Most Americans are Deficient in Key Nutrients

A 2007 examination of 280 peer-reviewed studies, including 50 human studies involving 8,521 patients, have consistently shown that non-prescription antioxidants and other nutrients do not interfere with therapeutic modalities for cancer.  Furthermore, they may enhance the killing of therapeutic modalities for cancer, decrease their side effects, and protect normal tissue. In 15 human studies, 3,738 patients who took non-prescription antioxidants and other nutrients had increased survival.

The use of supplements in treating cancer is a matter of some controversy. Many patients think that supplements are keeping them alive. And there are many well-documented cases of remission after taking large amounts of supplements. However the type, quantity, and quality of supplements are crucial factors to success and their use should not be taken lightly. It's important to do your homework. 

Many oncologists believe that supplements, especially antioxidants, may actually counteract conventional cancer treatments. However, that belief is not well supported by the medical literature. Both radiation and chemotherapy create free radicals, or more broadly, reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are believed to be essential to the effectiveness of conventional treatment. Thus, many oncologists reason that any agent that neutralizes ROS will interfere with the therapeutic benefits, but again, this is not supported by the literature. The function of ROS in killing cancer cells is complex. ROS damage normal tissue as well and may initiate carcinogenesis (create new cancer). Antioxidants may both prevent these adverse reactions and actually increase the effectiveness of conventional treatments. Some degree of skepticism is in order when your oncologist tells you not to take antioxidants. 

Despite a large number of reviews on this issue, the data from clinical trials are sparse while the experimental literature is huge. This disparity reflects the difficulty of conducting clinical trials using treatment agents that cannot be patented, which precludes the financial incentives essential for randomized trials. This creates a Catch-22 for those recommending the use of supplements. Conventional oncologists insist that no treatment agents be prescribed that have not been shown to provide a benefit in clinical trials. But these trials will never be conducted because of the lack of essential funding. Thus, complementary medicine must rely on experimental evidence for its recommendations.  

And of course, there will never be a shortage of charlatans pushing useless products on sick people desperate to find a solution. Where does that leave us when it comes to supporting the health of cancer patients with supplements? 

Presented below are two perspectives. The first is a quote from the late Dr. Nick Gonzalez, who successfully treated many advanced cancer patients with diet and supplements, and detoxification protocols. The second is from Ben Williams, who published a 42-page supplement to his book on Antioxidants in 2014. Excerpts to be found below.

Dr. Charles Simone of Princeton New Jersey has is probably the world's leading expert on the effect of antioxidants on chemo and radiation. He has written a series of papers discussing the scientific literature on the subject. Virtually all radiation oncologists believe that antioxidants will block the effect of radiation. They believe that radiation works because it creates free radicals around the tumor and antioxidants block free radicals so they say antioxidants are the enemy of radiation. It turns out that just the opposite is true when you look at the scientific literature. it's always a good idea as a physician or scientist not to believe what you heard but to actually go to the scientific literature. Simone did is he reviewed hundreds of papers lo and behold chemo chemotherapy and radiation are not blocked by in oxidants but actually their effect is greater and the side effects are less. People don't lose their hair. They don't go into kidney failure. They don't have bone marrow suppression. Antioxidants not only help the chemotherapy and the radiation work better, in terms of attacking cancer directly, but block the terrible side effects.

So all cancers patients should be on a very aggressive supplement nutritional program. But this will never get into the mainstream world the way oncologists currently think. We hear this all the time: you can't take antioxidants or you can't take supplements while you're getting chemo and radiation because it will knock out the benefits, but that's not true. Simone has published many articles, so anyone who doubts that should go to the internet and look up Dr Charles Simone. 

The following are excerpts from Ben William's well-researched paper on Supplements. Ben relies solely on data from clinical research to support his findings. While we do not limit ourselves to making decisions based solely on information with such rigorous scientific support, we appreciate the valuable information Ben provides and trust that what he says is well researched and supported. The entire 42-page document is available here: https://virtualtrials.com/pdf/williamssupplements2014.pdf

skipping to Ben's conclusion:

For cancer patients, whether to use or not use supplements is a complex decision. The greatest mistake is to adhere to a “one size fits all” approach. If conventional treatment for the patient’s malignancy has a high rate of success, prudence would suggest that a conservative approach is in order. For some situations, such as radiation for head-and-neck cancer, where the side effects can be extremely debilitating, antioxidants protection of healthy cells warrants their use. 

