|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Information About Supplements & Chemotherapy/Radiation Therapy Note: The glyconutrients (Glycomannan), thymus and immune boosters, including Immune Assist Critical Care mushroom extracts, Astragalus and most of the supplements, enzymes and herbs on my Cancer Protocol page have been used with success with chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and following surgery; they increase the effectiveness of conventional treatment and help reduce the damage to the immune system that chemo and radiation cause.
Astragalus and Glyconutrients Very Helpful for Chemo Patients p96: Astragalus increases the production of interferon, the cellular clearing of toxins and the number of IgA and IgG antibodies in the blood. Astragalus was able to significantly increase the survival rate of cancer patients who were on chemotherapy or radiation. Anyone facing chemotherapy should become acquainted with Astragalus. A very recent study found that Astragalus supplementation enhanced the action of chemotherapy while it simultaneously protected healthy cells. Show me a drug that can do that! 120 tumor patients were randomly divided into a treated group and a control group. Both groups were treated with chemo, but the treated group received Astragalus injections once a day for 21 days. Compared with the control group, the treated group showed a lower progression of cancer, less destruction of white blood cells and better overall counts of other immune cells and substances. They concluded that Astragalus supplemented with chemo could inhibit the development of malignant tumors, decrease the toxic-adverse effect of chemotherapy, elevate immune function and improve the quality of life in cancer patients. p135: Researchers have found that Astragalus improved the action of cancer-killing T lymphocyte cells by 260 percent. Calcium D-Glucarate prompts a slow release of a substance that inhibits an enzyme that prevents the immune system from neutralizing cancer-causing substances. 70% of rats given a chemical that induces breast cancer that were pre-treated with dietary Glucarate did not develop tumors. The trial also discovered that Glucarate lowered blood levels of estradiol (the form of estrogen that causes breast cancer). p134: Glyconutrients (good sugars, those in Ambrotose) potentiate the actions of chemotherapy on cancer cells and they help prevent vulnerability to infections and other unwanted side effects by enhancing the body's resistance. Chemotherapy and Supplements (About Katie Wernecke -- a 13 yr old with cancer who fought the establishment, because their treatments were only making her worse.) When Katie was in our care during chemotherapy the first five months we gave her nutritional supplements. When CPS and M.D. Anderson had control of my daughter Katie for the next five months they wouldn't allow her to have any nutritional supplements. There was a lot of damage done to Katie mentally and physically by the chemotherapy without the supplements during the last five months. Consider the following article: The truth - from a very well-respected holistic MD: If You're on Chemotherapy, You Should Avoid Supplements, Right? Wrong! Robert J. Rowen, MD Second Opinion Newsletter Second Opinion Health Alert, http://www.secondopinionnewsletter.com/index.php I don't want you to be the victims of junk science, and especially if you have cancer. Take the recent "report" published by the American Cancer Society (ACS). This organization dares to suggest that taking antioxidants might hurt cancer patients. However, report is nothing more than unsupported opinion. It's the ACS that has given us the horrific slash (surgery), burn (radiation), and poison (chemotherapy) approach to cancer. Amazing! They dare to assert that antioxidants might interfere with therapies that kill. What an oxymoron. Truth is, this attack on supplements is nothing new. In fact, Kenneth Conklin published a fine review on the subject five years ago. Conklin reviewed several antioxidants including vitamin C, glutathione, vitamin E, NAC, selenium, and more. He did give a few precautions for specific antioxidants when taken with chemo agents. In particular, glutathione and NAC shouldn't be administered simultaneously with platinum agents. However, the general report not only suggested protection from the ravages of chemo. The report went on to say that antioxidants actually increase the effectiveness of it! Some agents, such as adriamycin and its family of chemicals, have well known and irreversible cardiac toxicity. CoQ10 can likely protect your heart against destruction wrought by this feared complication. I wonder how many chemo-induced heart attacks could have been prevented by CoQ10. In scores of my own cancer patients, I consistently find a far higher quality of life in my patients who take antioxidants - with or without chemo. I've witnessed miraculous cancer reversals. Patients with even stage-4 cancer who undergo a major metabolic program of detoxification and nutritional supplementation have recovered! As far as the alleged scientific studies showing antioxidants fail at expectations, we need to look at the methods of study. Typically, they're conducted with synthetic or refined nutrients. For example, most vitamin E studies are conducted with purified alpha tocopherol, not the more beneficial gamma tocopherol. Alpha tocopherol may