Latest / Intellectual Medicine / Evidence vs. Assumptions: The Truth About Supplements and What We Really Know

Transcript

Evidence vs. Assumptions: The Truth About Supplements and What We Really Know · Intellectual Medicine

• 0:00
  Your body does this every day. Kills cancer cells.
• 0:03
  That's part of its job. The innate immune system, the
• 0:07
  adaptive immune system, the innate immune system.
• 0:11
  That's the stuff you don't even know it's there.
• 0:14
  These are the guardians at the gate.
• 0:16
  Bacteria come in, a cancer cell appears.
• 0:19
  Squash. Yeah, before you even know you
• 0:21
  had it. Isn't that beautiful?
• 0:25
  I'm going to be talking to you about supplements and their role
• 0:28
  in preventing and treating prostate cancer.
• 0:32
  This could be a very short podcast.
• 0:36
  I could summarize for you the conventional medicine in
• 0:39
  perspective. They don't work.
• 0:42
  There's no proof of benefit. There you go.
• 0:45
  That would be the conclusion of the majority, if not every
• 0:49
  opinion, rendered in conventional medical literature.
• 0:53
  But let's take a step back. Look, you and I know the truth
• 0:57
  is deeper. The problem, of course, is that
• 1:01
  these supplements are simply not adequately studied.
• 1:05
  The vast majority of doctors don't have time, interest,
• 1:09
  inclination, or motivation to really peel it back and look at
• 1:15
  the evidence. There is evidence of possible
• 1:19
  benefit. There is no proof of outcome.
• 1:22
  I could say the same thing folks about conventional treatment.
• 1:26
  There is no proof that ripping out a prostate gland or
• 1:29
  radiating it is going to prevent you from dying of prostate
• 1:34
  cancer. No proof of that.
• 1:36
  Maybe some evidence, but holy cow, the harm done.
• 1:40
  Don't we need to think more broadly?
• 1:42
  Well, that's what the podcast focuses on.
• 1:45
  Why is it that there is so much absence of enthusiasm for
• 1:52
  looking at your whole body and helping it to fight cancer?
• 1:57
  I mean, your body does this every day, kills cancer cells.
• 2:01
  That's part of its job. The innate immune system, the
• 2:04
  adaptive immune system. Two components that many
• 2:09
  supplements and vitamins are critical to support the innate
• 2:14
  immune system. That's the stuff you don't even
• 2:17
  know it's there. These are the guardians at the
• 2:19
  gate. Bacteria come in, a cancer cell
• 2:22
  appears, squash now before you even know you had it.
• 2:26
  Isn't that beautiful? They are, if you will, the rapid
• 2:30
  deployment force. The Marines, they go out there
• 2:32
  and kill things even though they're working.
• 2:34
  And for that matter, so too, our Marines are out there working.
• 2:37
  We didn't get bombed today. Yeah.
• 2:40
  Anyhow, back to the supplements. Then you have the adaptive
• 2:44
  immune system. This is the part that has to
• 2:47
  develop, the part that has antibodies formed.
• 2:50
  And yes, your global health, including micronutrient support,
• 2:54
  is critical to that. Immune suppression leads to
• 2:58
  increased cancer risk. Period.
• 3:00
  End of story. Irrefutable proof.
• 3:04
  All these drugs you see that are immunosuppressive in nature,
• 3:07
  many of them are widely publicized to treat things from
• 3:11
  ulcerative colitis to psoriasis. They all have in the fine print
• 3:17
  increased risk of cancer. So suppressing immune system bad
• 3:22
  for cancer, supporting immune system likely beneficial.
• 3:26
  Isn't that just logical? Where do we need irrefutable
• 3:30
  proof? Well, if you're waiting for it,
• 3:33
  it's not going to come. Part of the reason is that the
• 3:37
  American Cancer Society, I mean, these, they do a lot of great
• 3:40
  work, and I'm not here to disparage their role.
• 3:45
  However, you have to consider the fact that from 2010 to 2022,
• 3:53
  they've received from pharmaceutical companies about
• 3:55
  $23 million. That doesn't mean that their
• 4:00
  information is corrupted. However.
• 4:04
  A company doesn't spend 23 million and expect nothing in
• 4:08
  return. They want at least have a
• 4:10
  favorable impression, right? So there is a sort of symbiotic
• 4:15
  relationship. How much money did supplement
• 4:18
  companies give to American Cancer Society?
• 4:21
  There's no recorded evidence of any.
• 4:23
  I mean, it may be there, but not much.
• 4:27
  So it's not to imply again that there's corruption behind it,
• 4:31
  but there's a lack of enthusiasm for supplements.
• 4:35
  These doctors, God bless them. They're busy enough to try to
• 4:38
  figure this out. So this is where y'all need help
• 4:41
  because you've got really you're you're stuck.
