There is a wealth of scientific reasons (based on hard data) to believe that SPECIFIC NUTRITION plus LOWER TOXICITY CHEMO PROTOCOLS, such as Metronomic and/or Antiangiogenic, are now sufficiently understood for doctors to use to beat cancer in a much higher percentage of cases.   This reality is indicated in numerous science studies from the war on cancer. 

There is no magic bullet, but the science indicates that there is major benefit to be had when doctors use the best from medical therapy which has been proven to work in combination with specific nutrition.  Even some older therapies combined with specific nutrients can produce much better therapy results.

Probably the closest to a magic bullet would be the use of the herb Turmeric (curcumin) in combination with low toxicity medical therapy as determined by a doctor.

Nutrients in combinations without medical therapy are very powerful, against almost all cancer, but not yet proven alone to be sufficient without medical intervention.  We do not advocate attacking cancer with nutrition alone, but certainly nutrition control should always be part of the attack on cancer.  The herb turmeric (active substance is Curcumin) protects normal cells and make cancer cells more sensitive to some chemotherapies as well as radiation therapy.

If one has clinical cancer, the first key is to get a doctor who believes in the power of nutrition.  The Cancer Treatment Centers of America is one clinic which has such doctors.  The M.D. Anderson center in Texas is a good option.  Integrative medicine specialist M.D.s are another option as is the use of professional nutritionists who specialize in Oncology.

A second key personal protocol for cancer patients is to make sure that almost everything that goes into their bodies is a nutrient with known anticancer properties.  There are a lot of nutrients that have such properties. Some cancers respond to certain nutrients strongly and not as strongly with other nutrients and one must either change a major part of their entire diet or study the science carefully and select nutrients proven effective against their particular cancer. 

A doctor provides a list of recommended anti-cancer nutrients including quantity needed at this link.  Table of recommendations about 2/3 down the link page.

One example of a general list of anticancer nutrients as a starting point is; Cancer fighting list of nutrients.   Be sure to research your choice of these nutrients related to your illness and discuss it with your doctor and get their approval!  Nutrition can be very powerful, work with your doctor on nutrition.

We also strongly recommend the Patient Power website and learning how to get the best from doctors in general and the benefits of seeking second opinions.

What follows will be an overview of important science and many references to allow the reader to easily research their cancer to help their doctors.  What we have done in this site and in our book is to pull together the key cancer nutrition science which is not generally known to most doctors. We do not provide information which is sufficient to act on without further research on your part, but rather the information is intended to be used to begin a search of your own or to be used by your doctor.

We recommend the book; "The Anatomy of Hope" by Dr. Jerome Groopman as a general reference on medical problems.

Nutrition can be determinate even as to how well chemotherapy works.  MAKING CHEMOTHERAPY DRUGS WORK MORE EFFECTIVELY

Find out what the limits and probable results of treatment  are before starting any treatment.    Cancer Monthly, The Source for Cancer Treatment Results

If for any reason you cannot get a doctors objective advice on multiple approach therapy or nutrition, try to find some other professional licensed practitioner who can advise you.  Do not try any extreme of nutrition on your own.  That could help a lot, but it could also have some negative effect.  We certainly do not recommend just throwing down a high dose of a lot of vitamins.  Our Cancer Fighting List of nutrients just shows the many possibilities as supplemental to medical therapy and gives some idea of nutrients which have some science evidence of being generally helpful but does not list amounts needed in any particular case.  (In most cases, the optimum amounts are not found on the internet science in regards to fighting cancer.  A few URLs given in our Cancer Fighting List (at the bottom) do give some amounts which could be beneficial.)   If you are on your own, search the net and find specific recommendations for your type of cancer or find some recommendations on a doctors site, such as the site by Dr. Weil (an M.D. with Integrative Medicine credentials) and answer a series of habit and health questions and get a vitamin recommendation.

A list of possible top ten anti-cancer foods.  (All good, but not necessarily the best 10 nutrients according to the science we have found.)

There is a wealth of scientific studies which clearly show the near certainty for major benefit from a combination of a number of such specific proven nutritional elements.   In many if not most cancer situations, the determinate factor is probably the total nutritional intake which supports the many ways in which the body fights cancer at the molecular level.   

There are three very profound facts that point to the near certainty of benefits from the proper nutrition.  The first fact is that cancer rates around the world vary by as much as 10 to 1 or more!  People immigrating from those populations with low cancer rates have been shown to have higher rates when they move to a society with a different diet and their rates to go back down if they move back to their original country. 

The second profound fact is that spontaneous  total cancer remission does occur and there is about an (87%) correspondence with a major diet change. 

The third fact is that the body does have cancer defense mechanisms beyond and independent of the immune system which are strongly nutrition dependent which means that there is science at the bio-molecular level sufficient to prove that nutrition should have and does have a major effect in fighting cancer.we d

Despite those facts, we do not propose that anyone depend on nutrition alone , nor do we propose that a patient not work with a medical professional, but rather to get medical therapy with nutritional changes coordinated by a doctor.  Clinical cancer is a major deviation from the "design" of the body and, with the limited state of nutrition science at this time, most of the time, cancer will probably only be curable with medical intervention.  (Fortunately, there are some very promising new therapies becoming available which should at least be considered as adjuncts by your doctor.  A number of studies which show that certain nutrition can greatly enhance even old "proven" cancer drugs.  Link here to our page about Anti-Angiogenesis and related cancer info.) Control of blood vessel growth (angiogenesis) is now understood a major key/element to beating cancer.

New Approach Gives Cancer Patients Hope  (Three different types of targeted therapies (like anti-angiogenesis) one can research further.)

A Complementation Antiangiogenic Strategy  This is a representative example of a rational type of therapy that can be much more optimal than older and less effective medical modalities while being also less toxic.

Maintenance Therapy to Suppress Micrometastasis: The New Challenge for Adjuvant Cancer Treatment  Note, not all maintenance therapy is productive.  This aspect needs to be researched by the patient and their doctor with the emphasis on non-cytotoxic drugs (drugs not toxic to normal cells.)

Our general intent is for the reader to follow the links provided, verify our findings on the science links and take the information to your doctor.  You can give the link address to as many people as you want.  

Tools for Understanding Cancer Science and data from the American Association for Cancer Research.

How to interpret nutrient benefit tests.

Why We're Losing The War On Cancer [And How To Win It]  Start reading the link page about half way down the page.

There is a lot of science information which should impress most doctors when it is brought to their attention.  From the Journal of Nutrition; "Rationale for Using High-Dose Multiple Dietary Antioxidants as an Adjunct to Radiation Therapy and Chemotherapy"   "This study of 34 chemotherapy patients and 31 combination-therapy patients reported beneficial effects on tumor response and tolerance to chemotherapeutic agents for a follow-up period of 1 y."  Note that there are some questions as to such an approach, so do get multiple medical opinions.  Talk to your doctor about it in detail.  Take the preceding link address to your doctor or a copy of the information at the link for her or him to read.

It is very important to note that we are talking about adjunctive (additional) nutrient therapy options and also have a few references for combination of medical therapies, but we are not proposing any "alternative" therapy.  This does not mean that some alternative therapy might not be helpful, but we believe that the uncertainties of such therapies, in addition to medical therapies is probably in most cases, much higher than nutritional adjuncts and less supported by science.  It is also less likely that your doctor would be able to approve of alternative therapies as compared to the use of nutritional additions which are supported by scientific studies.

Regardless of our use of science link references, this web site is for educational purposes only.  It is only a guide and is not intended as and is not a substitute for the diagnosis, treatment and advice of a qualified licensed professional; nor is nutrition by itself a proven way to address cancer. This site offers people medical information and informs to some degree about alternative medical options, but in no way should anyone consider that this site represents the "practice of medicine." This site assumes no responsibility for how this material is used. Also note that this website frequently updates its contents, due to a variety of reasons, therefore, some information may be out of date. The statements regarding supplemental treatments (in addition to low toxicity standard therapy where available and prescribed by a doctor) for cancer have not been in most cases evaluated by the FDA.  The statements are supported in the majority of cases by articles available from the National Institute of Health PubMed on the internet.

We would like to note that the continuity of reading the essays in this site is not always the best.  This results from an ongoing effort to update the essays and that results in many insertions which sometimes disrupt the reading flow.

It is highly likely, in any case, that there are nutrients which make it possible to actually beat cancer very long term a much higher percentage of the time than via medical therapy alone.  "It is the immune system that ultimately clears the body of disease."  This is a quote from the link on Nutritional Oncology.

We recommend searching at the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Nutrition is just one part of the attack on cancer.  We believe that whole answer lies in such as; Integrative Cancer Care

The cancer benefits from nutrition are not, however, associated with all "good" nutrition.  With food, for example, there are serious questions about corn (type of oil in corn and possible effects of genetic engineering if it gets into the food supply), which may otherwise be "good" but for which there are questions when it comes to fighting cancer.   Other questionable nutrients are black tea and possibly olives.

Even with vitamins, which are almost certain to help if taken in the right amounts and combinations, the amounts are not known precisely and the MDR's are probably insufficient for several vitamins and above that there is no clear single set universally accepted and proven levels.  There is still some debate over "natural" and synthetic vitamins.  Natural vitamins.  We tend to believe that natural are best since it will always be possible that some other nutrient factor is present in natural vitamins which aid absorption or utilization in the body. 

Even with vitamins, the combinations and interactions are only recently beginning to become quantified in importance to fighting cancer. As one example of the benefits of vitamin combinations; Combination therapy with vitamins C plus E inhibits survivin and human prostate cancer cell growth.  This finding is consistent with other studies which show that the two vitamins can be synergistic and much more effective for health than either alone.  This does not mean at all that all vitamin combinations are positively synergistic.  Some vitamins interfere with others if taken at high dose.  Talk to your doctor and if possible get a doctor on your team who has studied nutrition and cancer in depth.  One possibility is an Integrative Medicine M.D. who are becoming more available to offer the best of both conventional medicine and nutrition.

The Federal Department of Health and Human Services and other government organizations are starting to recognized more the importance of nutritional combinations;  Prioritizing Molecular Targets for Cancer Prevention with Nutritional Combinations  The problem is that there is a very broad range of possible anti-cancer nutrients.  This link is to a list of 130 nutrients considered by someone to be the world's healthiest.  The problem of evaluating nutrients is far more complex than choosing 1 in 130 (there are actually far more than 130), because there is no reason to believe that only one is needed to attack cancer and very good reasons to believe that a combination of possibly as much as ten or more selected nutrients may typically be required.

It is known the polyphenols in various foods can fight cancer very effectively.  In the case of green tea which is one such food it contains a substance EGCG.  Dark grapes contain another substance called Resveratrol known to potently act against cancer.  Another substance which acts very potentially against cancer is Genistein from Soy.   Genistein and Soy may not always be beneficial, however.   One needs to be especially careful with nutrition in the case of hormonal cancers (breast, uterine, ovarian, and prostate) and be especially certain to discuss the possible use of Soy and/or a Genistein concentrate with your doctor:  There is at least one study which raises a serious question about Genistein alone; Physiological Concentrations of Dietary Genistein Dose-Dependently Stimulate Growth of Estrogen-Dependent Human Breast Cancer.  Genistein has, however, been proven in numerous studies to be of major benefit in other cancers and even most breast cancer. 

