[HN Gopher] Antioxidants such as Vitamin C found to spur cancer ...
___________________________________________________________________
Antioxidants such as Vitamin C found to spur cancer growth and
metastasis
Author : danielam
Score : 87 points
Date : 2023-09-04 14:35 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (newatlas.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (newatlas.com)
| pcorsaro wrote:
| The debate about Vitamin C in the cancer world is never ending.
| My wife had stage IV colon cancer a few years ago, and we went
| through tons and tons of research to try and find things to
| supplement her chemotherapy. A lot of the "alternative" medicine
| people suggest doing extremely high dose Vitamin C intravenously
| because supposedly at higher doses, it becomes oxidative and
| generates free radicals in the blood stream which can kill a lot
| tumor types. Her oncologist didn't like the idea because there is
| also lots of research that says it spurs growth in tumors. He
| said that Vitamin C gets studied so much because it's cheap to
| get, but it's never really produced any meaningful results. There
| was a study he liked about taking extremely high doses of Vitamin
| D, but I can't really remember why.
| bettercallsalad wrote:
| As somebody with a relative identified with stage IV cancer,
| did you have any luck to finding an effective supplement to
| chemo?
| ambicapter wrote:
| Tim Ferris' Tools of Titans has a section from a doctor (not
| oncologist) who recommends fasting the days before chemo
| treatment. Supposedly it sensitizes the cancer cells to the
| chemo. I'm hesitant to give advice to cancer patients on the
| internet but there's more recommendations (in my book it's
| pg. 32-33). He also mentions keto diet, exogenous ketones,
| metformin, dichloroacetic acid, and finally hyperbaric
| oxygen, rapamycin in "modest, intermittent doses" and finally
| sequencing the tumor to see if a checkpoint inhibitor could
| be effective.
|
| Again, recommendations from a health guru book and not an
| actual doctor, that I'm just copying here in case it helps. I
| have no experience with cancer other than a close relative
| passing away when I was much younger.
| maxk42 wrote:
| Certain hard cancers are known to depend on blood sugar for
| growth as they can't metabolize anything else. It makes
| sense that a keto diet, therefore, would slow tumor growth,
| and I've heard of oncologists recommending it. Keto diets
| prevent prevent elevated blood sugar naturally. It's not a
| silver bullet but when it comes to cancer you've got to
| take every advantage you can get.
| rgbrenner wrote:
| It sounds like a really bad idea for a Stage IV cancer
| patient to fast. In later stages they frequently already
| have substantial weight loss... and in the last few weeks,
| people actually stop eating entirely as the body starts to
| shutdown. Death usually occurs when the weight loss reaches
| 30-40%.
|
| Encouraging them to stop eating seems like it would just
| accelerate death.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5114624/
| chasil wrote:
| There have been studies that p53 can be reactivated by
| fasting.
|
| In the context of chemotherapy, couldn't that be a
| quantitatively useful benefit?
|
| "Fasting improves therapeutic response in hepatocellular
| carcinoma through p53-dependent metabolic synergism"
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35061544/
| jsperx wrote:
| I just went through 6 cycles of 5-day IV chemotherapy
| (AIM) and I fasted for all of them, for a total of over
| 35 days of water-only fasting during the last 5 months. I
| can't find the PubMed link right now but there were small
| studies that looked like healthy cells would go into kind
| of a suspend/preserve mode that lessened side effects,
| whereas cancer cells still experienced the intended
| cytotoxicity. I tolerated the treatments quite well, lost
| hair of course but only vomited twice during the whole
| time. Lost weight each time but was able to put it back
| on quickly during the following week for each cycle,
| though I do want to watch body composition (don't want to
| trade muscle for fat).
|
| Did it make a difference in effectiveness? I actually
| have my follow up scans tomorrow to find out. As you can
| imagine, I really really hope so.
|
| https://news.usc.edu/29428/fasting-weakens-cancer-in-
| mice/
| rgbrenner wrote:
| I'm not a doctor. Ive just spent a lot of time looking
| into this (as im sure you have) because a close relative
| died from Stage IV lung cancer.
