Posted by Larry Hoover on December 25, 2015, at 13:48:34
In reply to Re: N-acetylcysteine Study --) Skin cancer cells » PeterMartin, posted by SLS on October 10, 2015, at 7:17:00
There is another thread on NAC, above, where this concern was raised, but I think it's more appropriate to discuss it further, on this thread.
I was unable to access the full-text version of the study reported here, so I could not answer some important methodological questions I had. I am not disputing the results reported, but here's an article (full-text) that provides evidence completely contradicting this newer work:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3792213/Also, I found a number of articles which show that NAC protects vulnerable skin tissue from undergoing malignant transformation, both in humans and mice. (also full-text)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2787788/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409148/I just don't know that there is enough clear evidence to form a conclusive opinion about risk/reward of NAC supplementation. I personally have all of the high-risk concerns for developing melanoma, and I'm not going to stop taking NAC.
As an aside to this discussion, references to vitamin E supplementation increasing the risk of prostate cancer are based entirely on flawed methodology (which is one thing that I closely examine). The vitamin E study that showed negative effects used synthetic vitamin E (d,l-alpha tocopherol), which not only includes 50% by weight of a substance not found in nature, but which also displaces the gamma-tocopherol required for prostate health. The researchers actually discussed this issue before they conducted the experiment, but they went with synthetic vitamin E simply because it is readily available. In the final report, they did not once raise the alpha/gamma vitamin E issue.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:1083313
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20150301/msgs/1084967.html