While the one negative study indication was with the tissue in mice, it would be prudent to rely on some of the other (many available) nutrients proven to be beneficial in the hormonal cancers.   (This link can be found down the page on the above link and shows the benefits of Flaxseed in the same type of breast cancer.)  Yes the study was only with breast cancer, but there are some molecular similarities with the other hormonal cancers and prudence says to avoid Genistein concentrate until science proves it to be OK in those cancers and Flaxseed would be a better choice of a beneficial nutrient unless your doctor indicates otherwise.

We would be remiss in not making it clear that were are not at all saying not to use Soy IF your doctor approves it.  There are many studies which indicate that it could be very important in fighting some cancers.  It would be unusual if Soy did not help and unusual if Genistein were not beneficial, but wise not to be careful in taking the Genistein isolate in a supplement form without your doctors approval.

Dietary Genistein Reduces Metastasis in a Postsurgical Orthotopic Breast Cancer Model

Dietary Soy Isoflavones Inhibit Estrogen Effects in the Postmenopausal Breast  (Inhibiting estrogen is generally good against cancers.)

There are, in any case, a number of other natural substances also quite potent against cancer without the possible limits of Genistein.  This is not new to medical science.  There are many tests showing food substances having definite powerful anticancer properties.  Where are the tests of those substances in combination?  We have look at thousands of science article abstract titles and found only one.  It makes a person wonder!  Yes testing such substances in combination at varying amounts of each is difficult.  It is certainly achievable with modern statistical software and fast computers.

When we refer to nutrition, we mean a combination of vitamins and many kinds of foods including some herbs. (We are here referring to something taken only as a pill and not those substances used in food flavoring.)  Some herbs have been proven effective and safe, but that is not true of all herbs.  Be especially vigilant in discussing herbs with your doctor.  This is also the case for amino acids such as L-arginine, L-glutamine, etc. and for any hormone related vitamins or herbs.  There may be great promise in such as with natural progesterone (not the medicine progestin), but, again, this requires consultation and in depth search of the scientific studies.  These are all potentially helpful, but may have some risk.  If you want a quick reference for herbs and amino acids, etc., we recommend the following commercial site because it includes numerous scientific references to cross check what they have to say.

If one is on conventional medicines one must extremely diligent in consulting with your doctor.  A start in preparing for that consultation is reading; Herbal Remedies in the United States: Potential Adverse Interactions With Anticancer Agents

There are a lot of reasons for hope in the fight against cancer.  Standard therapies (at least those of the low toxicity variety) used in conjunction with nutritional elements known to fight cancer show great promise. 

Risk is not just associated with vitamins and Herbs.  From the National Cancer Institute; Second Cancers Caused by Cancer Treatment.  We have to wonder how many cancer patients are told that such risk is being incurred?  How many would insist on lower toxicity treatments which are now often available?  How many would want to press the issue of combination therapies or higher levels of nutrient adjuncts if they knew?  (Note, unfortunately, there are cases (fewer every day) where the only option in medical therapy is highly toxic.  That does not mean that nutritional adjuncts will not be very beneficial, only that in such cases great care must be taken in the chemo to leave the patient in a state where nutritional adjunct is possible at least after the therapy. 

Chemotherapy Questions

The patient (if they want to use nutrient factors after chemo or radiation) will often need someone outside the medical team to tell them when it is time to consider stopping treatment (especially if it is not clearly working or is not known to be working by some medical test) before it takes too great a toll on the patient and leaves them unable to take in and use normal nutrition needed in quantity later.  The stress of the chemo may leave the patient in a mental state where they cannot make a decision by themselves to discuss stopping the treatment with the doctor in an assertive way soon enough and the doctor is generally obligated to continue the chemo according to some predetermined level (not based on the individual patients responses and which does not often at all take into account the nutritional intake and absorption needed later.

Even the answer to that question of whether or not patients would take the higher toxicity route depends on whether or not the patients really have no alternative, how agressive the cancer is, and to what degree the toxic and carcinogenic therapy works.  The reality is that there are now lower toxicity therapies in many cases (if one has the time and resources to find them) and the question of how well the toxic therapy works is a complex question and not all one sided or easy to answer.

In any case, it needs to be known and agreed to beforehand under what conditions the chemo will be stopped.  The doctor need to be informed if the patient plans on a major nutrition program after treatment and needs to think about what that means to the decision process of possibly stopping chemo if it is taking a great a toll on the patient.

Sadly, the reality is that many (not all) doctors will either be inadequately informed on nutrition as therapy (they struggle to track medical advances even independent of nutrition), be closed minded, or unwilling for various reasons to discuss treatment adjunct options (such as common nutritional options.)   In such cases, the doctor will probably talk about a few studies which did not show benefits of nutrition, but the reality is that numerous scientific studies have shown benefit and a few studies which did not are not a reason to simply wave off the probable benefits of the right nutrition combination. 

One should be prepared for all of this and not be easily put off.  Regardless of the burden, a good doctor must evaluate all factors which will affect the clinical outcome of the cancer or other serious disease for which conventional medicine does not have a high probability long term (more than 5 years) cure.  (There are some cancers which are survived my many people which are in fact never "cured".  A plot of the deaths from those cancers on out to 10 years show that the cancer is still returning.  Plots for lung and colon cancer on the other hand show the curve flattening out and those cancers are truly curable.  The two most common examples where the curves show continuing return of the cancer are prostate and breast cancer.  People with those cancers need to control their nutrition and be generally vigilant the rest of their lives to keep the cancer from returning.)

It would certainly be preferable to have in Integrative Medicine doctor or a nutritionist on your oncology team.  There are also some services for unusual cancer situations available on the internet for example "Cancer Advocates."  The patient is certainly in need of a team of help in many cases. 

You may need to find a special oncologist who recognizes and understands the potential of nutrition in the fight against cancer.  There are such doctors and some of them are referred to as; Orthomolecular Oncologists

To be prepared to understand and reason with any doctor, one must study nutritional science in at least a broad way.  You don't have to be a scientist to do so as long as you have internet access and good browser software.  One possible place to start is the; Pharmasave, library, All Dietary Supplements, scientific references at bottom of individual supplement pages.  (We have no ties to this company and recommend crosschecking its references against those of other such sites as well.) 

A better (but more time consuming) option would be to go to the NIH Pubmed and start learning the scientific terminology.

The best option would be to use the many links made available in this site and make copies of the report clinical studies summaries and take them to your doctor for their analysis.  With a reasonable effort, you can understand the information in most of our links by just reading the abstracts or summaries.

We would especially suggest studying links which report on trials of multiple nutrients or nutrients together with standard medical therapies.  It is true that most scientific references, such as the ones at the above link, are for single medicines or nutrients.  There are, however, now studies in progress, some of which already clearly show definite good synergy between medicines and nutrients. 

One such study of green tea (maybe on the blurred line between herbs and nutrition) showed that; Green tea polyphenol stimulates cancer preventive effects of Celecoxib in human lung cancer cells.  (Celecoxib is generally known as Celebrex.)  Another study showed a benefit to Omega 3 EFA (fish oil or the like) along with radiation treatment for cancer radiation.   Another example is the use of the herb Milk Thistle (Silibinin) together with Doxorubicin a chemotherapy drug that is given as a treatment for many different types of cancer.  Note that the Silibinin doubled the effectiveness of the chemotherapy drug in the study!  (That may not mean double the cure rate, but what if a number of other proven cancer fighting nutrient factors were also added, such as Geinstein or Resveratrol, or Garlic, etc.  There is scientific evidence to believe that further synergy is likely at least in some combinations.  One wonders why there are not a lot of studies of such combinations with standard therapies.)

In breast tumors, Gamma Linoleic Acid (GLA) and Herceptin led to a synergistic increase in death of the tumour cells and reduced cancer growth.  This is in Her2 related cancers which is also found in many types of other cancers and the findings are applicable to other cancers besides breast cancer.

Synergies between just nutrients themselves in fighting cancer have also been found.

There are many medical science links in this essay which probably support our beliefs and which you can go to and understand and confirm what evidence exists.  From CNN.com; Dr. Weil: Chemo OK, but other treatments needed.

From the NCI; Progress in cancer chemoprevention: development of diet-derived chemopreventive agents.   "Because of their safety and the fact that they are not perceived as "medicine," food-derived products are highly interesting for development as chemopreventive agents that may find widespread, long-term use in populations at normal risk. Numerous diet-derived agents are included among the >40 promising agents and agent combinations that are being evaluated clinically as chemopreventive agents for major cancer targets including breast, prostate, colon and lung. Examples include green and black tea polyphenols, soy isoflavones, Bowman-Birk soy protease inhibitor, Curcumin, phenethyl isothiocyanate, Sulforaphane, Lycopene, indole-3-carbinol, perillyl alcohol, vitamin D, vitamin E, selenium and calcium."  This link is to a site which lists 70 scientific studies of vitamin E and breast cancer alone.  There are literally thousands of scientific articles showing that nutrients can be powerful against cancer.

What has been fully proven is that there are many nutritional factors (many more than those listed from the NCI link above) which, to varying degrees, directly help the body fight cancer.  What has not been proven is what nutrition if any is alone sufficient and what is needed to supplementation of/to conventional therapies to give the patient the best long term chance of beating the disease.  There is, nevertheless, a lot of information showing that the certain nutrition (not simply all natural fruits and vegetables) are likely to improve the odds a great deal as part of the attack on cancer.

Note that almost all of the links we provide are to sites where positive results were shown to be feasible at least with either certain vitamins or nutritional adjuncts.  Do not lose site of the fact that some studies (generally a small minority) show no benefit.  A very few in special cases do in fact even indicate a possible negative effect.  Our contention is that such would be expected especially with only single element studies if in fact multiple factors are needed to have a major effect.  There is clear scientific reasoning and evidence that such is the case and we believe the links we provide are meaningful enough to at least discuss with your doctor.  Why we believe that the negative reports are to be expected and that the positive reports are meaningful.  

It may be very telling that a study of a group of Chinese in China. where the normal Chinese diet which is known to reduce the risks of a number of types of cancer, still showed a benefit for antioxidant combination intake in reducing cancer even more.  The Chinese study consisted of supplementing Beta-Carotene, Vitamin E, and Selenium.  A study of only Beta-Carotene and Vitamin E for smokers in Finland (where the basic diet is also considerably different) showed no such benefit.  This variation is consistent with what one would expect if multiple nutrients are needed to fight cancer and if basic diet and smoking make a difference.  (It is fact known that there is synergy between Vitamin E and Selenium and one wonders why Selenium was not included in the Finland study.)

If key nutrients are missing in any study, the benefits of lesser nutrients or those synergistic with the missing nutrient would be masked and not seen by the study.  If this is the case, one would expect in certain situations to see no effects of certain nutrients which may in fact be beneficial if other nutrients were present.

More detail as to why we believe that the science is in fact supportive of the benefits one would expect if more than one nutrient factor is needed to make a significant difference in cancer outcome.