|
| There are studies on fasting with chemo.. and depending
| on the type of cancer its either effective or
| ineffective. My comment was specifically about the end
| stages where cachexia is common (from my link above):
|
| _" Cachexia is associated particularly with cancer where
| the prevalence can reach 50-80% in advanced malignant
| cancer."_
|
| And all of the advice Ive found says fasting is not
| recommended for patients with cachexia.
|
| It sounds like it was fine in your case though because
| you were able to regain the weight. Best of luck with
| your scans.
| darkclouds wrote:
| IF you do an excess of iron (chloride), it reduces the CD4
| cells and increases the cytotoxic CD8 cells.
|
| I say chlorides because consistently for many studies,
| notably zinc but applies to Iron, phytates and tannins bind
| and inhibit the absorption of these two metals, but leave
| copper alone. Chloride based metals get into the body very
| quickly.
|
| I'd also look at the mistakes in some studies, different
| parts of the world have different theories and its possible
| if you look at enough to see old theories being quoted and
| not assertions from more recent studies.
|
| The jury is out on what is a good diet to consume for
| different types of cancer let along a healthy life, its
| contradictory at best, zinc is good for tackling some
| cancers, and bad for others. Copper is good for tackling some
| cancers and not others, and that just looking at two common
| metals in the diet.
|
| So if the experts knew, I think they would recommend a diet
| to go on, but they are so steeped in patient privacy they
| undermine their own authority I think, not to mention come
| across in general as quite dictatorial.
|
| I have also been messing with some body building amino acids
| and I liked histdine which is one of the four amino acids
| that start with zinc, the other three are glutamic acid
| (glutamate), aspartic acid and cysteine (N-Acetyl Cysteine).
| Histidine is precursor for histamine which helps immune cells
| migrate through tissue. Aspartic acid mediates some cysteine
| based immune responses.
|
| Its also worth looking at vit D, a Wellcome trust study had
| reverse engineered the human genome about a decade ago and
| found that most of the Vit D receptors are concentrated
| around immune system genes (2776 iirc). But you need zinc and
| cysteine to build the zinc fingers found on these vit D
| receptors and vit D will switch on some genes and switch off
| some genes.
|
| Oncologists have access to the testing and measuring
| equipment, I see no harm if interested in this stuff to get
| the data from their tests and check their theories against
| studies found in google scholar, if you wanted piece of mind.
|
| These experts dont always publish their theories so there
| isnt the transparency, and they dont ask about diet which can
| be significant in some cases, so they undermine their
| expertise imo.
|
| And thats before you get into the debate of hackers tampering
| with results and other things which seem to question the
| fragile nature of computer security.
|
| And I'm not recommending anything other than question the
| experts.
| ta988 wrote:
| I was involved in some vitamin D work. It is really close to
| what this doctor described about Vitamin C. Or most really
| ubiquitous natural products really. I've seen all kind of
| incredible claims and their contrary, and in the end no
| epidemiologic study or clinical trial showed anything
| conclusive.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| vit D is even more random because it's correlated with so
| much more; being outside; sun exposure; moving etc.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| That's why observational studies consistently show vitamin
| deficiency correlates with various types ill health, but
| controlled experiments consistently show that
| supplementation fails to improve it.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Vitamin D deficiency isn't great, but the health influencer
| industry really blew this out of proportion. The number of
| people taking excessive doses because they think more is
| better is getting scary.
|
| You don't need a lot of Vitamin D to avoid deficiency. Taking
| even 5000 IU for an extended period of time can cause Vitamin
| D excess.
|
| Vitamin D confuses a lot of people because it accumulates
| over a very long time period. You can take the same dose
| every day but not approach overdose range for a year or more.
| It builds up if you're taking too much, and there is a lot of
| overlap between "too much" and some of the regimens pushed by
| health influencers.
| [deleted]
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > Her oncologist didn't like the idea because there is also
| lots of research that says it spurs growth in tumors.
|
| To be fair, if that's the effect you're going for it doesn't
| seem like the best option. If you want something to promote
| oxidative stress, take something like pawpaw supplements or a
| drug like metformin.
|
| Tumors need more energy than normal cells, and oxidative stress
| interferes with the ability of your mitochondria to produce
| energy. So yeah, it makes intuitive sense that antioxidants are
| not what you'd want for cancer. Although as you mentioned,
| these systems are pretty complicated and there are a lot of
| chemicals that can act as antioxidants in some circumstances
| and oxidative agents in others.