• 4:44
  I have great empathy for you. My my book will help.
• 4:46
  I hope this podcast helps. Look, look for credible sources.
• 4:51
  What do I consider to be a credible source?
• 4:54
  A well educated, informed and neutral healthcare provider.
• 5:00
  A physician, A nurse practitioner.
• 5:02
  Some of my naturopathic colleagues have knowledge in
• 5:05
  this field and are very helpful. However, be wary of proprietary
• 5:11
  promoters. This is the biological expert
• 5:15
  who's promoting supplements in the absence of actually treating
• 5:19
  patients. So be wary of that.
• 5:22
  Be wary of the websites and the promotional sites that extol
• 5:28
  virtues of supplements. You.
• 5:29
  I've had folks come to me starting up a program starting
• 5:33
  in my protocol, and by golly, they've got 30 supplements.
• 5:37
  We all have a swallow capacity. We all have a budget.
• 5:41
  So how do I discern? And how can you discern what is
• 5:46
  worth taking and what isn't? I'm going to share with you my
• 5:48
  thoughts and opinions on some of the supplements we'll have.
• 5:51
  It's going to be a two-part series.
• 5:53
  This is a big topic. It is huge, but here's what you
• 5:57
  can do. When you're looking for
• 5:59
  evidence, you want to look at in vitro evidence.
• 6:01
  That means laboratory studies. Be careful.
• 6:05
  If the only evidence is in vitro, generally speaking, not
• 6:09
  good enough. It's a world of difference
• 6:12
  between a Petri dish and your body.
• 6:15
  So there's in vitro evidence that supports A theoretical
• 6:19
  approach. Next step is in vivo evidence,
• 6:24
  typically in laboratory animals, typically with cancers that have
• 6:29
  been implanted into the animal. It's called the xenograft.
• 6:33
  When you take human cancer cells, plop it on some
• 6:36
  unfortunate mouse. I'm not that fond of mice.
• 6:39
  Doesn't bother me that we put cancer.
• 6:41
  So although I'm not fond of mice, little weird moral dilemma
• 6:45
  I had stepping outside in my pool.
• 6:48
  There was a mouse desperately trying to get out, swimming
• 6:50
  frantically. I panicked.
• 6:52
  I got my scooper. I helped that mouse and I set it
• 6:55
  free. Where's the paradox?
• 6:58
  I have mouse traps in my garage. When I see a dead mouse in my
• 7:01
  trap, I go, yeah, baby, it's all about context.
• 7:05
  What that has to do with cancer? I suppose it's contextual as
• 7:08
  well. Look at our supplements.
• 7:11
  One of the things we talked about is evidence of benefit.
• 7:14
  So there are the layers, right? Are poor mouse getting cancer,
• 7:18
  being given a treatment and having benefit.
• 7:20
  That's stronger evidence. Then we've got the human
• 7:23
  experience. There are individual case
• 7:27
  studies. Be careful because their case
• 7:30
  studies are very limited in their applicability to a broader
• 7:34
  audience. But then you've got small either
• 7:37
  pilot studies, 10 people published.
• 7:41
  That has high value in my opinion because in the world of
• 7:45
  supplements, evidence is tough to acquire and that kind of
• 7:50
  effort and evidence has merit. You've got the classic
• 7:54
  double-blind placebo-controlled studies.
• 7:56
  These folks can cut both ways. It depends on the context.
• 8:02
  Who's doing the study? What's their motive?
• 8:05
  What knowledge do they have about the topic they are
• 8:07
  studying. Nowhere is this more applicable
• 8:11
  than in vitamin D. Now, vitamin D has been
• 8:15
  disparaged in conventional medicine as being worthless,
• 8:19
  more or less right. It does not show benefit
• 8:22
  regarding cancer prevention, COVID prevention, infection
• 8:25
  prevention, says Mainstream Medicine Now that came from a
• 8:31
  series of studies published in the New England Journal of
• 8:34
  Medicine, powerful journal with an abstract, a headline that
• 8:39
  says vitamin D doesn't work for busy clinicians.
• 8:42
  That's all they need to know, right?
• 8:44
  It reminds me of the Women's Health Initiative from 30 years
• 8:47
  ago that crushed hormone replacement.
• 8:49
  Equally misinterpreted problem with that study, and I have to
• 8:53
  talk about it because it is coming from a reputable journal
• 8:57
  that has a lot of sway over conventional medicine.
• 9:00
  They looked at individuals taking their history to inquire
• 9:05
  about whether or not they were on vitamin D.
• 9:08
  The average amount they were taking was 2000 units.
• 9:11
  That's problem #1 generally way low of a dose, not nearly
• 9:17
  enough. Problem number 2, they didn't
• 9:20
  look at blood levels in many of the patients, the majority of
• 9:22
  the subjects, they never tested the blood level.
