DNA pioneer James Watson takes aim at "cancer establishments" By Sharon Begley NEW YORK | Wed Jan 9, 2013 6:34am EST SHARE THIS ARTICLE Email Facebook Twitter By Sharon Begley NEW YORK (Reuters) - A day after an exhaustive national report on cancer found the United States is making only slow progress against the disease, one of the country's most iconic - and iconoclastic - scientists weighed in on "the war against cancer." And he does not like what he sees. James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, lit into targets large and small. On government officials who oversee cancer research, he wrote in a paper published on Tuesday in the journal Open Biology, "We now have no general of influence, much less power ... leading our country's War on Cancer." On the $100 million U.S. project to determine the DNA changes that drive nine forms of cancer: It is "not likely to produce the truly breakthrough drugs that we now so desperately need," Watson argued. On the idea that antioxidants such as those in colorful berries fight cancer: "The time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer." That Watson's impassioned plea came on the heels of the annual cancer report was coincidental. He worked on the paper for months, and it represents the culmination of decades of thinking about the subject. Watson, 84, taught a course on cancer at Harvard University in 1959, three years before he shared the Nobel Prize in medicine for his role in discovering the double helix, which opened the door to understanding the role of genetics in disease. Other cancer luminaries gave Watson's paper mixed reviews. "There are a lot of interesting ideas in it, some of them sustainable by existing evidence, others that simply conflict with well-documented findings," said one eminent cancer biologist who asked not to be identified so as not to offend Watson. "As is often the case, he's stirring the pot, most likely in a very productive way." There is wide agreement, however, that current approaches are not yielding the progress they promised. Much of the decline in cancer mortality in the United States, for instance, reflects the fact that fewer people are smoking, not the benefits of clever new therapies. GENETIC HOPES "The great hope of the modern targeted approach was that with DNA sequencing we would be able to find what specific genes, when mutated, caused each cancer," said molecular biologist Mark Ptashne of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The next step was to design a drug to block the runaway proliferation the mutation caused. But almost none of the resulting treatments cures cancer. "These new therapies work for just a few months," Watson told Reuters in a rare interview. "And we have nothing for major cancers such as the lung, colon and breast that have become metastatic." The main reason drugs that target genetic glitches are not cures is that cancer cells have a work-around. If one biochemical pathway to growth and proliferation is blocked by a drug such as AstraZeneca's Iressa or Genentech's Tarceva for non-small-cell lung cancer, said cancer biologist Robert Weinberg of MIT, the cancer cells activate a different, equally effective pathway. That is why Watson advocates a different approach: targeting features that all cancer cells, especially those in metastatic cancers, have in common. One such commonality is oxygen radicals. Those forms of oxygen rip apart other components of cells, such as DNA. That is why antioxidants, which have become near-ubiquitous additives in grocery foods from snack bars to soda, are thought to be healthful: they mop up damaging oxygen radicals. That simple picture becomes more complicated, however, once cancer is present. Radiation therapy and many chemotherapies kill cancer cells by generating oxygen radicals, which trigger cell suicide. If a cancer patient is binging on berries and other antioxidants, it can actually keep therapies from working, Watson proposed. "Everyone thought antioxidants were great," he said. "But I'm saying they can prevent us from killing cancer cells." 'ANTI-ANTIOXIDANTS' Research backs him up. A number of studies have shown that taking antioxidants such as vitamin E do not reduce the risk of cancer but can actually increase it, and can even shorten life. But drugs that block antioxidants - "anti-antioxidants" - might make even existing cancer drugs more effective. Anything that keeps cancer cells full of oxygen radicals "is likely an important component of any effective treatment," said cancer biologist Robert Benezra of Sloan-Kettering. Watson's anti-antioxidant stance includes one historical irony. The first high-profile proponent of eating lots of antioxidants (specifically, vitamin C) was biochemist Linus Pauling, who died in 1994 at age 93. Watson and his lab mate, Francis Crick, famously beat Pauling to the discovery of the double helix in 1953. One elusive but promising target, Watson said, is a protein in cells called Myc. It controls more than 1,000 other molecules inside cells, including many involved in cancer. Studies suggest that turning off Myc causes cancer cells to self-destruct in a process called apoptosis. "The notion that targeting Myc will cure cancer has been around for a long time," said cancer biologist Hans-Guido Wendel of Sloan-Kettering. "Blocking production of Myc is an interesting line of investigation. I think there's promise in that." Targeting Myc, however, has been a backwater of drug development. "Personalized medicine" that targets a patient's specific cancer-causing mutation attracts the lion's share of research dollars. "The biggest obstacle" to a true war against cancer, Watson wrote, may be "the inherently conservative nature of today's cancer research establishments." As long as that's so, "curing cancer will always be 10 or 20 years away."
The research "proving" that vitamin E increases cancer risks is true --- for the synthetic dl-alpha tocopherol that was used in that study. It's a tocopherol form that is never naturally encountered by the body and has no theraputic or prophylactic use. But there is abundant evidence that natural "vitamin E," of which there are many forms, all in the d- form, not the artificial dl-form, does prevent cancers and provides many other health benefits. If "vitamins" and antioxidants were to actually cause cancer, there should be a gigantic increase in the last decade, inasmuch as vitamins, minerals, and supplements in the US are now a mult-billion dollar industry. And American cancer rates should be much higher than those of Europe, where sale and use of vitamins, minerals, and supplements is highly restricted. Frankly, I'll go with Linus Pauling. Let's see of our man Crick lives to 93? Those who want to believe the Crick's antioxidant and vitamins perspective is the right one are certainly welcome to restrict themselves to the nutrients they chomp on in a modern American diet. The actual evidence of vitamin and mineral adequacy therein, however, is utterly lacking. And no, "Research" does not "back him up," except for the one, flawed dl-alpha tocopherol study. Don't the consume the dl-alpha tocopherol form of "vitamin E." Each must decide how and what nutrients to provide for one's body. If you think the antioxidants in fruits, vegetables, and appropriate vitamins and supplements are sufficient in the diet you are eating, you should be in good health. But again, Linus Pauling had his biochemistry correct (even if his DNA structure was not). --John of Ohio
The most powerful antioxidant there is, is called glutathione (naturally produced). And NAC which is given in hospitals but can be bought over the counter at some places.----- it is a precursor and help glutathione production. That would be my focus not swallowing vitamins at mega doses or even doses beyond the recommended dose.