| chasil wrote:
| > Tumors need more energy than normal cells, and oxidative
| stress interferes with the ability of your mitochondria to
| produce energy.
|
| Isn't the mitochondria usually silenced in cancerous cells?
| azalemeth wrote:
| Not exactly. My understanding of the Warburg effect is that
| cells rely upon glycolysis for their _additional_ energetic
| demands but still have functioning mitochondrial with the
| ability to oxidise fats; a lot of the pentose phosphate
| pathway is upregulated in tumors as they're busy making
| amino acids for protein biosynthesis. Of course, tumours do
| literally everything imaginable somewhere so take this with
| a glacier sized disclaimer. The main thing is that the
| reactions that are favoured tend to be either anaplerotic
| (contributing carbon towards the Krebs cycle) or straight
| up anabolic. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/artic
| le/PIIS2352-39...
| haunter wrote:
| Everything [in excess] causes cancer
| tylerekahn wrote:
| The Block Center does high dose intravenous Vitamin C as part of
| their chemo+complementary regimen.
| jasfi wrote:
| Does this mean a bad diet is preferable when you're fighting off
| cancer?
| [deleted]
| mistrial9 wrote:
| there are clusters of very different disease that are all under
| the label "cancer"... the short answer is "no"
| dundarious wrote:
| > The researchers say their findings highlight the potential
| risk of taking antioxidant _supplements_ when they're not
| needed.
|
| _Emphasis_ mine.
| ginko wrote:
| Can't wait for fruit to come with a cancer warning.
| dundarious wrote:
| You are probably joking, but because it leads to very
| illegitimate conclusions ( _emphasis_ mine):
|
| > The researchers say their findings highlight the potential
| risk of taking antioxidant _supplements_ when they're not
| needed.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| This product is known by the state of California to cause and
| prevent cancer.
| baz00 wrote:
| Yep. My digital multimeter causes cancer, only in California.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Bananas are radioactive[1], just lacking the label.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
| downvotetruth wrote:
| Calafia can't match the Chiquita "little gift" bananas
| sticker that lets you know she'll keep giving.
| [deleted]
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| If it helps the body it likely also helps the cancer.
| alaaf wrote:
| Is this about concentrated synthetic vitamin C or about the
| natural form? From a chemistry perspective the same, but the
| natural one comes in a different "package" of other substances
| (vitamin C complex). I wonder if the effect is the same.
| ta988 wrote:
| There were a lot of studies on that early on but they were not
| really followed on. Most of the time current studies use
| synthetic or natural but purified enough that there is nothing
| else there (so the same molecule really)
| Sunspark wrote:
| For ascorbic acid (vitamin C) specifically, there is such a thing
| as too much of it.. in humans, the level that is too much is when
| it gives you loose stools.. if you back off that, then the body
| is likely using what it needs.
|
| Most animals make vitamin C internally in the amounts they need.
| We are only one of a handful that do not, because we have a
| mutation that prevents us from finishing the process, otherwise
| we would also be making it ourselves too.
|
| Animals don't drop dead left and right from cancer. I would
| suggest if one tries to eat a balanced diet then this will help
| with avoiding cancer.
|
| Lastly, the longer you live, the more certain it becomes that you
| will get cancer of any type. What we are doing here is trying to
| live healthy enough that we die before we live long enough for
| cancer to become a problem.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| That exactly right, high dose vitamin C that doesn't go through
| the GI tract (given IV) is pro-oxidant rather than anti-
| oxidant.
|
| Intravenous High-Dose Vitamin C in Cancer Therapy
| https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-cent...
|
| High-dose vitamin C enhances cancer immunotherapy
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aay8707
| Aurornis wrote:
| > For ascorbic acid (vitamin C) specifically, there is such a
| thing as too much of it.. in humans, the level that is too much
| is when it gives you loose stools.. if you back off that, then
| the body is likely using what it needs.
|
| You're describing absorption tolerance, but the body doesn't
| need anywhere near that much Vitamin C.
