On-Demand Supplier Webinar
Technical / white paper
Product presentation
Seagreens® Certified Organic Food Quality Seaweeds
Pathway International
Antioxidant nutritional supplements may actually promote cancer progression in late-stage cancers patients, according to a new research paper published by Nobel laureate James Watson.
Watson, who received a Nobel prize for his role in the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA in 1953, suggests nutritional supplements containing antioxidants such as vitamins A, C and E may in fact block late-stage cancer treatment and promote cancer progression, thus lowering life expectancy and cancer survival.
“In light of the recent data strongly hinting that much of late-stage cancer's untreatability may arise from its possession of too many antioxidants, the time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer,” writes the renowned geneticist.
“All in all, the by now vast number of nutritional intervention trials using the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium have shown no obvious effectiveness in preventing gastrointestinal cancer nor in lengthening mortality.”
In fact, Watson asserts that such supplements seem to slightly shorten the lives of those who take them, adding that he considers his latest work as being “among my most important work since the double helix.”
“Future data may, in fact, show that antioxidant use, particularly that of vitamin E, leads to a small number of cancers that would not have come into existence but for antioxidant supplementation,” he suggests.
“Blueberries best be eaten because they taste good, not because their consumption will lead to less cancer.”
Antioxidants
The suggested health benefits of antioxidant supplements have previously been put in their role in protecting against damage from free radicals such as reactive oxygen species(ROS).
ROS, which are produced from the breakdown of foods or by environmental exposures, are suggested to cause damage to healthy cells and damage DNA and are at the centre of many theories of disease.
In healthy cells, it has been suggected that antioxidants ’mop up’ excess ROS and therefore act to keep cells healthy and reduce the risk of disease from ROS damage.
However, Watson’s research suggests that in people with cancer, high levels of these antioxidants may be detrimental. His theory on antioxidants is based on the fact that the majority of anticancer treatments aim to generate ROS, which triggers cancer cell death.
High levels of antioxidants in cancer cells therefore will allow them to block the actions of anticancer therapies, meaning cancer cells survive for longer and potentially moving to other body locations.
Watson suggests his study has important implications not only for the management and treatment of cancer, but for the food industry, who may find that consumers are turned off the ‘antioxidant’ message as it becomes more complex.
Source: Open Biology
“Oxidants, antioxidants and the current incurability of metastatic cancers”
Author: Jim Watson
What do you think of Jim Watson's suggestions on antioxidants? In addition to leaving comments below you can contact our science reporter Nathan Gray via email or twitter to share your thoughts...
10 comments (Comments are now closed)
Antioxidants...cause Cancer?
With all due respect to this man and his achievements. We must put things into perspective. Bear in mind it was not too long ago that one noble Laurette got his prize by promoting a novel mental health treatment for depression via frontal lobotomies. I think such statements by this noble Laurette belong in the same category. They have more to do with medical dogma than science. Antioxidants have been shown over and over again to in the literature to prevent cancer and even treat it. Even now some of the most prestigious medical institutions in the US are performing studies on IV ascorbic acid (a water soluble antioxidant) on its ability to wipe out non-hodgkin's lymphoma. Bear in mind that oxidative stress not only promotes pathology associated with aging, but without them the human body dies.
But I suppose such a statement is par for the course by incredulous scientists, who approve of therapies which utterly destroy the human frame to save them from a disease caused by a diet deficient in antioxidants. Though science no longer endorses frontal lobotomies, it is obvious that sometimes their thinking reflects that might undergone them.
Report abuse
Posted by TR
08 February 2013 | 02h52
antioxidants don't work?
