Antioxidant Treatment Induces Hyperactivation of the HPA Axis by Upregulating ACTH Receptor in the Adrenal and Downregulating Glucocorticoid Receptors

Dave Clark

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
1,978
What is, anyway?

You're saying then for lung cancer go to an oncologist as he knows best as maybe his track record is stellar?

Or go to an alternative practitioner?

Why do you think lung cancer is so hard to treat that sets it apart from other cancers?

And why do you think self treating is a bad idea if one understands cancer and its causes and also understands to fix the identified problem? Don't you think it's because it's the ignorant people who don't understand cancer that fail at it?

Believe in the individual and his capacity to understand and to cure if he can discard the baggage of falsehoods that surround the curing of cancer.

Most of the science that guides doctors are false, and they don't really have an edge. More often than not, it's a liability. It's a handicap designed to make them fail by the medical establishment as for the establishment, cure is a failing business model.
All I was saying is that when you have a cancer that is that hard to cure, just like pancreatic cancer, it isn't always fair to say that the treatment is no good, conventional or alternative. It's like having a car be in an accident and being crushed into a pancake, then blaming the body shop for not making the car look like new. I get what you are saying about alternative methods, but often times cancer has developed beyond being treated, and at that point, it doesn't represent the efficacy of the treatment if it fails. Antioxidant therapies may very well prevent cancers from happening, but once they are established in the body, they may not be appropriate, as they could possibly fuel the cancers. People can criticize antioxidants all they want, but my observation is that most people I know or have heard that has cancer are not people who use antioxidants and cancer preventing nutrients. I think the knowledge of this is empirical and if anyone thinks antioxidants are not needed, then start eating foods without antioxidants, and stop taking antioxidants, and then see how you make out vis a vis with pro-oxidant regimen.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
All I was saying is that when you have a cancer that is that hard to cure, just like pancreatic cancer, it isn't always fair to say that the treatment is no good, conventional or alternative. It's like having a car be in an accident and being crushed into a pancake, then blaming the body shop for not making the car look like new. I get what you are saying about alternative methods, but often times cancer has developed beyond being treated, and at that point, it doesn't represent the efficacy of the treatment if it fails. Antioxidant therapies may very well prevent cancers from happening, but once they are established in the body, they may not be appropriate, as they could possibly fuel the cancers. People can criticize antioxidants all they want, but my observation is that most people I know or have heard that has cancer are not people who use antioxidants and cancer preventing nutrients. I think the knowledge of this is empirical and if anyone thinks antioxidants are not needed, then start eating foods without antioxidants, and stop taking antioxidants, and then see how you make out vis a vis with pro-oxidant regimen.

You're defending antioxidants like it has to be defended in the court of law. The use of antioxidants is one tool among many, and if the focus is too much on antioxidants without looking at other aspects of the disease, and I mention the terrain, it's a very shortsighted approach. It's not at all wholistic. It has little to do with whether the cancer is at an advanced stage or not. Even a budding cancer will get worse in the hands of a practitioner that goes thru rote instead of having the rigor of a good analysis.
 

Dave Clark

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
1,978
You're defending antioxidants like it has to be defended in the court of law. The use of antioxidants is one tool among many, and if the focus is too much on antioxidants without looking at other aspects of the disease, and I mention the terrain, it's a very shortsighted approach. It's not at all wholistic. It has little to do with whether the cancer is at an advanced stage or not. Even a budding cancer will get worse in the hands of a practitioner that goes thru rote instead of having the rigor of a good analysis.
Yes I am defending antioxidants, read the thread title and some of the comments, in fact throughout this forum there are people that promote antioxidants as the kiss of death. I have even heard Peat talk like that on a podcast, and even though I understand what oxidation is in energy metabolism, etc., I don't particularly agree with the rhetoric that taking antioxidants are going to cause all these problems. The science shows quite a different picture, and can't be conflated with the 'abuse 'of antioxidants. which may be problematic.
Additionally, I will hear Peat and some of the forum scientists talk negative about antioxidants in an absolute way, then when touting certain compounds {like hormones}, etc., they go on to say that are 'also powerful antioxidants'. If antioxidants are bad, then don't embellish a compound or nutrient as being a 'powerful antioxidant' That type of absolute talk, then prevarication is suspicious to me, or at the very least, disappointing.
That's really my final thought on this subject.
 
Last edited:

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
In that case, we should say antioxidants are good but should be used with caution as too much of a good thing can also be bad.

But to be fair, we should also say oxidants are good as well as they serve a purpose.

And having said that, it won't be complete without saying that balance is important.

If we have to intervene with using them, we should know what we're doing.

And Ray Peat being critical of antioxidants is his reaction to the prevailing false understanding stuck in people's mind that antioxidants are good and that oxidants are bad.