actually displace what little good gamma tocopherol you have in your body. I say you can't beat nature. So your best bet to prevent cancer is to eat an organic diet as fresh and living as possible. Supplements are just that - supplements. And you should buy only quality brands. Even some supplements are synthetic and devoid of the biological cofactors God put together in a whole living food. Yours for better health and medical freedom, Robert Jay Rowen, MD http://www.secondopinionnewsletter.com/index.php Ref: Conklin, Kenneth A. "Dietary Antioxidants During Cancer Chemotherapy: Impact on Chemotherapeutic Another Supplement You Must Take if You’re on Chemotherapy One of the most difficult tasks I had to confront during my tenure in They also instilled terrible fear and trepidation in their patients. Many of them threatened to walk away from the case if the patients saw me for nutritional protection. I saw my role as protecting them from the chemicals poured into their bodies. They scorned me for trying to help. Through the years, more and more studies show that antioxidants protect from the ravages of chemo and assist in the benefits (yes, there are benefits if used correctly). I’ve told you in the past about vitamin C and others. But one of the best and cheapest supplements I used to protect my patients from the poison was selenium. And now there’s evidence that confirms what I’ve seen for years. Researchers in Those given selenium received 0.2 mg per kilogram of weight per day. That’s 14 mg for an average-sized man like me (about 70 times the daily dose found in most multiple vitamins). Patients receiving selenium had significantly higher levels of neutrophils. These are white blood cells not directly connected with the cancer. Neutrophils protect you against bacteria. The patients consequently had a much lower infection rate. The selenium group also had a better ejection fraction from their hearts. One known side effect of chemo is it damages (often permanently) the pumping ability of your heart. The selenium prevented that toxic effect. I know many alternative-minded cancer patients opt for conventional chemotherapy. That’s all their insurance and Medicare will cover. Your oncologist might be similarly close-minded. But you can still protect yourself. Selenium is a great place to start. But don’t stop there. I also recommend vitamin C, vitamin E, CoQ10, NAC, glutathione precursors (undenatured whey protein), and green tea. These might save your heart, immune system, and bone marrow from unnecessary destruction. Please see your integrative physician for advice on personal dosing. I don’t recommend undergoing conventional chemotherapy or radiation without significant antioxidant protection, either by IV, mouth, or both. Reduce the Toxic Side Effects of Any Drug You may know that I’m not a big fan of drugs. They are poisons that could have terrible side effects. But there are some drugs where the good outweighs the bad. Wouldn’t it be great if we could reduce the negative side effects from these drugs and still get the positive treatment we need? According to a new study, two nutrients can do just that. In the study, researchers gave two groups of rats a dose of gentamycin, a commonly used antibiotic that causes kidney damage. They gave the first group of mice only the gentamycin. But they gave the second group CoQ10 and green tea, individually and in combination, before giving them the antibiotic. The mice in the first group had significant deterioration in common blood test markers for kidney function, such as BUN and creatinine. But, more importantly, they also had significant free radical-type damage and loss of antioxidant enzymes in their kidney cells. But the rats in the second group, given the nutrients, did not suffer the renal damage found in the first group. They also had less free radical damage and more antioxidant enzymes in their kidney cells. The results were "most dramatic," according to the researchers, when both nutrients were combined. All drugs have toxicity — even the good ones. And you can reduce, if not eliminate, much toxicity simply by increasing your antioxidant levels. I’ve already told you how antioxidants protect you from the side effects of chemotherapy in cancer treatment. But you can also reduce Tylenol toxicity by raising glutathione in your liver. This is true for many other drugs. Modern medicine ignores that the sickest people, those requiring the most drugs, are usually the most nutritionally depleted. So they suffer most of the dangerous side effects. However, we could eliminate much of this damage with supplements or a Living Foods Diet, which is loaded with antioxidant protection. If you need a drug of any kind, please be sure that your diet is the best it can be. Better, don’t wait until you need a drug. It’s too late by then. It takes some time to increase blood levels of antioxidants once you begin. So please improve your diet today. If you cannot do this or just want the added protection, then consider a supplement such as Healthy Resolve’s Max Plus (call 800-728-2288 to order). A good diet and supplements could protect you if you should suddenly need to take a drug. And it could help prevent the need at all. Ref: "Modification of biochemical parameters of gentamycin nephrotoxicity by coenzyme Q10 and green tea in rats," Upaganlawar A, Farswan M, et al, Indian J Exp Biol, 2006; 44(5): 416-418.
