The Orthomolecular Approach In Cancer Management

Cancer is a group of diseases in which cells are aggressive, invasive, and frequently metastatic. Cancer may affect people at all ages. There is no great difference in the essential nutrients required by the body to fight the different type of cancer. Existing orthomolecular research indicates that most cancers may be treated with the same regimen of vitamins because orthomolecular treatments for cancer do not focus on the cancer tissues themselves, but rather attempt to boost the body’s own natural defense system to control the cancerous growths.

Orthomolecular Approach
My orthomolecular approach suggests a comprehensive nutrient program at De Men’s clinic & Prostate Research at Dodowa-Akoto House. Recently, a patient diagnosed with biopsy proven prostate cancer with PSA of 20.12ng/ml was placed on this approach. After three month, his PSA fell to 17.02ng/ml very encouraging meaning the approach was good. This must be combined with a balanced food intake to assist in boosting the body’s own natural defense mechanism. No alternative treatment is effective without a balanced food intake or the prostate diet.

Vitamin C is the main required vitamin for boosting natural immunity. In my approach I prefer 6,000 to 12,000mg. Treatment with vitamin C and other antioxidants does not interfere with standard treatment of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy traditionally used as methods to treat cancer by oncologists.

Abram Hoffer, M.D., has found by observing over 1,500 cancer patients, that there is no negative interaction from vitamin C while patients are undergoing chemotherapy. In fact, vitamin treatment of these patients has resulted in prolongation of life. Another study indicated that the overall 5 year survival rate for chemotherapy patients was less than 2.5% whereas a review of orthomolecular therapy has showed the survival rate to be 4 times as effective as chemotherapy.

Diet is very important. Foods that contain selenium help decrease the incidence of cancer. A diet which is rich in vegetables, fruit and fish, avoids sugars, alcohol, red meat and chemicals should also decrease the incidence of cancer.

Orthomolecular treatment of cancer could include the use of the following supplements:

• Vitamin B3 Niacin and Niacinamide
• Vitamin B Complex
• Vitamin E (Alpha tocopherol Succinate)
• Vitamin D3
• Folic Acid
• Selenium
• Zinc Citrate
• Coenzyme Q10
• Curcumin
• Salvestrols
• cordyceps

*A customized program must be developed by an orthomolecular practitioner. With my patients I also add more green tea; the best green comes from Japan and China. Hisbiscus known as ‘Sobolo’ in Ghana is also effective but no sugars, just take it raw. Your PSA is the best marker for the disease management or progressing and not the prostate size or volume and most herbal practitioners are making lot of mistakes by focusing on the prostate volume or size for declaring or making claims of healing for their prostate patients. The important marker to know if treatment is effective is the PSA test and not the prostate volume.

"Orthomolecular therapy" is defined by its proponents as "the treatment of disease by varying the concentrations of substances normally present in the human body." Its proponents claim that many diseases are caused by molecular imbalances that are correctable by administration of the "right" nutrient molecules at the right time. (Ortho is Greek for "right."). Cancer is a systemic disease and results as a failure of the immune system to do its work.

Orthomolecular therapy dates back to the early 1950s when a few psychiatrists began adding massive doses of nutrients to their treatment of severe mental problems. The original substance was vitamin B3 (nicotinic acid or nicotinamide), and the therapy was termed "megavitamin therapy." Later the treatment regimen was expanded to include other vitamins, minerals, hormones, and diets, any of which may be combined with conventional drug therapy and electroshock treatments. A few hundred physicians now use this approach to treat a variety of conditions, both mental and physical.

During the 1980s, for example, the Princeton Brain Bio Center (not affiliated with Princeton University), in Skillman, New Jersey, touted its "nutritional" treatment for alcoholism, allergies, arthritis, autism, epilepsy, hypertension, hypoglycemia, migraine headaches, depression, learning disabilities, retardation, mental and metabolic disorders, skin problems, and hyperactivity . Its services included laboratory tests that most physicians would not consider necessary or useful for diagnosing these disorders.

