Antioxidants found to spur cancer growth and metastasis in mice

I say chlorides because consistently for many studies, notably zinc but applies to Iron, phytates and tannins bind and inhibit the absorption of these two metals, but leave copper alone. Chloride based metals get into the body very quickly.

I'd also look at the mistakes in some studies, different parts of the world have different theories and its possible if you look at enough to see old theories being quoted and not assertions from more recent studies.

The jury is out on what is a good diet to consume for different types of cancer let along a healthy life, its contradictory at best, zinc is good for tackling some cancers, and bad for others. Copper is good for tackling some cancers and not others, and that just looking at two common metals in the diet.

So if the experts knew, I think they would recommend a diet to go on, but they are so steeped in patient privacy they undermine their own authority I think, not to mention come across in general as quite dictatorial.

I have also been messing with some body building amino acids and I liked histdine which is one of the four amino acids that start with zinc, the other three are glutamic acid (glutamate), aspartic acid and cysteine (N-Acetyl Cysteine). Histidine is precursor for histamine which helps immune cells migrate through tissue. Aspartic acid mediates some cysteine based immune responses.

Its also worth looking at vit D, a Wellcome trust study had reverse engineered the human genome about a decade ago and found that most of the Vit D receptors are concentrated around immune system genes (2776 iirc). But you need zinc and cysteine to build the zinc fingers found on these vit D receptors and vit D will switch on some genes and switch off some genes.

Oncologists have access to the testing and measuring equipment, I see no harm if interested in this stuff to get the data from their tests and check their theories against studies found in google scholar, if you wanted piece of mind.

These experts dont always publish their theories so there isnt the transparency, and they dont ask about diet which can be significant in some cases, so they undermine their expertise imo.

And thats before you get into the debate of hackers tampering with results and other things which seem to question the fragile nature of computer security.

And I'm not recommending anything other than question the experts.

Again, recommendations from a health guru book and not an actual doctor, that I'm just copying here in case it helps. I have no experience with cancer other than a close relative passing away when I was much younger.

I don't know how true is what they claim in the book, but basically it's the following.

All cancer cells obtain their energy from fermentation and not oxidation. They use glucose for that fermentation process and they propose fasting and a ketogenic diet as a treatment.

Antioxidants can actually promote fermentation and inhibition oxidation.

All that being said, she pretty much abandoned all of the additional about halfway through her treatments. She had to have half her liver resected, and she had a HIPEC procedure at the same time. When they did the final biopsies on her metastases in her liver, it was 100% dead. She's now been NED (no evidence of disease) for a few years now. I don't have delusions that it will never come back, but I can hope.

I don't know if anything she did helped the chemo do it's job. It's not exactly something you can A/B test. I think it's possible, but I also think her being so young and in good shape to start with made the biggest difference.

You don’t need a lot of Vitamin D to avoid deficiency. Taking even 5000 IU for an extended period of time can cause Vitamin D excess.

Vitamin D confuses a lot of people because it accumulates over a very long time period. You can take the same dose every day but not approach overdose range for a year or more. It builds up if you’re taking too much, and there is a lot of overlap between “too much” and some of the regimens pushed by health influencers.

Isn't the mitochondria usually silenced in cancerous cells?

Could this be why meditation was shown to reduce tumor size? I saw a recent article, on here I think, about a study showing proof via imaging that meditative practices of aligning chakras was successful at reducing tumors where chemotherapy could not. Could it just be that extreme relaxation causes the tumors energy demands to exceed the bodies supply in a relaxed state?

Inuits consuming their diet of purely meat and fat for 6+ months a year do not get scurvy, and it is not a generic mutation either, as testified by Europeans that lived among them and adopted their diet without issue. See Vilhjalmur Stefansson, the ethnologist who spent years living and eating like an Inuit, and anyone following a strict carnivore diet.

The entire meme about sailors getting scurvy because they didn't eat their vegs is because their diet was pretty much poor quality carb-heavy food like rice, potatoes and bread, so even just supplementing with lemons was enough to keep scurvy at bay.

This is speculative and honestly not the simplest explanation. Deleterious mutations will happen in the absence of selective pressure, and there was no selective pressure.

You don't have to cast everything as evolution playing 4D chess. Sometimes genes just break, and not for good reasons.

But as you say, there should be a threshold you don't want to cross with antioxidants, and supplements can easily do that.

I'm wanting to figure out the best way to regulate the things in my body with less Kidney stones, uric acid etc, and that won't upset my depression, anxiety, and ADHD.

Seems to me that few people eat a perfect diet, and I’d be amazed if there’s evidence dieticians work better than multivitamins. People don’t eat right, not because they need education, but because unhealthy diets are tasty, cheap, convenient, etc…

And multivitamins are not all the same, they have radically different formulations, so I doubt the results of any research that didn’t specify a specific multivitamin, or break results by gender or age. (Vitamin needs/ deficiencies are often age related. Consider subsets like prenatal vitamins, vitamins for the elderly, etc…)

I think we're talking about different things here. You're talking about the risk of toxicity from taking high doses of fat-soluble vitamins. I'm talking about the risk of taking anti-inflammatory supplements / drugs generally (regardless of dose).

In general I agree with you on taking vitamins, however the reason I take a very low dose of Vit E is because I have a genetic predisposition to liver inflammation. Vit E is one of the few things which helps me reduce this inflammation which helps me mitigate against long-term damage, but reducing inflammation too much can increase risk of liver cancer, hence why I only take a low dose. This is also the reason patients with late-stage liver disease are typically not given Vit E because they're at a higher risk of developing liver cancer.

On taking Vitamins generally I think most people in the West would benefit from a high-quality low dose Vit D supplement. Something around 1,000 - 3,000 UIs daily is almost certainly safe and the majority of people would benefit. Higher doses are probably preferable in many cases, but you should be monitoring blood concentrations at that point to ensure you're not reaching toxic levels. Otherwise, yes, supplementing is silly unless you have a reason for it.

I hang out in a lot of liver health communities one of the most common reasons I find people have unexplained elevated liver enzymes is because they're taking low quality (often herbal) supplements.