Click here for search page.  (Use top center box.)               

  CANCER NUTRIENT STUDIES OVERVIEW ANALYSIS;

This essay will outline the reasons why we believe that even the studies which do not show a positive effect for a specific single nutrient in fighting cancer do not prove an absence of a benefit of that nutrient as part of a combination, for example.  There is a large body of science which makes it clear that multiple nutrients are needed for the bodies defense systems to operate properly.  In that case, since multiple nutrients are needed, or if the amounts used in a study are inadequate (or maybe even too much), such null results on one or two nutrients are exactly what would be expected.  Doctors who rely on such studies can easily be misled and may mislead patients.

There is simple logic and a mountain of science which says that the body unquestionable needs multiple specific nutrients to fight cancer.  There are many scientific studies which show synergy of nutrient factors and vitamins and nutrient interactions both positive and some even negative.   Any reference to a study of one or even a few nutrients showing that cancer was not prevented or cured are not reliable.  One must look at the whole body of evidence.

Regardless of our use of science references, this web site is, nevertheless, for educational purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for the diagnosis, treatment and advice of a qualified licensed professional. 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note that this website frequently updates its contents, due to a variety of reasons, therefore, some information may be out of date.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 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.  

It is certain that any single nutrient if the dose is much or too little, or even a few nutrients of the wrong combinations or in incorrect balance will not show the positive effect that is possible.  Benefits may only be seen in certain circumstances where the total nutrient intake is sufficient and properly balanced and absorbed to provide what the body needs to fight cancer effectively.  This reality is essentially why most negative studies (a surprisingly small minority) are probably not fully meaningful and many simple studies inevitably and inherently will come up with little or no effect.  One example is that studies of high levels of the vitamin A precursor Beta-carotene have shown no benefit which is not surprising since it is known that vitamin A at too high a level can interfere with (antagonistic to) vitamin D, and vitamin D is critical in fighting cancer.  There is also a big difference between a Beta-carotene supplement and obtaining it directly from food sources.

The studies on single nutrients that are positive are probably even much more meaningful than they seem on the surface for reasons outlined in the following paragraph;

It is known that many nutrients show anticancer effects in a limit range of intake and if there is not too high an intake of antagonistic nutrients. If you assumes that there are 30 nutrients that a cancer patient could believe to be possibly important to beat cancer long term, and if the reality is that the patient needs to eat a particular combination of even 5 of the 30 to actually enable to fight cancer, there are 142,506 combinations of food that the patient could try.  To be realistic, if one were testing all possible combinations of 5 different foods, there would have to be at least 142,506 or more different combinations (possibly the same every meal) for an analysis to see the benefit if every meal had to contain all five of those nutrients.  If one looks at the spontaneous remissions which are documented by the medical profession, the estimated rate is somewhere between 1 in 60,000 to 1 in 100,000.  (Though surprisingly one in one hundred with Melanoma.)  That large general spontaneous remission figure is about what could be expected from diet variations between patients if many nutrients are involved in the determination of spontaneous remission.

(The proceeding scenario is conservative in assuming that one cannot consume too much of a nutrient in the effort to ward off or fight cancer, but it is certainly true that you can get in trouble in the case of several vitamins, namely at least vitamin A, Zinc, Calcium, and Selenium.) 

Such calculations show that the rate of "spontaneous" remissions is approximately consistent with the reality of nutrition and cancer.  This is not, of course, sufficient hard science evidence to believe that cancer can be stopped by nutrition alone, but it does show that nutrient studies which are neutral/null are to be expected if multiple nutrients are needed to strongly fight cancer.

There is, in any case evidence for nutrition control even during medical therapy. From the Journal of Nutrition; "Rationale for Using High-Dose Multiple Dietary Antioxidants as an Adjunct to Radiation Therapy and Chemotherapy"  A researcher could use the knowledge of nutrients to reduce the number of studies needed to get the most meaningful information.  We believe that studies like the study of antioxidants are urgently needed where multiple elements are tested for efficacy in combination.  The following link is a report on one such study; "--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."   Talk to your doctor about this.  Take the link address to your doctor or a copy for s/he to read.  Note that the best benefit found in the study came from the use of four different vitamins used with chemotherapy! 

