How antioxidants can accelerate cancers, and why they don't protect against them

We've all heard it a million times, "Antioxidants are great, they can help protect against cancers", "Make sure you eat stuff that has lots of antioxidants"
This study has taken a good hard look at Antioxidants and this is what is has found:

How antioxidants can accelerate cancers, and why they don't protect against them

For decades, health-conscious people around the globe have taken antioxidant supplements and eaten foods rich in antioxidants, figuring this was one of the paths to good health and a long life.

Yet clinical trials of antioxidant supplements have repeatedly dashed the hopes of consumers who take them hoping to reduce their cancer risk. Virtually all such trials have failed to show any protective effect against cancer. In fact, in several trials antioxidant supplementation has been linked with increased rates of certain cancers. In one trial, smokers taking extra beta carotene had higher, not lower, rates of lung cancer.

In a brief paper appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine, David Tuveson, M.D. Ph.D., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Professor and Director of Research for the Lustgarten Foundation, and Navdeep S. Chandel, Ph.D., of the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, propose why antioxidant supplements might not be working to reduce cancer development, and why they may actually do more harm than good.

Their insights are based on recent advances in the understanding of the system in our cells that establishes a natural balance between oxidizing and anti-oxidizing compounds. These compounds are involved in so-called redox (reduction and oxidation) reactions essential to cellular chemistry.

Oxidants like hydrogen peroxide are essential in small quantities and are manufactured within cells. There is no dispute that oxidants are toxic in large amounts, and cells naturally generate their own anti-oxidants to neutralize them. It has seemed logical to many, therefore, to boost intake of antioxidants to counter the effects of hydrogen peroxide and other similarly toxic "reactive oxygen species," or ROS, as they are called by scientists. All the more because it is known that cancer cells generate higher levels of ROS to help feed their abnormal growth.


Quantities of both ROS and natural antioxidants are higher in cancer cells -- the paradoxically higher levels of antioxidants being a natural defense by cancer cells to keep their higher levels of oxidants in check, so growth can continue. In fact, say Tuveson and Chandel, therapies that raise the levels of oxidants in cells may be beneficial, whereas those that act as antioxidants may further stimulate the cancer cells. Interestingly, radiation therapy kills cancer cells by dramatically raising levels of oxidants. The same is true of chemotherapeutic drugs -- they kill tumor cells via oxidation.

Paradoxically, then, the authors suggest that "genetic or pharmacologic inhibition of antioxidant proteins" -- a concept tested successfully in rodent models of lung and pancreatic cancers -- may be a useful therapeutic approach in humans. The key challenge, they say, is to identify antioxidant proteins and pathways in cells that are used only by cancer cells and not by healthy cells. Impeding antioxidant production in healthy cells will upset the delicate redox balance upon which normal cellular function depends.

This is a major kick in the teeth to people who try to be healthy & to health nuts.

I used to work at a smoothie place called Booster Juice and they were all about fruits that were high in antioxidants. Blueberries, Pomegranates & Acai berries were the most popular. I even tried to create a new smoothie that was pumped fully of antioxidants but it was too expensive to make as an official drink. It was still super tasty & tart, I made one everyday I worked.

Here's hoping to more extensive studies on antioxidants.

And people mock me when I say Science is full of crap.

Moral of the story: there is no magic pill that will cure the effects that eating, drinking, and breathing poison for decades have had, and continue to have, on your body. I won't even get into the stress we're under living as lab rats for corporations.

