Vitamin E, Other Antioxidants Linked to Lung Cancer

[Skywizard]

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/blogs/dnews-files-2014-01-vitamin-e-670-jpg.jpg


If you haven’t already dumped your daily multi-vitamins, yet more research is out questioning the benefits of vitamin supplements. New research shows that some antioxidants, including vitamin E, can actually promote lung cancer.

“Taking extra antioxidants might be harmful and could speed up the growth of (any) tumors,” biologist and co-author Martin Bergo of Gothenburg said. “If I had a patient with lung cancer, I would not recommend they take an antioxidant.”

The research on mice showed that antioxidants lets cancer cells escape the natural defense system of healthy cells, allowing existing tumors to proliferate.

“Antioxidants caused the mice to die twice as fast, and the effect was dose-dependent,” senior author Dr. Martin Bergo said at a news conference. “If we gave a small dose, tumors grew a little. If we gave a high dose, tumors grew a lot.”

The findings, published in Science Translational Medicine, do not mean you should give up a diet naturally rich in antioxidants from whole foods, however: the mice in the study received supplemental doses of vitamin E from four to 50 times the recommended daily intake in the U.S.

It’s also not clear whether antioxidants could cause lung cancer, or just exacerbate existing cancer.

Earlier human trials also found that the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E increased the incidence of lung cancer in smokers.


Source: http://news.discovery.com/human/health/vitamin-2-other-antioxidants-linked-to-lung-cancer-140130.htm


peace...
skywizard

[sheme]

If you really think it is doing you good- it does. Remember " they " are out to remove a few billion of us?

I believe if I had the big C I would go alternative therapy. And lots of wine.:o

[Carmody]

Well, fuel for the body will indeed fuel the cancer as well. This is known.

To make a case for one component of an argument is definitely an unbalanced tactic by big pharma and what is backing them..

The trick is to bring health to the body so it can fight of the formation of the cancers in the first place. And two..stop exposing the body to the origin points for cancer, in the first place.

If cancer is encountered, to deal with a specific and directed attack on the cancerous situation, all while aiding the body in this involved and complex process.

It's like saying that 'water kills people', but failing to say it is a toxicity issue if huge amounts are consumed in a short time period, or if the person is held under water an forced to try and breathe water. Basically the only two ways that water can kill people.

[DeDukshyn]

Oh wow, yet another "Killer E!" study. Well if it's anything like the last one that said Vit E will give you a heart attack, it's not even worth reading.

Here is a full dissection of the "Killer E!" headlines that circulated in 2005. Worth a read to get proper perspective on most of these studies.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2005/mar2005_report_killer_e_01.htm

[Sidney]

That is a mainstream news article. Nuff said.

[Lifebringer]

Four to 50 times the recommended dose? Yeah I can imagine overdosing on natural supplements would cause problems. Over "Dosing" on anything will do that. Four to 50 times the dose and they are wondering. Ha!

Sorry, but that is a stupid study. Do they do 4 to 50 times the recommended dose of Tylenol. Sheesh. They need a real job. Anybody could have told them that.

Such 'genius" deserves a new line of work.

[Little Ishta]

There must be something good about vitamin E if they are stating that it's not good for us. I just started taking it again about 2weeks ago. I don't believe everything. LOL probably in 2 months time they'll be saying its good for us.

[DeDukshyn]

There must be something good about vitamin E if they are stating that it's not good for us. I just started taking it again about 2weeks ago. I don't believe everything. LOL probably in 2 months time they'll be saying its good for us.

Vitamin E is eight molecules and supplementing in only one of those eight WILL cause imbalances.

Some tips:

Look at the facts panel - if you see DL-alpha tocopherol as a source. Throw it out immediately. However, what you want is a complex of both tocopherols and tocotrienols. D-alpha tocopheral is fine (no "L").

[Little Ishta]

There must be something good about vitamin E if they are stating that it's not good for us. I just started taking it again about 2weeks ago. I don't believe everything. LOL probably in 2 months time they'll be saying its good for us.