• 9:26
  They had no idea how much vitamin D was in the patient or
• 9:30
  the subject when they did test it.
• 9:33
  None of them, almost none had levels above 50.
• 9:38
  I think nanogram per deciliter. Now, 50 is the threshold that I
• 9:42
  look for when I'm interpreting a study.
• 9:46
  The evidence in functional medicine correlates a blood
• 9:49
  level of 25, hydroxy vitamin D above 50 with decreased
• 9:55
  incidence of cancers, decreased incidence of viral infections,
• 9:59
  decreased incidence even of COVID.
• 10:02
  So you have a study published in a major journal refuting the
• 10:06
  value of vitamin D with the wrong dose, no blood levels,
• 10:09
  right, wrong dose, wrong blood level.
• 10:12
  All it demonstrated to us is that dose is relevant.
• 10:15
  I don't think it eliminates its possible benefit.
• 10:19
  So in my world, in our world, in the protocol I've developed,
• 10:22
  vitamin D is one of our foundational supplements. 5000
• 10:27
  units a day is the minimum that we start with in our protocol.
• 10:32
  You have to have vitamin K with it, specifically vitamin K2A,
• 10:38
  Menoquinone. Why?
• 10:39
  Because vitamin D absorbs calcium.
• 10:41
  You want calcium folks to go into the bone, not to your heart
• 10:45
  and brain, right? So vitamin K is a traffic cop.
• 10:48
  And what does vitamin D do? It's not really a vitamin, it's
• 10:53
  a hormone. It affects the innate immune
• 10:56
  system. It has an on switch that helps
• 10:58
  to activate it. It helps to enhance the
• 11:01
  production of the components that make up the innate immune
• 11:05
  system. So we've got an immune
• 11:07
  supportive dynamic happening with vitamin D.
• 11:10
  There are studies, a meta analysis, when you hear me use
• 11:14
  the term meta analysis, it is when studies are done looking at
• 11:19
  other studies and then we'll analyze them and then we'll
• 11:23
  statistically combine the data. The first step is to make sure
• 11:28
  the studies are reasonably similar and that the quality of
• 11:33
  those studies is of a high nature.
• 11:36
  They'll take those studies and condense them into one summary.
• 11:40
  The objective is to try to get stronger evidence of outcome.
• 11:44
  All right, So that's a meta analysis.
• 11:46
  Meta analysis with vitamin D, there was 1 correlating with a
• 11:50
  decrease rate of mortality from prostate cancer.
• 11:53
  Well, that's pretty good evidence in my view.
• 11:57
  In addition, vitamin D is one of those things that has collateral
• 12:01
  benefit. By that I mean aside from its
• 12:05
  potential merit in the face of prostate cancer, either
• 12:09
  prevention or in the context of supportive treatment, it has
• 12:14
  secondary benefit to the body at large.
• 12:17
  Supporting immune system, supporting mood.
• 12:22
  There are studies correlating it with enhancement.
• 12:25
  Decrease in depression. Seasonal affective disorder.
• 12:28
  You know how we all get depressed in the dead of winter?
• 12:31
  May have as much to do with sunlight and vitamin D as
• 12:35
  anything else. So collateral benefit?
• 12:38
  Nice. In vitro evidence?
• 12:40
  Yes. Mechanism of action.
• 12:42
  Got it. Proof of outcome.
• 12:45
  Not there, folks. Never will be.
• 12:48
  This is where we, you and I, we have to make our own decisions.
• 12:52
  Put the evidence in that force. Those of you that are putting
• 12:55
  together a plan or following some of the evidence and
• 12:58
  information from this protocol, we have conventional medicine
• 13:03
  and prostate cancer. No, no cause harm.
• 13:07
  Proof of preventing death, Not there.
• 13:11
  That's not too comforting. If you choose conventional
• 13:15
  medicine. It's not wrong, it's just not
• 13:18
  enough. You have to add to that
• 13:21
  equation. So there's vitamin D1 of my
• 13:24
  foundational elements. Remember, K2 has to go with it.
• 13:28
  What else is out there? What else can we talk about?
• 13:31
  How about saw Palmetto? Now some of those supplements
• 13:34
  I'll talk about. I mentioned them just to
• 13:38
  diminish their status. Saw Palmetto of 5A reductase
• 13:44
  inhibitor. What does that mean?
• 13:46
  It prevents testosterone from converting into
• 13:50
  dihydrotestosterone or DHT. Dihydrotestosterone is the type
• 13:56
  of testosterone that is most accountable for stimulating the
• 13:59
  growth of the prostate gland and may be a factor in prostate
• 14:04
  cancer. Saw Palmetto is OK.