Critical Analyses
Numerous expert teams have examined the claims of "orthomolecular" proponents and concluded that they are unsubstantiated. In the early 1970s, a special American Psychiatric Association task force investigated the claims of psychiatrists who espoused the orthomolecular approach. The task force noted that these practitioners used unconventional methods not only in treatment but also for diagnosis. Its conclusion was probably the most strongly worded statement ever published by a scientific review body:

This review and critique has carefully examined the literature produced by megavitamin proponents and by those who have attempted to replicate their basic and clinical work. It concludes in this regard that the credibility of the megavitamin proponents is low. Their credibility is further diminished by a consistent refusal over the past decade to perform controlled experiments and to report their new results in a scientifically acceptable fashion.

Under these circumstances this Task Force considers the massive publicity which they promulgate via radio, the lay press and popular books, using catch phrases which are really misnomers like "megavitamin therapy" and "orthomolecular treatment," to be dreadful.

The Research Advisory Committee of the National Institute of Mental Health reviewed pertinent scientific data through 1979 and agreed that megavitamin therapy was ineffective and could be harmful. After the U.S. Defense Subcommittee looked into this therapy, it was removed as a treatment covered by CHAMPUS, the insurance program for military dependents.

Various claims that megavitamins and megaminerals are effective against psychosis, learning disorders, and mental retardation in children were debunked in reports by the nutrition committees of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 1976 and 1981 and by the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics in 1990 and 2000 . Both groups warned that there was no proven benefit in any of these conditions and that megadoses can have serious toxic effects. The 1976 AAP report concluded that a "cult" had developed among followers of megavitamin therapy.

In 1991, Dutch researchers reported their evaluation of 53 controlled trials of the effects of niacin, vitamin B6, and multivitamins on mental functions. They concluded:

Virtually all trials show serious shortcomings: in the number of participants, the presentation of baseline characteristics and outcomes, and the description of changes in concomitant treatments. Only in autistic children are some positive results are found with very high dosages of vitamin B6 combined with magnesium, but further evidence is needed before more definitive conclusions can be drawn. For many other indications (hyperactive children, children with Down's syndrome, IQ changes in healthy schoolchildren, schizophrenia, psychological functions in healthy adults and geriatric patients) there is no adequate support from controlled trials in favor of vitamin supplementation.

Subsequently, an American team using an extensive computer search was able to locate 12 studies on B6 and magnesium for autism. Their analysis, published in 1995, concluded:

The majority of studies report a favorable response to vitamin treatment. However, interpretation of these positive findings needs to be tempered because of methodological shortcomings inherent in many of the studies. For example, a number of studies employed imprecise outcome measures, were based on small samples and possible repeat use of the same subjects in more than one study, did not adjust for regression effects in measuring improvement, and omitted collecting long-term follow-up data.

All 12 of these studies appear to have been written by researchers who are close associates. (One person, for example, coauthored eleven of the reports.) Each of the studies used at least 600 mg per day of vitamin B6, which is well above the minimum amount reported to cause nerve damage. So even if such doses of B6 are effective, they are probably not safe to use.

A recent randomized double-blind study found no evidence that regulating the vitamin levels of adult schizophrenics influenced the clinical status of 19 adult schizophrenic patients. The experimental group received amounts of megavitamins based on their individual serum vitamin levels plus dietary restriction based on Radioallergosorbent (RAST) tests. The control group received 25 mg vitamin C and was prescribed substances considered allergenic from the RAST test. After five months, there were marked differences in serum levels of vitamins but no consistent symptomatic or behavioral differences between the groups.

The Bottom Line
I am objective in my information to my patients whether conventional or alternative. The human body has limited capacity to use vitamins in its metabolic activities. When vitamins are consumed in excess of the body's physiological needs, they function as drugs rather than vitamins. A few situations exist in which high doses of vitamins are known to be beneficial, but they must still be used with caution because of potential toxicity. For example, large doses of niacin can be very useful as part of a comprehensive, medically supervised program for controlling abnormal blood cholesterol levels. Some "Orthomolecular" practitioners go far beyond this, however, by prescribing large amounts of supplements to all or most of the patients who consult them. The approach can result in great harm to cancer patients when used instead of effective medications. My approach to my cancer patients is evidence based.

Dr. Raphael Nyarkotey Obu is a prostate cancer researcher, policy maker and registered alternative medical practitioner. He holds PhD in alternative medicine and his research focuses on the impact of alternative medicine in Ghanaian men of West African descent diagnosed with prostate cancer and the use of the local plant croton membranaceus. He can be reached on 0541090045.