Here is an extended personal opinion on The Latest JAMA “Negative” Vitamin Study which while not scientific, does point out how some reports can be skewed to become negative.

Note; do not confuse nutrients to always mean herbs.  Some herbs are definitely bad, at least if you are on chemotherapy.   St John's Wort interferes with chemotherapy, study shows.

With nutrients, on the other hand, there can be incredibly strong good effects, and poor nutrition very bad effects.  A classic example is the fact that Japanese men living in Japan have a 43 times lower risk of cancer than Japanese men living in the United States.  "The incidence of prostate cancer varies by 120 fold when third world countries are compared with the United States and Europe"  There are good scientific reasons to believe that this is just a matter of diet.   " The nations included in the study ranged from modern Western industrialized nations to third world countries in which a majority of the population lived a rural agrarian existence. The surprising finding was that the death rate from prostate cancer directly correlated with the fat content in the diet." (Our emphasis.) (That is not to say the fat consumption is the only or even major determinate factor, but is one of the pieces of the evidence that nutrition is the primary factor.)

There are also good scientific reasons to believe that a similar major diet effect applies at least to women's breast and other female cancers and to cancers in general to a large degree.

While the studies above are done on medical treatment fact, much of the information on nutrition and cancer is from animal studies (in vivo) and other indirect science studies (in vitro) do often give overly optimistic responses.  This does not mean some benefit is not there and often if one digs deep enough into the science one will find that there are scientific reasons to believe that the benefit will be there in humans. 

There is, nevertheless, always some uncertainty (as with most standard medical cancer therapies), and this is why we do not recommend any high level (potentially toxic) single therapy (even medical single toxic therapies may not be the best option if one researches deeply enough.)  One needs to be very informed so that they can take advantage of all therapies (including nutritional factors) with reasonable supporting scientific evidence at some level that you can find.  Any unique nutritional factor or extreme nutrition combination should be approved by a doctor.  If you cannot find a knowledgeable doctor you may have to rely on reports (look for multiple benefit confirming reports on one or two nutrients such as the following, but only do so if you have confirmed that you have no other option to be sure an adjunct therapy will not interfere with medical therapy or may be needed because of the therapy.

The key to an understanding of the potential role of vitamins in any health issue is what is the optimum intake to prevent the health problem at issue.  The MDR's set a long time ago are chosen to prevent clinical/obvious and short term appearing diseases such as Beriberi, Scurvy, Pellagra, etc.  There is no scientific reason to believe that those levels are optimum in either preventing cancer or in playing a role in treating and curing it.  See the discussion; "Suboptimal micronutrient intakes as deficiency diseases--"  There are a large number of studies of vitamins and some on nutrition in preventing cancer, but very few (but a growing number) in using vitamins and nutrition to treat it.  There is no scientific reason to believe that medical therapies eliminate the need for the right and sufficient nutrition and no scientific reason not to include such in every effort to beat the disease.  There are many studies which show a highly probable benefit in prevention and no scientific reason not to expect some very significant benefit in fighting the disease while waiting for conventional medical treatment, in some cases even during treatment, and in almost all cases after medical treatment.

Cancer Chemotherapy and Antioxidants (Some specific issues to discuss with your doctor.)

Know Your Supplements - Some Can Hurt You, Some Might Help   For example; there are questions about too much vitamin A, selenium (beyond 200ug/day), for men too much calcium and too much zinc.  For women, B complex vitamins may be more important for breast cancer prevention.

We would not, in any case, recommend taking supplements during medical therapy unless approved by you doctor, but some studies indicate that at least some supplements do not interfere with therapy and may be beneficial.  Note that this linked paper refers to 280 studies including 50 directly in humans.   "In 15 human studies, 3,738 patients who took non-prescription antioxidants and other nutrients actually had increased survival."

On the other hand, with herbs, Here is a list of herbs known to interfere with some chemotherapy.  There are almost certainly others.  Determine the science which indicates that a particular nutrient may be of benefit.  Search the net and talk to your doctor specifically about that nutrient. 

Don't on the other hand rule out herbs.  Herbal remedy shown to have anti-cancer effect.  Herbs can help even with pancreatic cancer.   Certain vitamins have been shown to inhibit pancreatic cancer cells.  Note that the preceding link is talking about vitamin analogs but there is science similar to the following link which indicates that the same should be true for natural vitamins.  Vitamin D Intake and the Risk for Pancreatic Cancer in Two Cohort Studies

From the University of Maryland Medical Center: "-- exposure to ---- chemotherapy drugs, radiation and other toxic medicines, increases the requirement for selenium-"   It is highly probable up to at least 200ug/day that selenium is cancer protective, so what does this say about a possible need to supplement with selenium during at least some chemo therapies?

One inevitably finds such reports as; "Cancer industry promotes misleading warning on supplements in order to protect cancer treatment profits"  and if such reports are at all true, it is very frightening and a reason to dig deep on your own before you talk to your doctor.  Doctor's can be put in a difficult position in regards to peer and legal pressures not to go beyond the bounds of "accepted" therapy, so the discussions of options beyond "standard" therapy may be less open and informative than they should be.   Do you want to talk to your doctor about complimentary medicine?    Learn to work with your doctor.

Be aware that herbs and vitamins in significant doses do have some risk in some situations and almost always beyond some proven safe level.   Talk with your doctor.  The potential benefits are real, but so are the risks.

Studies of cancer and the herb Black Cohosh found that; "-- black Cohosh increased cell killing by two of the drugs, decreased the effectiveness of one drug, and did not alter the effects of radiation or a fourth drug--"   This represents a real problem.  There is a significant chance your doctor may not know enough to be sure s/he is giving you the best advice.

Nevertheless, from the American Cancer Society; "Nutrition During and After Cancer Treatment: A Guide* for Informed Choices by Cancer Survivors" which should be read and understood.  Note the 190 scientific study references near the bottom of the link.

Supplement Strategy: Selenium    

Other supporting selenium research report summaries.

When we refer to nutrition, we do not mean just a few vitamins (or an unscientific selection of vitamins) or that just vitamins alone are needed or that a little more fruit is needed, but major and carefully selected changes (based on scientific studies of the biology of nutrition on cancer cells) in the total nutrition taken into the body.   There is a great deal of scientific studies which make it clear that nutrition is a major factor in beating cancer in much more than one or two ways and much more than just taking vitamins.   This is not to say that single vitamins will not in some cases provide dramatic results.   Journal of the American Medical Association JAMA Study on Selenium.  "--overall reduction in cancer incidence was 37 percent in the selenium-supplemented group, and there was a 50-percent reduction in cancer mortality."   To restate this for emphasis;  supplemental selenium reduces the risk of getting cancer and the JAMA study gives some evidence that it may reduce overall cancer deaths by 50%!

It is now entirely possible to get more than a single cancer fighting drug and to also get many foods which are known at the basic bio-molecular level to directly help the body (and which are needed by the body) to fight cancer.   There is clearly a need in most cases to change the total nutrition intake including specific types of foods to consume, foods to avoid, and also higher levels of a number of vitamins but not all vitamins and not just one or two vitamins alone (with the exception of vitamin D up to 2 times the MDR max and even that only with a doctors approval if one is ill to begin with.)  It is very informative to understand what has been learned about the incredible activity and importance of vitamin D in fighting cancer.   Yes vitamin D can cause problems if too much is taken. 

Vitamin D Is For Cancer Defense

One then wonders about science studies which indicate that with vitamin D the level thought to cause a problem may actually be 5 times higher than previously believed.  This is from an article in the American Journal of Nutrition!   The concern about too much vitamin D is supposedly hypercalcemia.  From Medical News Today and the Pub Med link; "Plain old vitamin D does not have that problem because it does not cause hypercalcemia in dose below 20,000 units a day."   Science seems to have a major problem in telling us about vitamin D which is critical to our health in numerous ways.  Why is the MDR only 400 IU?

The determination of the safe level of vitamin D is extremely important.  It might even be possible that cancer can only be defeated consistently if sufficient vitamin D is present since it is involved in numerous ways in which the body fights cancer. 

Medical science recognizes the potential of vitamin D.  There are now even synthetic (analogs) of vitamin D which overcome the dose limits, and a chemical obtained from Soy (Genistein available in vitamin stores) has been proven to reverse resistance to vitamin D in some cancers as well.  Some combination of an analog and Genistein might be the best option in such cases and should be examined by your doctor and thoroughly discussed.  For prostate cancer there is proven synergy between vitamin D and Genistein.      The way they work together is understood down to the molecular level.

Vitamin D is, in any case, generally still undervalued. We strongly recommend going to the following site and reading it thoroughly; Vitamin D: Is the Need and Evidence for Supplementation Being Ignored? by William R. Ware, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of Western Ontario

There is some evidence that dietary factors can even be very important during standard therapy but such is not fully proven and probably not universally true.  Multiple Dietary Antioxidants Enhance the Efficacy of Standard and Experimental Cancer Therapies and Decrease Their Toxicity.

Natural treatments for prostate cancer are fast gaining scientific evidence of their efficacy in human patients.

Polyphenols Fight Growth of Breast Cancer Cells

At least discuss with your doctor the Scientific Rationale for Using High-Dose Multiple Micronutrients as an Adjunct to Standard and Experimental Cancer Therapies.  Again, there is not much if any direct evidence of curing cancer by nutrition alone.  The science would indicate that such may be possible, but studies to prove that have not been done and the only studies (clinical trials) we have found that are actually looking at nutrition as a cure are for single nutritional substances only.  We believe that given the nature of cancer, it is unlikely that single nutritional substances will very often "cure" cancer.  At least in a few cases, for some cancers, it is known that single conventional medicines "cure" cancer at least when the nutrition after the medical therapy is adequate for the body to finish the job.

We do not recommend just increasing your total vitamin intake. There are, in fact, certain vitamins at least alone, such as calcium, which probably are detrimental (for men) beyond a certain modest intake (coral calcium adds can be quite misleading) at least without more than the MDR additional vitamin D.  The concern for men is prostate cancer and high levels of calcium.  There is also some doubt as to whether men should ever take calcium as a supplement (more than the MDR) without a vitamin D supplement along with it.  Other vitamins can also be detrimental alone or in excess.  Again, however, the combination of vitamin D together with calcium is proven to be beneficial against colorectal cancer if that is the individual's concern.

It is very interesting that the only studies we have found which show a possible negative effect of the use of Beta Carotene together with vitamin E (not very large effect) were done in countries at high latitudes where there is a known higher incidence of cancer due to less sunshine (and the associated vitamin D and probably other benefits.)  (Even those studies were negative in specials cases of smokers or men with a high PSA to begin with.) How applicable are those studies to more healthy situations and adequate vitamin D to begin with?  (There are nutrients such as Green Tea which provides some protection the risk of skin cancer from sunshine.)  One must always avoid any sunburn, but also not lose sight of the need for good nutrition!  A study of navy personnel surprisingly found a lower incidence of melanoma in sailors who work outside compared to those who work indoors.  That difference from conventional wisdom is probably related to the fact that navy personnel have their nutrition balance for them and that allows their body to tolerate sun and benefit as much as possible from the sunshine created vitamin D.

