This topic is locked
Posted 04 July 2017 - 10:45 PM
Have anyone heard about any Niagen users getting cancer? We should have thousands getting cancer just from probability. If none has gotten cancer after taking Niagen, it proves Niagen is extremely anti cancer.
Your premises are wrong. Even for something as horrendously carcinogenic as smoking, it takes 20-30 years for a population-level change in prevalence to be reflected in subsequent cancer incidence — and it takes decades after that to pin the tail on the epidemiological donkey. Scientists began suggesting a link between smoking and lung cancer back in WWII: despite the fact that about 40% of the population was smoking, and that most smokers do so every day for their entire adult lives, it still took over two decades before the case began to be widely accepted, and another decade or two before controversy died down.
And that assumes that some epidemiological study is recording the use of the exposure, which absolutely no one is doing right now for NR.
Edited by Michael, 05 July 2017 - 04:38 PM.
Clarifying sentence; removing now-redundant thread move notice
Posted 05 July 2017 - 05:13 PM
I actually disagree with Micheal. I'm no epidemiologist but I think proving a causal link is much harder than showing a coumpound breaks the causal chain.
Its probably still way to early to tell, but the premise is that in a few years time, you control for confounding variables (which would be all but impossible among users of this forum, we are most all taking multiple unusual chemicals) and find that instead of 150 cases of cancer that you would expect from the general population, you only have say 60. That would be good evidence that SOMETHING this group of people is doing reduces their cancer incidence. Because of all the confounding amongst us as a cohort, you would never be able to tease out the cause.
The number I gave made it seem obvious, but what about 135 cases vs 150. Then you'd really have to wonder and rely on the statistical analysis.
Posted 07 July 2017 - 10:37 AM
Posted 12 July 2017 - 08:14 PM
Seems the company selling this stuff should at the least give large doses to rodents and see what happens. They owe their customers that imo.
Posted 13 July 2017 - 03:15 AM
Seems the company selling this stuff should at the least give large doses to rodents and see what happens. They owe their customers that imo.
FDA has done that before approving Niagen as a new dietary ingredient. The safe dose for humans is 10x the recommended dose of 250mg.
First, just narrowly: FDA has not done that, nor anything like it. FDA doesn't test any dietary supplements for safety or toxicity or efficacy or anything else. All work — whether new or based on literature reviews — is done or submitted by the sponsor (in this case Chromadex).
Second: in practice, FDA does not approve supplement NDIs. ChromaDex filed a New Dietary Ingredient Notification (NDIN), and FDA sent them a letter of acknowledgement without objection — that's it. Welcome to the world after DSHEA and a lot of aggressive lawsuits by the supplement industry
What Chromadex did do was submit a GRAS application (to their credit: lots of people do a "self-affirmed" GRAS, which is often just a bluff. (More on the flawed, Orwellian "Generally Recognized as Safe" designation)). As part of that GRAS, they cited their published acute and subacute toxicity studies — ie, researchers on their behalf did indeed give large doses to rodents and see what happens. But only for 1 and 90 days, respectively. So:
I started the thead to find evidence that Niagen reduce cancer risk.
A better question from which to start would be to seek out evidence and arguments on what effect NR might have on cancer risk one way or the other, in an open-ended way. I assume that's what Mike C was suggesting: give large doses to rodents over a substantial part of their lifespan and see what happens. If it were carcinogenic or cancer-preventive, you'd expect to see an effect on cancer incidence, progression, or mortality — possibly within 2 years, and certainly over a lifetime if the study were adequately powered. However, Chromadex hasn't done that, and there are no necropsies to go with the Zhang/Auwerx Science paper, so we don't know of what the animals died.
Posted 13 July 2017 - 12:28 PM
https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4905329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/25453901
http://www.scripps.edu/felding/ (This study used Nicotinamide. ChromaDex recently signed an agreement with Felding to extend to humans and use Niagen in breast cancer therapy)
Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:04 PM
MightyMouse, Mike DC, and Able's digression on the Chromadex/Martens NR trial is now over on the thread on forthcoming human NR trials.
