FREE Subscription
The World’s Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter   
 
 
POSTED BY
March 01 2008
Are Vitamin Supplements a Bad Idea for Cancer Patients?

cancer, supplements, conventional cancer treatment, chemotherapy, radiology, antioxidantsMillions of U.S. cancer survivors take vitamin supplements. However, there is little evidence that supplements help, and worries that some may actually fuel the disease.

A review of 32 studies conducted between 1999 and 2006 found that 64 percent to 81 percent of cancer survivors take extra vitamins or minerals (excluding multivitamins). But little is known about how megadoses of vitamins affect cancer.

A 1995 report showed that cancer cells in a petri dish thrive in the presence of vitamin C, and subsequent studies have suggested that vitamin C supplements may lower survival rates. A study of vitamin E showed patients with cancers of the head and neck who took supplements increased their risk for developing a second cancer.

The American Cancer Society says use of vitamins and supplements during cancer treatments should be avoided.



Dr. MercolaDr. Mercola's Comments:

Cancer treatments are not what I typically focus on, for a variety of reasons. I also do not focus on recommendations for specific supplements, for the simple fact that the vast majority of supplements on the market are synthetic versions that can do more harm than good.

It’s important to keep in mind that there is a major difference between natural whole-food supplements and pharmaceutical grade, synthetic vitamins and minerals.

That said, there’s little doubt in my mind that most studies trying to scare you into thinking that taking vitamins and mineral supplements will kill you faster than any drug will, is based on the use of synthetic supplements, in combination with strong financial interests. Conventional cancer treatment represents a multi-billion dollar a year industry. These vast profits are fiercely protected by the industry giants, and it’s already been proven, over and over again, that financial ties can radically color the outcome of any study.

But conventional cancer treatments in no way address the underlying causes of cancer.

Cancer is a nutritional/toxic/environmental/emotional condition, which, in a great number of instances, can be successfully reversed through the application of a sound nutritional approach and common-sense lifestyle changes.

Chemotherapy -- the LEAST Successful Cancer Treatment? 

According to the National Cancer Institute (a component of the National Institutes of Health, and funded by the U.S. Congress), about 500,000 people will be diagnosed with some form of cancer this year.  Many people are also unaware that cancer -- NOT heart disease -- is the number one risk of death for most everyone reading this article.  

Chemotherapy, which has been one of the principal treatment methods for the past 50 years, works by killing all cells -- throughout your body -- that multiply and divide rapidly. This would include cancer cells, but also other rapidly multiplying and dividing cells, such as: 

  • Bone marrow, which produces blood
  • Digestive system
  • Reproductive system
  • Hair follicles 

This overkill approach is the cause of the astounding overall failure of chemotherapy.  

In 2004, the Journal of Clinical Oncology published a revealing study about chemotherapy’s success rates when looking at how many cancer patients were still alive after 5 years. It states:  

RESULTS: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

CONCLUSION
: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.
 

I think you’d be hard pressed to find anything still being touted as your best shot at a cure with an average success rate of just over 2 percent, if it wasn’t for the fact that big profits were driving the recommendation. 

The heartbreaking reality is that chemotherapy and other conventional cancer therapies rarely work, and some drug treatments also promote the spread of cancer. But somehow the rationale to “avoid these agents because they might promote the disease” does not apply when it comes to drugs.  

This is a pervasive and hard to change double standard, visible again in the CA – A Cancer Journal for the Clinician listed above, which concludes by stating:  

“Pending the publication of suitable trials, clinicians must be guided by existing data in the context of a fundamental principle of medicine, "Primum non nocere." (First do no harm) 

And yet, conventional cancer treatments can in no way, shape or form ever be considered harmless.

"...as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."
Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society

Taking a Look at Definitions and Exceptions 

Dr. Ralph Moss, author of the book, Questioning Chemotherapy, has documented the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy in treating most cancers. There are a few, rare exceptions, however, where the treatment can be of value, including: 

  • Acute Iymphocytic leukemia
  • Hodgkin's disease
  • Nonseminomatous testicular cancer
  • Choriocarcinoma
  • Retinoblastoma 

These types of cancer account for 2 to 4 percent of all cancers occurring in the United States. This leaves some 96 to 98 percent of other cancers, such as breast, colon, and lung cancer, which are barely touched by chemotherapy. In many cases “life extension” equates to just another 6 to 18 months of life.

Effective cancer treatment is also a matter of definition. The FDA defines an "effective" drug as one that achieves a 50 percent or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28 days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life.

However, when the cancer patient hears the doctor say "effective," he or she thinks, and logically so, that "effective" means it has a good possibility of curing them.

But all it means is temporary tumor shrinkage.

What Else Do We Know About Supplements For Cancer?

Needless to say, there are a variety of supplements that have received favorable press, based on positive study results. Most, however -- and this may be key -- are found to be preventative, more so than curative in nature.