|
| The idea that you need to "titrate to bowel tolerance" as the
| alternative medicine practitioners say is rather nonsensical.
| Nothing in the diets we evolved to consume has anywhere near
| enough Vitamin C to cause loose stools (from Vitamin C excess)
|
| You can consume more than enough Vitamin C for your body to
| ever use with regular food. Taking these megadose supplements
| at unnaturally high doses may get some absorbed into your body,
| but it just gets excreted back out.
|
| Absorption and use are two different things.
| DoesntMatter22 wrote:
| Animals don't drop dead left and right - in the wild -from
| cancer because they typically die before cancer grows. Cancers
| generally grow pretty slow. You don't go from 1 cancer cell to
| 2 billion in 6 months. It typically takes a long time. Animals
| raised indoors do get cancer at a fairly high rate.
|
| Though not as much as humans. The diet factor is a huge part
| for sure. Virtually all the major bodies like the UN agree on
| this.
| classichasclass wrote:
| Humans and other related primates are also very efficient at
| recycling vitamin C. Our daily requirements aren't zero, but
| they are lower than I think is popularly surmised.
| sph wrote:
| It virtually reaches zero the lower amount of carbohydrates
| you consume. Vitamin C shares the same intake pathway as
| glucose, so the least glucose in your bloodstream, the less
| need for supplementation, and the trace amounts found in meat
| are enough.
|
| Inuits consuming their diet of purely meat and fat for 6+
| months a year do not get scurvy, and it is not a generic
| mutation either, as testified by Europeans that lived among
| them and adopted their diet without issue. See Vilhjalmur
| Stefansson, the ethnologist who spent years living and eating
| like an Inuit, and anyone following a strict carnivore diet.
|
| The entire meme about sailors getting scurvy because they
| didn't eat their vegs is because their diet was pretty much
| poor quality carb-heavy food like rice, potatoes and bread,
| so even just supplementing with lemons was enough to keep
| scurvy at bay.
| bitwize wrote:
| As frugivorous apes we got enough vitamin C from our diet that
| that mutation was a survival advantage. Synthesizing nutrients
| you can get from your diet is a waste of energy.
|
| Similarly, other species of animals cannot synthesize certain
| nutrients they get from their diet. Cats, for example, cannot
| synthesize taurine and must get their required taurine from
| consuming meat.
| justrealist wrote:
| > As frugivorous apes we got enough vitamin C from our diet
| that that mutation was a survival advantage. Synthesizing
| nutrients you can get from your diet is a waste of energy.
|
| This is speculative and honestly not the simplest
| explanation. Deleterious mutations _will_ happen in the
| absence of selective pressure, and there was no selective
| pressure.
|
| You don't have to cast everything as evolution playing 4D
| chess. Sometimes genes just break, and not for good reasons.
| maxk42 wrote:
| Not to mention it's been at least 4.5 million years since a
| human ancestor was last a frugivorous ape.
| joshuajill wrote:
| I find the fact that media keeps talking about cancer as one
| single disease unhelpful at best.
|
| Look at what the title of the research article is: "Antioxidants
| stimulate BACH1-dependent tumor angiogenesis"
|
| The researchers conclusion: "We conclude that BACH1 is an oxygen-
| and redox-sensitive angiogenesis transcription factor."
|
| Then compare how the author of the article put it.
| alistoriv wrote:
| So... they support anabolic processes. Shall we avoid eating and
| drinking too?
| cjbenedikt wrote:
| One more reason why very little research goes into that area is
| that the pharma industry isn't interested in a "cheap" solution.
| It is nigh impossible to find grants for any research to that
| end. However, some work sounds promising
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9231292/#:~:tex....
| ipnon wrote:
| "Dosis sola facit venenum."