Indian Herb Relieves Side Effects of Chemotherapy I don't have to tell you how rough chemotherapy can be on your body. It can cause hair loss, diarrhea, mouth ulcers, low blood count and loss of appetite, vomiting and more. But that's not all. While chemotherapy can and does kill cancer cells, it also kills healthy ones. Many times, chemotherapy kills the patient before the cancer does! Unfortunately, it's difficult to talk friends and loved ones out of taking chemo. That's why I was really glad to hear about an herbal preparation from Dr. Srivastava, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Dr. Srivastava used a product called Maharishi amrit kalash. This is an Ayurvedic food supplement made up of a variety of herbs and minerals. Its manufacturers say it has 1,000 times the antioxidant power of vitamins C and E. Doctors will often tell you to shun protective antioxidants. They fear these vitamins will interfere with the chemo's effects on your cancer. But, there's no credible evidence that this happens. And, as you'll see from the results of this study, this preparation can greatly help your ability to tolerate chemo -- allowing it to fight the cancer better. In the study, Maharishi amrit kalash reduced the number of people with vomiting by almost half! It also reduced the number of people with appetite loss by 36%. Perhaps most strikingly, the number of chemo patients who rated their quality of life as 'poor' was reduced by a whopping 61%. Unfortunately, the risks of hair loss, diarrhea, mouth ulcers, and low blood count were not changed. Still, these are fantastic results. If someone you know takes chemo, make sure they get their hands on some Maharishi amrit kalash. You can find it online at http://www.mapi.com/ and by phone at 800-255-8332. Yours for better health and medical freedom, ANTIOXIDANTS AND CHEMO -- THE LAST WORD? As you know, I don't ever recommend chemo for anyone. But if you insist on "listening to your doctor," at least you should be aware that the most respected chemotherapy journal has now weighed in with an article saying that Vitamin C is a wonderful way to offset the side effects of the chemo and has no adverse effects. Here's the article on it from Dr. Rowen's newsletter: Why This Vitamin Is a Must for Cancer Treatment Doctors often warn chemotherapy patients against taking antioxidants. Where they get this nonsense is beyond me. But here is a brand new study that shows you how ridiculous their thinking is. The study found that vitamin C, one of conventional medicine’s banned vitamins, may actually sensitize cancer cells to chemotherapy drugs. You read that right! It might actually make chemotherapy drugs more effective. In the study, patients took vitamin C along with the common chemotherapy drugs 5-FU and cisplatin. The researchers found that vitamin C altered the DNA of the cancer, which made it more sensitive to chemotherapy. They also found that vitamin C actually improves the cancer-fighting ability of the drugs. I can’t tell you how many of my colleagues were severely harassed for suggesting that their patients take antioxidants as part of their cancer treatment. When I lived in In my experience, I’ve seen vitamin C protect patients against the devastating effects of chemotherapy. I’ve even seen it make the chemo work better. And I’ve found that it will help prevent many patients from losing their hair. If you or anyone you know is using chemotherapy, this is life-saving information. Make sure the oncologist sees this article. The cancer you kill, and the hair you save, might be your own. Yours for better health and medical freedom, Robert Jay Rowen, MD" Abdellatif, et al. “Vitamin C enhances chemosensitization of esophageal cancer cells in vitro.” J Chemother, 2005;17 (5):539-549. See: http://www.beating-cancer-gently.com/archives.html
Another Supplement Cancer Patients Must Take If you've got cancer and are using chemotherapy to treat it, you're at the center of a very hot controversy. Conventional doctors insist you shouldn't take antioxidants while on chemo. But many trailblazing alternative doctors, including yours truly, believe just the opposite. And with good reason. In In the past, I've told you about some of the supplements I used. CoQ10 is important for protecting you from toxicity. And vitamin C actually makes the chemo even more effective. But now there's evidence that vitamin E is vital for cancer patients on chemo. According to a new study, vitamin E can reduce the damage to nerves caused by the chemo drug cisplatin by a stunning two-thirds. The researchers gave vitamin E to one group of patients on cisplatin, but not to a control group. The group not receiving vitamin E had a whopping 68.5% risk of nerve damage. Just 600 mg daily of vitamin E reduced that risk to only 21.4%. Further, those taking vitamin E that did get toxicity had significantly less damage. Action to take: I do believe chemotherapy has its place in cancer treatment. In fact, if you came to see me to treat your cancer, I would not try to talk you into or out of any therapy. I would just lay out all the possibilities. You make the decision. It's your body. If you decide on conventional chemo, bless you. However, you can be protected from the terrible toxicity and have a better result with cheap nutrition! Please don't let your oncologist mislead you about supplements while on chemo. This truth has been out for years. The best cancer management combines the best of both worlds! Yours for better health and medical freedom, Ref: Support Care Cancer, 2006; 14(11): 1134-40.
