Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study: Some Antioxidants Could Increase Cancer Rates

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the not-so-good-after-all dept.

Medicine 117

sciencehabit writes "Many people take vitamins such as A, E, and C thinking that their antioxidant properties will ward off cancer. But some clinical trials have suggested that such antioxidants, which sop up DNA-damaging molecules called free radicals, have the opposite effect and raise cancer risk in certain people. Now, in a provocative study that raises unsettling questions about the widespread use of vitamin supplements, Swedish researchers have showed that moderate doses of two widely used antioxidants spur the growth of early lung tumors in mice."

cancel ×

117 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108051)

Since when mice need antioxidants?

Re:Yes, but... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108319)

Since when sentences need verbs?

Fixed that for you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108655)

Since when sentences verbs?

Re:Fixed that for you... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108741)

since sentences

sentence. (2)

swschrad (312009) | about 7 months ago | (#46111727)

word.

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46111219)

It's an utterly stupid and worthless "story". The very next paragraph after the one posted in the summary basically says to completely ignore it because mice and humans react very differently to antioxidants. The remainder of the "story" doesn't go into anything in any appreciable depth, just a bunch of loose guesswork and what ifs.

Don't bother with it.

Not very surprising. (4, Informative)

Ihlosi (895663) | about 7 months ago | (#46108073)

Oxidizing compounds (like H2O2) are one of the forms of "ammunition" the immune system has. Too many antioxidants in the body will make this weapon less effective.

Also, cancer cells are more susceptive to oxidative damage due to their generally higher cell division rate. This is also why ionizing radiation usually damages cancer cells more than regular cells.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 7 months ago | (#46108105)

Probably misremembering this, but aren't cancer cells often under higher oxidative stress to begin with, too? The last thing you'd want would be to ease that pressure on them.

Re:Not very surprising. (4, Interesting)

Ihlosi (895663) | about 7 months ago | (#46108175)

Probably misremembering this, but aren't cancer cells often under higher oxidative stress to begin with, too?

They are more susceptible to oxidative damage since they spend more time in the various stages of cell division (where the DNA is especially vulnerable to oxidative damage) than regular cells (which spend most of their time not actively dividing, where their DNA is less prone to being irreparably damaged by oxidizing compounds).

However, fast-growing cancer sometimes has the nasty habit of out-growing its network of blood vessels, creating areas of the tumor that are oxygen deprived and therefore hard to damage by using ionizing radiation.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46108405)

If the tumor is O2 deprived wouldn't that slow down cell division which would make it slow growing? I don't get it.

Re:Not very surprising. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108515)

If the tumor is O2 deprived wouldn't that slow down cell division which would make it slow growing?

Regrettably, cancer cells usually have no problem generating the energy for sustained cell divisions entirely without oxygen. They can use oxygen if it's available, but they're not dependent on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 7 months ago | (#46109559)

If the tumor is O2 deprived wouldn't that slow down cell division which would make it slow growing? I don't get it.

Yes! It's been shown that cancer cells generally die off dramatically sooner in patients who are kept in an oxygen-free environment for long periods of time.

Re: Not very surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46110705)

Not all of them.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

Re: Not very surprising. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 7 months ago | (#46112819)

Woosh.

Patient dies, tumor dies (eventually)

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 7 months ago | (#46111667)

It's worth mentioning that this form of "treatment" is still undergoing study, due to the currently unsatisfactory 100% mortality rate of the patients being treated.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Pigeon451 (958201) | about 7 months ago | (#46111295)

Yes, in many tumors that grow too big too fast, the central region becomes necrotic (it dies). Doesn't affect things much, there are still plenty of cancer cells outside of the dying core. Some tumor therapies try to kill off the new blood vessels made by the cancer, which helps slow growth, but other therapies must be used to kill it off.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

nmr_andrew (1997772) | about 7 months ago | (#46112999)

I skimmed the actual paper yesterday, and this seems to be exactly what they think the problem is. Normally, tumor cells accumulate DNA damage, much of it oxidative, and that damage turns on certain pathways that lead to cell death. Prevent the DNA damage from happening in the first place and that doesn't happen. This is, of course, greatly oversimplified.

Re:Not very surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108107)

Cancer is just a progenitor of evolution, you should stop trying to fight it and just go with survival of the fittest.

Re:Not very surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108199)

Why do you believe that way?

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46110051)

Those who insist on disregarding the importance of individuals and thinks only in terms of the collective (i.e. "the species", evolution, Darwin, etc.) should be deprived of individual rights. These should be compelled to live the standard of living that they plan for others (i.e. "third-world").

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 7 months ago | (#46108229)

"Fittest" in this case being "Anybody that ignores your advice".