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Kind of hilariously, James Watson was on a crusade about this,
| specifically yowling about how Pauling was totally wrong to
| megadose C (he argued specifically from the Warburg hypothesis)
| but it was around then that he started making tone-deaf, arguably
| racist comments (...also many racist comments against scots irish
| americans), and he got canceled and i think everyone stopped
| listening to him writ large.
| [deleted]
| nmitchko wrote:
| With all we see around cancer, it's time to study fembendazole
| and other anti-tubulins seriously.
| basilgohar wrote:
| Why? The way you say it implies this is self-evident, but I'm
| completely clueless about either of these and why this
| logically follows.
| ramoz wrote:
| Similar thread from just the other day:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37349870
| kypro wrote:
| Isn't this already known? The reason I only take a low dose of
| Vit E is because higher doses can increase the risk of cancer -
| like I assumed is true of all antioxidants?
| CrHn3 wrote:
| That does not seem to be the case for coQ10[1]. With coQ10,
| it's only effective at a therapeutic level which entails higher
| doses[2].
|
| Vitamin E as a-tocopherol has been associated with increased
| prostate cancer[3]. Natural tocopherols rich in g-T, g-TmT, or
| similar tocopherol mixtures show more promise for cancer
| applications[4].
|
| 1. https://www.cancer.gov/about-
| cancer/treatment/cam/hp/coenzym...
|
| 2. https://youtu.be/9Z7X9WPWv4Y?si=avOV0u4ruy_zNslr&t=746
|
| 3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21990298/
|
| 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4899293/
| arcticbull wrote:
| Vitamin E is fat soluble, which means that you can definitely
| take too much (unlike C for instance, which is water soluble).
| It can cause headaches, nausea, blood thinning and rarely even
| fatal bleeding. I suspect that's a much bigger reason to be
| careful with the quantity of fat-soluble vitamins you take.
|
| But also note that vitamins aren't FDA regulated, and they're a
| complete grab bag in terms of quality and bioavailability.
|
| Generally unless prescribed by a doctor for a specific
| condition or if you know your diet is lacking in a specific
| vitamin (like B complex for vegans), you get more than enough
| from your diet. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/do-
| multivitamins-...
| kypro wrote:
| > Vitamin E is fat soluble, which means that you can
| definitely take too much
|
| I think we're talking about different things here. You're
| talking about the risk of toxicity from taking high doses of
| fat-soluble vitamins. I'm talking about the risk of taking
| anti-inflammatory supplements / drugs generally (regardless
| of dose).
|
| In general I agree with you on taking vitamins, however the
| reason I take a very low dose of Vit E is because I have a
| genetic predisposition to liver inflammation. Vit E is one of
| the few things which helps me reduce this inflammation which
| helps me mitigate against long-term damage, but reducing
| inflammation too much can increase risk of liver cancer,
| hence why I only take a low dose. This is also the reason
| patients with late-stage liver disease are typically not
| given Vit E because they're at a higher risk of developing
| liver cancer.
|
| On taking Vitamins generally I think most people in the West
| would benefit from a high-quality low dose Vit D supplement.
| Something around 1,000 - 3,000 UIs daily is almost certainly
| safe and the majority of people would benefit. Higher doses
| are probably preferable in many cases, but you should be
| monitoring blood concentrations at that point to ensure
| you're not reaching toxic levels. Otherwise, yes,
| supplementing is silly unless you have a reason for it.
|
| I hang out in a lot of liver health communities one of the
| most common reasons I find people have unexplained elevated
| liver enzymes is because they're taking low quality (often
| herbal) supplements.
| arcticbull wrote:
| What's interesting with Vitamin D supplementation is there
| doesn't appear to be any strong clinical evidence for its
| effectiveness unless you're severely deficient and on the
| road to rickets.
|
| So long as your serum 25OHD concentration is >50nmol/L
| according to this meta analysis, there's no clear effects.
| [1]
|
| > In conclusion, supplementation of vitamin D-replete
| individuals does not generate overall health benefits;
| however, correction of severe vitamin D deficiency remains
| essential.
|
| Probably would be a lot better off going outside and
| synthesizing your own. Spending time in nature and in the
| sun does a lot of other useful things - for instance UV
| exposure induces nitric oxide synthesis too, which lowers
| blood pressure. [2]
|
| [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00593-z
|
| [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593895/
| kypro wrote:
| > there doesn't appear to be any strong clinical evidence
| for its effectiveness unless you're severely deficient
| and on the road to rickets.
|
| > So long as your serum 25OHD concentration is >50nmol/L
| according to this meta analysis, there's no clear
| effects.