I don't care if you said that's the end of discussion, as clearly you don't have the last word on it.
 

Dave Clark

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
1,978
In that case, we should say antioxidants are good but should be used with caution as too much of a good thing can also be bad.

But to be fair, we should also say oxidants are good as well as they serve a purpose.

And having said that, it won't be complete without saying that balance is important.

If we have to intervene with using them, we should know what we're doing.

And Ray Peat being critical of antioxidants is his reaction to the prevailing false understanding stuck in people's mind that antioxidants are good and that oxidants are bad.

I don't care if you said that's the end of discussion, as clearly you don't have the last word on it.
I agree with most of your post. However, you don't get to tell ME what my final thought is on any subject, buddy. If I said that is MY final thought, that is what I meant. You have a big problem quoting people, don't you, 'my final thought' does not equal 'end of discussion'., or getting the last word in, if that is what you are inferring. You 'clearly' like to superimpose meanings into things unsaid. I said, "That's my final thought on this subject", I didn't say it was yours or anybody else's final thought. I'll decide what I am going to entertain on this forum, and you 'clearly' have no say in that.
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,316
It's a good read, and has many references, although I find some of the references have little to do with what the article is saying.

It does make me think about how many alternative therapies for cancer based on using antioxidants liberally does not work, and it's possible but unknowingly both the practitioner and the patient, far from getting into a healing modality, may be driving into a deeper level of disease.

I personally think that getting a good feel of the terrain is the first thing that needs to be done, as defined by acid-base balance. Being too acidic is just as bad as being too alkaline. But many healers are, for example, too vitamin C -centric, and have the mistaken idea that it will do everything. I have a friend die from lung cancer and while he indulged in many expensive things like stem cells, he wasn't able to stay focused on what's important as he believed in an orthomolecular biochemist who sells vitamin C as a cure. That didn't help. He finally died in a hospital after the first cancer doctor he consulted with refused his decision to go back to him. He had no strategy to heal. I don't know if he had listened to me if he would have made it alive and well, but I think his chances would have been better. Instead, he played it safe, and did hybrid therapy, which I liken to worshipping Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all together. In short, no underlying root cause analysis, but a failed strategy of "take this take that" from friends and family. The same people who believed in COVID-19 hoax.

Smart and successful people not smart enough to keep themselves alive. All too common when you count the carcasses in the ICU of modern medicine.
based on this study do you think we should be avoiding, or at least controlling our usage of vitamin E supplements? i remember years ago, on the reddit supplement forums there were examine articles and other articles discussing that vitamin E apparently "increased all cause mortality" thus shouldnt be supplemented regularly. so some multivitamin formulas even limited their doses of it, or removed it entirely.

obviously back then I had no idea of the nuance as to the different types of vitamin E, the different tocopherols and tocotrienols, and I think the forms, i think there is like a DL alpha tocopherol vs D alpha tocopherol, the sources, etc. but those guys on the supplement forums didn't like vitamin E for some reason. but I think they went on mainstream thought... as they liked iron supplements or thought they are fine.

In that case, we should say antioxidants are good but should be used with caution as too much of a good thing can also be bad.

But to be fair, we should also say oxidants are good as well as they serve a purpose.

And having said that, it won't be complete without saying that balance is important.

If we have to intervene with using them, we should know what we're doing.

And Ray Peat being critical of antioxidants is his reaction to the prevailing false understanding stuck in people's mind that antioxidants are good and that oxidants are bad.

I don't care if you said that's the end of discussion, as clearly you don't have the last word on it.

Hilarious!

Yes I am defending antioxidants, read the thread title and some of the comments, in fact throughout this forum there are people that promote antioxidants as the kiss of death. I have even heard Peat talk like that on a podcast, and even though I understand what oxidation is in energy metabolism, etc., I don't particularly agree with the rhetoric that taking antioxidants are going to cause all these problems. The science shows quite a different picture, and can't be conflated with the 'abuse 'of antioxidants. which may be problematic.
Additionally, I will hear Peat and some of the forum scientists talk negative about antioxidants in an absolute way, then when touting certain compounds {like hormones}, etc., they go on to say that are 'also powerful antioxidants'. If antioxidants are bad, then don't embellish a compound or nutrient as being a 'powerful antioxidant' That type of absolute talk, then prevarication is suspicious to me, or at the very least, disappointing.
That's really my final thought on this subject.