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 7 months ago | (#46108273)

How can a condition which mostly arises outside of reproductive age have anything to do with evolution?

Re:Not very surprising. (2)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | about 7 months ago | (#46108403)

The lack of living grandparents probably has a negative effect on a child, or even might prevent his birth. Not a large effect, though.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 7 months ago | (#46108653)

The lack of living grandparents probably has a negative effect on a child, or even might prevent his birth. Not a large effect, though.

Studies have indicated that even members outside the direct family tree can have an effect. For example, aunts who help with child-rearing or support and even bachelor members of harem-oriented species such as sea lions.

Re:Not very surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108437)

Matchmaking?

Re:Not very surprising. (4, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 7 months ago | (#46108313)

Look at it another way: evolution gave human beings their big brain, which allows them to invent stuff to live longer. If humans of the future live to a ripe old age because they've invented a cure for cancer, prosthetics for failing organs, and drugs for many ailments that afflict aging, undaided humans, well *that*'s evolution!

We're the first species that has evolved enough to escape, or rather accelerate evolution itself. Just like dairy cows and race horses, we're becoming designer beings. Only instead of designing other animals, we're designing ourselves. That's a lot more exciting than submitting to the blind laws of nature, that work very very slowly by elimination, don't you think?

Re:Not very surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46110583)

We're the first species that has evolved enough to escape, or rather accelerate evolution itself. Just like dairy cows and race horses, we're becoming designer beings. Only instead of designing other animals, we're designing ourselves. That's a lot more exciting than submitting to the blind laws of nature, that work very very slowly by elimination, don't you think?

No. The blind laws of nature are not at all blind and they don't work slowly either. Almost every sexually reproducing senses-possessing specie does implicit eugenic selection by choosing its mates based on their perceived successfulness. If you are recognized as successful, you will increase your offspring, if not, you may die a virgin. So far, we humans do exactly the same.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

jovius (974690) | about 7 months ago | (#46112783)

It's a bit difficult to compare the speeds of evolution, when the evolution doesn't have a fixed point of reference. It's a natural phenomenon and not a law. Usually the smaller the scale the faster the rate of change though. Besides if we design capabilities to ourselves which wouldn't happen by natural selection then we are the speed. The nature cannot be escaped; it's not a confined feature of space.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 7 months ago | (#46112831)

The "fun" thing about cancer is that it typically kills after it's possible to breed. There's little selective pressure because of that - while there is still some (for social animals like us at least), it's not that strong.

Re:Not very surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108109)

The reason people believe antioxidants ward off cancer is because they counter act those oxidizing compounds which could damage DNA. Sounds like the trade-off might be they help prevent cancer but help prevent damage to it once the cancer starts growing. The body is all about trade-offs and feedbacks/balances. Different systems balance each other.

Re:Not very surprising. (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 7 months ago | (#46108127)

I think people labor under the delusion that 'health' is some sort of idyllic state of bodily perfection, rather than the state where most of the potentially catastrophic pathogens, precancerous cells, and who knows what else are being held in enough of a stalemate that something else will probably kill you first.

In the totally contra-factual world where your body exists in edenic good health until malign external influences crop up, tamping down a dangerous-but-effective system seems like a much better idea.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#46108271)

rather than the state where most of the potentially catastrophic pathogens, precancerous cells, and who knows what else are being held in enough of a stalemate that something else will probably kill you first.

Doctor __ : Mr. Burns, I'm afraid you are the sickest man in the United States. You have everything.
Mr. Burns : You mean I have pneumonia?
Doctor __ : Yes.
Mr. Burns : Juvenile diabetes?
Doctor __ : Yes.
Mr. Burns : Hysterical pregnancy?
Doctor __ : Uh, a little bit, yes. You also have thousands of diseases that have just been discovered, in you.
Mr. Burns : You're sure you haven't just made thousands of mistakes?
Doctor __ : Uh, no, no, I'm afraid not.
Mr. Burns : This sounds like bad news.
Doctor __ : Well, you'd think so, but all of your diseases are in perfect balance.
...
Mr. Burns : So what you're saying is, I'm indestructible.
Doctor __ : Oh, no, no, in fact, even slight breeze could...
Mr Burns : Indestructible...

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 7 months ago | (#46108291)

That's simply not true. You're thinking of your body's healthy and largely harmless microbial ecosystem, which can cause problems, but only when they wind up in parts of the body they're not supposed to be or your body's ability to control them breaks down. It's not like your body is perpetually riddled with would-be tumours and flesh-eating bacteria that are held at bay only by their own contempt for each other.