The combination from the referenced study is unusual in listing the amount of the nutrients and if your doctor approves, the study would be a good bench mark and very helpful to your doctor.

Even if one very conservatively assumes that there are only twenty nutrients (vitamins and proven anticancer foods) that a patient might believe they need to eat or take, but that the level can be too much; even if only four nutrients were required to be at the right level at the same time, assuming only two different levels of consumption, the number of combinations of would be 125,970 combination possible and the chance of the cancer patient hitting that combination if they need to consume a particular combination every meal, would be 1 chance in 125,970.  If there were two combinations that work the chance of hitting one or the other would be 1 in 62,985.

If 3 different combinations of 5 foods would work strongly against cancer, and two different levels had to be tried, with only 20 nutrients, the change of getting the right combination and level of nutrients would still be 3 in 184,756 (1 in 61,585.)

All these simple and reasonable calculations are consistent with incidence of documented "spontaneous" regression possibly being nutrient related and consistent with studies which do not show benefits of one or two nutrients.

The reality is that only nutrient combinations (not single nutrients in excessive amounts) are likely to be of major benefit a high percentage of the time in fighting existing cancer.  While single nutrients can help, vitamin and nutrient combinations have been proven to be much more beneficial than singles vitamins or nutrients. 

Health benefits of phytochemicals in whole foods— food synergy.

In the case of prostate cancer especially, there a number of nutrients that are believed to be beneficial based on science such as; Combined Lycopene and Vitamin E Treatment Suppresses the Growth of PC-346C Human Prostate Cancer Cells.  Note, that there are also nutrient supplements (we are not talking about whole foods) where there is at least some evidence of a bad effect above a certain level (typically more than 2 times the MDR.) The most important one which probably requires moderation is Zinc in men.  Zinc is very good up to about 100mg supplement a day and reasonable calcium intake is also important and good if vitamin D is adequate.  Vitamin D is almost certainly needed at more than 2 times the MDR.

There has been a study of a study of a combination of vitamin D (limited to the very low MDR of 400 IU) plus calcium from calcium carbonate which showed no benefit in colorectal cancer.  This is almost certainly misleading since the vitamin D level is so low compared to what the body will generate from limited sun exposure which can be around 10,000IU of vitamin D.

We would not advocate that anyone substitute 25 vitamin D pills in place of the needed sun exposure. Vitamin D is a powerful hormone and the natural approach is reasonable sun exposure. One also needs to be especially careful in study evaluation and use with nutrition in the case of hormonal cancers (breast, uterine, ovarian, and prostate) as the following link study indicates; Physiological Concentrations of Dietary Genistein Dose-Dependently Stimulate Growth of Estrogen-Dependent Human Breast Cancer.  This shows a need to work work a doctor knowledgeable of nutrition and cancer especially when the nutrients are related to hormones.  The reference is to using high concentrations of isolated Genistein and not to getting Genistein from Soy.  Genistein has been proven to be of major benefit in other cancers but even though this study was with the tissue in mice and not from Soy as a whole, it would be prudent with breast cancer 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.)   Again, the study was only with breast cancer of one type, but there are some molecular similarities with the other hormonal cancers and prudence also says to avoid isolated Genistein supplements if your problem or concern is breast or reproductive cancer until science proves it to be OK in that cancer and Flaxseed would be a better choice of a beneficial nutrient as would be Soy as a whole.

The actual benefits of the proper nutrient combinations are often more than would be expected from single nutrient studies alone.  There are other nutrient elements in Soy besides Genistein which are beneficial.  (The need form nutrient element combinations is always true to a significant level and especially so with very tough cancers, as noted at the end of this essay.)

If we are correct (based on the analysis of hundreds of scientific studies), the whole issue of nutrient benefit in fighting cancer hinges on whether or not it is reasonable to expect a single nutrient to always show a statistically detectable benefit in all situations where the total nutrient intake is not controlled or is unusual in some way.  We believe that the answer is no, because it is an unquestionable scientific truth; the body, the biology of cancer, and the many ways in which our body attacks cancer are very complex and the total picture is certainly dependent on numerous factors and not solely on a single nutrient factor.  Single factor tests which are positive,  generally prove something (working despite a probably marginal nutrient balance), whereas, most single nutrient tests which are negative prove very little because all of what the body needs is probably not there.