In any case, even with normal marginal nutrition, the relatively small latitude change across the United States correlates inversely with cancer (prostate in this study.)  There is no other explanation except for vitamin D from sunlight on the skin and there is a great deal of science to support that conclusion.

It is also highly probable, in any case, that not only selected vitamin combinations but food combinations are also needed.  Note the following quote from a paper of the science organization "Pure and Applied Chemistry":   "Although there is a growing interest in the role of the tomato Carotenoid lycopene in cancer prevention and treatment, we hypothesize that a single micronutrient cannot replace the power of the concerted action of multiple agents derived from a diet rich in fruits and vegetables."  There are a number of scientific studies which confirm this.   (We would also note that there is evidence, for example, that lycopene is not well utilized by the body unless consumed with some good fat (like fish oil.)) 

In reference to nutrition and cancer: "-- new chemicals from the proanthocyanidin and anthocyanin classes of the flavonoid family worked together to have a greater effect against topoisomerase II than the previously identified flavonoids quercetin and resveratrol. Alone, the individual components had less effect on the enzyme--"

In breast cancer cells, it has been shown that "--co-treatment with resveratrol enhanced the growth inhibitory effects of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3)--".  Resveratrol is available in dark grapes or dark grape juice or red wine.

In another study, the ability of cancer cells to penetrate/invade was 79% inhibit at a lower level of a unique nutrient formulation containing lysine, proline, arginine, ascorbic acid, and epigallocatechin and totally inhibited at twice the nutrient level.  This proves the bio-molecular power potential of nutrient combinations against cancer and shows that the right amount and combination might even stop cancer all on its own.  Again, questions remained, and not proven in clinical trials, but very informative at a basic science level.  That same nutrient mix (proven to be synergistic) has now been tested in animals and at even a very low percent of total nutrition (0.5% or 1 part in 200) reduced tumor growth of a number of tumor cell lines (including breast cancer) by almost a factor of 2.   One wonders what the results would have been if the known cancer fighting power (unquestionable only in magnitude not effect) of vitamin D, vitamin E, Selenium, Lycopene, Resveratrol (dark grapes), Genistein (usually from Soy), Garlic, Curcumin (Turmeric), and Broccoli had been included.  A synthetic version Genistein is undergoing clinical trial as a chemotherapy drug.   (One wonders why the medical community is not now prescribing Soy itself.)

There is also reason to believe that an even better combination than the above study should be considered; "Combination of Ascorbic Acid, Lysine, Proline and Epigallocatechin Gallate Inhibits Proliferation and Extracellular Matrix Invasion", since this combination has been shown to be beneficial and does not contain Arginine which may be questionable as part of the combination.  (Epigallocatechin Gallate is found in green tea and to a lesser degree in black tea.)

At least in some cases, the effects of combined nutrition can be astounding. There follows a link referring to Selenium, Vitamin E, and Lycopene together and certain prostate cancer types: " if carriers of this genetic variant have low levels of these vitamins and minerals, their risk of aggressive prostate increases substantially, as great as 10-fold, over those who maintain higher levels of these nutrients--"  The risk of prostate cancer for some men is then ten times lower if they consume the right nutrients.

 "--cancer-protective effects of an individual’s diet may reflect the combined effects of various vitamins, minerals, and other bioactive components such as flavonoids, isothiocyanates, and/or allium compounds rather than from the effect of a single ingredient."  Certainly a better understanding is needed, but there are biological reasons to anticipate this as a highly probable truth, and if it is true, then the studies of single nutrients will inherently show less benefit than there would be in a good overall diet with all the necessary supporting nutrients.  Even two apparently unrelated nutrients such as vitamin D and Genistein (a Soy chemical) have been shown to be synergistic in fighting prostate cancer.  Quoting from the report in the "Journal of Nutrition; "We postulate that the combination of calcitriol and genistein is an attractive therapeutic option for the treatment of PCa."  (Note the use of the word "therapeutic" as contrasted to just "prevention".  One finds many science reports which point to therapeutic use of nutrients but much less suggestion of that than one would expect.  We believe this comes almost entirely from a "medicine" mindset which does not truly focus on the potential of the body as a major element in the therapy.)

Link here to a number of articles on nutrient synergy against cancer.

More evidence from the Journal of Nutrition of vitamin combination benefits; Colon cancer protective effect of folate and vitamins C and B6 irrespective of smoking habits, and a protective effect of beta-carotene in non-smokers only.

There is a wealth of reliable such nutritional scientific information on the web such as with the link above, government agencies, universities and scientific medical organizations and biological science organizations.   We would suggest only trusting information where there are multiple scientific articles with essentially the same findings from non commercial organizations and always even questioning that information found in sites like this one and being very cautious in placing any trust in the source and doing so only to the degree that there are multiple links to such professional sites or other noncommercial sites.   Take multiple source information to your doctor.

There are commercial sites such as "NewsRx Cancer Weekly" which at most sell information.   (This is not to say that one should total ignore the information in commercial sites selling physical products, but such information should only be seriously weighted to the degree to which the site contains medical science site links which corroborate what is said in the commercial site.   One such site is: Cancer chemo(toxico)therapy revisited and alternative ways of healing.  Another commercial site which at least provides a wealth of information to use as starting points in a search is Le Magazine.)     Cancer Adjunct Therapies (nutrition) If even a small part of the info on the adjunct therapies in that site is accurate, the implications are profound.

Even links such as those in this site should just be starting points for understanding your own or loved ones cancer.  Dig deep and read introductions or conclusions of abstracts of scientific studies while looking for new low toxicity medical treatment or some nutrient (vitamin or food/drink) which has been proven in a scientific study to attack cancer at the molecular level at the least.  Even better are human studies which show at least a decrease in cancer incidence or major improvement in cancer outcomes.

When studying the effects of nutrition, it must be kept in mind that nutrients typically do not act rapidly as do medicines (with their frequent bad side effects.)  For this reason, some studies of nutrients might be negative simply because the study was not done long enough and/or did not include a comprehensive set of nutrients which are interactive.   Long-latency deficiency disease: insights from calcium and vitamin D (from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.)

This "Prostate Cancer Foundation" general discussion of vitamins (not prostate cancer alone) is a good starting point with questions and discussions of the type which need to be considered and understood in a basic sense.   (We suggest using a family member or friend as an aid if you have trouble following the reasoning and terminology in the science sites.)

In any case, do not misinterpret any of the following or preceding information or what you find on the net as any reason to delay surgery or other standard medical treatment.

The reality remains, in any case that nutritional adjuncts in the cancer fight are becoming recognized more and more by the medical science community as key and possibly determinate factors in fighting cancer. From a paper by the American Cancer Society; "Multiple signal transduction pathways that are important in the growth and death of cells have been identified---"  "--- current chemotherapy regimens debulk the tumor but cannot eradicate late-stage disease. The paradigm of targeting the tumor cell is now being expanding beyond classic chemotherapy not only with the identification of new chemotherapy agents and new targeted signal transduction agents, but with the recognition that cancer cells exist in complex microenvironments that offer therapeutic targets, including the immune system---".  The term "microenvironments" means at least in part NUTRITION!  Cancer that is ultimately eradicated is the result in large measure of the nutrition you give your body to work with. 

We suggest reading info on such sites as Integrative cancer therapy: Best of 2 worlds.  Before acting on any such information, search the medical sites on the net for verification for your particular situation and info to discuss with your oncologist.

We would like to first emphasize the need for conventional medical therapy to debulk the tumor.  We believe that such is almost always required.  The following link contains a couple of very interesting scientific observation;  "--majority of mice with small tumors when treatment commenced displayed complete tumor regression, remained tumor free for >2 mo, and survived rechallenge--"  This is from a study of interleukin-2 a known natural cancer fighter in the body.  The study also found; "-- mice with large tumors at the start of treatment failed to respond.--"  NIH link to the study.  We believe that this is probably representative of an "natural" therapy including nutrition and is why some form of low toxicity therapy is probably almost always required besides special nutrition.

This following link alone lists five nutritional possibilities; FIGHT THE CANCER ON MANY LEVELS.  The use of multiple nutritional adjuncts is strongly supported by numerous other such science articles, but only as an adjunct therapy. (Again, note especially that the link gives five nutrition components in the new MSTM approach.)  We will say again that it is important to fight cancer with as many weapons as possible at the same time.

The letters MSTM stand for "multifocal signal modulation therapy" which essentially means addressing  biological signals related to the bodies attack on cancer at many levels at the same time.  We again emphasize that the MSTM approach should almost always be preceded by conventional low toxicity medical therapy.  Cancer is a disease which is defended against by the body at many levels and there are numerous reasons to make sure the body is given the chance to fight cancer in a more fully enabled way at all levels at once with nutrition, plus medical therapy which is proven to reduce the cancer load with minimal damage to the body short term and long term.  The concept again is making all the levels of the bodies defenses to work in concert against the cancer.)  (This probably often depends on the medical therapy not being so toxic as to damage the bodies many cancer control systems and to therefore, leave open a high probability of success of a major nutrient driven body rebuilding program to follow the chemo or low level radiation, etc.)

The reports on the cancer benefits of nutrients are not all highly optimistic.  Be aware that there are studies which purport to show no benefits for example from nutrition in some cancers except for tomato sauce, tomatoes, pizza (with tomato sauce and oil), and strawberries.  Probably the classical examples of misrepresentation are a study of breast cancer which purports to find little benefit in 46 different foods and another of other cancers which purports to find little benefit in 131 foods and beverages.   We will outline below why we believe that such reports paint an errant picture of nutrient potentials.

From a report in the Journal of Nutrition:  To date the overwhelming majority of clinical trials testing the effect of nutritional factors on cancer risk have involved single nutrients or combinations of vitamin and mineral supplements. Results from these studies, with a few exceptions, do not support a single-nutrient or reductionist focus. Diet intervention studies that involve whole foods and overall dietary patterns are currently underway, although reliance on self-report dietary data in these studies is problematic.

In any case, in light of numerous scientific such studies to the contrary on many nutrient elements and the numerous variables in the study, these are almost certainly a meaningless misrepresentation based upon some statistical assumption or other hiding effect.  Certainly if the vitamin amount is not sufficient (just around or below the MDR level) or if the foods contain pesticides or were grown in nutrient poor soil this would all add up to small amounts of any nutrient too small to make a biological difference in the cancer fighting mechanisms at the cellular level.  If one is looking at single elements alone, the limits of human intake would have to limit the quantity taken in. (There are good scientific reasons which prove that a key nutritional intake and generation in the skin of vitamin D (possibly even actual limited sun exposure which may do more than just generate vitamin D) and if this is not taken into account that would almost certainly mask actual benefits.) 

Without sufficient vitamin D at least, other vitamins or nutrients alone or in combination are going to be much less effective against cancer.  Studies which do not take this into account are going to seriously understate the benefits of vitamins.  Also, there is evidence of too much vitamin A interfering the vitamin D.  Diets too high in vitamin A would probably mask the benefits of other nutrients.  This is not to imply that vitamin A (not in excess) is not a good nutrient in fighting cancer, but only to point out that nutrient balance is important.  (Vitamin A is at the MDR level and important factor against some cancers.) 

The main point is that it is known that vitamin D deficiency is widespread in those living well away from the equator (lower sunshine angle) and in that situation even modest amount of excess vitamin A could have a negative effect.  On the other hand, A Little Sun Might Shield Against Skin Cancer.  In moderation, it may mobilize disease-fighting vitamin D.  Note the operative word; "moderation."  Too much sun exposure can reverse the benefit.  Also note that to benefit from sun exposure one must have ergosterols from plants in the body to convert to vitamin D.

Besides the vitamin D benefit of the sun, there are numerous studies at the National Institute of Health (NIH) site which show significant benefits of the right kinds of nutrition when all factors are taken into account. 

The National Cancer Institute lists the following as having known cancer fighting properties (we do note a couple of questions with this list, however as noted below:)

13-cis-Retinoic Acid
9-cis Retinoic Acid
Anetholtrithione
Arzoxifene Hydrochloride
Aspirin
Bexarotene
Biaxin (Clarithromycin)
Budesonid
Calcium ???TOO MUCH AT LEAST WITHOUT EXTRA VITAMIN D IS A PROSTATE CANCER CONCERN
Celecoxib
Curcumin
DFMO
DHEA (Dehydroepiandrosterone)
Fenretinide
Indole-3-carbinol
l-Perillyl Alcohol
Lycopene
Oltipraz
Phenethyl Isothiocyanate (PEITC)
Piroxicam
Selenium
Soy Isoflavones
Sulindac
Tamoxifen Citrate ??THIS IS A NATURAL BASED DRUG WHICH IS NOT WITHOUT SECONDARY RISK????
Tea Polyphenols
Ursodiol
Vitamin D and analogs
Zileuton

Back to the studies of a large number of nutrients; This link is to a paper on a University of California study which showed much more benefit for a combination of 4 supplements versus 2 only, on prostate cancer.

We will discuss the study of 46 foods as example of how one can be mislead by questionable study conclusions.  If the above study of 46 foods had been in combinations of say four different foods together (there is no reason to believe that more than a few nutrients alone would cure cancer, when it is known that no single food contains all the nutrients the body needs.  Think of it this way; there is no single food (except possibly milk) which would alone give even some resemblance to good health and certainly no reason to believe that it does not take many nutrients at sufficient levels to affect cancer.) It would have taken from simple mathematical (statistics) logic over 163,000 separate controlled studies and a large percentage of the entire population of the world to understand the benefits of combinations of even four nutrients in a mix of 46.  The study of single nutrients would only be valid if their value was independent of other nutrients or if the effect is very strong.  To understand all 46 nutrient benefits in 12 nutrient combinations would take about 390,000,000,000 analyses (390 trillion)! (Even this extreme assumes that there is no variation in the amount of the nutrient. Only its presence or absence would be taken into account.  All subjects in the study would, otherwise, have to consume the same or at least meaningful (for fighting cancer) amounts of all 46 nutrients.) That has never happened and certainly will never happen.

The study probably just did a statistical analysis in an uncontrolled situation and the positive effects of combinations was not properly examined and real benefits were probably masked by effects like improper amounts consumed or control of vitamin D intake or the like.  One is in fact impressed, however, that the study still found benefits to tomatoes.  This must mean that the tomato (with oil) benefit is very strong and independent of other nutrients. A more recent study of the American Association for Cancer Research demonstrated that Broccoli has a much greater effect on prostate cancer than even the significant effect of tomatoes.  If the 46 nutrient study was done properly and included Broccoli with its well known cancer benefits, why didn't it show the benefits of Broccoli?  The combination of Broccoli and Tomatoes has been proven to be of more benefit than either alone.   Another study showed a benefit to Combined Lycopene and Vitamin E Treatment Suppressing the Growth of  Human Prostate Cancer Cells.   More evidence of the benefits of nutrient combinations;  --the combination of low concentrations of lycopene with 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 synergistically inhibits cell proliferation--

The 46 nutrient study did also find a benefit to "falcarinol", a substance found in carrots, which must also be independent and strong.  In fact, however, there are very few valid studies of more than two nutrients and very few if any of food combinations in controlled diets. 

Another of example of misleading reports needing rebuttal.  This link will take you to a rebuttal of a Wall Street Journal (what do they know about medical science?) report, purportedly questioning the value of vitamins.  Interwoven in the link are comments which show how the WSJ article is probably mostly invalid.

Is a scientific fact that the right combination of two or more nutrients can be synergistic in fighting cancer.  Vitamin E together with Selenium is proven and in clinical trial.  Even a substance from cows milk (sodium butyrate) has been shown to work synergistically against cancer with vitamin D.   There is no fundamental molecular biological reason to believe the nutrients (no including high dose vitamins) are likely to work against each other.  A google search of ""bad food combinations" cancer nih" only came up with three hits and none of them were hard science.  Other searches show very little hard science in this area.

Some vitamin combinations (like Beta Carotene and vitamin E) are in fact not always good together; at least as a pair alone without other vitamins.  (Why would someone assume that one can simply put together any combination of a high level of one or two vitamins and not effect the function of other vitamins of body nutrition?  It is well understood nutrition science that vitamins interact.)

  If one studies a non synergistic combination of vitamins without the other needed vitamins or without the other proper additional nutritional intake, the apparent results would, of course, be meaningless or worse.  It is a long known fact that certain vitamins in too great an individual amount can interfere with other vitamins needed to fight cancer; a clinical study wasn't even needed to prove that.  The real issue is the total nutrition situation as it relates to the many immune functions associated with fighting cancer.

As an analogy, if you have a car engine that needed say 100 parts to run right and it was missing 20 parts and you put one back in and the engine, and it still didn't run right, that would not prove that 2 parts or 20 parts wouldn't make it run right, and the cancer immune fighting systems are thousands or more times as complex and far more interrelated than a car engine.  Something analogous is true of the body, nutrients, and cancer to some degree.

In any case, it is also our belief that the medical research community has probably concentrated too much on trying to knock cancer out with single drugs (the extra drugs now given are usually just to control the nasty side effects of the high dose single cancer attacking drug) or other single element direct cancer attack therapy.  In pain control and in the fight against HIV, it has become common to fight the problem with a multidrug approach.  Yes the multidrug (together with nutrition control) approach to cancer is more complex and difficult, but the reality is that the single drug approach often does not work well in much more than half the patients and high doses of a single drug can produce horrible side effects.  We suggest finding a doctor who views cancer as a multi-prong problem and will recommend a multi pronged attack on it with a long term plan which includes nutrition before chemo, possibly some nutrition control during chemo, and certainly major nutrition changes after chemo.   There is also evidence that even in the case of surgery, there is a lot of benefit to taking vitamin supplements before the surgery and as soon after as possible.

There is no scientific question that your body needs certain nutrients to fend off cancer.  There are hundred and probably thousands of science articles which clearly prove that.   The use of nutrients during chemo can at times be very beneficial if medically indicated.  At least it is worth researching and discussing with your doctor.

In any case, generally you will get a negative or at best neutral response from your doctor.   You will need to have copies of studies which show; "results do not support the concern that antioxidants might protect cancer cells from the free radical damage induced by chemotherapy."  Additional studies both question this and additional studies support this.

Ask the doctor if there is any specific/direct scientific evidence which shows a negative effective of nutritional supplements in combination with the specific planned chemo or radiation therapy.  The argument that "antioxidants may protect the cancer cells is not proven and vitamins are much more than antioxidants (especially vitamin D).)  Certainly there is not much of science, by any means, that argues against the use of even antioxidants during medical therapy, except for a few specific chemo regimens as far as we know.  You may have to research the proposed specific chemo yourself and take that to the doctor.  There are even studies of combinations of vitamins and chemo which are very positive;  Multiple Dietary Antioxidants Enhance the Efficacy of Standard and Experimental Cancer Therapies and Decrease Their Toxicity. 

Certainly, not all studies are positive as in the following (which may be a special case and actually may have had some benefit, but one wonders if eliminating Beta Carotene or adding vitamin D might have made a difference.  Chemotherapy Alone vs. Chemotherapy Plus High Dose Multiple Antioxidants in Patients with Advanced Non Small Cell Lung Cancer

If you are to read articles like the MSTM article above (very few such articles available at this time address more than two elements of direct cancer attack), to understand the meaning, you need to understand the basics of cancer and what it come down to as to how you must plan to live somewhat differently so that the chance of your body finishing the cancer off after medical treatments are finished, is increased.   Creating a New Paradigm in Nutrition Research within the National Cancer Institute.

Again, we are not suggesting fighting cancer with nutrition alone. The information provided in this site and from the many other scientific references listed (many other used) is to be taken to your oncologist and used in a problem solving session to find a combination therapy which uses the best of both conventional medicine and the best of nutrition (all elements in moderation) which enables your body to attack cancer in many ways. (Our basic philosophy is that although the information and recommendations we reference is in the large majority from non-commercial medical sites, medical science like other scientific disciplines is not above questioning, or error, or improvement and that the complexity of the disease of cancer and all the bodies many ways of fighting it should be used and such could be determinate in many cases.)  Foods that fight cancer from the American Institute for Cancer Research.

(The following mainly focuses on solid tumors but a similar approach is probably applicable to most other forms of cancer to some degree.)  Remember, your life may be on the life, question everything (including every recommendation in this site) and research cancer issues yourself in any decision.  Your doctors are facing an extremely complex problem with cancer and should be open to all the help you can give them.  Scientific Cancer Journals available on line; the list starts about 60% of the way down the page.

We believe that after some standard medical therapy to reduce tumor load, your diet should be change to eliminate (or at least greatly reducing) things such as bacon, sausage, and highly processed foods and foods with little nutritional content (beyond sugar, like white potatoes, bread, and white pasta.)  One needs to concentrate on foods with natural substances in them known to attack cancer cells in some way.   It is also probably required to cease smoking or drinking heavily.  Smoking in particular not only burdens your body with a lot of bad chemicals but also messes up the nutrition effects inside you to fight cancer as well.

We also wonder and would question our doctor in detail and research on our own about the wisdom of continuing to take prescriptions that one was on when the cancer first occurred.  (Never, however, stop taking a prescription unless told by your doctor to do so.)  There are several concerns, in any case, which need to be discussed with your doctor about prescriptions.  One thing to keep in mind is that prescription drugs are not tested in combination to see if the are a cancer concern as a combination in people already with cancer.

There are also drugs like the Statins which affect cholesterol and while the reports on the Statins alone in regards to cancer seem neutral or possibly even positive in studies, there is a definite connection between cholesterol and fighting cancer and we do not know of any study which has looked for any relation to long term outcome of patients fighting cancer in a wide variety of cancers and taking Statins.  Statins'' Don't Lower Risk of Colon Cancer.   Despite such studies, the effect could turn out to be positive (there is some evidence of the in at least some cancers, but it might turn out to be the negative at least with certain cancers in combination with other drugs.      Serum cholesterol and cancer risk: an epidemiologic perspective.  From that study abstract; " Recent evidence indicates that products in the cholesterol biosynthetic pathway affect ---cell proliferation."  "-- suggest the presence of a relatively small subpopulation in whom reduction of plasma cholesterol may lead to increased occurrence of cancer."   It seems probable that the cancer effect in lowering cholesterol is not zero.  The question for your doctor is; do the nature (positive effects of Statin cholesterol lowing drugs offset the possible negative effects on fighting cancer of having a lower cholesterol, and should one stay on a Statin or be put on one while fighting cancer?   There are scientific articles coming down on both sides.