Re:Not very surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108519)

I think he is saying that they are held at bay by your immune system/ correctly working systems.

I *think* his general thesis is:
Every day your body mutates a little, causing different kinds of tumours etc. but each day the body repairs itself. And each day you have different kinds of pathogens on and in your body, but the immunesystem keeps them down when they start to multiply.

As opposed to:
Body does everything right all the time untill one day *blam* cancer. Or *blam* streptokochs.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 7 months ago | (#46108727)

You're right, I've completely misunderstood the "stalemate": one between body and pathogens, not pathogens and each other.

Re:Not very surprising. (4, Informative)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 7 months ago | (#46108339)

I think people labor under the delusion that 'health' is some sort of idyllic state of bodily perfection, rather than the state where most of the potentially catastrophic pathogens, precancerous cells, and who knows what else are being held in enough of a stalemate that something else will probably kill you first.

Well that's pretty much what life itself is: it's a process that tries to fight entropy for as long as possible, but always gets overwhelmed in the end no matter what.

I've read somewhere that people (and animals, and plants) get cancer all the time in the form of cells that have mutated or divided erroneously, but their body always manages to get rid of the misfit cells. But over time, the faulty cells get faulty in nastier ways, or become more numerous, and manage to overwhelm the immune system.

Re:Not very surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108909)

My understanding is that people with AIDS get certain types of cancer for this reason. Their immune system drops and they fight off "normal" cancer that everyone gets at some point.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108155)

But Dr. Oz told me 1 weird trick that personal trianers dont want me to know!
 
TV quackery has done so much damage to how people see "health" and medicine its almost fitting that this stuff starts to come about. Making uninformed decisions about your health based on TV doctors is almost as negligent as the TV quacks who shill the stuff in the first place.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46112023)

"TV quackery has done so much damage to how people see "health" and medicine its almost fitting that this stuff starts to come about."

Even worse are TFAs about preliminary studies in genetically-altered mice that suggested relatively large doses of ONE antioxidant might assist cancer cells. ("Relatively large" because one of them was quoted as saying '10 times a normal diet'.")

Re:Not very surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108169)

I understand the possibility that this is study could be true..

But the other side of this is that I think shouldn't get lost that is another real possibility, is the prescription drug industry has tried to literally get the the federal government and politicians to ban vitamins, "herbs" and or natural products that are for aiding in peoples health. And of course anytime you over do any of these things which has been studied, there will be ill effects.

Moderation is a key if you take anything... If the drug industry can buy off politicians, federal regulations, and laws, ect... it isn't to far fetched to thing they'd have a hand in some of these studies. I am always sceptically with any study that comes out, since, I've been reading more and more on /. that today's science/research has ill motive, or just random findings when they publish a paper. However I'm not one of those 'well it science so it has to be true' and not one of those that say 'science is full of shit', I like to stay on middle ground.

Re: Not very surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108233)

There's been increasing studies that show vitamin supplements are a waste of money. Have you ever taken one and very yellow urine? That's money going down the drain. There's been quite a few compelling findings that state that eating plenty of leafy green vegetables and other vegetables, fruit, and nuts, supplements are completely unnecessary - well, a B12 if you're a strict vegan. The book, "Eat To Live" (Furhman) summarizes it quite well.

Re: Not very surprising. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108277)

You are a fucking moron

Re: Not very surprising. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108503)

No you.

Re: Not very surprising. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108713)

Your face is.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 7 months ago | (#46108279)

The "prescription drug industry" has spent most of the last decade buying up supplement manufacturers and making billions of dollars out of them. They've got absolutely no reason to want to undermine that profit centre.

Re:Not very surprising. (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 7 months ago | (#46108245)

Yep too much of anything is bad for you. Try water intoxication or Fosters as we like to call it :)

poor (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 7 months ago | (#46108573)

....word choice. Some antioxidants are good killers of cancer cells, and some aren't. Like various chemotherapies, you need to know which ones in which combinations and dosages work, and which don't, for a particular cancer.

Been there, done that, works well. This article just sounds like another pharma shill attack on supplements.

Re:poor (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 7 months ago | (#46108861)

Name one antioxidant that has been shown to be effective against a cancer.

Re:poor (2)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 7 months ago | (#46111327)

A trivial case is folinic acid, aka leucovorin, which is used with 5 flourouracil as the 5FU-LV pair and with third and fourth adjuvants. Old hat. Note: common folic acid is an oxidized precursor of folinic acid.

"Show" is a relative term to the level of evidence. Your tone implies you are looking for grade A evidence, with multiple multimillion dollar trials. There are a lot of lower level evidence cases and what is more important is the individual case. Extensive individualized lab work is already doable but not common. Few spend multimillions for large trials on commodities. Yet.

Trust me? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108171)

Most study's only find what they want/paid to find. The question now is who is correct? We are told to trust scientists that they are objective and unwilling to compromise ethic's for money. Well now what?

Re:Trust me? (2)

blue trane (110704) | about 7 months ago | (#46108509)

Replicate studies if you don't trust them.

Re:Trust me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46110377)

I'm sure that's as easy as you make it seem.

Re:Trust me? (1)

blue trane (110704) | about 7 months ago | (#46110717)

Just go with your gut then. When you die your intestinal bacteria will feast so why not let them guide you?

Re:Trust me? (5, Informative)

gnoshi (314933) | about 7 months ago | (#46108751)

Well, since this is consistent with findings of previous studies which were not specifically looking for this - for example, a Vitamin E supplement trial which was called off early due to the high cancer rates in the active drug group (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/major-study-of-supplements-and-prostate-cancer-halted) - I'd say that this result is correct.
Of course, maybe that researcher was on the take too, right?

kids these days (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108217)

Are over medicated suffering from fake disorders ADHD bipolar and autism from vaccines this is why we should stop putting unnatural things into our bodies that should only be enjoying god's creations

Re:kids these days (5, Funny)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 7 months ago | (#46108383)

we should stop putting unnatural things into our bodies that should only be enjoying god's creations

Yeah, all the great things god created, like Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Clostridium tetani, Variola virus, Poliovirus, let's put all that stuff in our bodies, not those evil vaccine things!

Re:kids these days (3, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 7 months ago | (#46110079)

Heh, reminds me of an oldie, but a goodie -

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot;

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid.
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did.

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small.
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

-- Monty Python

Re:kids these days (2)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about 7 months ago | (#46108401)

and autism from vaccines

You do realise that was completely debunked years ago?

Re:kids these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108931)

I was going to mod him "troll", but after a few more reads, I decided it was "funny".

well duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108263)

all things in moderation
flood your system with too much of something is always bad

Opposite effect (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 7 months ago | (#46108363)

I did read anywhere in the article that taking vitamin E makes you die younger. This is more like the contraceptive pill argument. If you think you are susceptible to certain cancers, avoid. Otherwise, the benefits may be worth it.

Re:Opposite effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108631)

Except there are virtually no studies that show any benefit to taking vitamins for anyone without a diagnosed medical condition.

Outside of pregnant women and people with DIAGNOSED vitamin deficiencies, studies show no benefit.

So "I eat bad, therefore I should take a multivitamin." No, you shouldn't. The science was never there. At best you are wasting time and money. At worst, you may actually be making your health worse.

/. beta really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108369)

blows monkey chunks, doesn't it? it's like reading a Web site designed for first graders, blown up to Barney font size w/Dick-and-Jane layout appropriate for vision-disabled, ADD-riddled kiddiewinks

Antioxident myths (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about 7 months ago | (#46108389)

Antioxidents are an interesting idea. A whole industry has built up around their healthy properties. However, it transpired that the only evidence of their efficacy was adding various compounds to cells in a petri dish. There was no evidence any of this actually worked when swallowed and ingested. Some further research was done recently and could find no evidence that taking these products actually had any affect at all on reducing your chances of getting cancer. For citation purposes, check http://www.dcscience.net/?p=90 [dcscience.net] and Ben Goldacre's work.

Why supplements? (4, Interesting)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 7 months ago | (#46108393)

Supplements are just one more useless thing that businesses convince people they need. The only ones that need them are businesses, to make shitloads of money.

If you have a varied and balanced diet and don't suffer from any condition that makes you need a reinforced dose of any particular nutrient, you don't need any dietary supplements.

Eat properly and exercise! It's easier, cheaper, and it works.

Re:Why supplements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108529)

Of course it *works* to eat healthy. Supplements makes good sense if you know that you cannot afford to get the optimal amount of creatine from your food. Or if you don't have enough time to fix dinner after your work out etc.

What supplements isn't is *ideal*. Supplements is a secondary option to proper food because of other benefits (like decreased cost or decreased time to prepare).

Re:Why supplements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46109221)

Of course it *works* to eat healthy. Supplements makes good sense if you know that you cannot afford to get the optimal amount of creatine from your food. Or if you don't have enough time to fix dinner after your work out etc.

What supplements isn't is *ideal*. Supplements is a secondary option to proper food because of other benefits (like decreased cost or decreased time to prepare).

The problems occur when people try to treat "supplements" as "replacements" for what they should be getting in their diet.

Re:Why supplements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46112631)

Of course it *works* to eat healthy. Supplements makes good sense if you know that you cannot afford to get the optimal amount of creatine from your food. Or if you don't have enough time to fix dinner after your work out etc.

What supplements isn't is *ideal*. Supplements is a secondary option to proper food because of other benefits (like decreased cost or decreased time to prepare).

The proiblem is most of the "supplements" are flushed down the toilet. In part, b/c the body typically only absorbs what it needs, but also because the supplemental forms are not the easiest forms to absorb. For example, the vitamins/etc in fruit and vegetables are easier to absorb due to other things also found in them - but not present in the supplements.

So if you want to collect some various vitamins and minerals, make some kind of collector to extract it from the pee going into your toilet(s). Sell it to companies, and then they could sell it right back to the pharmacuticals...profits all around.

Everything in moderation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46111951)

Just FYI, your diet is supplemented. From flour pumped full of niacin, folic acid and other stuff to salt with iodine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]

Anyway, taking some extra vitamins (like B) is beneficial. Of course, you do not *need* to take them. Just like a house plant - you'll survive.

The problem raised by TFA has nothing to do with taking normal doses of vitamins. It is the "mega dosers" that's the problem.

The original idea that antioxidants will increase your lifespan because of an observation that people with high levels of antioxidants live longer (or observation that cancer patients have higher free-radical levels) is of course ass-backward thinking. Anyone with half a brain could figure that out. Immune system uses oxidants to kill bad cells. Oxidants are also used as markers for immune system. High levels of oxidants is a *signal*, not *cause* of problems. Taking large amounts of anti-oxidants is killing the messenger!!!

The largest oxidative stress on the body is exercise. If you exercise and take anti-oxidants after exercise (like Vitamin C), your body does not benefit from the exercise. This actually has been documented recently. Worse, you may be actually killing yourself as the body is not cleaning up damaged caused by exercise properly.

The bottom line is, your knee-jerk reaction to assume a polar opposite position that "vitamins are bullshit" is similar bullshit as the mega-dosers and their shit understanding of immune signaling.

Few things to remember.
    1. a little knowledge is dangerous
    2. vitamins, in recommended amounts, are good
    3. don't drink distilled water - regular tap water is far better for you.

new clear options 'all' last requests granted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108395)

no need to be on death row (or pretending we're not) to take advantage of this option. wish granting is not magic but more about resource allocation. as always, be carefull.... & keep in mind the 'last' notion to avoid excessive frivolity.

let's have a round of applause for us helping US relieve the weight of lies on each other http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=scott%20olsen&sm=3

avett http://youtu.be/1F2zl4LqSlg

at least somebody's listening..... guaranteed... thanks again moms..... thank goodness it never ends.... badly

Damned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108415)

Yo Mr Kurzweil,

When is the frckn singularity moment there dude? I'm getting tired of this shit breaking down.

if we like crud floating around on/in us (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108461)

we can keep it.. there are a variety of ways to clean us up including a spiritual metox drift. poopooing stuff that is innocuous at worst is the new corepirate nazi mindphucking funneling system aka one brand of oranges is more than enough for us unchosens

hang on to your hemisheres we're firing all of our guns at once trying to reach crown royal escape velocity (most linked link in history) http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

So once again the moral is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108487)

Everything causes cancer, especially the things that prevent cancer.

positive reaffirmations advances exponentially (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108507)

now when we're down & out, we're not cornered into the last resort mirror deal where we must tell ourselves we love us. now, our shiny new mirrors 'sense' when we're out of sorts & then tells us that everybody loves us in mirrorville. still not feeling perky? the mirror knows & continue to therapist us until results are remarkable in our ordinary citizen profile. you can program the mirror to tell you exactly who loves you... not alone anymore as promised once a show gets started....

Re: positive reaffirmations advances exponentially (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108731)

Is that prescription meds or just tabs of acid getting your brain in that gear?

This article has just been scientifically proven to bring the nutters and idiots out of the woodwork.

Then again, this post I am replying to sounds like a spambot so...?

spiritual constipation now seen as fatal malady (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108821)

like malnutrition on steroids

Depends on the source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108521)

Synthetic vitamins are likely safe for everyone, but fat-soluble vitamins obtained from fish caught in the oceans is probably not when you consider how polluted our oceans are. Mercury, radioactive waste, fertilizer runoff, animal feces runoff, acid rain, and whatever West Virginia feels like dumping this week... all accrue to fish fats that are full of carcinogens and toxins.

Re:Depends on the source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108639)

What about the high levels chirals [wikipedia.org] found in many synthetic vitamins and supplements??? Not saying they can't be filtered out but that does cost more money. Also, Many synthetic analogues are allowed to be used in supplments and vitamins.

Re:Depends on the source (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108903)

The chirality of a molecule only speaks to its polarization - whether it scatters incident EM field with right hand or left hand polarization. Basically, your molecule can have the same formula, but be wound clockwise or counter-clockwise.

The human body absorbs chiral nutrients, but is often found to absorb left hand much better than right hand, or vice versa, depending on what the nutrient is.

Synthetic vitamins are manufactured to be monenantiomeric, meaning that they only have the useful version of the molecule.

Re:Depends on the source (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 7 months ago | (#46109233)

It's slightly more sophisticated than that; chiral molecules will rotate polarised light one direction or the other, but what makes them chiral is the spatial arrangement of the chemical groups. That has significant implications for reactivity, so for example all life on Earth can only use one chirality of amino acid and not the other. (One of the wonderful effects of common descent.) The upside of the effects on reactivity that you can come up with chirally-controlled syntheses, as you say. And of course not every compound is used by the body in a way that even notices its chirality.

Are these Naturally Derived Vitamins?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108527)

Am wondering if these are the naturally occurring forms of the vitamins or the drug company manufactured analogues [doctorsresearch.com] and chirals [wikipedia.org] found in many "supplements." If that is the case am going to say was already believed because danish researchers did a long term study to see if supplements (Which contained the above) had any effect on lowering cancer rates of smokers. Unfortunately, the research was canceled because the supplement group start showing a significantly higher cancer rate then the control smokers. It was probably a lot harder to find money to show supplements where cancer causing. These fake vitamins are put in all sorts of processed foods to make them more nutritious many of which are left over from drug company manufacturing processes. They would have to be destroyed if they where found to be cancer causing.

Stop! (1, Funny)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 7 months ago | (#46108735)

Everything today will increase your risk of getting cancer, if you tried to live life on a diet that had the least risk of cancer causing agents you would have to starve yourself. Sure maybe this study is right and taking vitamins could increase your risk of cancer but honestly if it wasn't vitamins it could be anything else. Just keep living the life you're living and don't worry about something as stupid as if you took your vitamin A today or not.

Re:Stop! (3, Funny)

ledow (319597) | about 7 months ago | (#46108793)

If you're eating in any way sensibly, you should have no need of extraneous vitamin supplements anyway.

There are certain conditions (either genetic or self-imposed, like veganism) where you don't get all that's required - and then you need to get a nutritionist on the case, not just buy things in dosages you have no clue of and take 100% RDA of on top of your normal diet.

It's an RDA for a reason. Not only is it a suggested (not absolute) minimum, but also a suggested maximum too. People miss the fact that anything other that can potentially be damaging (there's not been much study into it, but if X amount of a certain vitamin shows that you're healthiest and "plateaus" around that usage, why would you need to take more?) in the same way as lack of it.

And, with stuff like vitamins, it's not instantaneous results, so you can't correlate it with whether you feel better or not or got sick or not directly. In the same way that it will take you time to notice you don't have enough (say) iron in your diet, it might take you longer to notice that you have too much.

Your body is a machine that's honed by evolution. Eat well, eat properly, eat what it has evolved to eat (which includes meat!) and the amount it has evolved to cope with. And then you'll be fine.

Re:Stop! (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 7 months ago | (#46112937)

eat what it has evolved to eat (which includes meat!)

Actually, it's possible to eat well enough on a purely vegan diet, it's just that most vegans don't do that. You just need to focus on eating protein and B-vitamin rich plants like beans and kale.

Michael Pollan boiled it down to 3 ridiculously simple rules that I've found work well enough for all practical purposes:
1. Eat food (by which he means things that your great-grandmother would recognize as something you'd want to eat)
2. Not too much (for obvious reasons)
3. Mostly plants (that seems to be what we're evolved to eat, probably because plant food isn't as hard to chase down)

Re:Stop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46110191)

If you starve yourself to death, then you won't die of cancer.

Eureka! The cure for cancer has been hiding in plain sight this whole time!

Re:Stop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46110411)

In a *rodent model*, partially starving yourself has been correlated with decreased cancer activity.

Re:Stop! (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 7 months ago | (#46110979)

Just keep living the life you're living and don't worry about something as stupid as if you took your vitamin A today or not.

That reminds me, I forgot to take my vitamin A today. Thanks!

Umm, don't you mean (3, Funny)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | about 7 months ago | (#46108875)

"Now, in a provocative study that raises unsettling questions about the widespread use of vitamin supplements"

I believe that should be worded, "Now *another* provocative study" After all, there's been a continuous stream of these. For whatever reason, the human body doesn't like being dosed with massive amounts of chemically reactive substances, gee, what a surprise.