I hadn't heard Peat speak negatively about antioxidants, where/when did he do this? was it in reference to a specific food item? He has been critical of vitamin C and vitamin E, but the issues werent due to them being antioxidants. the vitamin E concern was simply certain products with too much PUFA/soybean oil, and vitamin C has major issues with its production, sourcing, and allergenic reactions.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I agree with most of your post. However, you don't get to tell ME what my final thought is on any subject, buddy. If I said that is MY final thought, that is what I meant. You have a big problem quoting people, don't you, 'my final thought' does not equal 'end of discussion'., or getting the last word in, if that is what you are inferring. You 'clearly' like to superimpose meanings into things unsaid. I said, "That's my final thought on this subject", I didn't say it was yours or anybody else's final thought. I'll decide what I am going to entertain on this forum, and you 'clearly' have no say in that.
I agree with all your post as well. We are in agreement on the essence of our argument. I also agree with you on my misinterpretation of your final thoughts.
 

Motorneuron

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
444
Antioxidants are well known by now and it seems to me that even in small quantities they are everywhere... do you have a list of natural oxidants and supplements?

@yerrag
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Antioxidants are well known by now and it seems to me that even in small quantities they are everywhere... do you have a list of natural oxidants and supplements?

@yerrag
Antioxidants are well known by now and it seems to me that even in small quantities they are everywhere... do you have a list of natural oxidants and supplements?

@yerrag
Good question.

I can't think of any supplements that are oxidants that I have taken, or if I did, I can't think of one at rhe moment. But precursors to oxidants probably.

Oxidants are hard to purchase, for one. As they are often combustible, and are dangerous to handle. I only bought one, sodium chlorite, which is used to make chlorine dioxide. I was glad it got through to me. OTOH, that same shipper refused to ship a large bottle of urea for me, when they saw a skull and bone label on it. No amountbof assurance and documentation, could convince them otherwise.

The prevailing thought is oxidants being explosive and antioxidants being safe to use and safe to ship. And that is not so far from conventional thinking when it comes to their use for our health.

The body makes its own oxidants, and their use is for internal energy production and for use in killing pathogens. We just provide the body with adequate nutrition and it knows how to use the raw materials needed to produce oxidants.

Hypochlorous acid, HOCl- Is an example of an ROS, an oxidant, which the body makes to kill pathogens. HOI-, made from iodine, is another. But the raw materials used tobmake them, such as sodium chloride, and potassium iodide, are innocuous and safe within normal bounds of use. On the other hand, chlorine gas, Cl2, and molecular iodine, I2, are heavily restricted because of safety issues.
 

Motorneuron

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
444
Good question.

I can't think of any supplements that are oxidants that I have taken, or if I did, I can't think of one at rhe moment. But precursors to oxidants probably.

Oxidants are hard to purchase, for one. As they are often combustible, and are dangerous to handle. I only bought one, sodium chlorite, which is used to make chlorine dioxide. I was glad it got through to me. OTOH, that same shipper refused to ship a large bottle of urea for me, when they saw a skull and bone label on it. No amountbof assurance and documentation, could convince them otherwise.

The prevailing thought is oxidants being explosive and antioxidants being safe to use and safe to ship. And that is not so far from conventional thinking when it comes to their use for our health.

The body makes its own oxidants, and their use is for internal energy production and for use in killing pathogens. We just provide the body with adequate nutrition and it knows how to use the raw materials needed to produce oxidants.

Hypochlorous acid, HOCl- Is an example of an ROS, an oxidant, which the body makes to kill pathogens. HOI-, made from iodine, is another. But the raw materials used tobmake them, such as sodium chloride, and potassium iodide, are innocuous and safe within normal bounds of use. On the other hand, chlorine gas, Cl2, and molecular iodine, I2, are heavily restricted because of safety issues.
I had opened a thread about it, is methylene blue an oxidant only at high dosages while low dosage is an antioxidant? it appears that sodium ascorbate is an oxidant.
 
OP
Jam

Jam

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
2,212
Age
52
Location
Piedmont
Rather than looking for "oxidants", one should seek substances that promote oxidative phosphorylation and improve the NAD+/NADH ratio, such as various quinones, niacinamide, etc., as most people are in an excessively reduced state, and ingesting anti-oxidant supplements can exacerbate that problem.
 
OP
Jam

Jam

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
2,212
Age
52
Location
Piedmont
I had opened a thread about it, is methylene blue an oxidant only at high dosages while low dosage is an antioxidant? it appears that sodium ascorbate is an oxidant.
It is the same with ascorbic acid, for example. In high dosages, plain vitamin C is a pro-oxidant.
 

Motorneuron

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
444
It is the same with ascorbic acid, for example. In high dosages, plain vitamin C is a pro-oxidant.
Do you know researcher Doris Loh? strongly maintains that ascorbic acid is pro-oxidant only at low dosages while at high dosage it becomes an antioxidant.

It seems a contradiction but I report exactly what he wrote to me privately.

Why would ascorbate be a PRO oxidant? what does plain baking soda do?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom