A FB friend shared an article with me: Scientists Discover Cancer Tumors Are “Addicted” to This Common Antioxidant, which cited a research article titled “Catabolism of extracellular glutathione supplies cysteine to support tumours” published in Nature (here) with a second research paper that is mentioned in the summary article, which is titled “Taurine from tumour niche drives glycolysis to promote leukemogenesis”, found here.
What is important to know about these articles is that they explain that taking excessive antioxidants can lead to serious harm by supporting cancer development and growth! While cancer lives on glucose and glutamate, we now understand that it can recruit other elements with specific functions and use them to achieve its goal of getting access to food (glucose, primarily)! This is how:
Glutathione
The main human antioxidant, is made up of 3 amino acids: cysteine, glutamate and glycine, and can be catabolized (broken down into its basic elements) to release the individual amino acids, each of which is glucogenic—meaning they convert to glucose easily. Cancer cells are loaded with glutathione and when the researchers blocked off cancer cells’ access to glutathione, cancer growth reduced.
Taurine
The second study I linked to about taurine found that aggressive myeloid leukemias form a critical dependency on taurine transporters. The research showed that when they prevented the cancer cells from having access to taurine, it significantly impaired myeloid leukemia (cancer) growth. They found that cysteine dioxygenase type 1 (CDO1)-driven taurine biosynthesis is restricted to osteolineage cells, and increases during myeloid disease progression. Blocking CDO1 expression in osteolineage cells impairs LSC growth and improves survival outcomes. The elimination of taurine uptake inhibited mTOR activation and downstream glycolysis—the glucose the cancer cells need.
Summary
Please don’t believe those articles that push plant antioxidants or excessive supplements for cancer prevention or cure (or for general health). Clearly there are lots of nuances to cancer research and we don’t yet know enough about it!
The taking of antioxidants is also harmful because our immune system uses oxygen as oxidative burstsor respiratory bursts to get rid of virus, bacteria, or any other pathogens.
Triggered by infection, the enzyme NADPH oxidase deliberately produces reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as superoxide and hydrogen peroxide, to kill bacteria and fungi (read more on this here). Taking antioxidants can reduce your immune system’s ability to kill these pathogens! It can keep you sick or sicker longer.
As usual, please feel free to comment. Comments are scrutinized for appropriateness.
Angela A Stanton, PhD, is a Neuroeconomist focusing on chronic pain--migraine in particular--physiology, electrolyte homeostasis, nutrition, and genetics. She lives in Southern California. Her current research is focused on migraine cause, prevention, and treatment without the use of medicine. As a forever migraineur from childhood, her discovery was helped by experimenting on herself. She found the cause of migraine to be at the ionic level, associated with disruption of the electrolyte homeostasis, resulting from genetic variations of all voltage dependent channels, gates, and pumps (chanelopathy) that modulate electrolyte mineral density and voltage in the brain. In addition, insulin and glucose transporters, and several other variants, such as MTHFR variants of B vitamin methylation process and many others are different in the case of a migraineur from the general population.
Migraineurs are glucose sensitive (carbohydrate intolerant) and should avoid eating carbs as much as possible. She is working on her hypothesis that migraine is a metabolic disease.
As a result of the success of the first edition of her book and her helping over 5000 migraineurs successfully prevent their migraines world wide, all ages and both genders, and all types of migraines, she published the 2nd (extended) edition of her migraine book "Fighting The Migraine Epidemic: Complete Guide: How To Treat & Prevent Migraines Without Medications". The 2nd edition is the “holy grail” of migraine cause, development, and prevention, incorporating all there is to know. It includes a long section for medical and research professionals. The book is full of academic citations (over 800) to authenticate the statements she makes to make it easy to follow up by those interested and to spark further research interest. It is a "Complete Guide", published on September 29, 2017.
Dr. Stanton received her BSc at UCLA in Mathematics, MBA at UCR, MS in Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University, PhD in Economics with dissertation in neuroscience (culminating in Neuroeconomics) at Claremont Graduate University, fMRI certification at Harvard University Medical School at the Martinos Center for Neuroimaging for experimenting with neurotransmitters on human volunteers, certification in LCHF/ketogenic diet from NN (Nutrition Network), certification in physiology (UPEN via Coursea), Nutrition (Harvard Shool of Public Health) and functional medicine studies. Dr. Stanton is an avid sports fan, currently power weight lifting and kickboxing. For relaxation (yeah.. about a half minute each day), she paints and photographs and loves to spend time with her family of husband of 45 years, 2 sons and their wives, and 2 granddaughters.
Follow her on Twitter at: @MigraineBook, LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/angelaastantonphd/ and facebook at https://www.facebook.com/DrAngelaAStanton/
No. An article is not BS just becuase it is not on an open forum. You can share my article on any forum you wish and start typing away, getting other commenters. But on a blog article there is usually no exchange of thoughts in a discussion style. You should know this. This is not new to you.
Actually no, you made a statement Drs. are clueless when in fact a real study shows benefit from specific supplementation. Next time you get radiated try the protocol, you’re welcome.
I didn’t make a general “statement” that doctors are clueless… My domain name is representative of my work as an activist against stupidity in health and wellness industry–including many doctors who are, indeed, clueless. But not all. The domain name I have is not an insult to all doctors, only to those who are really clueless. A healthy normal and knowledgeable doctor would smile and brush it off… it only hurts when there is reason to hurt.
There are hundreds of “real studies” (whatever “real” meant in your comment), that show all kinds of things, including that the earth is flat.
More seriously, there are cases when supplementing glutathione may be beneficial–for example, in the case of some recent viruses the glutathione production pathways were blocked off by the virus. In those cases, supplementing glutathione is the only way.
Also probably great in case you get radiated but just how many people get radiated around the world daily?
Is being radiated seriously something that the general people on the streets should be supplementing glutathione for?
Is being radiated something I should have mentioned in my article? Why? It is a diseased state and my paper is not about disease.
Obviously not and my article said nothing about not being good under all circumstances.
What my paper suggests is to not supplement it without good reasons to do so because it can cause more harm than good and this is for the general population!
For someone who reads articles like mine and comments on them, I would have expected better logical thinking than what you presented.
You provide no support for your statements whether true or not. Peopel are radiated every day with ionizing imaging radiation. One chest CT is equal to 7000 dental x-rays. CT’s and plain film radiography is a daily occurrance in health care so yes people are getting radiated and should be aware of a protocol to minimize the damage caused.
Here’s a link to a stdy on dental x-rays if you’re interested
Firstly, there are several academic publications linked to my article, which is where the support is coming from. You just simply disregard them because you have an issue that is personal.
I agree that unnecessary ionizing radiation should be minimized because it can be unhealthy. But extrapolating from that to chronic daily antioxidant or glutathione supplementation as a blanket protective strategy not proven and ignores the physiologic role of oxidative signaling and endogenous adaptive systems. And extrapolating from my article that was written for the general and healthy audience to you who is sick and is going through radiation for cancer is also a far reach.
You are also exaggerating in your haste.
You wrote: “One chest CT is equal to 7000 dental x-rays” is loaded with emotions but is incorrect. “7,000-to-1 ratio is a high-end estimate or may refer to specific older, high-dose, or full-body imaging scenarios rather than a standard, modern chest CT… According to, 7,000 microsieverts (\(\mu Sv\)) — which equals 7 mSv — is more accurately equivalent to about 2,333 digital dental X-rays, not 7,000”. (from Dr. Google)
Note also that there are CTs and X-Rays. A CT is hundreds of X-Rays. So obviously it is a ton of radiation. And while CT scans and X-Rays do cause oxidative damage, there is no proof as of yet that supplementing glutathione will even get to the place it needs to go, let alone be helping.
In general simple terms, a single chest X-Ray is ≈ a few years of natural background radiation equivalent.
We are always exposed to ionizing radiation daily from natural background radiation (cosmic rays, radon, earth, food, air travel, etc.).
We evolved in this environment over millions of years. Our built in antioxidant system can manage most of the situations that we find ourselves in naturally.
There is no universally accepted medical “protocol” proven to prevent radiation damage from routine diagnostic imaging.
Hydration, antioxidant adequacy, glutathione systems, DNA repair nutrients, etc., are biologically plausible, but not established clinical standards for ordinary imaging exposure.
And, again, my article is not an advice for people going through cancer eradication. It is for the general public.
If you need advice for your treatment and what you should do, you need to discuss that with your doctors and not criticize blog articles that are clearly not intended to cover your topic.
This article is for people who are not suffering through chemo and radiation but have read something and start taking these supplements for no reason whatsoever.
For this class of people, taking antioxidants is a bad idea, because oxidative signaling is not purely “bad”. Our immune system uses oxidative bursts to kill pathogens (including cancer cells). ROS are essential signaling molecules, not necessarily to be disposed of randomly. Chronic antioxidant over-suppression can blunt the adaptive responses of our immune system and exogenous glutathione manipulation may alter endogenous production by reducing it.
You are misreading my article because you are grasping for help for yourself because you are going through radiation. I understand and feel sorry for you.
However, this article is not written for you. It is written for the millions of others who take these supplements without any reason, causing harm to themselves.
I attached the picture screen captured from the link you shared and encircled the CT scans that are all below the 7000 times radiation you are talking about.
Clearly, what matters is WHAT CT scan!
I am assuming you are going through radiation because you brought up the 7000x radiation and that is only for cancer-type eradication or other very serious diseases.
But also note that being 7k times as strong as dental X-rays is not meaningful unless you establish that dental X-rays are harmful. And they aren’t for the general population who gets a dental X-Ray once or twice a year.
In any case, I can see we disagree and my blog is not for this purpose.
I recommend that if you don’t like what I write: don’t read it.
Clueless Doctors & Scientists 
Wow and this is in Applied Radiology. Does anyone really know anything? https://appliedradiology.com/articles/preventing-dna-injury-from-ionizing-radiation-with-oral-antioxidants
LikeLike
John,
This is not a forum. It’s just a blog.
Angela
LikeLike
So in other words it’s total BS
LikeLike
John,
No. An article is not BS just becuase it is not on an open forum. You can share my article on any forum you wish and start typing away, getting other commenters. But on a blog article there is usually no exchange of thoughts in a discussion style. You should know this. This is not new to you.
Cheers,
Angela
LikeLike
Actually, I don’t pay much attention to blogs but thank you
LikeLike
Well here you did, apparently. 🙂 And you are welcome.
Angela
LikeLike
Actually no, you made a statement Drs. are clueless when in fact a real study shows benefit from specific supplementation. Next time you get radiated try the protocol, you’re welcome.
LikeLike
Dear John,
I didn’t make a general “statement” that doctors are clueless… My domain name is representative of my work as an activist against stupidity in health and wellness industry–including many doctors who are, indeed, clueless. But not all. The domain name I have is not an insult to all doctors, only to those who are really clueless. A healthy normal and knowledgeable doctor would smile and brush it off… it only hurts when there is reason to hurt.
There are hundreds of “real studies” (whatever “real” meant in your comment), that show all kinds of things, including that the earth is flat.
More seriously, there are cases when supplementing glutathione may be beneficial–for example, in the case of some recent viruses the glutathione production pathways were blocked off by the virus. In those cases, supplementing glutathione is the only way.
Also probably great in case you get radiated but just how many people get radiated around the world daily?
Is being radiated seriously something that the general people on the streets should be supplementing glutathione for?
Is being radiated something I should have mentioned in my article? Why? It is a diseased state and my paper is not about disease.
Obviously not and my article said nothing about not being good under all circumstances.
What my paper suggests is to not supplement it without good reasons to do so because it can cause more harm than good and this is for the general population!
For someone who reads articles like mine and comments on them, I would have expected better logical thinking than what you presented.