When You're Most Susceptible to Cancer You may know that too much stress leads to heart disease and deadly heart attacks. But did you know that a lot of cancer cases suddenly appear after a prolonged period of stress? Doctors have seen this in their patients for some time. But they never had scientific evidence to connect the two. But now we have it. Researchers have discovered that your body makes a hormone called noradrenalin when you're under stress. Noradrenalin, as you can tell from its name, is very similar to adrenaline. Like adrenaline, it's also made by your adrenals and it produces impulses in your brain akin to feelings of excitement. However, the researchers found that noradrenalin also stimulates two enzymes called metalloproteinases. These enzymes dissolve the tissue around tumors, which enables cancer cells to move into the newly vacated areas. Noradrenalin may also stimulate the tumor cells to release a chemical called vascular endothelial growth factor or VEGF. VEGF stimulates new arteries to grow, which delivers blood to feed the growing cancer. VEGF can speed the growth and spread of cancer. Stress is necessary for life. We can't live, learn, and grow without it. A runner must stress his body to achieve victory. The physicist must stress hours over how to set up a nuclear reaction. Like everything else, though, there's a balance. Go too far beyond that balance for too long and stress becomes your enemy. In fact, if the body produces noradrenalin for too long, cancer becomes much more likely. Much of what we worry about never comes to fruition. And the rest? We can't do much about it. Have you ever seen worry change the outcome of anything? There are some things you can do to avoid cancer-causing stress. The first is to take up meditation or prayer to give yourself some quiet time. Many studies have shown that people who meditate and pray lead much healthier lives. Also try drinking some chamomile tea in the evening to settle your body down. If you're very stressed, I suggest you try taking the homeopathic Rescue Remedy, which is available at most health food stores. And if you haven't learned to do so yet, there's no time like now to practice unconditional forgiveness and love. Love rests the soul and forgiveness rests the mind, that otherwise would be stimulating your brain to make lots of noradrenalin. Yours for better health and medical freedom, Ref: Cancer Research How Flying Increases Your Risk of Disease -- And How to Protect Yourself (Note: the below also applies to radiation therapy and chemotherapy) Did you know that flying in an airplane exposes you to radiation? In fact, one cross-country trip can net you the equivalent radiation of one chest x-ray. That's one x-ray too many for me. Each time you expose your body to radiation, it increases your risk for DNA damage, premature aging, and cancer. If you fly a lot, this is especially bad news. But a new study shows there's an easy way to protect yourself when you fly. This study showed that cells cultured with my favorite free radical scavengers (i.e., antioxidants) almost completely protected the cells from radiation. The researchers used vitamin C, CoQ10, alpha lipoic acid, selenium, N-acetyl cysteine, and vitamin E succinate. The antioxidants completely or nearly completely protected the cells from a variety of radiation sources. That includes even the highly damaging gamma radiation. You will find all of the radiation sources they tested in space or high altitude. Action to take: If you fly, look for a single supplement containing the above nutrients. Further, if you need an x-ray or any other diagnostic test that uses radiation, make sure you take these nutrients before the test. There are multitudes of quality Yours for better health and medical freedom, Low vitamin intake makes chemotherapy side effects even worse NewsTarget.com printable article Originally published Chemotherapy is bad enough to begin with -- it's an entirely unproven therapy, with absolutely no scientific merit. It doesn't improve a person's lifespan a single day, and yet it remains a widespread treatment for cancer. Minimizing the side effects of chemotherapy (which is, after all, an extremely toxic procedure) remains one of the top priorities for patients and doctors alike. And one of the best ways to do that, research shows, is to take your vitamins. Patients with vitamin deficiencies suffered the worst side effects of leukemia, while those with high vitamin intake had greatly reduced side effects. But here's the rest of the story you won't find in the press: taking even small doses of chlorella before undergoing chemotherapy has been scientifically shown to dramatically increase the survival rate. If you or anyone you know is considering chemotherapy, I strongly urge you to read the full account of this research in my free online book, Superfoods For Optimum Health. There, you'll read about research that shows patients who took chlorella supplements absolutely stunned doctors with their miraculous survival rates. Better yet, they largely avoided the nasty side effects of chemotherapy. The bottom line? Avoid chemotherapy in the first place. But if you're crazy enough to actually undergo this barbaric treatment for cancer, take loads of chlorella: you'll live longer and have far fewer side effects. Secret #2: Just take chlorella and skip the chemotherapy. Add spirulina to your diet, avoid sodium nitrite, stop eating all processed foods, white starch, sugar, and you'll probably cure your own cancer anyway. Modern treatments for cancer are largely a sham to begin with. Read Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss for details.
