› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Could Antioxidants Speed Up Cancer Progression?
- This topic has 18 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
kylez.
- Post
-
- January 30, 2014 at 10:11 pm
- Replies
-
-
- January 31, 2014 at 4:01 am
Again, this is one of the questions that doesn't have a flat YES/NO answer for all with cancer. There has been a discussion along this line regarding Gleevec. Gleevec is apparently delivered by riding into C-kit cancer cells by riding in on free radicals. Hugh doses of anti-oxidants removes the free radicals.
In this case how many free radicals do you want to get rid of? The main resolution 5 years ago regarding the anti-oxidants with this type medication was to neither take large doses nor to stop eating foods with anti-oxidant properties. I reduced my Anti-oxidant supplements and try to get most of them from fresh foods where I get a more natural complete spectrum, not just the components put in the pill cases. -
- January 31, 2014 at 4:01 am
Again, this is one of the questions that doesn't have a flat YES/NO answer for all with cancer. There has been a discussion along this line regarding Gleevec. Gleevec is apparently delivered by riding into C-kit cancer cells by riding in on free radicals. Hugh doses of anti-oxidants removes the free radicals.
In this case how many free radicals do you want to get rid of? The main resolution 5 years ago regarding the anti-oxidants with this type medication was to neither take large doses nor to stop eating foods with anti-oxidant properties. I reduced my Anti-oxidant supplements and try to get most of them from fresh foods where I get a more natural complete spectrum, not just the components put in the pill cases. -
- January 31, 2014 at 4:01 am
Again, this is one of the questions that doesn't have a flat YES/NO answer for all with cancer. There has been a discussion along this line regarding Gleevec. Gleevec is apparently delivered by riding into C-kit cancer cells by riding in on free radicals. Hugh doses of anti-oxidants removes the free radicals.
In this case how many free radicals do you want to get rid of? The main resolution 5 years ago regarding the anti-oxidants with this type medication was to neither take large doses nor to stop eating foods with anti-oxidant properties. I reduced my Anti-oxidant supplements and try to get most of them from fresh foods where I get a more natural complete spectrum, not just the components put in the pill cases.-
- January 31, 2014 at 4:54 am
My MD implied to me that you shouldn't juice large amounts of carrots if you are a smoker. I am assuming that he was referring to the beta carotene issue with lung cancer. He didn't sound like a big proponent of any kind of supplementation though. And I did find other articles on the internet that spoke to that connection.
-
- January 31, 2014 at 4:54 am
My MD implied to me that you shouldn't juice large amounts of carrots if you are a smoker. I am assuming that he was referring to the beta carotene issue with lung cancer. He didn't sound like a big proponent of any kind of supplementation though. And I did find other articles on the internet that spoke to that connection.
-
- January 31, 2014 at 4:54 am
My MD implied to me that you shouldn't juice large amounts of carrots if you are a smoker. I am assuming that he was referring to the beta carotene issue with lung cancer. He didn't sound like a big proponent of any kind of supplementation though. And I did find other articles on the internet that spoke to that connection.
-
- January 31, 2014 at 5:24 am
As in most things, moderation is usually better. For most things I would thing the whole natural source would be better than the Pill form. Here is an aarticle that supports both what your MD said and what I am thinking. This article also relates Vit A to Melanoma as well as to lung cancer.
Is interesting.
-
- January 31, 2014 at 5:24 am
As in most things, moderation is usually better. For most things I would thing the whole natural source would be better than the Pill form. Here is an aarticle that supports both what your MD said and what I am thinking. This article also relates Vit A to Melanoma as well as to lung cancer.
Is interesting.
-
- January 31, 2014 at 5:24 am
As in most things, moderation is usually better. For most things I would thing the whole natural source would be better than the Pill form. Here is an aarticle that supports both what your MD said and what I am thinking. This article also relates Vit A to Melanoma as well as to lung cancer.
Is interesting.
-
- January 31, 2014 at 11:13 am
I think a pit we all can fall into in reading scientific studies about cancer is taking the results way further than they present. In the first article that started this series of posts, the study was specifically about lung cancer. The conclusions were about lung cancer. The conclusions were very carefully and parsimoniously stated, as they usually are in this kind of writing. Our lay tendency is to leap to other conclusions that seem to be logically related but which the authors would say are far beyond what they are presenting. Even applying work done on mice to human beings is a leap. This is not to say that these mice studies won't lead to important conclusions about human cancers but we're not there yet in any definitive way. The last words of the paper give the practical application of one of the study's authors to his own medical practice. It's limited to lung cancer and is not an across the board verdict on anti-oxidant use. In some cases yes in some no. Let's not go further than the evidence suggests.