Best,
Angela
LikeLike
You provide no support for your statements whether true or not. Peopel are radiated every day with ionizing imaging radiation. One chest CT is equal to 7000 dental x-rays. CT’s and plain film radiography is a daily occurrance in health care so yes people are getting radiated and should be aware of a protocol to minimize the damage caused.
Here’s a link to a stdy on dental x-rays if you’re interested
Dental X-Rays and Risk of Meningioma
Cancer
April 10, 2012; [ebub]
LikeLike
Dear John,
Firstly, there are several academic publications linked to my article, which is where the support is coming from. You just simply disregard them because you have an issue that is personal.
I agree that unnecessary ionizing radiation should be minimized because it can be unhealthy. But extrapolating from that to chronic daily antioxidant or glutathione supplementation as a blanket protective strategy not proven and ignores the physiologic role of oxidative signaling and endogenous adaptive systems. And extrapolating from my article that was written for the general and healthy audience to you who is sick and is going through radiation for cancer is also a far reach.
You are also exaggerating in your haste.
You wrote: “One chest CT is equal to 7000 dental x-rays” is loaded with emotions but is incorrect. “7,000-to-1 ratio is a high-end estimate or may refer to specific older, high-dose, or full-body imaging scenarios rather than a standard, modern chest CT… According to, 7,000 microsieverts (\(\mu Sv\)) — which equals 7 mSv — is more accurately equivalent to about 2,333 digital dental X-rays, not 7,000”. (from Dr. Google)
Note also that there are CTs and X-Rays. A CT is hundreds of X-Rays. So obviously it is a ton of radiation. And while CT scans and X-Rays do cause oxidative damage, there is no proof as of yet that supplementing glutathione will even get to the place it needs to go, let alone be helping.
In general simple terms, a single chest X-Ray is ≈ a few years of natural background radiation equivalent.
We are always exposed to ionizing radiation daily from natural background radiation (cosmic rays, radon, earth, food, air travel, etc.).
We evolved in this environment over millions of years. Our built in antioxidant system can manage most of the situations that we find ourselves in naturally.
There is no universally accepted medical “protocol” proven to prevent radiation damage from routine diagnostic imaging.
Hydration, antioxidant adequacy, glutathione systems, DNA repair nutrients, etc., are biologically plausible, but not established clinical standards for ordinary imaging exposure.
And, again, my article is not an advice for people going through cancer eradication. It is for the general public.
If you need advice for your treatment and what you should do, you need to discuss that with your doctors and not criticize blog articles that are clearly not intended to cover your topic.
This article is for people who are not suffering through chemo and radiation but have read something and start taking these supplements for no reason whatsoever.
For this class of people, taking antioxidants is a bad idea, because oxidative signaling is not purely “bad”. Our immune system uses oxidative bursts to kill pathogens (including cancer cells). ROS are essential signaling molecules, not necessarily to be disposed of randomly. Chronic antioxidant over-suppression can blunt the adaptive responses of our immune system and exogenous glutathione manipulation may alter endogenous production by reducing it.
You are misreading my article because you are grasping for help for yourself because you are going through radiation. I understand and feel sorry for you.
However, this article is not written for you. It is written for the millions of others who take these supplements without any reason, causing harm to themselves.
Angela
LikeLike
UCSF says otherwise https://knowyourdose.ucsf.edu/how-much-radiation
WTF I’m not going thru radiation where did you getthat? You are hallucinating
LikeLike
I attached the picture screen captured from the link you shared and encircled the CT scans that are all below the 7000 times radiation you are talking about.
Clearly, what matters is WHAT CT scan!
I am assuming you are going through radiation because you brought up the 7000x radiation and that is only for cancer-type eradication or other very serious diseases.
But also note that being 7k times as strong as dental X-rays is not meaningful unless you establish that dental X-rays are harmful. And they aren’t for the general population who gets a dental X-Ray once or twice a year.
In any case, I can see we disagree and my blog is not for this purpose.
I recommend that if you don’t like what I write: don’t read it.
It’s been nice chatting with you.
Angela
LikeLike