Questioning Chemotherapy: A Critique of the Use of Toxic Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer by Ralph Moss From the Author: Hi! I'm Ralph Moss, author of Questioning Chemotherapy. I want to tell you how and why I came to write this book. I started as a believer in chemotherapy. As a science writer at Because chemotherapy drugs were general cellular poisons, they could be terribly toxic. They were also very expensive for patients and for society as a whole. When I learned about the links between the pharmaceutical industry and the cancer establishment (later detailed in my book, The Cancer Industry) I understood the commercial reason that such an inadequate modality was so heavily promoted. In 1989, a German biostatistician named Ulrich Abel, Ph.D. published a groundbreaking monograph called "Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer. It made few waves in the Some years later, in response to many requests, I decided to write a critical book about chemotherapy (a sort of companion piece to Cancer Therapy). I took Abel's out-of-print work as my starting point, but also consulted the work of many other students of chemotherapy. In this book, I update statistics and speak about all cancers and not just carcinomas. I go into depth on the politics and economics of the chemotherapy industry, on the biases, fallacies and frauds that occur, and on ways of warding off the sometimes catastrophic side effects that accompany this treatment. The essential point of the book is that one must question the measure of success in chemotherapy. Oncologists have tended to equate an increasing percentage of "responses" with progress. However, responses are generally measurements of tumor shrinkage, for as little as one month's duration. One cannot automatically assume that a response--even a complete response--will lead to increased survival. One must look for increased survival. Yet the number of cancers for which life prolongation through chemotherapy has been proven through randomized clinical trials is very small. (I do bend over backwards to point these out, when they occur.) So when a doctor says her regimen yields a 40 percent response rate, "what exactly is she promising, a short-term shrinkage of tumors -- or actual life-prolongation? What effect is this treatment likely to have on the patient's quality of life? And what is the cost?" It is only by obtaining information such as this that patients are able to make rational treatment choices. Questioning Chemotherapy is intended to help patients by providing them with a critical perspective on this now dominant modality. Book Description: A revealing critique of chemotherapy, this book looks objectively at chemo's successes and failures.
Breast Cancer (from: http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA400060 by Dr. Weil) Question: No More Tamoxifen (for Breast Cancer)? The latest on tamoxifen comes from an analysis showing that the drug doesn't change the life expectancy of many of the women who take it to prevent breast cancer. This is because of serious side effects: increased risks of cataracts, deep vein thromboses, endometrial cancer and uterine sarcoma, and strokes. In addition, women who do develop breast cancer while taking tamoxifen preventively are more likely to have estrogen-receptor-negative tumors, which are more aggressive and deadly. Researchers at the The study also looked at how much it would cost to save a single life at the current Bear in mind that tamoxifen isn't the only breast cancer prevention strategy. You may be able to reduce your risks by lowering your estrogen levels through lifestyle changes: get more exercise, reduce or eliminate alcohol consumption, eat hormone-free beef and dairy products (if you eat those foods), and have a first baby earlier in life rather than later. Eat soybeans and whole soy foods frequently, plus plenty of fresh organic fruits and vegetables and cold-water fish or flaxseed for their omega-3 fatty acids. Don't take birth control pills and, at menopause, avoid hormone replacement therapy. Bottom line: unless you're at very high risk of breast cancer, taking tamoxifen preventively is unlikely to affect your lifespan. You can calculate your personal risks by logging on to www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/ and answering the questions on the risk assessment form. Andrew Weil, M.D.
Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew) http://www.newstarget.com/010886.html Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman's chances of survival by at least 17 percent. Effectiveness of Mammography Radiation Risks According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic. Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources. Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue. Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it." Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults. Navigating the Statistics Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases. While the matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms. The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly. Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they may even do more harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves. New Screening Technologies Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image. The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer: In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance. -- Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23 "The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer. -- Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122 Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment. -- The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537 No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized. -- The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23 The American Cancer Society, together with the A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women. -- Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21 Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue. In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers. Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammograms correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer. -- Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132 The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premenopausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premenopausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue. -- Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588 "Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women." -- Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122 According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%." -- Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467 Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings. -- Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973 Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms. -- Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42 Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it. -- The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305 Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography! -- Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123 As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976). -- The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24 Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography. -- Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973 In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died -- from The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57 One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents. -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233 Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers. -- The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539 A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were non-infiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival. -- Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86 The Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected. Multiple dietary antioxidants enhance the efficacy of standard and experimental cancer therapies and decrease their toxicity. -- Cancer patients can be divided into 3 groups: those receiving standard or experimental therapy, those who have become unresponsive to these therapies, and those in remission at risk for recurrence or a second new cancer. While impressive progress in standard cancer therapy has been made, the value of this therapy in the management of solid tumors may have reached a plateau. At present, there is no strategy to reduce the risk of recurrence of the primary tumors or of a second cancer among survivors. Patients unresponsive to standard or experimental therapies have little option except for poor quality of life for the remainder of life. Therefore, additional approaches should be developed to improve the efficacy of current management of cancer. In this review, the author proposes that an active nutritional protocol that includes high doses of multiple dietary antioxidants and their derivatives (vitamin C, alpha-tocopherol succinate, and natural beta-carotene), but not endogenously made antioxidants (glutathione- and antioxidant enzyme-elevating agents), when administered as an adjunct to radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or experimental therapy, may improve its efficacy by increasing tumor response and decreasing toxicity. This nutritional protocol can also be used when patients become unresponsive to standard therapy or experimental therapy to improve quality of life and possibly increase the survival time. The authors also propose that after completion of standard therapy and/or experimental therapy, a maintenance nutritional protocol that contains lower doses of antioxidants and their derivatives, together with modification in diet and lifestyle, may reduce the risk of recurrence of the original tumor and development of a second cancer among survivors. Experimental data and limited human studies suggest that use of these nutritional approaches may improve oncologic outcomes and decrease toxicity. This review also discusses the reasons for the current debates regarding the use of antioxidants during radiation or chemotherapy. PMID: 15523102 [Pub Med - in process] Cachexia (from HSI e-Alert - Crossed Purposes, Feb 15, 2006) It sounds like Pam's friend may be suffering from a condition called cachexia that affects people with cancer and other chronic diseases. Cachexia symptoms include a general loss of vitality characterized by poor appetite, weight loss, decomposition of muscle, and depression. One of the most unfortunate aspects of cachexia is that doctors may unwittingly add to the problem with well meaning advice that is outdated and off the mark. -------------------------------------------- In a 2003 study of 200 patients with cachexia, UK researchers found that a daily high-calorie/high-protein supplement, enriched with vitamins C and E, and about 2 grams of omega-3 fatty acids prompted a significantly higher rate of weight gain, increased lean body mass and improved quality of life compared to subjects who received a similar supplement, but without the added vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids. Unfortunately, many doctors would reject this type of supplement regimen because of a belief that antioxidants interfere with chemotherapy and radiation therapies. Some of these types of cytotoxic therapies create free radicals that may help kill cancer cells. Researchers have theorized that antioxidant supplements might impede cytotoxic therapies. Some even suggest that patients treated with these therapies should avoid antioxidant-rich foods, which would cut virtually all fruits and vegetables from a cancer patient's diet. This theory was given a boost late last year with an article that appeared in the journal CA - A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (published by the American Cancer Society). The article was written by Gabriella M. D'Andrea, M.D., of the In the e-Alert "What Would Hippocrates Do?" ( -------------------------------------------- On the web site for CA - A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, several doctors and nutritionists have submitted their reactions to Dr. D'Andrea's article. Hal Gunn, M.D., director of the Centre for Integrated Healing in A clinical nutritionist named Neil E. Levine offers a more exhaustive rebuttal; complete with footnotes identifying many of the studies Dr. Gunn refers to. Here's a sampling of Mr. Levine's antioxidant defense: - Radiation and chemo treatments have been enhanced by vitamin E use (Clinical Cancer Research, 2002) -Vitamin E and selenium enhanced the effects of anticancer drugs (Pathology & Oncology Research, 2005) -Vitamins C and E have been shown to improve side effects of free radical damage to normal cells caused by radiation and chemo (Integrated Cancer Therapies, 2004) -Prostate cancer cell cultures were sensitive to lycopene, which increased apoptosis (spontaneous cell death) and arrested the cell cycle (Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 2005) -Recent studies show vitamin E may induce apoptosis in a wide variety of cancers, including breast, prostate, lung, colon, ovarian and cervical (Journal of Nutrition, 2004) -Several studies have demonstrated that antioxidants lessen side effects of chemo (Integrated Cancer Therapies, 2004) -Harsh radiation side effects were reduced with high doses of beta-carotene and vitamin E (Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005) -CoQ10 enhanced the efficacy of tamoxifen (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, 2005) Mr. Levine also offers this quote from Patrick Quillin, Ph.D., the director of Nutrition, Cancer Treatment Centers of If you're being treated for cancer by a doctor who believes that antioxidants may interfere with your therapy, share this information with him and discuss the possibility that antioxidant use may in fact be one of the keys to cancer treatment success.
