board ship.
None of these studies was looking at IV Ascorbic Acid and its potential use in cancer treatments (though such studies are underway).
As the Cochrane Review points out, the current data shows a potential for harm from the use of some supplements. It is not an absolute, but it is contrary to the popular notion that all anti-oxidants are healthful.0 -
Wang articleBuckwirth said:Tanstaafl,
Since these are dealing with supplements (rather than treatments), it makes sense that the studies and the reviews look at consumer grade supplements. Not sure where you are getting the "tobacco ad medical press", while the WSJ may run tobacco ads, the Cochrane Collaboration does not.
Funny you have Vit C as a 70 year controversy, while it was only discovered 80 years ago, its use as a supplement goes back to the 18th century, and even after James Lind showed that citrus fruit prevented Scurvy it took another 50 years for the British Navy to mandate that limes be kept on board ship.
None of these studies was looking at IV Ascorbic Acid and its potential use in cancer treatments (though such studies are underway).
As the Cochrane Review points out, the current data shows a potential for harm from the use of some supplements. It is not an absolute, but it is contrary to the popular notion that all anti-oxidants are healthful.
Blake, I didn't address Cochrane whose primary fault is lack of accepted data, much less complete data, often with odd compositions or known hazards and very small composition ranges. Although I consider WSJ to be one of the best American dailies, WSJ has its warts, and its supplements coverage has long appeared shallow and biased to me. Bear in mind one of WSJ flaws has been its relationship to small shaky advertisers, on the way to total meltdown scandals that the rest of us could see coming. Never mind larger ad interests.
"antioxidants" are a poor terminology.
----------------
One of the early IV vitamin C fubars on virus treatment was Jungeblut, underdosed, poorly imitated and misinterpreted by Sabin in 1937-39; nipped an incipient IV vitamin C revolution right in the bud. Even Szent-Györgyi (Nobel prize for C) complained about early medical profession hostility to vitamin C in the 1930's. 70+ years by my arithmetic.
The Wang article greatly overdraws its conclusions. I would agree that multivitamins are often inadequate formulas, especially the old formulas the studies are based on. The multivitamins were basically built on 1940s politics with a slow evolution starting over the last 20 years, but still remain incomplete and technically irrational.
"Technically irrational" starts with vitamin D3 (or D2) in multivitamins on dosages that are fatally flawed to a large portion of members here, counting myself too. You can play with your Wang article, but I believe that its risks outweigh its benefits.0 -
Articles and references from MSKCC sitetanstaafl said:It's amazing...
how the "mainstream medical experts" publicized in the tobacco ad medical press always figure out how to fail a minor test, perhaps skipping a few ingredients or doses, and their own "failures" are then generalized in the tabacco press as universal laws. Sometimes the Soviets didn't get so obvious with their BS.
The vitamin C wars start over 70 years ago. And apparently the good doctors and "scientists" that are funded and publicized can't read because they can't even read (or follow) the frigging instructions right, if at all. At least on the "tests" that the tobacco med press chooses to promote. Oral C vitamin, taken around the clock, with other adjuvants, does have some important effects, but is not the "cure for cancer". The MSM statements seldom properly address this.
If one judged "mainstream" medical by Readers Digest pharma friendly stories, then a benighted captive of a certain "skeptic" medical editor, synthetic beta carotene was the coming mainstream darling in the 1980s. The juicers always told us to stick to the natural carotenoids and associated plant compounds. Substituting beta carotene for these other natural compounds with inadequate antioxidants IS a sure loser, solely using synthetic beta carotene was conceptually flawed in several ways from the start. The success stories (and epidemiology) were really complex natural sources that were eventually twisted into a single marker compound as "the answer".
"Sand makes great concrete" Would you say the same after leaving out the cement, stone and water? If all the sand grains were round, too?
--------
If I listened to these guys and acted (inert) accordingly, my wife would already be stone cold dead, months ago. And you know what, she never suffers from the myriad side effects that I see swell these cancer sites. I focus on finding papers that tell how to succeed, while carefully analyzing failures to avoid repeating them.
In corporate research, a 1000 combinations may fail, the reward is nominally for those rare combinations that best succeed. The tobacco medical press has reversed this proposition. For sure, some combinations of (cheap) vitamins and supplements conflict with, or replace, expensive advertised medicines.
Be sure who you consult also knows wtf they are talking about and how to do something well, or successfully. Anything can be screwed up.