The ACE blood pressure medicines slow the activity of the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme. They may actually help in the fight against cancer.  The same might also be true of some calcium channel blockers.  The FDA permits your doctor to exercise "Off Label" use of medicines as would be the case if your doctor chose to given you one of these medicines which he/she believed would be beneficial against cancer.  In about 40 states, there even laws which require you insurance to pay for such use.  Such use may not be permitted by all states, however.  (Note that the preceeding link is to a National Cancer Institute site.)  This  all means that at least in at least in 40 states, your doctor can use medicines for other than approved uses.  In any case, don't assume that only a single chemotherapy drug can be used and additional drugs cannot be used for the purpose of fighting cancer even if they were originally FDA approved for other uses.

There is no doubt that doctors should always give serious thought to the use of multiple medicines in fighting cancer.  In Melanoma (a very serious form of cancer) there is actually a drug combination that is 100 times more efficient in fighting cancer than either of the two drugs alone.

One of the most interesting uses of an off label drug is the use of Nitroglycerine as a chemotherapy adjunct medicine.  (That's right, the same drug used to ease heart pain.)   U.S. Army funds 'innovative concept' to boost effect of chemotherapy.  This actually has science behind it in that the Nitroglycerine induces Nitric Oxide in the body and Nitric Oxide is a major player in the immune system.  Taking L-arginine to induce Nitric Oxide in the body is, controversial in cancer treatment since L-arginine has other biological actions.  Together with a chemotheraputic agent, however, it may someday be to be a major breakthrough in cancer treatment and available in your state if it allows off label uses of medicine.  In the meantime, there is Nitroglycerine.

Even over the counter medications should be questioned.  Meclizine is an histamine related drug used for treating dizziness.  There is, however, a connection between histamine and at least some cancer.  From an article in "Cancer Cell International"; "Histamine is used as an adjunct to interleukin-2 (IL-2) in tumor immunotherapy---"  Meclizine is a histamine receptor antagonist.  There is, however, a good probability that it is safe.  The question is; is Meclizine known by testing to be cancer fighting safe (by double blind testing or such), and is it or any medicine absolutely necessary.  Medical science is not all knowing and it should be kept in mind that something caused the cancer in the first place.  At least research your medicines in detail at the NIH.

It should be clearly understood that cancer is not like an infection where it is usually a matter of taking an antibiotic to get the bulk of the infection below some level your body can handle and one you body has sufficient time to mobilize the immune system, you can go back to what you were doing in life in the way of nutrition and taking care of your body.  At one level you body does fight cancer somewhat like an infection, but there are a number of other levels required which require certain nutrients to function adequately to prevent clinical cancer.  Cancer is in several ways at least profoundly different than an infection.  One such way is that cancer cells actually generate substances which partially disable you immune system.  Fortunately, you body has a number of additional ways to fight cancer, but most, if not all, of those ways are very nutrient dependent.  This means that if the right nutrients are not present if sufficient amounts you are much more likely to get cancer, on the good side, there is a lot of evidence that with supplemental nutrition, the body will kick in an attack the cancer.  This is true even if your normal/adaptive immune system is partially disabled by the cancer.

(We do not advocate taking large amounts of all vitamins even after chemo.  We do not even advocating a multiple vitamin because that will have all of the B-complex vitamins and in some cases Iron which could be counter productive.  Even high levels of vitamin C as a supplement might be counterproductive.  We would advocate getting B-complex from food together with that generated in you body from a probiotic (acidophilus, etc.) and getting vitamin C from eating a lot of fresh fruit.  We will also list some of the foods containing substances known to work with the body in fighting cancer.

Note, it is a fact there sometimes is even a full spontaneous remission of cancer, associated sometimes with a change in diet. We especially recommend the book which gives one example; "Recalled by Life."   We are compelled to comment that there are remissions which could be explained by an infection of some sort stimulating the immune system and that is consistent with the possibility that the infection somehow breaks thru the block that the cancer has generated in regards to the adaptive immune system.  There are cases such as in the recommended book, however, where the explaination is most likely to lie in the nutrition changes and that is consistent with the multiple mechanism the body has in the fight which do require certain nutrients to be present to work full force.  Nutrition is one handle the patient has where as infections which might help are not.  (Medical science is actually working on the later.)

The story in Recalled by Life is not unique.  In fact such stories have become common enough so that they are not usually reported in medical journals according to Professor Mary Disis of the University of Washington, which is essentially what she said in a presentation she gave on the UWTV channel about cancer vaccines.  She was making the point that the immune adaptive system certainly fights cancer and gave spontaneous remission examples as part of making that point. 

Our contention is that the evidence and bio-molecular scientific study understandings are now clearly showing that the body has mechanisms (again, beyond the adaptive immune system) which could result in cancer remission and such remissions would be nutrient dependent and in fact could become the rule rather than the exception with increasing knowledge of how nutrients help the body fight cancer.  (The increasing use of vitamins could be a part of the story as to why such remissions are not now usually considered unusual enough to be reported in medical journals.)

Note also, the idea of combining nutritional changes with conventional therapy is beginning to take hold (Vitamin D, taxotere combination extends the lives of men with advanced prostate cancer.), but is not yet accepted by most doctors and will require you to educate yourself and possibly even your oncologist.  Note, the preceding link is with the one vitamin addition only (we would believe that much more nutritional changes are needed and are likely to give a much better result.)  It is also worth noting that some patients were given placebo and they lived nine months less (with more problems with chemo side effects.)  We know of no scientific reason  with modern computers and statistical techniques why such a questionable (at best) approach would be taken.  We strongly suggest some deep serious thinking before getting into a double blind experiment where you may be getting a placebo for example in situations like the one where patients given the placebo could die nine months sooner or so and the experiment would not be stopped before that happened. (The vitamin D had a good effect in the link reference above a careful watch on results and analysis should almost certainly have detected the large difference well before nine months.)  Modern mathematical statistical tools should eliminate the need, except for the most extreme situations, for such a possibly avoidable expenditure of life. 

If we can't rely on the basic wisdom of those running such studies, what does that say about our ability to trust those who propose a very toxic therapy?  Some people question the wisdom of most toxic chemotherapies.  What if they are even partially right?

Is seems possible that a combination of drugs at lower dose might be better than a high dose single drug.  Follow this link for one piece of evidence.

More movement towards combination drug therapy.

Additional evidence on the potential and actual benefits of chemo drug combination from Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

There are many promising new low toxicity conventional therapies and adjunct therapies (especially Antiangiogenesis therapies) and nutritional adjuncts to try in addition to low toxicity chemo.   Search the internet (especially the NIH) and give your oncologist scientific references available from reputable sources like the NIH and find out if there are other options if the first chemo doesn't fully work.  There are now even known options in most cases both in medical science and nutritional science to try, even if the cancer becomes drug resistant. Search; Verapamil or , Tumeric, or Apigenin and drug resistance along with the word "cancer".  Note, Apigenin is in Bell Peppers, Guava and some other foods.)  (We also recommend finding an M.D. who practices "Integrative Medicine" for second opinions of doctors open minded to other possibilities beyond standard medical therapies.)  Selected Publications from the University of Arizona Program in Integrative Medicine.

Other foods certainly of major importance in fighting cancer (as seen in many studies) are dark grapes (a substance in them called Resveratol), Broccoli (a substance called Sulforfane), Tomatoes (Lycopene, take with some form of good fat to allow absorption), and active culture yogurt (direct and indirect biological chemicals) along with whole grains, and green tea.  All of these above nutrient have numerous scientific studies proving that they have strong anticancer effects.

Foods to avoid: Liver of any form and shell fish all of which have substantial levels of the mineral copper.  (Copper inhibition to stop angiogenesis of tumor blood vessels is now a major element in new chemotherapy.  The obvious thing to do is to reduce the copper intake to begin with.)

Multifocal Angiostatic Therapy (which includes exercise and nutritional factors known by science to have anticancer effects.)

Another path being pursued in the fight against cancer in preventing angiogenesis (tumor blood vessel growth) is by using drugs which block copper in the body (copper is needed especially for blood vessel growth.)  It is true that Zinc Acetate which is available at health food stores blocks copper to a significant degree, but we would not recommend using it unless you doctor specifically approves.

The first element of beating the disease is, in any case (or at least in most cases), to reduce the tumor load on your body with low toxicity conventional medicine.  While not impossible in theory, it is by no means proven that once someone has cancer that even special nutrition alone will enable body to beat the disease with a high probability without prior medical intervention.  The body has many ways to attack and control cancer but it seems probable that in most cases, the amount of cancer needs to be reduced first, without damaging the immune system greatly, without mutating the cancer to a worse form, and while leaving open the possibility of vaccines as they become available.  One way (not the only way) to do all this is by what is called metronomic chemotherapy. 

Metronomic chemotherapy depends on using a much lower dose given more frequently or even every day and often together with a second therapy which limits the ability of the tumors to grow blood vessels (anti-angiogenic therapy.)  We recommend reading the presentation at this link by a doctor from M.D. Anderson to get a basic understanding of angiogenesis and metronomic therapy.     Here is another link about  Metronomic therapy for breast cancer.   

It is true that such metronomic therapy is not yet widely available and that by itself in its present forms does not provide a much higher percentage cure (in the normal sense of the word.)  Nevertheless, the combined approach offers the potential to knock the disease down to a more manageable level and possibly even to keep it on hold while the conventional medicines and therapy designs are improved and to allow the patient to also attack the cancer with nutritional factors (at least after chemo and in some cased during.)   There are scientific reasons to believe that nutrition could enhance chemo in a major way, could help keep the cancer on hold, and possibly even in some cases result in a true long term cure.  When the Chemo is over, it is up to the body to keep the cancer from coming back!  There is also the question as to whether a harsh chemo makes the cancer more resistant to other options and whether it greatly increases the chance of another type of cancer in the future.  Metronomic therapy will probably reduce that risk and in most cases is much less traumatic for the patient.

We have read quite a number of scientific articles in regards to the undesirable effects of intense chemotherapy and the articles do raise the question if the risks which are taken are always worth the potential gain in light of the recent evidence in regards to metronomic therapy, for example.  Unquestionably, sometime that will be true, but it seems to someone outside the medical establishment with experience in analyzing data and reading numerous articles, unlikely that it is always true.  (The rule is, however, to follow your oncologists advice unless you cannot for some good reason.  If you believe it is at all wise or necessary, get the opinion of another doctor, preferably one who practices Integrative medicine.  Remember, oncologists will all usually be relying on the same set of information (not usually concentrated on any nutrition except for ameliorating the side effects of harsh chemo) and are unlikely to offer major differences of opinion from one to another.)

