4 ms·

Scientists think antioxidants may make cancer cells spread faster

37 points by olb 11y ago

alialkhatib 11y ago
For anyone that's curious, the article is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature15726.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu... I'd complain about the WSJ's practice of not properly referencing the study, but I'm afraid that's becoming about as played out as the complaints about paywalls.
- melling 11y ago
  The headline points to the Washington Post, not the WSJ. Did someone change it?
  - dang 11y ago
    No, I think the GP meant WP.
    - alialkhatib 11y ago
      Yep I did, my bad. Sorry about that.
sitkack 11y ago
Makes total sense. Free radicals are thought to damage a cell and turn in cancerous. Antioxidants mitigate the number of free radicals so the rate of damage is lower, but once cancer is occurring, antioxidants aren't going to do anything to prevent the spread of cancer. In this experiment, cancer was transferred directly showing that AO actually hinders the bodies ability to fight cancer. Could free radicals actually be part of the immune system? Another theory, which i think is interesting is that free radicals damage strong as well as weak cells, those weak cells that are killed by free radicals could actually more easily transition into cancer in the absence of free radicals. It is too easy to explain less free radicals as good. There isn't a single variable in this equation.
- rsync 11y ago
  Is that what they're saying ? My understanding of the case against antioxidants is that thefree radicals (etc.) are an essential cell signaling mechanism ... and the signal is "kill me, I'm a bad cell". If you somehow disrupt or eliminate the signal, you allow bad, or inefficient, or perhaps cancerous cells to live longer than they would otherwise. I'm paraphrasing directly from the excellent, excellent book _Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life_ by Nick Lane, which is highly skeptical of antioxidant supplementation and is a truly fascinating book.
  - api 11y ago
    I wonder if this is why fasting may be healthy: it flushes marginal cells.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Interesting, but do you have any evidence that fasting is healthy?
      - olb 11y ago
        https://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mimics-fasting-appears-to-slow-aging/ https://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mimics-fasting-appears-... (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9741137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9741137)
      - Geee 11y ago
        There's lots, if you search, e.g.: https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regeneration-of-damaged-old-immune-system/ https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regene... https://news.usc.edu/29428/fasting-weakens-cancer-in-mice/ https://news.usc.edu/29428/fasting-weakens-cancer-in-mice/ https://news.usc.edu/78953/fasting-and-less-toxic-cancer-drug-could-be-alternative-to-chemotherapy/ https://news.usc.edu/78953/fasting-and-less-toxic-cancer-dru...
        11y ago
api 11y ago
Every 5 or 10 years there is a big study that gives rise to a health fad: antioxidants, low fat, high fat, low carb, no carb, complex carbs, red wine, ... These are then almost predictably found to either be bunk or gross oversimplification 5 or 10 years later. You would think the scientific and medical establishment would realize after a while that there must be something deeply wrong with their whole approach to these studies and their interpretation, but no. The next one is always a breakthrough and around the circle we go. Or are there industries making big bucks on pimping this stuff?
- redmagnet 11y ago
  Same could be said about software tools and software methodologies. Yes industries are making money by pimping this stuff but at the same time, I think it still counts as progress in that it contributes to our knowledge of how things work and give you more options for dealing with a problem. In both software and health, mature professionals are going to be able to incorporate this new fad into their work in a reasonable and considered way. The general public - not so much.
- hga 11y ago
  Not in this case, this is a context issue, not to mention one that's been known for decades WRT to Vitamin C. In the context of normal health, anti-oxidants sure seem to be a good thing. In the context of cancer, well, you don't want healthy cancer cells! The rules change, quite a bit.
- Detrus 11y ago
  Well, scientists release studies, which are far from conclusive. Various industries use them to advertise to people who don't understand that studies mean nothing.
- scott_s 11y ago
  This is not the fault of the scientific and medical establishment. They investigate phenomenon and publish what they can learn. The media does a poor job in explaining the subtleties of what they have learned, and food and supplement companies latch on to these misunderstandings to market "health" products.
Geee 11y ago
It is widely believed that antioxidant supplements interfere with chemotherapy treatments, but it seems to be controversial subject. A relative of mine just started chemotherapy treatments and the doctors recommended avoiding antioxidants.
- tripletmass 11y ago
  In particular, we want mice who when presented with a particular existing class of cancer spring to take antioxidants when they serve the mouse and not when it's going to perk up the cancer more, tell related mice how that feels, then survive at a significant rate; then look at their relatives. Sort of a missing hat trick at the end of _Ben_.
dbbolton 11y ago
The fact that high antioxidant levels could interrupt the ROS-p53 axis and prevent apoptosis (i.e. prevent cancer cells from dying) has been known for awhile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylcysteine#Adverse_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylcysteine#Adverse_effects Edit: forgot to mention one of the relevant studies is from 2005.
TheCowboy 11y ago
Slightly off-topic, but I wish media would stop using phrases like "scientists think" when reporting on a specific study without a general scientific consensus. "Scientists say global climate change is real" is completely fair though. It doesn't help science to give a false appearance of consensus, and likely leads to a public more willing to dismiss scientific evidence. If this was a well-researched meta analysis that found a strong consensus, that would be different, but it doesn't seem to be the case. This may not be the fault of the reporter, as often they don't get final say on the title. It would be marginally better to say "some scientists suggest". The conclusion of the article itself seems to suggest that the evidence is mixed.
hanklazard 11y ago
Anecdotal supporting evidence: A close family friend with chronic leukemia went on a "pro-oxidative" diet after reading similar previous data. He did see a drop in his counts (which had otherwise been elevated and stable) while not in active chemo.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
Another thing for the http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ app :-)