See http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69413.cfm#References0 -
did you tell metanstaafl said:Wang article
Blake, I didn't address Cochrane whose primary fault is lack of accepted data, much less complete data, often with odd compositions or known hazards and very small composition ranges. Although I consider WSJ to be one of the best American dailies, WSJ has its warts, and its supplements coverage has long appeared shallow and biased to me. Bear in mind one of WSJ flaws has been its relationship to small shaky advertisers, on the way to total meltdown scandals that the rest of us could see coming. Never mind larger ad interests.
"antioxidants" are a poor terminology.
----------------
One of the early IV vitamin C fubars on virus treatment was Jungeblut, underdosed, poorly imitated and misinterpreted by Sabin in 1937-39; nipped an incipient IV vitamin C revolution right in the bud. Even Szent-Györgyi (Nobel prize for C) complained about early medical profession hostility to vitamin C in the 1930's. 70+ years by my arithmetic.
The Wang article greatly overdraws its conclusions. I would agree that multivitamins are often inadequate formulas, especially the old formulas the studies are based on. The multivitamins were basically built on 1940s politics with a slow evolution starting over the last 20 years, but still remain incomplete and technically irrational.
"Technically irrational" starts with vitamin D3 (or D2) in multivitamins on dosages that are fatally flawed to a large portion of members here, counting myself too. You can play with your Wang article, but I believe that its risks outweigh its benefits.
To play with my ...?
0 -
Disclaimer?
While I understand and applaud a members desire to provide information both pro and con I feel it necessary in this instance to post a disclaimer. This study on vitamin C, by many accounts, was a flawed study performed with inaccurate comparisons and bold assumptions. An article clarifying some of the details of the study can be found here. Please investigate this if you are at all interested in the facts of the study.
http://www.naturalissues.com/?p=20
Personally, I researched everything before my treatment for rectal cancer. I took nine months after my diagnosis to get to a state of well being through diet changes and supplements before I felt ready to start my "conventional" treatments. Over that nine months I lost 60 pounds and corrected every digestive issue I'd ever had as well as completely stopped my regular recurring headaches I had come to accept as normal. My cancer remained stable as well. I had full blown cancer but was in the best health of my adult life. I maintained my supplements including high doses of vitamin C throughout my treatments of oral chemo and simultaneous daily radiation. After the six week course and upon extensive follow-up testing they determined I had a complete response, meaning there was no remaing sign of cancer in my body. During treatment I had little to no side effects and from months to a year later I have NO lasting effects of the potentially traumatic damage I was subjected to. Sure, it could all be a coincidence or it could be as many studies have shown, that vitamins can befefit conventional treatments as well as reduce the damage of chemo and radiation. We all have to make our own conclusions but don't bet your life on one article you read with just the abstract of a study.
Take care,
CJ0 -
Double disclaimerson of hal said:Disclaimer?
While I understand and applaud a members desire to provide information both pro and con I feel it necessary in this instance to post a disclaimer. This study on vitamin C, by many accounts, was a flawed study performed with inaccurate comparisons and bold assumptions. An article clarifying some of the details of the study can be found here. Please investigate this if you are at all interested in the facts of the study.
http://www.naturalissues.com/?p=20
Personally, I researched everything before my treatment for rectal cancer. I took nine months after my diagnosis to get to a state of well being through diet changes and supplements before I felt ready to start my "conventional" treatments. Over that nine months I lost 60 pounds and corrected every digestive issue I'd ever had as well as completely stopped my regular recurring headaches I had come to accept as normal. My cancer remained stable as well. I had full blown cancer but was in the best health of my adult life. I maintained my supplements including high doses of vitamin C throughout my treatments of oral chemo and simultaneous daily radiation. After the six week course and upon extensive follow-up testing they determined I had a complete response, meaning there was no remaing sign of cancer in my body. During treatment I had little to no side effects and from months to a year later I have NO lasting effects of the potentially traumatic damage I was subjected to. Sure, it could all be a coincidence or it could be as many studies have shown, that vitamins can befefit conventional treatments as well as reduce the damage of chemo and radiation. We all have to make our own conclusions but don't bet your life on one article you read with just the abstract of a study.
Take care,
CJ
Wang's article in the WSJ referenced current and past studies, not a single study.
The Cochrane Collaboration reviews all available, published trials and studies, weeding out those with improper protocol or evidence bias. It also is not based on a single study.
I do take issue with any organisation that would go to a DC to get advice about vaccines.0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.6K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 308 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 395 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.3K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 791 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 235 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 56 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.4K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 534 Sarcoma
- 719 Skin Cancer
- 647 Stomach Cancer
- 190 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.9K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards