2016 review:case for zinc treatment for cancer (fascinating)

Discuss herbal therapies, vitamins and minerals, bee stings, etc. here

2016 review:case for zinc treatment for cancer (fascinating)

Postby jimmylegs » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:51 am

OT but still auto-immune stuff so:

Decreased zinc in the development and progression of malignancy: an important common relationship and potential for prevention and treatment of carcinomas
free full text: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5183570/

Efficacious chemotherapy does not exist for treatment or prevention of prostate, liver, and pancreatic carcinomas, and some other cancers that exhibit decreased zinc in malignancy. Zinc treatment offers a potential solution; but its support has been deterred by adverse bias.
Areas covered
1. The clinical and experimental evidence for the common ZIP transporter/Zn down regulation in these cancers.
2. The evidence for a zinc approach to prevent and/or treat these carcinomas.
3. The issues that introduce bias against support for the zinc approach.
Expert opinion
1. ZIP/Zn downregulation is a clinically established common event in prostate, hepatocellular and pancreatic cancers.
2. Compelling evidence supports the plausibility that a zinc treatment regimen will prevent development of malignancy and termination of progressing malignancy in these cancers; and likely other carcinomas that exhibit decreased zinc.
3. Scientifically-unfounded issues that oppose this ZIP/Zn relationship have introduced bias against support for research and funding of a zinc treatment approach.
4. The clinically-established and supporting experimental evidence provide the scientific credibility that should dictate the support for research and funding of a zinc approach for the treatment and possible prevention of these cancers.
5. This is in the best interest of the medical community and the public-at-large.

re item 3 above, this article is cited as being behind much of the opposition to zinc therapy for cancer:

Zinc Supplement Use and Risk of Prostate Cancer
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/9 ... ate-Cancer
The high concentration of zinc in the prostate suggests that zinc may play a role in prostate health. We examined the association between supplemental zinc intake and prostate cancer risk among 46 974 U.S. men participating in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. During 14 years of follow-up from 1986 through 2000, 2901 new cases of prostate cancer were ascertained, of which 434 cases were diagnosed as advanced cancer. Supplemental zinc intake at doses of up to 100 mg/day was not associated with prostate cancer risk. However, compared with nonusers, men who consumed more than 100 mg/day of supplemental zinc had a relative risk of advanced prostate cancer of 2.29 (95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 4.95; Ptrend = .003), and men who took supplemental zinc for 10 or more years had a relative risk of 2.37 (95% confidence interval = 1.42 to 3.95; Ptrend<.001). Although we cannot rule out residual confounding by supplemental calcium intake or some unmeasured correlate of zinc supplement use, our findings, that chronic zinc oversupply may play a role in prostate carcinogenesis, warrant further investigation.

yep TONS of something is bad, so deficit must be okay... ?!?!?! also wonder if these gents were making sure their zinc intake didn't throw anything else, like copper say, out of whack over their ten year supplementation period (doubtful right)? i'll have to dig in and check out if they mean >100mg/d AND >10 yrs, or >100mg/d OR >10 yrs and if the latter, what intakes represented chronic oversupply. and if they bothered to check out copper status at all.

potentially related piece of the puzzle?
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-ab ... /352/61085
To investigate the association of serum copper and zinc with mortality from cancer and cardiovascular disease, the authors performed a case-control analysis of data obtained in a Dutch prospective follow-up study. Cancer (n = 64) and cardiovascular disease (n = 62) deaths and their matched controls were taken from a cohort of 10,532 persons examined in 1975–1978. Trace elements were measured in baseline serum samples, which had been stored during the six to nine years of follow-up. The adjusted risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease was about four times higher for subjects in the highest serum copper quintile (>1.43 mg/liter) compared with those with normal levels. The excess mortality observed in subjects with low copper status suggests a U-shaped relation. No significant change in the risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease was found for subjects with low or high baseline levels of serum zinc. However, a protective effect of a high zinc status on the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease is compatible with the data. For definitive conclusions, analysis of larger prospective data sets is recommended.

GOOD. too much AND too little copper problematic. got it.

interesting new cancer research:

Influencing the Tumor Microenvironment: A Phase II Study of Copper Depletion Using Tetrathiomolybdate in Patients with Breast Cancer at High Risk for Recurrence and in Preclinical Models of Lung Metastases (2017)
...This study targets copper-dependent processes within the tumor microenvironment known to be critical for establishment of the premetastatic niche in a cohort of patients with breast cancer at high risk of relapse. The premetastatic niche constitutes a local microenvironment that provides optimal infrastructure for disseminated tumor cells to colonize and grow. Using a copper depletion strategy that targets copper-dependent processes critical for creating this niche, we show a markedly reduced infrastructure critical for tumor progression...

crazy thought - what if there were oh, i dunno, some kind of essential nutrient that would handily deplete copper for us??? :roll: i wonder how the serum copper levels in the copper zinc study ^^ line up with the depletion levels achieved in the last study above ^. and what the serum copper zinc ratios look like in both cases.
odd sx? no dx? check w/ dietitian
DRI=MINIMUM eg bit.ly/1vgQclQ
99% don't meet these. meds/lifestyle can affect levels
status can be low in ms & other cond'ns
'but my results are normal'. typical panels don't test all
deficits occur in 'normal' range
User avatar
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 10514
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm


Return to Natural Approach


  • Related topics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Contact us | Terms of Service