If one just looks at the Carotenoids (vitamin A family, many of which are already known to be beneficial in fighting cancer) you find that there are about 600 Carotenoids.  If only those substances were tested 2 at a time to find the combinations which act against cancer, one would have to run almost 180,000 tests!  That is if one knew the amount of each alone which was beneficial.    Carotenoid Action on the Immune Response

If one tried two different levels of consumption of each Carotenoid, or combinations of 4 Carotenoids, it would require 524 billion tests!  Science will never know precisely the best combinations of even the Carotenoids lets alone all likely beneficial nutritional substances.  Even the way the known beneficial Carotenoids are converted to a form of vitamin A in our bodies is not fully understood and changing.  From all the benefits found from other colored natural substances, it seems very likely that many others of benefit will be found, but there will always be potentially more beneficial combinations out there in food.

Broccoli contains a commonly known powerful cancer fighting substance called Sulforaphane and also contains other substances less well known such as Benyzl isothiocyanate that also fight cancer.  The effectiveness of natural foods gives evidence that nutritional combinations are of great benefit and the best way to combat cancer.

There are so many nutritional elements already known to have major health benefits, we believe that negative tests of nutrient factors can often only prove that some other factor is also needed and maybe even determinant in a given health situation.   Probably the classic example are studies of Beta Carotene together with vitamin E on smokers in Finland.  The smokers have almost certainly messed up their body in more than a couple of ways.  In any case, being in Finland, they are probably (at least some of them) vitamin D deficient.  (Almost all studies show that there is a strong correlation of cancer increasing as the distance from the equator and maximum sunshine decreases and Finland is well North of the equator.)  There is virtually no question of the major role of vitamin D in fighting cancer.  NIH Conference On Cancer and Vitamin D)     EFFECT OF VITAMIN D ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DEPENDS ON ADEQUATE CALCIUM

Vitamin D May Prevent Half of Breast Cancers, Two-Thirds of Colorectal Cancer   There is no science which says that a somewhat similar major benefit would not be obtained in preventing cancer and in those with cancer. 

There is a study in Finland ignores vitamin D and the possible negative effects of a high level of Beta Carotene in inducing vitamin A and interfering with already low level of vitamin D.  It seems likely, therefore, that the positive effect of the vitamin E and Beta Carotene would be minimized by the northern latitude of the country, and the smoking of the subjects of the study would further mask benefits of other factors.  It is then not surprising that in smokers there was actually a negative effect of the Beta Carotene vitamin E combination in lung cancer.  It is not generally noted that the Finnish study actually still showed a benefit against prostate cancer even in smokers.

While Retinoids like Beta Carotene are known not to be universally good in fighting all cancers and there is some science to indicate that it may interfere with the proven benefits of vitamin E (numerous studies in almost all cancers.)  The combination of vitamin E plus Beta Carotene is not based on any obvious reason to believe that they work well together.  The study has the earmarks of a setup to try to show that vitamins are not of benefits in all situations.  The study did show benefit (not unexpectedly, missing vitamin D), and that is all the study showed.

This is not to say that there are not some studies which seem to show some increased cancer risk associated with excess intakes of nutrients.  That is found, but there are many more tests which show a benefit in such cases, unless the intake is extreme as in the case of green tea where drinking 5 cups a day or more may have a negative effect on one type of cancer but for several other types of cancer is still beneficial up to 10 cups a day.  There are, in any case, numerous studies proving the major cancer fighting benefits of moderate intake of green tea.  The need for moderation and determinate vitamin interactions in some cases is one reason we believe that multiple nutritional adjuncts are required. (Keep in mind that even with "proven" medical therapies, there are times when it backfires and that is beyond the control of the patient.)  At least some chemotherapies are definitely made more effective by nutrient supplements such as vitamin E succinate making the associated risk of the particular chemo agent at least a better risk.