For many cancer patients, conventional treatment is not effective, so recommendations against the use of supplements, are unwarranted, especially given the evidence they ameliorate the treatment’s toxicity. Moreover, given that some supplements have clear clinical evidence of providing benefit (melatonin, Vitamin D, PSK, and fish oil), while others have impressive support from animal models (curcumin, 32 silibinin, lycopene, genistein, green tea, and ellagic acid), the possible benefits greatly outweigh the hypothetical harm.

K. N. Prasad and colleagues have presented detailed recommendations about AO (anti-oxidants) use during cancer treatment. They argue that low-dose supplements (doses similar to those in a daily multi-vitamin) should not be used, based on their criterion that a useful dose-specific supplement must inhibit cancer cell growth. They also distinguish between endogenous AOs (e.g., glutathione) vs. dietary supplements, and recommend against agents (alpha-lipoic acid, N-acetylcysteine, selenium) that increase the level of endogenous AOs. These should be avoided because they protect both normal cells and cancerous cells. Thus, only high doses of specific AOs should be used, ideally in combination. An example protocol is provided, including 10g/day of Vitamin C, 1000 I.U. of the alpha-tocopherol succinate form of Vitamin E, 10,000 I. U. of Vitamin A, and 60 mg/day of beta-carotene. This combination should be started at least 48 hours before radiation or chemotherapy, continued throughout treatment, and for at least one month after treatment. Prasad presented the early results of this protocol in a randomized clinical trial with patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who were receiving chemotherapy (1). The one-year survival rate was 33% for those with chemotherapy only, while the survival rate was 54% for those receiving the supplements as well. Corresponding median survival times were 8 months and 13 months. (No statistical tests were presented)

(selenium, glutathione, N-acetylcysteine)) may directly bind platinum-based chemotherapy agents, making them inactive. Of the 19 trials included, none of the trials reported evidence of significant decreases in efficacy from AO supplementation. In fact, the majority of the trials reported increased survival time, or increased tumor response, as 6 well as decreased toxicity, due to the addition of the AOs, although most of the differences did not attain conventional levels of statistical significance.

double-blind clinical trial for bladder cancer (23) in which 65 patients received Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG).). In addition, patients were randomized to receive either a multiple vitamin supplement in the recommended daily allowance or a high dose supplement regimen, consisting of 40,000 I.U of Vitamin A, 100 mg of Vitamin B6, 2000 mg of Vitamin C, 400 units of Vitamin E, and 90 mg of zinc. The 5-year rate of tumor recurrence was 91% in those receiving only the RDA amount of the supplements, while those on the high-dose regimen had a recurrence rate of only 41%. BCG is an immunological agent, and presumably works by very different mechanisms than do either radiation or cytotoxic chemotherapy

A second large trial, involving 100 patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (35), compared chemotherapy alone with chemotherapy in combination with melatonin. With chemotherapy alone, 9 of 51 patients had partial tumor regression, while 17 of 49 patients receiving chemotherapy + melatonin had either a complete (2) or partial (15) regression. Twenty percent of the chemotherapy-alone patients survived for one year and zero for two years, while the corresponding numbers for chemotherapy + melatonin were 40% and 30%. Melatonin not only increased the efficacy of chemotherapy but also significantly reduced its toxicity. These trials demonstrate that the effects of melatonin are robust and clinically significant

Like all cancer treatments, single-agent treatments involving dietary supplements are likely to be less effective than combinations of agents. An important demonstration of the potency of combination treatments comes from a British study (53) that combined extracts from four different foods, pomegranate, green tea, broccoli, and turmeric, in a placebo-controlled, double-blind design. Prostate cancer patients (N=199) were randomly assigned to receive the capsule of combined food or an identical placebo for six months. Slightly more than half of the men had no prior treatment and were being monitored by periodic PSA tests (watchful waiting), while the remainder had prior initial treatment, but had relapsed with climbing PSA levels. In the placebo group, PSA rose by approximately 80% over the 6-month period, while that of the supplement group rose by only 14%. In half of the supplement group, PSA remained stable or decreased over the six months.

A second clinical trial presented 2200 mg of EPA plus 240 mg of DHA to patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (62). Patients either received only the standard of care of chemotherapy, or the same treatment in combination with daily fish oil. Response rate (tumor regressions) was 60% in the fish oil group and 26% in those receiving only the standard of care. One-year survival was 60% in the fish oil group versus 39% in those receiving only chemotherapy. Chemotherapy toxicity was also decreased in those using fish oil

Any general statement about AOs increasing or decreasing cancer treatment effectiveness is unwarranted, given the current state of the evidence.