Edited by Michael, 17 July 2017 - 12:26 AM.
Posted 17 July 2017 - 11:17 AM
New study showing NAD+ boosting with NR stops NAFLD. As NAFLD can lead to cirrhosis which is an increased risk of liver cancer this study somewhat supports MIkeDC's hypothesis.
In this study we evaluated the potential of Nicotinamide Riboside (NR) as a therapeutic agent against the development of NAFLD. First, we observed a positive correlation between gene sets for β-oxidation and genes involved in NAD+ biosynthesis in two distinct data sets of healthy human liver samples supporting the function of NAD+ as a coenzyme in key metabolic processes. Then we showed that NAD+ repletion using NR, an NAD+ booster, attenuated mitochondrial dysfunction and prevented and reversed fatty liver development in a several mouse models of NAFLD.
https://infoscience....h/record/229863
Posted 19 July 2017 - 09:25 AM
Paper studies:
Developing evidence in the literature suggests that SIRT5 may be involved in metabolic reprogramming, an emerging hallmark of cancer by which neoplastic cells reconfigure their metabolism to support the anabolic demands of rapid cell division. Sirtuin 5 (SIRT5) is one of the seven members of the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+)-dependent sirtuin family of lysine deacylases. It removes succinyl, malonyl, and glutaryl groups from protein targets within the mitochondrial matrix and other subcellular compartments. SIRT5’s substrates include a number of proteins integral to metabolism. Recent Advances: New work has begun to elucidate the roles of SIRT5 in glycolysis, TCA cycle, FAO, nitrogen metabolism, pentose phosphate pathway, antioxidant defense, and apoptosis.
http://online.lieber...9/ars.2017.7264
The sirtuins are a family of proteins that comprise class III of the histone deacetylases. These NAD+-dependent proteins have been found to be intricately involved in a variety of important and skin-relevant cellular functions and processes, including aging, UV damage response, oxidative stress, and wound repair. In addition, recent research is unraveling the role of sirtuins in a variety of skin diseases, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. In this review, we provide a discussion on the potential roles and implications of different sirtuins in skin-specific cellular processes, which may have relevance to skin health and skin diseases. Based on the available literature, the sirtuins appear to be important targets in the management of a variety of skin diseases from cosmetic (e.g., skin aging) to fatal conditions (e.g., melanoma).
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/28704830
Edited by stefan_001, 19 July 2017 - 09:26 AM.
Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:48 PM
Ok, well--I took NR over the summer... Now I have some cancer (which I expect to beat but not without cost). But of course as most users here I've experimented with lots of supplements and I'm just providing anecdata here. But looking back and reading the fine print, it may be worth noting that NR may both prevent cancer from initiating and also protect a tumor once it arises. While I was taking NR I was also taking broccoli sprouts (heated optimally) which are recommended as a cancer preventative...
Posted 11 November 2017 - 08:12 PM
Edited by stefan_001, 11 November 2017 - 08:12 PM.
Posted 11 November 2017 - 09:03 PM
Ok, well--I took NR over the summer... Now I have some cancer (which I expect to beat but not without cost). But of course as most users here I've experimented with lots of supplements and I'm just providing anecdata here. But looking back and reading the fine print, it may be worth noting that NR may both prevent cancer from initiating and also protect a tumor once it arises. While I was taking NR I was also taking broccoli sprouts (heated optimally) which are recommended as a cancer preventative...
Note that NR increases NAD+/NADH and that increases mitochondrial fission, while the sulforaphane in broccoli increases mitochondrial fusion, so these two things were working at cross purposes.
Edited by Turnbuckle, 11 November 2017 - 09:04 PM.