Black cohosh and CoQ10 are two supplements that have been found to have potential in the treatment of cancer.  Other supplements have been shown to be helpful in reducing your risk of contracting a variety of different cancers, including:

The one supplement that appears to have the most overwhelming support for both reducing your risk, and aiding in your treatment of cancer, however, is vitamin D from sunlight.

How to Virtually Eliminate Your Risk of Cancer

I believe these relatively simple risk reduction strategies can help you to VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE your cancer risk, and radically improve your chances of recovering from cancer if you currently have it.

You won’t read or hear much about these elsewhere because they have not been formally "proven" yet by conservative researchers. However, most people don’t know that 85 percent of therapies currently recommended by conventional medicine have never been formally proven either. And, as discussed above, conventional cancer treatments are clearly not in the best interest of most patients suffering from the disease.


Related Articles:

Did you find this article interesting?  Interesting Not Useful
Community Comments ( 153 )
Comment on this Article
  
  
katherinefarias
 [ Posted on March 1, 2008 ]
38 Points        
   
 
Apprentice User

I once asked a female doctor if she would run a test on my vitamin D levels.  I thought she was the demon in the exorcist, I thought her head would spin off her neck.  She frowned at me and asked why, "that vitamin D is rarely low in the U.S, with all our "fortified" foods, etc, and "just go out in the sun" she said.  She flatly refused.  I told her, I work 12 hours a day in a high rise.  That it was hard for me to get outside every day, and that I didn't eat "fortified" foods, because most of them were crap.  

Needless to say, I NEVER went back to her, I was disgusted with how degrading she was to me.  I have lost a lot of respect for most doctors today.  There are good ones I'm sure, but you really have to HUNT them down.  Most don't advertise that they are "natural" leanings.  Gee, I wonder why.  I love Dr. Mercola for the stance he has taken on health, and I have sent his info to many people who have flat out thanked me.  I helped a friend in Texas lose 80lbs without even seeing him by giving him info from this site and Rubin Jordan.  Also, before the weight loss he was told he had fatty tumours on his liver......He had an MRI several weeks ago.  Guess what?  NO MORE tumours!  The doctors were shocked at his bloodwork and cholesterol readings.  They wanted to know how he did this.  He said, "I EAT REAL FOOD, NO SUGAR...etc."  - he said one of the doctors was writing it down.  [These were military doctors].

 [ Reply ]
Mercola
  
Puckman
[ Joined on 08/06 ]  [ Posted on March 1, 2008]
4 Points        
   
Novice User
  Mercola

wow! doctors know even less than we thought. Should have guess with all the dollars drug companies and others throw at them during and after their educational process.

Mercola
  
rodafer
[ Joined on 08/06 ]  [ Posted on March 6, 2008]
5 Points        
   
Novice User
  Mercola

Kfarias,  I had a similar experience with a doctor.  

She was upset that I only went to her when I was ill, which is very seldom. I reported her to the insurance company (believe it or not they keep tabs- she had three other complaints)  

Doctors forget that savvy patients KNOW that you cannot do preventive assessment or diagnose disease in five minutes or less, by saying ah-ha repeatedly, without actually touching a patient and while scanning the next five patient's charts. We also know how unreliable the many  tests they order are.

We are packed in the office, unapologetically made to wait unrealistic amounts of time, treated to all sorts of indignities and generally handled, well, like lab rats.

If we gather all the knowledge within this website, the logical assumption is that doctors are unwittingly making us ill.  They rely on medications we do not need because they do not have the knowledge base to properly diagnose natural imbalances brought about by exposure and life styles.  Nor do they want to dedicate the time to continue studying the ever-evolving field of medicine.

We need to be at the wheel.  It's our journey.

  
  
foxtroter
[ Joined on 09/06 ] [ Posted on February 12, 2008 ]
30 Points        
   
 
Savvy User
Vitamin pills are supplements--just that--supplements.  They should be supplements to a balanced diet. 

Article as usual speaks of Vit E supplements not being beneficial.  No mention which of the 8 forms of Vit E were used in the study.  Giving alpha tocopherol and not the other 7 forms is not a natural balance of Vit E forms. 

"The American Cancer Society says use of vitamins and supplements during cancer treatments should be avoided"

Why doesn't the American Cancer Society make bigger noises about avoiding all the fake food and drink that cause cancer in the first place.---Oh that's right.  We need more studies to show that our lifestyle is the cause of the majority of cancers. 

How about some studies to show a relationship between taking over-the-counter and prescription drugs for 10 years and the subsequent result of cancer forming?

And finally the article states: "But many cancer survivors don’t discuss supplement use with their doctors, with estimates ranging from 31 percent to 68 percent for those who don’t disclose what they are taking."

Duh--why should they discuse supplements with their doctors.  What do medical doctors know about nutrition?
 [ Reply ]
Mercola
  
Russ Bianchi
[ Joined on 09/06 ]  [ Posted on February 12, 2008]
31 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola
"What do medical doctors know about nutrition?"  Slim or None and Slim left town.
Mercola
  
mama bear
[ Joined on 06/06 ]  [ Posted on February 13, 2008]
26 Points        
   
Apprentice User
  Mercola
foxtroter

My sentiments exactly.  The American Cancer Society has a vested interest in the disease--not the cure.  They are in bed with all of the big food giants as well as big pharma.
Mercola
  
PepperR23
[ Joined on 06/06 ]  [ Posted on February 13, 2008]
7 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola
I just finished reading "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell, PHD, and Thomas M. Campbell II.  He worked for many years as a Cancer reseacher.  It is his belief that Cancer and Heart Disease can, in many cases, be reversed by following a plant-based diet.  It is a very interesting read.  I happen to disagree with his belief that supplements are not of very much help.  Very high quality whole-food supplements can really help to restore one to a healthier state of being. 
Mercola
  
GeorgiaBoy123
[ Joined on 11/06 ]  [ Posted on February 13, 2008]
4 Points        
   
Apprentice User
  Mercola
PepperR23, and anyone else, I highly recommend reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. It's a wonderful read.
Mercola
  
alm260
[ Joined on 06/06 ]  [ Posted on March 1, 2008]
15 Points        
   
Savvy User
  Mercola

Response to Mama Bear:  You are right about the American Cancer Society.  I'm wondering how many other companies are in the same boat.  They keep saying that they want to find a cure for cancer, and it's been known to many in America that we have a cure, but the FDA won't allow the natural cures to be used because they don't profit from it.

My aunt and her husband are running a race for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and would like our support.  I don't know anything about them.  My fear is that a lot of these organizations are making money off of people when there are already natural cures out there.  I don't have anything to back that up to show her though.  She said on her website link that she's doing this race in honor of her two sisters who died to cancer (my mom was one of them).  Well, my mom and her other deceased sister didn't die because of a cancer they didn't know how they got.  They both died because they were chain smokers and have smoked since their early teen years.  Instead of running a race for cancer, I feel if my aunt really wants to change things, she needs to be working with an organization that targets teens who smoke or might be tempted to pick up the nasty habit.  Now, that might make more of an impact.

The good thing about her and her husband training and running is that they are getting the needed exercise (they are both overweight).  I'm proud of her for that.

Mercola
  
reformednurse
[ Joined on 03/08 ]  [ Posted on March 1, 2008]
10 Points        
   
Novice User
  Mercola

In regards to not supporting organizations that pretend to seek a cure for a disease- as a Registered Nurse for 35 years, I want ot make the comment that most of these organizations, including the Red Cross and United Way, are just big money generating organizations for BigPharma and conventional medicine. I belong to Life Extension Foundation because they put their profits into real research on vitamins and other supplements. I will not support these "runs for a cure" because of this. Furthermore, encouraging recent "survivors" of cancer to do these marathons is very controversal when you think about how fragile their immune systems already are. Extreme exercise causes a drop in immune function. How can this be good for anyone?

Mercola
  
ridgewalker
[ Joined on 02/08 ]  [ Posted on March 1, 2008]
15 Points        
   
Novice User
  Mercola

What do doctors know about nutrition? Heheheheh. For the most part...little, or nothing that they are willing to share with us. After a heart attack and the standard pharamceutical cattle call, I felt awful! When I asked 3 different doctors about natural alternatives to the sinister statin (Lipitor), channel blockers, etc, THE best response I got was when a doctor (heart specialist) got up, walked over to the pamphlet rack and handed me a brochure on the "food pyramid". I handed it back to him, saying that I still had the one that they gave me in 5th grade and walked out.

When I asked if there was a natural way to clean out the remaining plaque, I was told "No". When I asked about taking supplements, I was told they are a waste of time and money (even though it would take 75-100 lbs of food every day to get the necessary support).

You hear things like, "Do you smoke?", but you never hear "How much sugar/MSG (by any of its 15 different names)/artificial sweeteners, etc do you consume?" AND YOU NEVER SEE A DOCTOR PULL OUT LITMUS PAPER AND TEST YOUR pH! Pathogens cannot survive, or grow in an alkaline enviroment. Good foods, exercise and supplements help to take you alkaline. Bad foods, like sugar, processed foods, artificial sweeteners and "professional medications" make our bodies acid. Virtually all sickness is bred in an acidic body. The day that a doctor tells me that "we" need to get you alkaline, is the day the FDA stops allowing poisonous additives into foods to make us sick, stops marketing largely untested medications for imaginary sicknesses (psst: cholesterol is good for you). In an alkaline environment, no so-called "universal health care" plan will work. What's the point? Learn about your pH level. We're on our own...

Mercola
  
ridgewalker
[ Joined on 02/08 ]  [ Posted on March 1, 2008]
10 Points        
   
Novice User
  Mercola

Correction! In my previous post, I ended by stating "In an alkaline environment, no so-called "universal health care" plan will work."

Brain cloud.

Should have stated "In an ACID environment, no so-called "universal health care" plan will work.

Sorry....