You can get the same dose from eating fruit, but that has no known downsides in multiple studies. If you're worried about your health, eat your fruit and veg - like they've been saying forever,

Re:Umm, don't you mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46112167)

My understanding is that most supplements do not use the true vitamins. For example, beta carotene is not vitamin A; folic acid is not folate; tocopherol is not vitamin E; etc. The 'vitamins' in a supplement are just exactly what you're stating: chemicals that are similar to the vitamins, but not exactly the same. This is actually beneficial for people who otherwise do not or cannot consume the real McCoy, but consumption of vegetables, especially dark leafy greens, is far more beneficial.

The consumption of fruit is really not that healthy. Fruit contains very few nutrients when compared to dark leafy greens and tons of carbs, which are unhealthy on many levels. The carbs are not as bad as, say, a candy bar, but they do create more work for the pancreas, thus all the problems that go with that (weight gain, insulin resistance, etc.). For every vitamin promoted as being ample in fruit, a substantial factor more can be found in dark leafy greens. Don't get vitamin C from oranges, get it from kale. Don't get potassium from bananas, get it from kale. Don't get vitamin A from carrots, get it from kale. In short, eat more kale!

This message has been brought to you by the Kale Farmers of America.

Re:Umm, don't you mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46112947)

tons of carbs, which are unhealthy on many levels.

I'm sure I eat too many carbs, but that doesn't mean they are unhealthy as a thing, only that my diet includes too many.

Don't get vitamin C from oranges, get it from kale. Don't get potassium from bananas, get it from kale. Don't get vitamin A from carrots, get it from kale. In short, eat more kale!

I know you're exaggerating to be funny, but I think this is the same kind of thinking that get's people into weird unhealthy diets. You should eat all of those things. Moderation is the key. It always has been, and will continue to be so - it will survive every diet craze (low fat, low carb, no meat, no carb, just meat, just raw, etc...).

Stands to reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46108891)

Does it not make sense that if you take abundant amounts of vitamins that they not only affect good cells but also cancer cells looking for a source to help them survive? The old argument that more is better does not work with anti Oxidants or vitamins. I think Steve Jobs was a perfect poster person for a argument against relying on homeopathic remedies for serious health issues like cancer. No doubt eating healthy is key in keeping a body in good shape. But I have never thought taking supplements were a good ideal. For one they lack any oversight on their effectiveness and they also lack strict monitoring of their advertised doses or ingredients. Makes for good profits for these supplement makers and that's about it.

Re:Stands to reason (2)

Tale Surovi (846361) | about 7 months ago | (#46109777)

Homeopathic remedies, by definition, have zero detectable content of anything.

Mercenary "study" with cancer mice (2, Interesting)

Nightlight3 (248096) | about 7 months ago | (#46109739)

This is a common sleight of hand in the pharma (or general 'sickness industry') sponsored mercenary pseudo-science, when they want to "prove" that inexpensive, non-patentable substance X which is actually good for you, "causes" cancer -- they give X to mice bred specifically to develop cancers they wish to blame on X. After the coarse grained form of the "discovery" story is retold in mass media (or on Slashdot), it becomes "X causes cancer."

To see exactly how this sleight of hand works, consider substance X that improves circulation and promotes growth and vitality of blood vessels (e.g. gingko biloba, arganine, etc), which are all the effects normally good for you. But if you get a cancer, then cancer will use the improved blood supplies and stronger angiogenesis to feed itself, hence it will grow faster than if you had poor circulation and suppressed angiogenesis. That is then twisted to declare "X causes cancer." In fact the cancer was caused by the genes that were deliberately bred into this type mice.

More generally, onset of cancer turns values upside down -- what was good for you when you were healthy, becomes bad for you when you get cancer, since cancer will co-opt it for its own growth. What was bad for you (poor circulation, cellular toxins and pro-oxidants, heavy metals, chemo, etc) becomes good for you, since it may affect cancerous cells more than the non-cancerous cells.

A useful analogy illustrating the nature of this reversal of values in cancer, is to consider human society as a (super-)organism, which it is in many ways. In a peacetime, roads and other transport systems are good for the social organism. But in the case of war, the good transport systems often becomes a major downside since the enemy can use those roads to advance its troops and boost supply lines. In contrast, poor transportation in peacetime is bad for the social organism (backward nations). But it is also bad for the potential enemy during war. This can be easily observed on historical examples, such as WWII, where German blitzkrieg conquered the more developed nations, such as France, Netherlands, Poland very quickly, while it got bogged down in the backwards Balkans, with lots of mountains and few roads, and never really had control of those territories (except for the major cities, which were few in numbers). Similarly, in more recent wars, the backwards, mountainous undeveloped Afghanistan (or jungles of Vietnam) is practically impossible to conquer, while the more developed Iraq was overrun in weeks.