37 points by olb 11y ago

For anyone that's curious, the article is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature15726.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu... I'd complain about the WSJ's practice of not properly referencing the study, but I'm afraid that's becoming about as played out as the complaints about paywalls.

melling 11y ago
The headline points to the Washington Post, not the WSJ. Did someone change it?
- dang 11y ago
  No, I think the GP meant WP.
  - alialkhatib 11y ago
    Yep I did, my bad. Sorry about that.

sitkack 11y ago

Makes total sense. Free radicals are thought to damage a cell and turn in cancerous. Antioxidants mitigate the number of free radicals so the rate of damage is lower, but once cancer is occurring, antioxidants aren't going to do anything to prevent the spread of cancer. In this experiment, cancer was transferred directly showing that AO actually hinders the bodies ability to fight cancer. Could free radicals actually be part of the immune system? Another theory, which i think is interesting is that free radicals damage strong as well as weak cells, those weak cells that are killed by free radicals could actually more easily transition into cancer in the absence of free radicals. It is too easy to explain less free radicals as good. There isn't a single variable in this equation.

rsync 11y ago
Is that what they're saying ? My understanding of the case against antioxidants is that thefree radicals (etc.) are an essential cell signaling mechanism ... and the signal is "kill me, I'm a bad cell". If you somehow disrupt or eliminate the signal, you allow bad, or inefficient, or perhaps cancerous cells to live longer than they would otherwise. I'm paraphrasing directly from the excellent, excellent book _Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life_ by Nick Lane, which is highly skeptical of antioxidant supplementation and is a truly fascinating book.
- api 11y ago
  I wonder if this is why fasting may be healthy: it flushes marginal cells.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Interesting, but do you have any evidence that fasting is healthy?
    - olb 11y ago
      https://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mimics-fasting-appears-to-slow-aging/ https://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mimics-fasting-appears-... (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9741137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9741137)
    - Geee 11y ago
      There's lots, if you search, e.g.: https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regeneration-of-damaged-old-immune-system/ https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regene... https://news.usc.edu/29428/fasting-weakens-cancer-in-mice/ https://news.usc.edu/29428/fasting-weakens-cancer-in-mice/ https://news.usc.edu/78953/fasting-and-less-toxic-cancer-drug-could-be-alternative-to-chemotherapy/ https://news.usc.edu/78953/fasting-and-less-toxic-cancer-dru...
      - 11y ago

api 11y ago

Every 5 or 10 years there is a big study that gives rise to a health fad: antioxidants, low fat, high fat, low carb, no carb, complex carbs, red wine, ... These are then almost predictably found to either be bunk or gross oversimplification 5 or 10 years later. You would think the scientific and medical establishment would realize after a while that there must be something deeply wrong with their whole approach to these studies and their interpretation, but no. The next one is always a breakthrough and around the circle we go. Or are there industries making big bucks on pimping this stuff?

redmagnet 11y ago
Same could be said about software tools and software methodologies. Yes industries are making money by pimping this stuff but at the same time, I think it still counts as progress in that it contributes to our knowledge of how things work and give you more options for dealing with a problem. In both software and health, mature professionals are going to be able to incorporate this new fad into their work in a reasonable and considered way. The general public - not so much.
hga 11y ago
Not in this case, this is a context issue, not to mention one that's been known for decades WRT to Vitamin C. In the context of normal health, anti-oxidants sure seem to be a good thing. In the context of cancer, well, you don't want healthy cancer cells! The rules change, quite a bit.
Detrus 11y ago
Well, scientists release studies, which are far from conclusive. Various industries use them to advertise to people who don't understand that studies mean nothing.
scott_s 11y ago
This is not the fault of the scientific and medical establishment. They investigate phenomenon and publish what they can learn. The media does a poor job in explaining the subtleties of what they have learned, and food and supplement companies latch on to these misunderstandings to market "health" products.

Geee 11y ago

It is widely believed that antioxidant supplements interfere with chemotherapy treatments, but it seems to be controversial subject. A relative of mine just started chemotherapy treatments and the doctors recommended avoiding antioxidants.

tripletmass 11y ago
In particular, we want mice who when presented with a particular existing class of cancer spring to take antioxidants when they serve the mouse and not when it's going to perk up the cancer more, tell related mice how that feels, then survive at a significant rate; then look at their relatives. Sort of a missing hat trick at the end of _Ben_.

dbbolton 11y ago

The fact that high antioxidant levels could interrupt the ROS-p53 axis and prevent apoptosis (i.e. prevent cancer cells from dying) has been known for awhile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylcysteine#Adverse_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylcysteine#Adverse_effects Edit: forgot to mention one of the relevant studies is from 2005.

TheCowboy 11y ago

Slightly off-topic, but I wish media would stop using phrases like "scientists think" when reporting on a specific study without a general scientific consensus. "Scientists say global climate change is real" is completely fair though. It doesn't help science to give a false appearance of consensus, and likely leads to a public more willing to dismiss scientific evidence. If this was a well-researched meta analysis that found a strong consensus, that would be different, but it doesn't seem to be the case. This may not be the fault of the reporter, as often they don't get final say on the title. It would be marginally better to say "some scientists suggest". The conclusion of the article itself seems to suggest that the evidence is mixed.

hanklazard 11y ago

Anecdotal supporting evidence: A close family friend with chronic leukemia went on a "pro-oxidative" diet after reading similar previous data. He did see a drop in his counts (which had otherwise been elevated and stable) while not in active chemo.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

Another thing for the http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ app :-)