One of the most promising nutrition adjuncts is with vitamin D.  (Vitamin D is far more important in your body that what you have been taught. It is a major and probably key player in the fight against cancer!)  Study Shows Benefits of Adding High-Dose Vitamin D to Chemotherapy for Advanced Prostate Cancer: Presented at ASCO  (ASCO is the American Society of Clinical Oncology.)  (There are some diseases such as  SARCOIDOSIS where vitamin D can be harmful, so if you have a disease discuss taking much more than the MDR with your doctor first.)  New Treatments Emerge as Sarcoidosis Yields Up its Secrets 

It is, however, vital to note that a recent study relating to the breast cancer cell apoptosis there is some evidence (cell death of cancer cells) induced by vitamin D will not happen if the body is very deficient in any of the B-complex vitamin elements; Pantothenic Acid, Choline, or Riboflavin.  We strongly recommend, however, getting these vitamins from good food and intestinal biota rather than supplements (especially in the case of Choline too much of which can be detrimental.) At this point in our studies of the science, we do not recommend vitamin B supplements in general with the exception of B6 which in all the science we have found seems all positive in regards to cancer.  This does not mean that other B vitamins are not important in the fight, only that high doses of such vitamins (even folate) can apparently be detrimental in some cases.

Regulation of vitamin D receptor abundance and responsiveness during differentiation of HT-29 human colon cancer cells.   (High level use of vitamin D is limited in most cases in breast and lung cancer because of hypercalcemia, but much less so in most other cancers.  Do not, in any case, high dose any vitamin without discussing it with your doctor.  Fortunately, for the case of breast and lung cancer there are new drugs which are analogs of vitamins A and D which are promising and which should be carefully researched if vitamin D itself cannot be used.  Such analogs of vitamin D have both promise and risks and should only be used by the most experienced and knowledgeable oncologists.  It is known that cancer can develop vitamin D resistance and the use of an analog of vitamin D may, in any case be required.  Prior to that, one should consider the use of Genistein which is a SOY component which can reverse vitamin D resistance in some cases in a risk free way. ) 

Vitamin D analogs: new therapeutic agents for the treatment of squamous cancer and its associated hypercalcemia.            

The question arises, however with vitamin D as to what a high or even adequate dose is.     "Reexamination of the requirements for vitamin D is clearly merited and may likely reveal the need for vitamin D intakes exceeding 2000 IU/d for adults."           Barriers to Optimizing Vitamin D3 Intake for the Elderly.

We found the following on the internet and the claims raise profound questions if true;

    "The amount of supplemental unmetabolized vitamin D that is recommended in the US, is much less than that what the skin can create. The highest claimed safe oral dose (which few people take) is 2000 IU. However, sunshine can create up to 5 times that amount. The current US RDA for vitamin D, for adults under 50, is only 2% of what a person with white skin can naturally produce in 20 minutes of summer sun."     Sunlight emerging as proven treatment for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other cancers.     Exposure To Sunlight May Decrease Ovarian Cancer Risk         Health and economic benefits from sun exposure are much greater than risks.    (This is for people with no history of skin cancer, and yes it is true that a small percentage of people cannot handle sunlight at all due to a disease like Sarcoidosis.  Certainly sun exposure is not without controversy and if you doctor recommends against it, you may be limited to food sources of vitamin D like those listed in sites like Vitamin D, sunlight and cancer.)    Vitamin C and other nutrients may be important in protecting the skin from UV.  Melanoma cells were found to be more susceptible to vitamin C toxicity than any other tumor cells.   There is some evidence that Zinc is protective against UV exposure. (Refer to paragraph 8 on the link.)  There are also reasons to believe that the combination of Zinc and vitamin A is even more protective.  A substance found in green tea may reduce some skin cancers ( squamous cell carcinomas) by as much as two thirds!

Adequate total vitamin A (there are multiple forms) can cut the risk of Malignant Melanoma possibly by half.    More evidence that Green Tea may protect against UV skin damage.

Even if one does not take protective nutrients, the basic idea is to trade off a small increase in Melanoma risk for a reduced risk of quite a few other cancers and diseases so that the benefit is greater than the risk.  Just looking at Melanoma versus Breast or Prostate cancer the rate of Melanoma is about 10 times lower, so if say sun exposure lowers breast and prostate cancer rates by even 10% (and it probably does much more than that) and raises Melanoma by 10%, the overall total risk of cancer would be 9% less.  "--- estimated that 15 minutes a day of sun exposure would prevent 10 cancer deaths for every one skin cancer death it would cause."  (Note: 15 minutes is adequate for light skinned people, naturally darker skin requires longer exposure up to about 25 minutes for African descent persons.  Start out at about 10 minutes a day and make sure the skin does not get sore or uncomfortable to the touch and increase to 15 minutes or a little more dependent on your skin.)

There is even the possibility that reasonable sun exposure actually reduces deaths from Melanoma as well.  "The incidence of melanoma has been steadily increasing over the last 50 years in all developed countries with mainly Caucasian populations. However, as incidence of melanoma increases so does survival from it. This observation could be explained by increases in early detection of melanomas, but it also raises the possibility that sun exposure increases melanoma survival."  (our emphasis)

"--sailors who had indoor jobs (e.g., on engine crews) actually had an incidence of melanoma that was higher than those who worked outdoors--"  (Maybe the relationship between Melanoma is not be all the strong.)

In any case, the possible somewhat increased Melanoma incidence risk is probably necessary to lower overall cancer risk, since there is evidence that simply taking vitamin D supplements or eating food containing vitamin D (like cold water fish such as Salmon) while good to a point, will not produce all the benefits of sun exposure.    The science, however, does not indicate more than very short unprotected sun exposure.   Once a day or a few times a week with no sunscreen for 15 minutes or less, plus protection at other times with good SPF in sunscreens.  The exception is on skin with visible differences to begin with which always need high SPF sunscreen or other protection.  Again, the idea is to reduce the risk of many other types of cancers while keeping the risk of melanoma low via very limited exposure plus some nutritional protection.  It is almost certainly true that more exposure to the sun places a higher premium of good nutrition to reduce melanoma risk.  For your body to be able to mostly negate the inevitable skin damage from the sun, it needs good nutrition and not simply proteins and simple carbohydrates from meat and potatoes or such alone. 

If you do use get more exposure to the sun or use a sunlamp, in addition to the measures mentioned in a previous paragraph to protect against sun damage, at least take Beta-Carotene (a form of A vitamin) and brewers yeast which contains a substance called Beta-Glucan and vitamin E succinate to provide some protection for your skin.    Retinoids can provide some protection from skin damage.        Genistein (from Soy) has been found previously to provide protection from oxidative damage induced by UV radiation both in vitro and following dietary administration.   There is also some evidence that caffeine from any source may be protective.    (Note, the older you are, the more you need to be sure that you get the protective nutrition for safer sun exposure.)

There is some scientific evidence that sandalwood oil offers some protection against skin cancer.

The Herb Milk Thistle also provides some protection against skin cancer.   

Flavonoids apigenin (bell peppers and Guava) and quercetin inhibit melanoma growth and metastatic potential.

There are many scientific reports which make it clear that a sunlamp with UVB rays could be of major help in fighting cancer and other diseases if properly used.  (The idea is never to burn; always use a gradual limited exposure.  Some very limited exposure without a sunscreen would be generally good.  Not bathing immediately after exposure or showering immediately may be indicated.  Cancer epidemiologist Professor Bruce Armstrong says;  "--moderate amount of sunlight may protect people against a range of serious illnesses--"

There are a number of cancers correlated with latitude (the less sun, the more cancer.)  From the Journal "Cancer"; Sunlight prevents cancer, study says.   This is in total and not just looking at skin cancer alone.  Even for young men, referring to vitamin D; "--prostate cancer risk was highest among men younger than 52 years of age (pre so-called andropause) with low serum 25(OH)D levels. They had a relative risk of 3.5!"  This means that even young men who don't get sun exposure or supplement vitamin D, can have more than a three time higher risk of getting prostate cancer.

If one is concerned that sunshine might be too powerful in generating vitamin D, it is noteworthy that there has been no epidemic (even before the advent of sunscreen) of hypercalcemia from too much vitamin D from the sun.  It only happens rarely, and that is some evidence that there is also a difference in getting vitamin D generated by your body from the sun and taking vitamin D supplements.  The answer is at least in part to the fact that there are different forms of vitamin D in your body and the D3 which is available as a supplement is not the form in all types directly generated by getting sun on the skin.  There is now evidence (link below) that sun exposure generates other substances in the skin which are yet to be discovered, and that there is some sort of biochemical control process going on in the body.  The history of mankind and the existence of many fair skinned people living in good health in high sunshine climates and simple reasoning all seem to point to the benefit of getting a reasonable amount of sunshine. 

Vitamin D supplements have a single form of vitamin D.   Ten photoproducts of previtamin D3 and six photoproducts of vitamin D3 have now been identified after exposure to ultraviolet radiation that is comparable to human exposure levels!

It is almost certain that we all need exposure to the sun.  We have not heard of anyone having a problem with hypercalcemia or other vitamin problems from too much sun, even before the advent of sunscreen.  The evidence on the internet seems to be that sunscreen has not had much if any positive affect on the life threatening form of skin cancer.  There is quite a bit of evidence on the internet that the farther away from the equator (less sun strength) one goes, the higher the incidence of many other cancers.  There is even evidence on the internet (several example links given below) that cancer patents who have surgery during the summer fair better than those who have it in the winter. (Give this a lot of thought!  If it is true, why wouldn't one want to get some sun exposure or at least take extra vitamin D while fighting cancer; maybe even during chemo, unless the doctor knows of a specific reason not to do so?  At the very least, vitamin D should be discussed in detail with you doctor.)  We also strongly recommend eating cold water fish which have a form of vitamin D which is less likely to cause a calcium problem.   Don't believe that science necessarily is correct about D3 being the important form of vitamin D.  Again, there are reasons to believe that the effect of the sun on our skin may produce a significantly different biological response than D2 or D3 supplements not understood by science.

Even the upper limit of vitamin D may be well beyond the MDR.  The lowest known amount which causes a problem if cancer other health problems are not present may be as much as 25 times the MDR per this link article from the National Institute of Health.  "--- the currently accepted, no observed adverse effect limit of 50 microg (2000 IU)/d is too low by at least 5-fold."  (Again, in healthy people.)  We would not recommend going above 800IU/day long term without a doctors approval and laboratory monitoring at least initially. 

There is, in fact, one study from Finland (where the vitamin D comes mostly from fish) that indicates that too high a vitamin D from the diet rather than the sun, might actually increase prostate cancer risk.  One wonders whether or not the fish (or vitamin D source in Finland) were contaminated pesticides or other pollutants or if in fact vitamin D in a supplement is significantly different than getting vitamin D from the sun.  There are studies which show that vitamin D and sunshine both reduce prostate cancer in other areas, but note than in the following link, even the NIH raises the question as to whether or not supplements  of vitamin D are equivalent to sunshine exposure or at least not fully effective for some reason.  Refer to the NIH findings , listed near the bottom of the link page.

Seasonal and geographical variations in lung cancer prognosis in Norway Does Vitamin D from the sun play a role?

Changes in risk of death from breast cancer with season and latitude : Sun exposure and breast cancer survival in Norway.