Posted 18 November 2017 - 06:50 PM
Normalization of energy metabolism halts breast cancer progression, NAD+ precursor treatment restores a normal balance:
http://www.scripps.edu/felding/
Posted 25 January 2024 - 01:50 PM
Anecdote:
I took high doses of Niagen for several years to combat Spinocerbellar Ataxia Type 1 (see my post on the topic). I now have Stage IV rectal cancer at 57. No family history of such and otherwise a healthy individual. I am vegan and have been for years as well.
Targeting the NAD+ salvage pathway suppresses APC mutation-driven colorectal cancer growth and Wnt/β-catenin signaling via increasing Axin level
Edited by 2Sunny, 25 January 2024 - 01:52 PM.
Posted 25 January 2024 - 06:01 PM
Anecdote:
I took high doses of Niagen for several years to combat Spinocerbellar Ataxia Type 1 (see my post on the topic). I now have Stage IV rectal cancer at 57. No family history of such and otherwise a healthy individual. I am vegan and have been for years as well.
Targeting the NAD+ salvage pathway suppresses APC mutation-driven colorectal cancer growth and Wnt/β-catenin signaling via increasing Axin level
Posted 28 January 2024 - 03:59 PM
Rectal cancer takes many many years to develop. It is very likely that it started before you took Niagen.
That may well be the case, but that shouldn't dismiss the concerns Joe has raised - the question is whether or not NAD precursors could accelerate tumor growth - that is a big deal, and that is what the paper suggests to be possible.
I seem to recall you stating a few years back, that you wouldn't want to be taking NR if you had cancer, even though, you suggesting it could be cancer preventative - they are obviously not inconsistent propositions.
Posted 28 January 2024 - 04:13 PM
"Not clear" should invite caution, Mike - it may well be that we need better cancer-monitoring with NAD precursors. The NAD/cancer concern has lingered for some time, and still makes me cautious over recommending it: we are after all, restoring one celllar component of our body to youthful levels and seeing how things result on the age-degraded rest of our body.
That said, I would have made the same decision as Joe, given the circumstances and the response he attained, and have taken much higher doses - and there is no certainy NR played a role in the cancer.
Posted 14 February 2024 - 07:13 AM
"Not clear" should invite caution, Mike - it may well be that we need better cancer-monitoring with NAD precursors. The NAD/cancer concern has lingered for some time, and still makes me cautious over recommending it: we are after all, restoring one celllar component of our body to youthful levels and seeing how things result on the age-degraded rest of our body.
That said, I would have made the same decision as Joe, given the circumstances and the response he attained, and have taken much higher doses - and there is no certainy NR played a role in the cancer.
-Keeping Vit D levels up
https://www.grassroo...-chart-in-ngml/
-IP6 and mushrooms extract(AHCC or turkey tail)
https://www.jeffbake...r-killer-cells/
-taking quercetin to recycle Resveratrol will also help with cancer. Adding curcumin will work with curcumin also
https://search.brave...ncer&source=web
I think there are easy preventatives for cancer if you want to continue NAD+
Some of these discussions were also had with NAC on this board
https://search.brave...&source=desktop
Edited by Gal220, 14 February 2024 - 07:16 AM.
Posted 16 July 2024 - 02:25 AM
To add a new factor to the cancer issue, when this thread started, there was no MRNA vaccine. Now there is. And here is a new study, that indicates that people with two or more doses of the Biontec (Pfizer) vaccine have a higher chance of acquiring a specific form of colorectal cancer.
https://www.cureus.c...colon-cancer#!/
Posted 16 July 2024 - 03:37 PM
I haven't read through the paper but I caught this quote:
"Smoking and diabetes history did not differ between groups."
26% vs 37% for diabetes. Significant enough to pay attention to, I would have thought. While the metric of BMI < or > 25 maybe be useful, it is seems odd not to include the average, because the "how much" matters especially when there are very significant differences - these BMI's could on average in theory be quite similar, or at the very least not appear as distorting.
0 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