|
| I mostly agree. Above 50nmol/L it's not so important, but
| most evidence would still point towards it being slightly
| healthier to be on the higher end of the reference range
| for Vit D, so therefore if you wanted to optimise your
| health you probably should be targeting around
| ~150nmol/L. We know our ancestors would have had Vit D
| concentrations around these levels so there's no good
| reason to think it would be unhealthy either.
|
| Additionally, and what you missed here is that a lot of
| people in the northern hemisphere get close or fall below
| that 50nmol/L clinically deficient level during winter
| months. This is why I think in general it's probably
| better for people to take a low dose of Vit D than not
| (especially during the winter).
|
| But to your point, if you're spending time outside and
| getting a bit of sun exposure every day then it's
| probably not needed.
| arcticbull wrote:
| > We know our ancestors would have had Vit D
| concentrations around these levels so there's no good
| reason to think it would be unhealthy either.
|
| Yeah, I certainly don't think it's unhealthy, I just
| haven't seen any studies demonstrate really any effect at
| all over the lowest normal value. If you have some
| studies I'd love to see them so I can cite them in the
| future.
|
| I think we're basically in agreement.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| What about vitamin D? I've had gastric sleeve surgery a
| decade ago. Ever since every blood test I take usually has me
| deficient in that. My doctor has me on 5 to 10k, right now
| trying 5k. I also have gout and an abnormally high amount of
| kidney stones sitting in my kidney, last month I had to get a
| catheter and 2 trips to the ER over one lousy kidney stone.
|
| I'm wanting to figure out the best way to regulate the things
| in my body with less Kidney stones, uric acid etc, and that
| won't upset my depression, anxiety, and ADHD.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| My suspicion about vitamin D is the positive effects are
| minor. Short term deficiency doesn't do anything. But long
| term chronic deficiency negatively impacts your health. And
| deficiency in children is much worse than in adults[1].
|
| I think sure take vitamin D but don't expect much.
|
| [1] Friend that's a public health nurse says they're seeing
| kids with rickets and bad teeth in Marin County. Because
| vegetarianism, sunscreen and milk alternatives. They don't
| see any of that with poor kids in Oakland because they're
| on WIC and not getting woo woo healthcare.
| arcticbull wrote:
| > woo woo healthcare
|
| What a time to be alive.
| ukFxqnLa2sBSBf6 wrote:
| Another condition for supplementation is the possession of a
| disorder which causes malabsorption, like SIBO.
| 2devnull wrote:
| I don't know, the advice in that link is, don't take a
| multivitamin because there isn't a lot of evidence it will do
| a lot of good. Instead they say you should just have a
| perfect diet, and to consult with a dietician if you feel you
| aren't getting a perfect diet.
|
| Seems to me that few people eat a perfect diet, and I'd be
| amazed if there's evidence dieticians work better than
| multivitamins. People don't eat right, not because they need
| education, but because unhealthy diets are tasty, cheap,
| convenient, etc...
|
| And multivitamins are not all the same, they have radically
| different formulations, so I doubt the results of any
| research that didn't specify a specific multivitamin, or
| break results by gender or age. (Vitamin needs/ deficiencies
| are often age related. Consider subsets like prenatal
| vitamins, vitamins for the elderly, etc...)
| GoToRO wrote:
| I saw a documentary where they presented a study in which they
| did exactly that: they gave about 7 people high doses of
| antioxidants. Because antioxidants good. About 3 of them got
| cancer before they could finish the study. They had to stop the
| study early.
| arcticbull wrote:
| n=7 is pretty small for a nutritional study that didn't even
| finish. I'd be very wary of relying on that.
| GoToRO wrote:
| Nobody is relying on anything. The early results were too
| scary for people (scientists and patients) to continue.
|
| Anyway, the conclusion was that more antioxidants is not
| necessarily better and that we still don't understand how
| things work.
| tptacek wrote:
| In mice (with xenografted tissue).
|
| They've been reporting this since 2015:
|
| https://newatlas.com/medical/antioxidants-stimulate-blood-ve...
|
| The actual press release from Karolinska might be more
| informative and a better link than whatever New Atlas is:
|
| https://news.ki.se/antioxidants-stimulate-blood-flow-in-tumo...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-04 23:01 UTC)