High Doses of Antioxidants Including Vitamin C Do Not Decrease the Efficacy of Chemotherapy The idea that the use of antioxidants decreases the efficacy of chemotherapy is being used more and more by orthodox oncologists. It is based upon their hypothesis that anything which decreases the oxidant effect of drugs will decrease the efficacy of chemotherapy. More and more I hear this from my patients after they are diagnosed and chemotherapy is discussed with them by their oncologists. This opinion is not universal but my guess is that about 75% of oncologists hold this view. The view that chemotherapy destroys tumor tissue because it introduces powerful oxidation products, free radicals and that anything which decreases that must interfere with treatment. They know they are using sub-lethal amounts of toxic compounds that would never pass FDA standards in any different context. The aim is to kill all the tumor tissue without killing all the other tissues in the body. This is always a close call. Therefore, since vitamin C is a good antioxidant it must not be given with chemotherapy. One of my patients was told by his oncologist that if he took vitamin C he would not be given any chemotherapy. Well, what are the facts? The first fact is that there are no clinical series which show that patients given vitamin C and chemotherapy fare worse than those not given this vitamin. On the contrary, all the published series show just the opposite. I have treated over 1,100 cases with large doses of vitamin C and most of them had chemotherapy.(1-4). I have examined the follow up data and find that the mean difference on prolongation of life was heavily in favor of the use of the vitamins. In the first series I published with Linus Pauling those patients on my program lived 10 to 20 times as long as the patients not receiving the vitamin. Recently Kedar N. Prasad et al (5) after reviewing 71 scientific papers, found no evidence that antioxidants did interfere with the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy and, on the contrary, suggest that the hypothesis that it would increase the efficacy. He is properly cautious, but anyone reading his paper knows that is clear the probability that these antioxidants prevent the therapeutic activity of chemotherapy is very low, and the probability that they do the opposite, i.e. enhance the action of these toxic drugs, is relatively high. Prasad et al (6) concluded, "Antioxidants such as retinoids, vitamin E, vitamin C and carotenoids inhibit the growth of cancer cells. These antioxidants individually and in combination, enhance the effects of x-irradiation, chemotherapeutic agents, and certain biological response modifiers such as hyperthermia, sodium butyrate, and interferon, on cancer cells. Antioxidants individually protect normal cells against some of the toxicities produced by these therapeutic agents. Therefore, the fear of oncologists and radiation therapists that these antioxidants may protect cancer cells against free radicals that are generated by these agents is unfounded. It should be pointed out that other antioxidants such as sulfhydryl compounds will protect cancer cells at least against radiation damage. This is not true for any of the proposed antioxidants vitamins and carotenoids." Even earlier Charles B. Simone et al (7) on the basis of a large number of clinical studies (he also examined 71 scientific papers) came to the same conclusion. He reported "In a recent study of 50 patients with early-stage breast cancer I evaluated the treatment side effects of radiation alone, or radiation combined with chemotherapy, while the patients took therapeutic doses of nutrients. Patients also followed the Simone Ten Point Plan. Patients were asked to evaluate their own response to the treatment in terms of its impact on the quality of life. The results of the study were impressive. "More than 90% of both groups noted improvement in their physical symptoms, cognitive ability, performance, sexual function, general well-being and life satisfaction. Not one subject in either group reported a worsening of symptoms." He concluded, "...cancer patients should modify their lifestyles using the Ten Point Plan, which included modifying nutritional factors and taking certain vitamins and minerals especially if they are receiving chemotherapy, and/or radiation." Labriola et al (8) concluded that vitamin C may prevent the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy if given concurrently and recommended that antioxidants be withheld until after the chemotherapy is completed. It is not clear whether they meant that the antioxidants should be withheld throughout the entire series of chemotherapy sessions or that is should be withheld only for the day that chemotherapy is given. If the latter is his suggestion, there is no harm done to the patients. Most of them cannot take anything, including vitamins, during these sessions. He based his conclusions on one case which suggested this had happened and upon a hypothetical examination of the role of free radicals and antioxidants on the action of chemotherapy on cancer cells. His report elicited two rebuttals, Reilly (9) and Gignac (10). I will not repeat the arguments, but it was evident that Dr. Labriola was not convinced by the points put forward by Reilly and Gignac. I think the factoid repeated by Dr. Labriola would have a much better chance of becoming a fact if he had considered the following points: 1) What is the therapeutic value of chemotherapy without any antioxidants? Even within the field of standard oncology there is a debate whether chemotherapy has any merit except for a small number of cancers (Moss 11). Before one can claim that a treatment has been inhibited, surely there must be pretty good evidence that treatment has any merit to begin with. It is possible (we do not know the probability for this) that chemotherapy interferes with the therapeutic value of the antioxidants. Almost all the studies testing large doses of vitamin C yielded positive results while there was no such unanimity with respect to chemotherapy. The above is a letter by Dr. Abram Hoffer, founder of Orthomolecular Medicine