Hence, the above style of mercenary "science" using cancer mice to "prove" alleged carcinogenicity of wholesome Vitamin C or E is analogous to mislabeling transport systems and other infrastructure as a national weakness, and advocating going back to stone age, by demonstrating how much quicker the nation can be conquered if their infrastructure is good.

It is also similar to policies which mislabel personal liberty and privacy as harmful and deadly, by showing how terrorists (or drug dealers, crazies, etc) can take advantage of those liberties and privacy to cause harm. These are all the same kind of scams as the above "study" scaring people away from the vitamins C and E. All of such scare campaigns are often promoted by the very same people from the same crony front groups/NGOs, as result of natural synergies of interests -- a need to condition and herd the sheep with common scare tactics.

I actually find these kinds of "studies" quite useful, since they help me identify what is good for me -- it is always the stuff that the sickness industry is trying to scare me away from (e.g. fat, meat, eggs, bacon, cholesterol, tobacco and other ancient medicinal/entheogenic plants, etc). Further, as a rule the greater the efforts and lengths they go to with their scare mongering about X, the better X must be for me (i.e. worst for their profits). The most useful one for my health was when it dawned on me to invert "make sure have the regular medical checkups" into "stay away from doctors or hospitals" as much as possible. Last time I saw doctors was when I traveled to the 'old country' in 1991 to visit my parents, both medical doctors. In the meantime, I was mostly doing exactly the opposite from the advice of sickness industry.

Re:Mercenary "study" with cancer mice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46110339)

You sir, are a giant (and I bet so from all the fats and high calories you intake) fucking (or lack there-of because who would want to fuck an obese idiot who lives in their parents basement) moron (proven by your post).

As long as .... (1)

theguyfromsaturn (802938) | about 7 months ago | (#46109755)

As long as nobody comes and tells me that dark chocolate is bad for me, I will keep an open mind. But if they dare........ I'm plugging my ears shut and listening to nobody.

Missing datums in vitamin tests (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46109787)

Synthetic vitamins have been created for a long time now. They can be as bad as any lab can make them, it does not mean that the real vitamins found in our foods are the same.

Most of the time it appears that the manufacturer is trying to cut corners and come up with some money making scheme, or even try to give vitamins a bad reputation for some twisted reason.

Take ascobic acid being sold as vitamin C. Compared to the real C it is a Very watered down version and very weak.

Standard Process is one of the few who actually make the vitamins from natural foods, which if we ate right would provide the nutrition these bodies need.

I find it very disingenuous to publish research based on synthetic products as if they were the original natural product. My only conclusion is they don't like us using natural products but to only buy what they manufacture. Or not smart enough to see the difference.

Then we have things like ignoring that if you take a certain vitamin or mineral such as calcium you need to balance it with magnesium. Vitamin A needs D and so on. Ignoring the balance can make for nasty side effects.

Of course if you take anything in enough volume that can kill you as well. Take our most precious ingredient water. Drink enough and it will kill you dead. Or air, start only inhaling through your mouth instead of your nose and your nose will eventually get all stuffy and hard to breath through.

So how scientific is scientific? To anyone not "scientifically minded" any statment claiming science can mean the same as "must be correct." In other words the general masses are sitting ducks for nutritional misinformation due to manufacturers lack of understanding of their subjects and or willfull intent.

Misleading Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46109897)

A more accurate title would say: "When taken in pill form instead of naturally, and in massive doses, Some Antioxidants Could Increase Cancer Rates."

More di-hydrogen monoxide is what we need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46109913)

People are being poisoned by under-using di-hydrogen monoxide everyday and they dont realize, until it is too late.

Re:More di-hydrogen monoxide is what we need (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 7 months ago | (#46111365)

I agree with your point, but oxidane is the preferred name for dihydrogen monoxide [http://www.iupac.org/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/recommendations/nomenclature-of-organic-chemistry/Chapter2-Sec20-24.pdf]. Also, dihydrogen is just one word and doesn't need a hyphen.

Not all Vitamin E is equal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46110407)

"The eight forms of vitamin E are divided into two groups; four are tocopherols and four are tocotrienols. They are identified by prefixes alpha- (-), beta- (-), gamma- (-), and delta- (-). Natural tocopherols occur in the RRR-configuration only. The synthetic form contains eight different stereoisomers and is called 'all-rac'--tocopherol."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_E

So as you can see there is quite a difference between synthetic vitamin-E supplements and the vitamin-E you get from food. I'm sure the same can be said for the normal dietary sources of other antioxidants too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>