This link contains a summary of an article by a doctor; "Rationale for Using High-Dose Multiple Antioxidants as an Adjunct to Radiation Therapy and Chemotherapy" reference about one third the way down the page.

Finding a doctor who recognizes the limits of conventional therapy alone is difficult but not impossible.   Some such doctors are even questioning conventional therapy in very serious ways.  One such doctor is quoted in this link.  Dr. Lam is in a small minority, but what if he is even partially correct.  At the very least it would mean that nutrition needs to be given very serious consideration.  Chemo combinations are probably not the answer if they are just combinations of cytotoxic drugs.

There is good reason to give full consideration to nutrients in a combination even if one chooses some standard therapy, as we believe is indicated by the science.  For example, in the following case, vitamin E mixed with a chemo drug before it is given to the patient has shown major benefit.

This following linked site is not pure science, but again, what if the following quote near the bottom of the link (about the nutrient GLA, found in Evening Primrose Oil and Borage Oil available at health stores) is at all true; "When cancer cells that overexpress the Her-2/neu gene are treated with GLA, it not only helps suppress the cancer-causing gene, but also causes up to a 40-fold increase in response to the drug Herceptin (trastuzumab), which is used as part of breast cancer treatment. GLA also selectively affects cancer cells without damaging normal cells."?!  (Our emphasis.)

It is easy to see how tests where other determinant nutrient factors are present in necessary amounts at least, would show a benefits with other nutrients or with drugs; while tests where that other determinant nutrient was not present in an adequate amount might show no apparent definite benefit of that nutrient.

To paint a simplistic and imperfect but more easily understandable picture, we will make a crude analogy between the operation of the body in fighting cancer and the operation of a car engine, we believe it will hopefully illustrate some very important points even though the body is almost unimaginably more complex than a car engine; 

Suppose that you a few bad parts in a car engine, would it be reasonable to expect the engine to run normally and function to full efficiency and run on any fuel?  The answer is clearly no.  If the engine has several bad several parts, and one were to run a test as to whether or not a single new and good part made the engine run to full efficiency and found that the engine ran without that new part sometimes and not at other times, it would not be really surprising and could well be just determined by the quality of the fuel as well as which part one chose to test.

If the engine ran at all, it would say that the part is important, but if the engine did not run in any single test, it would not prove that the part was not necessary but maybe only that the fuel was determinate as well.  Certainly the fuel (analogous to nutrients in our bodies) can not be any liquid.  Even kerosene will not work in most car engines.   The bottom line is that a test which shows a benefit to the part proves the value of the part, but a test which does not show a value may only say that the fuel or some other determinate part is bad.

The body is an engine of sorts and needs the right kind of fuel (nutrients, in fact many different nutrients (vitamins and other nutrient chemicals)) to function properly.  In the case of the body, the fuel/nutrients even determine the structure of the parts (gene expression and the nature of the cells and system function efficiency) which need to function properly to fight cancer.  Improper fuel in the body can make a huge difference in fighting cancer.  There are at least hundreds and probably many thousands of scientific tests which prove that almost certainly.  Even the existence of many tests which show no benefit in certain situations do not change the reality and meaning of the positive test.

Another piece of evidence that nutrients do have major cancer fighting power is that there are now a number of "drugs" being developed that are nothing but substances isolated from various foods!  This clearly means that the drug companies know that those food substances work against cancer!  There may be merit in trying to isolate those substances, but it is also possible that to work their best, those know chemo therapeutic components of the food need to be present along with the other substances found in that food!

There is no science which refutes the proven benefits of vitamins in fighting cancer as seen in at least hundreds and probably thousands of scientific studies.  The results of the negative tests are just what would be expected if multiple nutrients are needed to fight cancer.

Throughout the pages in this site, which discuss nutrients and cancer, there are numerous embedded links to scientific studies which leave the need for and benefits of vitamins and many well studied other nutrients unquestioned.

Nutrients have even shown benefit in the toughest of cancers.

Remember in evaluating the possible benefits of nutrients, the prognosis for a number of cancers is quite low with conventional therapy alone.  To have a better chance of beating the disease, investigate nutrition and talk to your doctor about it.