Introduction to Antioxidant Use in Cancer Therapy Dietary and endogenous antioxidants prevent cellular damage by reacting with and eliminating oxidizing free radicals. However, in cancer treatment, a mode of action of certain chemotherapeutic agents involves the generation of free radicals to cause cellular damage and necrosis of malignant cells. So a concern has logically developed as to whether exogenous antioxidant compounds taken concurrently during chemotherapy could reduce the beneficial effect of chemotherapy on malignant cells. The importance of this concern is underlined by a recent study which estimates 23 percent of cancer patients take antioxidants.1 The study of antioxidant use in cancer treatment is a rapidly evolving area. Antioxidants have been extensively studied for their ability to prevent cancer in humans.2 This paper reviews the use of antioxidants as a therapeutic intervention in cancer patients, and their potential interactions with radiation and chemotherapy. There has been significant investigation of this area, with promising findings which indicate continuing investigation is warranted. For further discussion of the use of antioxidants as sole cancer therapy, refer to the review article by Prasad published earlier this year.3 A number of reports show a reduction in adverse effects of chemotherapy when given concurrently with antioxidants. These data are more completely summarized by Weijl et al.4 Antioxidant Use in Cancer Therapy It was suggested in a recent publication that no supplementary antioxidants be given concurrently with chemotherapy agents which employ a free radical mechanism.5 The paper must be commended for pointing out that the combination of antioxidants and chemotherapy agents needs more investigation, and should serve as a wake-up call regarding how much we need further definition of the actions of specific antioxidants with chemotherapeutic agents. However, it should not serve as scientific closure on an adjunctive treatment of possible great promise in cancer therapy. The present authors are by no means recommending any lack of caution about use of antioxidants. On the contrary, published research indicates the cautious and judicious use of a number of antioxidants can be helpful in the treatment of cancer; as sole agents and as adjuncts to standard radiation and chemotherapy protocols. It was suggested that antioxidants might interfere with the oxidative mechanisms of alkylating agents.5 These drugs create substantial DNA damage, resulting in cell necrosis. However, recent evidence indicates a sizeable amount of chemotherapy damage is by other mechanisms, which trigger apoptosis.6 Antioxidants have been shown to increase cell death by this mechanism.7,8 Given this, any argument that antioxidants are likely to interfere with most chemotherapy is too simplistic and probably untrue. Numerous animal studies have been published demonstrating decreased tumor size and/or increased longevity with the combination of chemotherapy and antioxidants.7,9-16 A recent study was conducted on small-cell lung cancer in humans using combination chemotherapy of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (doxorubicin), and vincristine with radiation and a combination of antioxidants, vitamins, trace elements, and fatty acids. The conclusion was "antioxidant treatment, in combination with chemotherapy and irradiation, prolonged the survival time of patients" compared to expected outcome without the composite oral therapy.17 Two human studies found melatonin plus chemotherapy to induce greater tumor response than chemotherapy alone.18,19 The treatments producing these positive results would have been advised against by those advocating no antioxidant use during chemotherapy. These studies will be discussed in more detail below. It is the opinion of the authors of this paper that interactions between antioxidants and chemotherapeutics cannot be predicted solely on the basis of presumed mechanism of action. The fact remains that physicians must be aware of the available research to help their patients take advantage of positive interactions existing between antioxidants and chemotherapy or radiation. Additionally, physicians need to remain aware of the large body of evidence showing a positive effect of antioxidants in the period following chemotherapy administration. The general protocol with standard oncologic therapies is to follow a watch-and-wait strategy after therapeutic administration is concluded. This is a period when supplemental therapies are highly indicated and have been demonstrated to result in a higher percentage of successful outcomes.20,21 Combinations of Antioxidants Given that many antioxidants have been shown to have anti-tumor properties, it is worth exploring their use in combination. A study in mice found co-administration of beta-carotene and alpha-tocopherol led to much greater tumor regression than either agent alone. The effect was synergistic, being much greater than the sum of the mild tumor inhibition of beta-carotene and alpha-tocopherol.174 Other studies have shown multivitamin supplements were associated with fewer recurrences of solid tumors after remission following standard oncologic therapies.20,21 A small double-blind trial of a mixture of antioxidants, including 600 mg vitamin E, 1 g vitamin C, and 200 mg NAC taken only during treatment, looked at the potential of this mixture to prevent cardiotoxicity during chemo- and radiotherapy. No patient taking the antioxidant mixture had a fall in ejection fraction greater than 10 percent. In patients taking placebo, four of six patients undergoing radiotherapy and two of seven patients treated with chemotherapy had an ejection fraction reduction of 10 percent or more. Treatment outcomes in patients taking antioxidants versus placebo were not discussed.175 An open trial of combination antioxidan |