Vitamin E is eight molecules and supplementing in only one of those eight WILL cause imbalances.
Some tips:

Look at the facts panel - if you see DL-alpha tocopherol as a source. Throw it out immediately. However, what you want is a
complex of both tocopherols and tocotrienols. D-alpha tocopheral is fine (no "L").

Okie dokie. I checked the panel and it's safe, has D-alpha tocopherol. Besides I take one capsule every 2nd day. Thanks DeDukshyn... Much obliged. :)

[ThePythonicCow]

Here is the abstract (http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/6/221/221ra15.abstract):

==================



Antioxidants are widely used to protect cells from damage induced by reactive oxygen species (ROS). The concept that antioxidants can help fight cancer is deeply rooted in the general population, promoted by the food supplement industry, and supported by some scientific studies. However, clinical trials have reported inconsistent results.

We show that supplementing the diet with the antioxidants N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and vitamin E markedly increases tumor progression and reduces survival in mouse models of B-RAF– and K-RAS–induced lung cancer. RNA sequencing revealed that NAC and vitamin E, which are structurally unrelated, produce highly coordinated changes in tumor transcriptome profiles, dominated by reduced expression of endogenous antioxidant genes. NAC and vitamin E increase tumor cell proliferation by reducing ROS, DNA damage, and p53 expression in mouse and human lung tumor cells. Inactivation of p53 increases tumor growth to a similar degree as antioxidants and abolishes the antioxidant effect.

Thus, antioxidants accelerate tumor growth by disrupting the ROS-p53 axis. Because somatic mutations in p53 occur late in tumor progression, antioxidants may accelerate the growth of early tumors or precancerous lesions in high-risk populations such as smokers and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who receive NAC to relieve mucus production.
==================

I am wondering if perhaps this is straight forward and legitimate. Perhaps the "expression of endogenous antioxidant genes" is one of the important mechanisms by which the body attacks tumors and precancerous lesions, and suppressing this expression by taking antioxidants could accelerate tumor growth, depending on dose, cancer type, etc.

One does want some oxidation of "baddies" ... for example that is what chlorine dioxide (what Jim Humble's MMS produces) does.

The confusion may come with bundling all anti-oxidants, in all doses, together and engaging in a debate as to whether antioxidants are good or bad. This article's title contributes to that confusion, generalizing from the specifics of higher doses of NAC and Vitamin E in cancerous mice to the general case of "antioxidants" promote (lung) cancer.

That same confusion is promoted from the other side as well, when the vitamin supplement industry labels many diverse nutrients as "antioxidants", with the implication that this makes them "good".

[ThePythonicCow]

If we replace "oxidation" with "burning" and think of fire rather than food, then this might make more sense.

Fire can heat our homes and cook our food, making it tastier, more easily digested and safer.

Fire can also burn our home down and kill us.

Going into an Eskimo's igloo in the middle of winter and spraying his fire with a fire extinguisher will not please the Eskimo :). That does not make fire extinguishers (an "antioxidant" of sorts) bad ... just misused in that case.

Oxidation is a basic means by which living tissue generates energy and destroys "baddies". But, like fire, it is capable of both good and bad.

[DeDukshyn]

If we replace "oxidation" with "burning" and think of fire rather than food, then this might make more sense.

Fire can heat our homes and cook our food, making it tastier, more easily digested and safer.

Fire can also burn our home down and kill us.

Going into an Eskimo's igloo in the middle of winter and spraying his fire with a fire extinguisher will not please the Eskimo :). That does not make fire extinguishers (an "antioxidant" of sorts) bad ... just misused in that case.

Oxidation is a basic means by which living tissue generates energy and destroys "baddies". But, like fire, it is capable of both good and bad.

It does make sense ... I didn't read the article, but your embedded abstract showed something I can concur with. At extreme overdosing amounts, antioxidants can do harm. Many oxidants are used by the body as signalling molecules, so some are necessary for optimal function. However as stated we are talking some high extremes. My boss wrote a blog article on the topic actually - not condemning antioxidants, but indicating extremes of anything are still extremes - and do harm.