Cancer survival chart (essentially with conventional therapy alone.)  This is what one should use to weigh adjunct options.

Nutrient even helps for the very tough Multiple Myeloma. 

Resveratrol inhibits myeloma cell growth and up-regulates VDR (vitamin D receptor.)

Food-derived polyphenols inhibit pancreatic cancer growth.

There is also hope for pancreatic cancer with nutrient adjuncts despite the lack of appreciation of the benefits by some in the medical community.   "--recent demonstration that the addition of vitamin D and calcium to the diet in rats dramatically reduced the rate of proliferation of pancreatic epithelial cells that was induced by a ‘Western’ (i.e. high fat) diet."   

Nutrients and pancreatic cancer near the bottom of this link page.

The chemical from dark grapes and wine (Resveratrol) is known to be synergistic with vitamin D and useful against pancreatic cancer.  The same is true for the chemical Genistein found in Soy.

It is very important to note, however, that Genistein is not the only beneficial ingredient in Soy.  Soy Phytochemical Concentrate (SPC) works in some cases where Genistein may not.Resveratrol alone shows promise against pancreatic cancer. 

Vitamin C, found in fruits and associated with a lower risk of pancreatic cancer.  This probably indicates that vitamin C and fruit consumption also help fight the disease.One wonders why there seems to be no clinical study of at least Resveratrol plus vitamin D.

Even over the counter medicines can work with vitamins.  Vitamin D and NSAID's (Aspirin, Ibuprofen, etc.) are also synergistic in fighting cancer.

Combination therapies (multiple drugs and/or nutrients) are probably the key in fighting cancer.  Gemcitabine plus celecoxib (GECO) in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Even for Melanoma, drug combinations may increase efficiency of treatment by 100 fold!

In breast cancer, it has been shown that adding the nutrient L-glutamine may be very beneficial, both in terms of efficacy and treatment toxicity in some cases.  Effect of glutamine on methotrexate efficacy and toxicity.

What is needed is to study all this and search for other synergies your doctor may be unaware of.

We suggest starting reading just before half way down the page on this link.  This link certainly should give one pause about the attitudes of some in the medical community and about nutrition and cancer.

One wonders about the medical community when you find; "For more than 50 years, there has been documentation in the medical literature suggesting that regular sun exposure is associated with substantial decreases in death rates from certain cancers--".   (If one avoids any and all sunburn!)

The question arises as to why wasn't there a major public fight over the marketing of sunscreens as reducing cancer (which was only true in regards to Melanoma and the opposite true of most other cancers)?  The answer is probably that there are studies which indicates that going beyond a certain amount of sun exposure can reverse the beneficial effect.  The answer is to get limited exposure (10 to 20 minutes) on unprotected skin to get the vitamin D, then get out of the sun or put on sunscreen. 

There is a synergy between the sun exposure and your nutrition.  Link to site with a number of nutrient synergy studies on a number of types of cancers.

The following site sells product, but there is so much relevant information (which can be verified), it is worth a look regardless; Cancer Adjunct Treatments.

For both cancer and general health; don't forget Garlic; "garlic contains more than 100 biologically useful chemicals"

Surprisingly, in addition to nutrients, common aspirin and the ingredient in Tylenol (or generic) have anticancer biological properties!  

Lower Breast Cancer Risk With Aspirin Linked to Hormone-Receptor Status          

"--acetaminophen- and NSAID-prevention of the ovarian cancer--"

The following link is about COX-2 inhibitors (like Celebrex) and Green Tea synergism for prostate cancer, and if there is a synergy there, it seems possible that there is likely also to be a synergy between NSAIDs and Green Tea as well for prostate cancer at least which needs to be researched.

Lastly, it should be emphasized that we do not advocate a pure nutritional approach to cancer, but there are sites that do and the science does not indicate that they cannot be at least partially correct; We CAN Prevent and Reverse the Plague of Our Generation  The best approach is, however, almost certainly a combination of nutrition with low toxicity medical approaches which include more than cytotoxic therapeutics.


 

Copyrights to all information in this site is subject to the restrictions listed on the Permissions page.