NAC shocker - does it help Cancer?

[jim2509]

Came across this folks and I have to say it surprised me. Basically pointing the finger that NAC helps cancer cells if I read it correctly.

What do we all think about this?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1620605236351225857

 

[Jeremyk1]

I can’t say much, I’m not real familiar with how cancer works or anything. But it does seem at least somewhat plausible. Reactive oxygen species are harmful to cells, including cancer, so if you reduce those with antioxidants, you’d also protect the cancer cells. I’m sure there’s a balance somewhere.

 

[Smont]

I've always felt nac is a versatile super supplement and I always try to keep it as part of my daily routine so hopefully it's helping.

Melatonin is a super powerful antioxidant, I wonder how that would fit in the equation.

 

[enhanced]

Both melatonin and NAC are among the best supps to fight covid.

 

[jim2509]

I can’t say much, I’m not real familiar with how cancer works or anything. But it does seem at least somewhat plausible. Reactive oxygen species are harmful to cells, including cancer, so if you reduce those with antioxidants, you’d also protect the cancer cells. I’m sure there’s a balance somewhere.

Yeah i agree....someone got in abit of a discussion with the guy and called his research out so I'm not sure what to believe. I would of thought at really high dosages (IV) level maybe....but daily 600mg-1000mg?

Might have to go with Tudca and Milkthistle and save NAC for if I get really ill.

 

[GQdaLEGEND]

would explain why they want it off the OTC market.

 

[jim2509]

would explain why they want it off the OTC market.

Yeah maybe. I don't know whether it's because it kills cancer and relieves covid symptoms or because of the cancer risk?

 

[sns8778]

would explain why they want it off the OTC market.

Yeah maybe. I don't know whether it's because it kills cancer and relieves covid symptoms or because of the cancer risk?

The FDA could likely care less if NAC is or isn't available as a dietary supplement - what they really wanted was for companies to stop making ridiculous claims that they shouldn't have been making to begin with.

To understand the NAC situation, one has to understand something very clearly:
Companies are not legally supposed to refer to any dietary supplement as a 'cure' for anything.

Prior to Covid, the FDA had sent warning letters to companies that were marketing NAC as a hangover 'cure' - companies are not legally supposed to refer to any dietary supplement as a 'cure' for anything. Companies didn't listen.

Then when the Covid pandemic started, many companies were promoting NAC as a Covid 'cure' - and to those of us that are familiar with supplements this may seem like an obvious shady sales tactic, but the companies doing this were taking advantage of a lot of unknowing consumers in desperate situations and scamming many millions of dollars from people like our parents, grandparents, etc.

The FDA sent warning letters to companies that were marketing NAC as a Covid 'cure' and the companies didn't stop.

In context, the FDA had a lot more important stuff on their plate at the time of the start of the Covid pandemic than to worry about dietary supplements, so I'm paraphrasing here but they basically said - screw it, if supplement companies won't listen and want to promote it as a drug (the claim that it 'cures'), then screw it, it doesn't meet the legal definition of a dietary supplement, so you just can't sell it.

That's of course paraphrasing but that's the gist of it.

The industry pushed back and the FDA did ultimately relent on this and NAC is still available.

But it did accomplish what I think their intended goal was - which was to show companies they weren't messing around and to cut the BS and stop making the stupid claims on it that they shouldn't have been making to begin with.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[jim2509]

The FDA could likely care less if NAC is or isn't available as a dietary supplement - what they really wanted was for companies to stop making ridiculous claims that they shouldn't have been making to begin with.

To understand the NAC situation, one has to understand something very clearly:
Companies are not legally supposed to refer to any dietary supplement as a 'cure' for anything.

Prior to Covid, the FDA had sent warning letters to companies that were marketing NAC as a hangover 'cure' - companies are not legally supposed to refer to any dietary supplement as a 'cure' for anything. Companies didn't listen.

Then when the Covid pandemic started, many companies were promoting NAC as a Covid 'cure' - and to those of us that are familiar with supplements this may seem like an obvious shady sales tactic, but the companies doing this were taking advantage of a lot of unknowing consumers in desperate situations and scamming many millions of dollars from people like our parents, grandparents, etc.

The FDA sent warning letters to companies that were marketing NAC as a Covid 'cure' and the companies didn't stop.

In context, the FDA had a lot more important stuff on their plate at the time of the start of the Covid pandemic than to worry about dietary supplements, so I'm paraphrasing here but they basically said - screw it, if supplement companies won't listen and want to promote it as a drug (the claim that it 'cures'), then screw it, it doesn't meet the legal definition of a dietary supplement, so you just can't sell it.

That's of course paraphrasing but that's the gist of it.

The industry pushed back and the FDA did ultimately relent on this and NAC is still available.

But it did accomplish what I think there intended goal was - which was to show companies they weren't messing around and to cut the BS and stop making the stupid claims on it that they shouldn't have been making to begin with.

I hope that makes sense.

Makes total sense thank you.
Now it's just the science part. Does it or doesn't it promote tumour progression??

Can't imagine the FDA allowing it to be sold if it did as being suggested by that Hagen guy?

 

[WhatsaBench]

Cancer is a very complicated and varied thing, it would not surprise me at all if NAC promoted tumor growth in certain types of cancer. A lot of things that we would consider healthy and even anti-cancer in a preventative sense could contribute to cancer growth when the body is in a cancerous state. There are even arguments about cancer treatment drugs spurring the growth of cancer when the cancer becomes resistant. The bottom line is that NAC is not a known carcinogen as far as any research I have seen and is not likely to cause cancer, but if you have cancer I would definitely consult your oncologist and probably discontinue use during treatment.

 

[WesleyInman]

Yep and glutathione devastates chemo and ecdysterones can defeat some cancers.

Suppz can be very influential.

 

[sns8778]

Makes total sense thank you.
Now it's just the science part. Does it or doesn't it promote tumour progression??

Can't imagine the FDA allowing it to be sold if it did as being suggested by that Hagen guy?

Things like this being brought up in the news cycle isn’t really new information – it may be new studies on the subject, and they may be getting more attention now just because of the popularity of NAC, but the idea that antioxidants in general can be bad for some types of cancers has been well established for years.

This has been discussed with NAC a few years ago, and Vitamin E and Vitamin A have also been victims to negative press and publicity about this subject in the past.

The role of antioxidants in human health is a complex subject and one in which where 99% of the times something may be good, healthy, or helpful – but that in certain cases it may not be.

A lot of times news sources will present articles or excerpts on things like this, but context is always important. For example:

Antioxidants are generally regarded as cancer-preventive agents because they protect biomolecules from the detrimental effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS). However, antioxidants are also thought to protect cancer cells from ROS-induced cell death, thereby promoting their proliferation and malignancy. Nevertheless, this view may be an over-simplification of the functions of ROS. ROS are known to trigger diverse responses that range from homeostasis to cell death. Therefore, it is important to define the types of cancers that rely on ROS for their survival and malignant behavior in order to facilitate the safe and efficacious use of NAC as a clinical treatment. Moreover, cancer also involves a complex interplay between the tumor microenvironment (TME) and the cancer cells. In this context, NAC may act on both the cancer cells and the TME. Hence, an understanding of the responses of both cancer cells and the TME to both ROS and NAC will be important for the therapeutic use of NAC.

In addition, the current status of antioxidant use in cancer treatment is examined in order to highlight the importance of the selective use of NAC for specific types of cancer. Finally, the discussion focuses on those types of cancer that rely on ROS for cancer cell survival and the creation of a permissive environment that promotes the progression to malignant cancer. These are the types of cancer that can potentially benefit from the use of NAC.

^^^ I bolded some very important terminology there for context purposes.

The average person using NAC for overall health benefits is not using it as a ‘clinical treatment’ nor as a ‘therapeutic use’ for cancer.

I could go on for days talking about context and how this is a complex subject, but I hope that this helps understand the big picture of it.

 

[sns8778]

Cancer is a very complicated and varied thing, it would not surprise me at all if NAC promoted tumor growth in certain types of cancer. A lot of things that we would consider healthy and even anti-cancer in a preventative sense could contribute to cancer growth when the body is in a cancerous state. There are even arguments about cancer treatment drugs spurring the growth of cancer when the cancer becomes resistant. The bottom line is that NAC is not a known carcinogen as far as any research I have seen and is not likely to cause cancer, but if you have cancer I would definitely consult your oncologist and probably discontinue use during treatment.

Great post and you are correct - there is a huge difference between something being carcinogenic and contributing to a person getting cancer versus something being potentially detrimental to a person that is battling cancer. And even then, the same thing may be beneficial for one type of cancer but detrimental to another.

 

[jim2509]

Great post and you are correct - there is a huge difference between something being carcinogenic and contributing to a person getting cancer versus something being potentially detrimental to a person that is battling cancer. And even then, the same thing may be beneficial for one type of cancer but detrimental to another.

Yes it's complicated. There's so many ifs/buts l and variables and I don't know what Hagens research background is, but thought it was worth putting it out there for people's opinions on the subject. Been some great feedback and some context put to it.

Whether I'll use NAC daily is something I need to think about as there's other options.

 

[sns8778]

Yes it's complicated. There's so many ifs/buts l and variables and I don't know what Hagens research background is, but thought it was worth putting it out there for people's opinions on the subject. Been some great feedback and some context put to it.

Whether I'll use NAC daily is something I need to think about as there's other options.

Nothing wrong with posting something to get opinions on.

I think that its important to realize that in context, the same argument applies to most antioxidants in general.

There's nothing specific to this about one researches background, its a well researched and established subject and one that rears its head every few years, whether it be about Vitamin A, Vitamin E, this time its NAC.

Antioxidant support in a normal healthy individual is a completely different matter than in a cancer patient.

The big thing with NAC now days is it being in a lot of immune support supplements because of its potential benefits for Covid and respiratory health. And its long been a staple ingredient in many liver support supplements.

A very very underrated liver support health ingredient is L-Ornithine L-Aspartate. If you're looking for something specific to liver health, that would be a great one to look into. We've offered it for years in powder form and started offering it in a capsule form a couple of months ago.

 

[Smont]

Both melatonin and NAC are among the best supps to fight covid.

I was gonna say cocaine and hookers but to each there own...lol

 

[ironkill]

Both melatonin and NAC are among the best supps to fight covid.

What? I thought it was masks and jabs????????