Frank
-
- January 31, 2014 at 11:13 am
I think a pit we all can fall into in reading scientific studies about cancer is taking the results way further than they present. In the first article that started this series of posts, the study was specifically about lung cancer. The conclusions were about lung cancer. The conclusions were very carefully and parsimoniously stated, as they usually are in this kind of writing. Our lay tendency is to leap to other conclusions that seem to be logically related but which the authors would say are far beyond what they are presenting. Even applying work done on mice to human beings is a leap. This is not to say that these mice studies won't lead to important conclusions about human cancers but we're not there yet in any definitive way. The last words of the paper give the practical application of one of the study's authors to his own medical practice. It's limited to lung cancer and is not an across the board verdict on anti-oxidant use. In some cases yes in some no. Let's not go further than the evidence suggests.
Frank
-
- January 31, 2014 at 11:13 am
I think a pit we all can fall into in reading scientific studies about cancer is taking the results way further than they present. In the first article that started this series of posts, the study was specifically about lung cancer. The conclusions were about lung cancer. The conclusions were very carefully and parsimoniously stated, as they usually are in this kind of writing. Our lay tendency is to leap to other conclusions that seem to be logically related but which the authors would say are far beyond what they are presenting. Even applying work done on mice to human beings is a leap. This is not to say that these mice studies won't lead to important conclusions about human cancers but we're not there yet in any definitive way. The last words of the paper give the practical application of one of the study's authors to his own medical practice. It's limited to lung cancer and is not an across the board verdict on anti-oxidant use. In some cases yes in some no. Let's not go further than the evidence suggests.
Frank
-
- February 2, 2014 at 11:23 am
This article is a little better written as to why they think antioxidants might speed the progression of cancer.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/antioxidants-could-terrible-people-already-170000890.html
-
- February 2, 2014 at 11:23 am
This article is a little better written as to why they think antioxidants might speed the progression of cancer.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/antioxidants-could-terrible-people-already-170000890.html
-
- February 2, 2014 at 11:23 am
This article is a little better written as to why they think antioxidants might speed the progression of cancer.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/antioxidants-could-terrible-people-already-170000890.html
-
- February 2, 2014 at 5:50 pm
I heard a webinar from a doctor at Darthmouth-Hitchcock who, for a very specific situation, jacks up the oxidation as much as possible. It's for SRS — they came up with a protocol where after SRS, they rush the patient to a hyperbaric chamber to massively increase O2 levels in the patien'ts blood. He said they have it down to about a 7 minute transition from finishing SRS into the hyperbaric chamber. The idea being that the purpose of SRS is to break DNA apart, oxidation being a big mechanism of doing so.
That's a very specific situation and probaby not proven by clinical trial. No idea if they think it would be applicable outside of that very specific scenario.
-
- February 2, 2014 at 5:50 pm
I heard a webinar from a doctor at Darthmouth-Hitchcock who, for a very specific situation, jacks up the oxidation as much as possible. It's for SRS — they came up with a protocol where after SRS, they rush the patient to a hyperbaric chamber to massively increase O2 levels in the patien'ts blood. He said they have it down to about a 7 minute transition from finishing SRS into the hyperbaric chamber. The idea being that the purpose of SRS is to break DNA apart, oxidation being a big mechanism of doing so.
That's a very specific situation and probaby not proven by clinical trial. No idea if they think it would be applicable outside of that very specific scenario.
-
- February 2, 2014 at 5:50 pm
I heard a webinar from a doctor at Darthmouth-Hitchcock who, for a very specific situation, jacks up the oxidation as much as possible. It's for SRS — they came up with a protocol where after SRS, they rush the patient to a hyperbaric chamber to massively increase O2 levels in the patien'ts blood. He said they have it down to about a 7 minute transition from finishing SRS into the hyperbaric chamber. The idea being that the purpose of SRS is to break DNA apart, oxidation being a big mechanism of doing so.
That's a very specific situation and probaby not proven by clinical trial. No idea if they think it would be applicable outside of that very specific scenario.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.