It wasn't Francis Crick that made the statement about anti-oxidants, it was his fellow DNA con-discover James Watson. Crick died in 2004 at the age of 88. James Watson will turn 85 this April, so he certainly has a decent chance of making it to 93. Your statement "If "vitamins" and antioxidants were to actually cause cancer, there should be a gigantic increase in the last decade, inasmuch as vitamins, minerals, and supplements in the US are now a mult-billion dollar industry. And American cancer rates should be much higher than those of Europe, where sale and use of vitamins, minerals, and supplements is highly restricted." also applies in the reverse". If vitamins and anti-oxidants prevent cancer, then we should surely see some decline by now. Cancer is a very complex subject and I suspect that it isn't going to be as simple as "anti-oxidants prevent or cause cancer" when it's all said and done. I think Watson does have some reasonable evidence that once you get cancer, anti-oxidants may well do you more harm than good. If cancer cells are more prone to damage from free radicals than normal cells, then it would make sense that anything that scavenges free radicals may do more to promote cancer than retard it, unless someone has a theory on how an anti-oxidant kills a cancer cell or causes it to revert to a non-cancerous state. It could well be that as long as you don't have any malignant cells that anti-oxidants do help by reducing cell damage and the tendency for cells to turn malignant, but once you have malignant cells the bias goes the other way and anti-oxidants become somewhat harmful by preventing free radicals from preferentially causing cancer cell destruction. Watson isn't saying that he has proof that anti-oxidants might promote cancer, he's just suggesting that it is a possibility that should be investigated. Makes sense to me.
Michael, Yes, of course; Watson, not Crick. Crick has already passed. Definitive proof of antioxidant-caused cancers will require massive, long-term double-blind clinical studies, where hundreds of enrolled subjects will be required to monitor and control both food-borne and supplemented antioxidants for many years. Inasmuch as cancers usually take many years to develop, the research would be involve decadal time frames. There is a modicum of existing research indicating that vitamin E might cause cancer. But the vitamin E used in those studies is the dl- form, the unnatural synthesized form. I avoid the common and cheap dl-alpha tocopherol form of “vitamin E.” I seriously doubt anyone will be funding or conducting a proper long-term double-blind clinical study on the subject. Those who wish to believe antioxidants to be carcinogenic will continue to examine and consider only the existing dl- alpha tocopherol vitamin E data, presuming with no real justification that such negative results would occur with any and all other dietary or supplementary antioxidants. Each must personally decide. I don’t consume dl- vitamin E, and believe that the many other benefits of antioxidants are rewarding. –John of Ohio
I go with JOH here, because I have never found him wrong. And being a person of reasonable intelligence (UCLA summa cum laude, Harvard Law School), I take NOTHING I read, here or anywhere, at face value. I research it to DEATH. Am I in remission? No. Do I still get hellish attacks, like yesterday, the day before, today? Yes. But they are not worse than what I have grown to expect, and without JOH's regimen, I have NO DOUBT, based on my own research, that they would be. FAR worse. Since starting his regimen, I have NOT had a drop attack. I had at least 3 before doing that, any one of which could have killed me, all of which caused major harm (one nearly put out my right eye.) So when in doubt, I will rely on JOH.
BR, In regard to the frequency and severity of your attacks, it's the trend that matters. Sorry to hear that you still have them; that the regimen---so far---has been unable to give you substantial or complete symptomatic relief. But the trend, as moderate as it might be, with no more drop attacks, is worth noting. Suppression of herpes infections in the inner ear, either by the lysine and other components of my regimen, or by prescription antiherpetics (such as acyclovir) can be frustratingly slow. It can take many weeks or months. (And it's not just the suppression of the virus itself that is required. After that, I think infected tissues need time to heal and resume normal function. That doesn't happen in days or a week or so.) I have accounts from several regimen users that they had just absolutely no reduction in symptoms for lenghty periods at the start, many weeks or several months. Not a hint of efficacy. At the time, they regarded the regimen as a complete failure (which it was). But because they already had all the stuff, they elected to continue to adhere to the regimen anyway. And then finally, after long initial periods of no hints of usefulness, things started---as in your case---to slowly turn around. Eventually, rather complete suppression of symptoms resulted. I hope that this will be the outcome in your case. The absence of drop attacks is a good first step. (But let me also state that the regimen simply does not work for everyone, in every case. That must be understood by everyone.) As you do, keep us posted on your progress. --John of Ohio
Taking into account my background of half way through a doctorate in naturopathic health, I'm also with JOH. Although cancer is the scariest of diseases, supplements support many functions of the body and I believe in testing for deficiencies, treating deficiencies and, based on family medical history, taking prophylactic supplements. I think, in a few years, Vitamin D screening will be covered by many medical plans the way mammograms are now. I hope so, anyway.