It all comes down to simply returning to a natural diet that humans, until only very recently (coinciding with the rise of cancer, as luck would have it), have followed for millions of years: nuts, grains, fruits and raw vegetables, etc. We've heard the menu ad nauseam, yet still prefer to pop a "supplement" and consider the matter closed.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

I have to object here. Cancer is gold in the medical world. They all profit off of it. Year by year they release studies that trash natural, holistic, healthy methods of fighting Cancer. I don't think that's an accident. My wife had a very serious case of Ovarian cancer years ago and she opted to go the natural route. I'm not saying this is the way for everyone but she won. She researched more in that time than I can express. She was a warrior, she fought and she won. MSM just ran another story recently about how vitamins are all useless generally which couldn't be further from the truth. The study played out like it had a PR team coordinating TV shows & publications for it. The truth is that we a lot of very impressionable consumers looking for anyway out of the healthy/expensive choice. Studies like these keep people sick & dying as intended because drawn out illnesses make a lot of people a lot of money. There's a lot more i'd like to elaborate on but I must get back to work, however I felt I needed to say something. In the same spirit I have to say we know multiple people who took the same route as my wife treating completely by diet, spirit, mind, etc and they also beat cancer. If anyone with Cancer wants more info on things my wife can tell you about feel free to PM me. Note though that i've never PM'd before so it may take me a minute to get to it and ask my wife to write up a response.

Robby

a reply to: knoledgeispower

It seems like every time they say something is good for you, years later they find out it's bad for you. Is there anything out there that is as good as they say it is?

In 1992 a close friend of mine who owned a medical research lab doing studies for every major drug company was diagnosed with malignant lymphoma. He was given 6 months to live. His oncologist wanted to put him on chemo. Told the drug of choice Jack's response was "I tested that on dogs and saw what it did to them. if you think you are going to use it on me you are crazy"

He left the U.S. and got over 50 GRAMS a day of sodium ascorbate IV. It is the IV form of vitamin C. It cured the lymphoma and he lived until Dec 2010.

His comment to me: "Any therapy no matter how effective will be actively suppressed by big pharma if they cannot profit from it"

I am taking it IV in doses up to 90 grams a day, and it is doing amazing things for me. Do it myself per detailed instructions given to me by Jack..

Don't believe BS about antioxidants being bad for you... disinfo

a reply to: robbystarbuck

I'm with you on that can't believe anything that comes out as ''news'' these days anymore.

constantly being lied to about so many things, why not lie about antioxidants and make false claims so they can keep their greed going.

I don't see any data being shown in that article to back all these claims.

I also don't see how eating what our ancestors ate for centuries before all this processed food crap came along is suddenly dangerous and accelerates cancer.

this is absolute rubbish if you ask me.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: knoledgeispower

It seems like every time they say something is good for you, years later they find out it's bad for you. Is there anything out there that is as good as they say it is?

Totally the truth. We don't know much about the stuff we are putting in our bodies and yet we trust the "professionals" to know that it's good. Yet, most of the time it is too early to tell what the long term effects are going to be.

Look at all this GMO b.s They say it's good for you yet Monsanto refuses to do any long term studies on GMO....I wonder why that is?

Exactly, and a well said reception of comments. How do we even really know- More studies, evidence and compare and contrast need to follow. As another member pointed out above about Vic C working. Hardly seems it's just a placebo, or bad for you overall. Per chance it is only some of it that can bother, but media, Big Pharma and propaganda, will in turn fixate on a scare that they are all bad.

Aren't a large percentage of said studies, fixed by paid off scientists and or journalists? GMO evidence and the Monsanto fight against it: Same with more evidence needs to follow, it's just so hard to avoid agenda from any side now days, albeit in any form the controlled corporate lead agenda let stuff is more dangerous than claims of squirrels not eating GMO corn to the claimed misleading data on rat tumors from GMO feed. Better safe than sorry, I'll wait before wanting to ingest that stuff.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: knoledgeispower

It seems like every time they say something is good for you, years later they find out it's bad for you. Is there anything out there that is as good as they say it is?

This, reminds me of eggs and sometimes in the news... coffee, multi times a year they come off as "Good for you", then the next time "bad!"
Indeed very irritating and it very well makes people not to want to even listen, but at least go find their own data on what the real deal may be.

This was postulated some years ago now.
scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org...

The main issue with cancer is that since it takes many forms there will never be anything which has the same effect on every type of it.

As for "alternative" or "natural" cures, after 13 years of looking I've still to find even one which can provide credible and reproducible evidence of success.

EDIT: Oh as for science "changing its mind", well that's what science does. That's why it's science and not belief!