Patients who had cancer operations in the winter months were about 40 percent more likely to die from their cancer within five years than patients who had their cancer surgery in summer. Five year disease-free survival rates were 54 percent, 56 percent, and 70 percent, respectively, for patients who had surgery in winter, spring or fall, and summer.  This does not mean to lose heart if you had your operation in the winter, only that you may be even in more need of added vitamin D at whatever level your doctor will allow.

Vitamin D May Benefit People with Lung Cancer.  Note; hypercalcemia is often a problem with lung cancer and vitamin D supplement can often not be used.  A very careful approach and consultation with your doctor is in order.  There are, however, reasons to believe that getting vitamin D from the sun might be safe and important.

There is evidence on the internet that African American women who get uterine/endometrial cancer fair much poorer than Caucasian women (African American skin generates much less vitamin D upon sun exposure.)  The NIH has this and many other reasons for becoming very interested in vitamin D.  NIH Conference on Vitamin D.  Vitamin D and African Americans

A PROMISING CANCER TREATMENT?  (OUR NOTE; THE ARTICLE REFERS TO VITAMIN D)

Again in regards to Vitamin D; Vitamin Therapy Promotes Cancer Cell Differentiation.  (Note, we do not advocate this as an alternative treatment but only as an adjunct treatment.)

This link (from a commercial site, but not advocating a product), if true, would indicate the importance of light to our bodies and our body rhythms and timing of treatments.

DO HERBS, VITAMINS, AND ANTIOXIDANTS ADVERSELY AFFECT CANCER THERAPIES?

There are other chemotherapies being developed using variants of vitamin molecules besides the vitamin D variants.  One of the most promising is a form of vitamin E (there are at least eight different forms) called Vitamin E Succinate.  From the journal of Nutrition.  Vitamin E and Breast Cancer.      Other links; Vitamin E Succinate even shows promise for cancers other than solid tumor types.            Vitamin E succinate is thus a potent and highly specific anticancer agent and/or adjuvant of considerable therapeutic potential.         Differential Response of Human Ovarian Cancer Cells to Induction of Apoptosis by Vitamin E Succinate and Vitamin E Analogue, -TEA          

Gamma-tocopheryl quinone stimulates apoptosis in drug-sensitive and multidrug-resistant cancer cells.  (This is another promising form of vitamin E.)

Antioxidants in Cancer Therapy (From the journal of clinical oncology which indicates that the use of antioxidants during therapy is not a settled issue in every case.)  Note; Almost all of the articles we have found which actually discuss the science apparently supporting the contention to avoid antioxidants during chemo are based on tests of only a form of vitamin A or vitamin A together with a form of vitamin E (not succinate) and we do not, in any case recommend enabling your body with only a limited combination of nutrition.   Even the National Cancer Institute recommends a "Soup" of nutrients.       The Use of Nutrition and Dietary Supplements as Complimentary Care in Children With Cancer.  Talk to the Pediatric Specialist Doctor about the new low toxicity metronomic and anti-angiogenesis therapies, long term prognosis and your desire to add nutrition to the therapy.  More evidence at this link of a nutrition tie in even in children.

Evidence that higher toxic chemotherapy not the best approach in at least some breast cancer cases.

The following link is not scientific, but it does raise questions which should be carefully considered by the patient and the doctor; The Zero-sum Game In Metastatic Cancer - Opinion  Only one opinion, but what if it is true?  We have read similar concerns elsewhere as well.  Discuss this with your doctor!  At least one should discuss metronomic therapy and antiangiogenic therapy with the doctor.

We do not know why such a limited vitamin combination  seems to be the one almost mostly tested other than that vitamin A and vitamin E are known to be deficiencies found world wide. There is no well known synergy between the two we can find and there is in fact a serious question about high levels of vitamin A interfering with the bodies use of vitamin D (meaning that if vitamin A is taken, vitamin D needs to be boosted), and vitamin D is extremely important in fighting cancer in more ways in general than vitamin A. (There are numerous scientific articles on the ways in which vitamin D enables the body to fight cancer.)  If the vitamin A is not together with extra vitamin D, the test could well give a misleading result about any other vitamin including vitamin E (especially if it is not the succinate or gamma form of vitamin E) and vitamins used during chemo in general.  (There seems to be very little doubt about the benefits of vitamin E succinate and selenium as well as vitamin D.  

The studies done on people living at latitudes (such as Finland) which get little sunshine have low vitamin D and often eat fish with vitamin A in the oils.  Vitamin A antagonizes vitamin D to the point where even bone facture can become a concern.   Clinical tests in animals confirms that vitamin A works against vitamin D.  Journal of Nutrition study: "Vitamin A Antagonizes the Action of Vitamin D" 

There are, on the other hand, many studies of other positive nutrient synergies showing anti cancer benefits.  Go to this link which lists quite a few such studies.  

One does not need to rely on just vitamins.  There are many studies proving the benefits of food in fighting cancer.  One such study relates to a chemical in Broccoli, Cabbage and Brussel Sprouts; Metastatic and Cytotoxic Effects of Ascorbigen and Iso-Ascorbigen in Human Cancer Cells

We would not recommend high levels of vitamin A unless taken together with very high levels of vitamin D from supplements or sunlight.  (Note, vitamin D can be overdosed, but there are many scientific studies which indicate that several times the MDR is generally safe (except when fighting breast or lung cancer.)  We would not recommend taking high levels of vitamin E other than the succinate form alone without supplementing vitamin K.  Vitamin K is very important in fighting cancer and clinical and laboratory studies are underway testing vitamin K in fighting cancer.  There are websites that state that high levels of both vitamin A and vitamin E may interfere with vitamin K.  (We have not yet fully followed thru to find a validation of all of this from laboratory tests yet.  (We have found on Medline the following partial confirmation statement; " vitamin E has been found to prolong prothrombin time (PT) by inhibiting vitamin K-dependent carboxylase, which is corrected by administering vitamin K."  If vitamin E interferes with such a vitamin K function, it would not be surprising if it interfered with other cancer related vitamin K functions.  This probably the cance since the American Dietetic Association states; " research suggesting that high doses of vitamin E decrease platelet thromboxane production and exacerbate vitamin K deficiency" which is further evidence of the need for more vitamin K when taking vitamin E.   If the relationships between vitamins A and E and vitamin D and K are correct, however, it would then not be surprising that A and E supplementation without also boosting vitamins D and K might not be beneficial in fighting cancer.  The interference with vitamins D and K which are needed to fight cancer would explain the poor results with A and E alone.

There are studies which at least seem to raise valid questions the benefits of vitamins in combinations at some dosages.  The question remains, however, as to not only the form and what dose of vitamins of that form were used and what was the general condition of the patients in the test and what was the general diet of those patients. 

In considering the dose magnitude;  "Maintenance doses of multiple antioxidants should be lower than those used in therapy, but higher than those used for cancer prevention study. After completion of radiation therapy, residual tumor cells may exist in varying number, and higher dose antioxidants may induce apoptosis in these cells directly or via stimulating immune function."  Considering the form of the vitamin: " it is too often assumed that the form of a particular antioxidant is not critical for obtaining the optimal result--"

Getting the benefits of the vitamins could, in any case, well depend on the overall diet which could interfere with absorption, or leave out necessary synergistic nutrients for example.  (The data in some studies does, in any case, clearly to show that heavy smokers don't always benefit (at least if adequate vitamin D is a question.)   There is data which indicates that if you smoke, vitamin D (even from the sun) will not be net protective in all types of cancers, only in some types of cancer.  Stop smoking if you want to reduce your cancer risk.

On the other hand, a scientific study has showed that at least for non smokers, vitamin A (retinoid) and vitamin D  can work together against at least some kinds of cancer.  (Why hasn't that combination been tested more?)  We have even found one reference about high levels of vitamin A interfering with vitamin E.  If that is true, then maybe the amount of E needed to be higher to reverse the negative effect.  We would also recommend always using Selenium along with vitamin E in any case.   It is not generally noted that the Finnish study actually showed a benefit against prostate cancer even in smokers.

The study concerns may be valid, but the science raising questions about the vitamin A and E combination is far from being definitive of the many possibilities and probably is meaningful only with to certain unbalanced combinations of vitamins.  Why aren't the tests done on the Vitamin A, Beta Carotene, Vitamin C and Vitamin E combination as discussed in this link NIH article?  The NIH  linked article makes the following statement: " These vitamins exert cytotoxic and cytostatic effects, and may reverse the cancer cell to the normal phenotype."  That is profound if vitamins in the right combination can actually make cancer cells change back to normal.

Finding Cancer Drugs in the Most Unlikely Places  Not the sophisticated science you would expect, which leaves one wondering about the heavy and almost total reliance on low dose poisons!

We would not recommend trying this, but the following link (if true) would show the power of vitamins in certain cancer situations;  Vitamin A produces astonishing leukemia cure rate, even without chemotherapy.

(Green Tea may also have direct cancer fighting properties.)  There is a lot of evidence that it doe, in fact.

The bottom line is to understand your cancer is that there are many reasons for hope.  The key is to find out as much as you can about treating it, work with your doctor(s), get the latest lowest toxicity medical therapy and change your nutrition in major healthful ways to get more known cancer fighting nutrition into your body and less questionable stuff, get some sunshine on you skin and moderately exercise or at least move as much as possible (the lymph portion of your immune system depends on body movement for circulation to survey your body.) 

Additionally exercise is known to effect white blood cells which are part of your immune system and also controls a substance called "Insulin Like Growth Factor" which plays a major role in cancer.) FIGHT THE CANCER ON MANY LEVELS and cancer can be beaten.  Get sunshine (without sunscreen and without sunburn (especially important for darker skinned people.)

From the Guide for Cancer Supporters:

14 Bronze Plaques on the Positive Mental Attitude Walk at the Richard and Annette Bloch Cancer Survivors Parks

1. Cancer is the most curable of all chronic diseases.
2. There are treatments for every type of cancer.
3. Some people have been cured from every type of cancer.
4. There are 8,000,000 living Americans who have been diagnosed with cancer; 4,000,000 are considered cured.
5. Realize that cancer is a life threatening disease but some beat it. Make up your mind you will be one of those who do.
6. Make a commitment to do everything in your power to help yourself fight the disease.
7. Find a qualified doctor in whom you have confidence who believes he can successfully treat you.
8. Regardless of the prognosis, get an independent qualified second opinion. Second Opinions
9. Treat your cancer promptly, properly and thoroughly and have a positive mental attitude.
10. Get PDQ from 1-800-4-CANCER. Know all your options. Knowledge heals.
11. Seek and accept support.
12. Have plans for pleasant things to do and goals to accomplish.
13. Read and practice suggestions in Fighting Cancer available free from 1-800-433-0464.
14. Make up your mind that when your cancer is gone, you are through with it.  (We would add; Because you will treat your body right with comprehensive good nutrition.)

Link to our essay on Environmental and Health concerns which may contact information on cancer not in this essay.

Cancer Information & Treatment Yellow Pages

Financial Assistance and Other Resources for People With Cancer

NCI Listens and Learns Web Site
Summary Report on Cancer Advocacy Organization and Public Comments
Regarding Dissemination of Evidence-Based Practices

Cancer Sci Reporter