Peter Attia· MD
the one of the trials a lung cancer trial argued that I think was a vitamin E trial and they did worse and in mice you can recapitulate that
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
the one of the trials a lung cancer trial argued that I think was a vitamin E trial and they did worse and in mice you can recapitulate that
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
however if you already have cancer that DNA damage can activate those tumor suppressor genes that we talked about previously and any cancer cells that still have a functional tumor suppressor Gene will then result in the death of that cancer cell when that tumor suppressor Gene is activated in fact a recent study in mice showed just this mice that already had lung cancer and were given various doses of supplemental vitamin E between five and 50 times the RDA actually resulted in an acceleration of that lung cancer growth and that's because the supplemental vitamin E prevented oxidation prevented DNA damage and prevented the activation of functional tumor suppressor genes with in those lung cancer cells so ultimately those lung cancer cells didn't die and they this resulted in an acceleration of their growth