Maybe it is a blessing that antioxidants block late stage cancer treatments since it has been proven that chemotherapy actually causes cancer. This type of treatment is useless, besides the billions of profits for the producers. It kills people anyway, so better use supplements to protect our body against the detrimental effects of chemotherapy. Better; no chemotheraphy at all…
Report abuse
Posted by Erik-Alexander Richter
05 February 2013 | 13h40
Looking forward to more evidence, but problem known
Those pursuing nutritional-minded approaches to cancer prevention and treatment have not been ignorant of Watson's point. See the balanced discussion here, for instance: "Should Antioxidants Be Taken at the Same Time as Chemotherapy?" from the Life Extension Foundation (http://bit.ly/WLsUAp). If a chemotherapy works against cancer cells by being pro-oxidant, then maybe high levels of dietary antioxidants are an issue. But other chemotherapies work by other means; taxols, for instance, interfere with cell division and so affect faster-growing cells disproportionately. A larger issue is biochemical context: in some circumstances, for instance, vitamin c is pro-oxidant. But pro-oxidants aren't necessarily bad either. A recent study of showing that grape-seed proanthocyanidins support wound healing found that, in the wound, grapeseed components do their work by being pro-oxidant (http://bit.ly/XzTVWJ). Without pro-oxidant stress (e.g., through exercise) some of the body's key defenses don't kick in – a process known as hormesis (nice discussion here – http://bit.ly/WtmbLH).
Report abuse
Posted by bill andriette
23 January 2013 | 17h53
Antioxidents or the Treatment Itself?
What about the "supercell" resistant tumors created after current treatments have been used? Treatments kill benign cells in the tumor, as well as the less differentiated cells (hence less malignant), leaving the tumor stem cells, which could possibly benefit from antioxidants, but it is questionable whether they indeed have that capacity. Whether a supercell uses antioxidants effectively ought to be proved, since, for example, cancer cells´ uses of energy sources are different from that of normal cells. If cancer therapies did not create treatment resistant tumors, then antioxidants might be of some use.
Report abuse
Posted by Chaya Gilburt
21 January 2013 | 13h53
Valid Points
The immune system does rely partly on the generation of ROS to kill bacteria and other invaders. So if these ROS were mopped up by excessive levels of antioxidants, it could theoretically reduce the response of the immune system to the cancer growth, as well as reduce the effectiveness of certain chemotherapeutic agents. Has this been tested in animal cancer models?
Report abuse
Posted by chris aylmer
18 January 2013 | 18h01
Real issue
You nailed it. This article is very misleading.
Report abuse
Posted by Sylvia
18 January 2013 | 16h32
More Mole-hill than Mountain
Dr. Watson has an extraordinary resume, but he also has a history of seemingly careless, and weakly-scientific comments/theories, to say the least. There are data from cancer researchers, other than Watson, supporting the notion that antioxidants may protect cancer cells from treatments. But there is also data that some cancer cells are genetically super-antioxidant producing, and more yet that oxidants can induce cancer.
There is a mountain of difference between the theory that antioxidants can protect cancer from therapy, and the theories contained in the statements that eating blueberries will not lead to less cancer - and that antioxidants promote the development of cancer, or metastatic cancer. If they do promote cancer, but such a "small" number that it has been, as of yet, difficult to empirically observe, then where is the Mountain?
Report abuse
Posted by Darren Page
18 January 2013 | 00h43
Scary title, dubious content
Read the 'warning' carefully: 'the majority of anti-cancer treatments aim to generate ROS' = reactive oxygen = toxicity. The anti-cancer pharmaceutical drugs are a million times stronger than antioxidants. But who is to blame for promoting cancer growth and eventual death? Not the toxic drugs, God forbid. No. It's the villain antioxidants, which in countless scientific 'studies' are otherwise deemed useless and ineffective. If Jim Watson isn't paid for his enlightened 'research' by Big Pharma, I'll eat my entire bottle of antioxidants in one go.
Report abuse
Posted by Vardit Kohn
17 January 2013 | 22h41
High Intraceullar Delivery of Vitamin C is Anti-Cancer
The data on IV vitamin C show that it fights cancers. As well liposomal vitamin C, which delivers intracellular vitamin C better than IV vitamin C. Dr. Mark Levine, a National Institutes of Health researcher, has been working on this and seen positive results.
Report abuse
Posted by Michael Mooney
17 January 2013 | 20h53
Real issue.
I think it would be better if Dr Watson was to do some research on the difference in longevity between those who had conventional cancer interventions and those who had none.
All this research is at the treatment and terminal stage.
We have a cancer epidemic: WHY???
Chemotherapy shortens life in many cases.
Report abuse
Posted by Jonathan
17 January 2013 | 16h16
Read all comments (10)