• 14:09
  It can be perhaps beneficial if it's synergistically combined
• 14:14
  with other supplements. However, the evidence regarding
• 14:19
  it as a free standing supplement is terribly weak.
• 14:23
  I do not recommend it as a free standing supplement if it's
• 14:27
  commingled with other agents who may have value, The studies
• 14:30
  showing escalating doses, no value.
• 14:34
  In addition, saw Palmetto has no collateral benefit.
• 14:38
  It does not have any intrinsic health benefit like vitamin D or
• 14:43
  like vitamin B6, which we'll talk about.
• 14:45
  It is its own thing. Furthermore, I am, folks.
• 14:50
  I am a medical agnostic when it comes to that which is going to
• 14:55
  help you fight cancer. I am not dogmatically against
• 14:59
  everything in the pharmacologic world.
• 15:02
  In fact, it is true that you cannot drug your way to good
• 15:06
  health. It's also true, folks, that you
• 15:10
  can't supplement your way to treating cancer and stopping it.
• 15:15
  That is a weak approach. So you want to combine things.
• 15:20
  You don't want to be pigeonholed.
• 15:23
  So what about saw Palmetto? There are pharmacologic agents
• 15:28
  that do the job far better than saw Palmetto, blocking DHT
• 15:33
  production in a proven way that has been proven to shrink the
• 15:37
  prostate gland. So you got a pharmaceutical
• 15:40
  agent that does the job, you have a supplement that is trying
• 15:44
  to do the job, has no intrinsic benefit, but doesn't really work
• 15:49
  as a stand alone. So don't burn money on saw
• 15:52
  Palmetto as a stand alone supplement.
• 15:55
  Another thing that, well, I mentioned one that I like, I'm
• 15:57
  going to get this one in. We'll go to Part 2 after that,
• 16:00
  right? Vitamin B6, pyridoxine, B
• 16:05
  vitamins are water soluble, relatively speaking, quite safe.
• 16:10
  Now your doc who doesn't know any better is going to tell you
• 16:13
  you're just going to pee it out. That's nonsense.
• 16:17
  You could look at my book Vitamized Health.
• 16:19
  It explains the role of intravenous vitamins and
• 16:22
  vitamins in general in detail. Suffice it to say that the
• 16:26
  effect of these vitamins is durable beyond the length of
• 16:29
  time that it stays in the body. I like B6 because it supports
• 16:35
  the immune system. It has collateral benefit in
• 16:38
  addition to its potential benefit and anti tumor effect.
• 16:42
  I like the fact that its relationship has been associated
• 16:47
  with decreased propagation of cancer.
• 16:51
  It's not proven benefit, it's not a cure for cancer, but it's
• 16:55
  a safe water soluble vitamin that you need.
• 16:58
  It's an essential vitamin, supports immune function.
• 17:01
  How much do you need? Well, it may vary depending on
• 17:05
  your stress level. However, it can be harmful.
• 17:10
  Do not take more than 100 milligrams per day.
• 17:14
  It can cause neuropathy, burning and tingling in the hands and
• 17:17
  fingers, altered balance, altered vision.
• 17:21
  So for those of you that are taking multiple supplements,
• 17:25
  look for B6 add em up. It better be below 100
• 17:29
  milligrams. If not then junk some of them.
• 17:32
  You want to stay in a safe range.
• 17:34
  Folks. There's a lot to talk about.
• 17:37
  These supplements are an important adjunct, but I want
• 17:41
  you to be focused. Do not choke on 20 supplements.
• 17:45
  Do not chase the bread crumbs to highly promoted supplements that
• 17:51
  have little to no value. I'm going to try to help guide
• 17:54
  you through those more to talk about.
• 17:56
  I'll leave you with one that I that highly promoted but has no
• 18:01
  merit. Apricot seeds.
• 18:03
  Just stop already. I get it.
• 18:06
  They have some leotryl in them, and leotryl might have value in
• 18:12
  cancer. It's illegal to use in the
• 18:13
  United States. It's available in Mexico
• 18:15
  intravenously for many reasons. I don't advocate that you head
• 18:18
  to Mexico to get it, not the least of which is the expense
• 18:22
  and my approach that is chronic suppression rather than acute
• 18:27
  intervention. But apricot seeds cannot acquire
• 18:31
  levels sufficient to have any impact.
• 18:35
  And if you attempt to acquire high enough levels, it can be
• 18:38
  toxic. Cyanide poisoning can occur.
• 18:42
  So just leave the apricot seeds aside.
• 18:44
  Vitamin D, absolutely. With vitamin K add it.
• 18:49
  Vitamin B6, you got it. Don't go above 100 milligrams.
• 18:52
  We'll talk about some other of the foundational components in
• 18:56
  Part 2. Maybe also highlight some of the
• 18:59
  ones to avoid. Thanks for your time.
• 19:01
  We'll catch you next on the podcast.