Thank you Chris for the balanced article clarifying this study. Are you currently experimenting with any of these supplements NAD+ related supplements, Niacain/Niacinamide/Nicotinamide riboside/etc?
I have some in my cabinet, but I’m currently doing a much more important experiment that requires my supplements stay constant and it’s related to biotin so I’m not taking them now.
Thank you, I am also doing a biotin experiment using a supplement, so far 5-days in I have not experienced any noticeable changes, nevertheless very interested to hear the results of your experiment once concluded if you end up sharing.
I will do a big write up. I would think that adjusting the dose like that wouldn’t do much unless you’re very deficient, in a short period like 5 days, since it would take a while to build up body stores.
I wish the corrupted FDA considered mouse studies the way you put it in this article, instead of the way they say it.
"The study doesn’t show anything about what happens to human taking NR at any dose.
However, the study does raise a safety concern that as little as 23-29 milligrams of NR per day could fuel cancer growth and metastasis in specific patient populations to whom we believe this mouse model might be generalized."
FYI - Eighteen months after successful treatment of Lymphoma (axilla) I tried NMN on the recommendation of a Harvard medical researcher active online. Within a week of starting NMN what I thought was a cyst had formed in my lower left jaw. The "cyst" was 2 centimetres in diameter after 10 days, and I stopped taking the NMN as it seemed too much of a coincidence. A year later the "cyst" had not grown further, and I had it surgically removed. The "cyst" was routinely biopsied and declared to be lymphoma. Subsequent PET-CT scans were negative. Just putting this out there...
Your calculation for HED for the 400mg/kg of NR given to the mice is this study seems incorrect. For some reason you divided by 1230 instead of by 12.3 - which would give you 32.5mg/kg for a person or about a dose of 2276mg for a 70 kg person. Big difference don’t you think.
Really appreciate the analysis. What is the normal conversion from NR to NAD in mice cells? If there's a differencem maybe that ratio ought to apply when extrapolating dosage from mice to human.
Also it seems strange to just pick on NR supplementation as it can be generalized to any nutrient essential for cell function or growth, like you mentioned with protein. I wonder if this is why I've read many cases that a 21 day water fast works as an immediate an effective cancer intervention.
I agree NR shouldn't be singled out. I don't think the authors were doing that, they were simply looking at a specific topic. I think I was clear that this lies in the context of anything needed for growth.
I don't think the conversion in mice cells matters. What matters is the dependency of the cancer cell. I think you are on to the right idea, but what you want to know is if triple-negative breast cancer cells from humans have the same NR-dependency that the ones from mice have. I believe the way they handled this given what is known was correct.
I ordered the Vitamins and Minerals cheat sheet and have never received a link. I have sent two follow-up emails requesting the information that I purchased. Crickets.
I would like to buy additional material but am put off by the lack of response. Is anyone else experiencing something similar???
They need to vilify the NAD+ supplements so they can be taken off the market before China releases one of the viral hemorrhagic fever viruses. They kill by depleting NAD+.
Most likely the rosacea was healing from a nutritional effect of the niacin that would have occurred with any form. Peter Attia told me healing rosacea is the one thing that has stood out from putting his patients on NR. Skin has a very high requirement for niacin as a result of UV-induced DNA damage on the exposed parts.
On the other hand the drug-like effect of nicotinic acid on free fatty acid release, which has the hypolipidemic effect, is only obtainable with nicotinic acid (called “niacin” on supplement labels) and would not replicate with other forms.
I’m glad they never came back!
I agree with you on Pharma but that isn’t a useful framework for understanding these studies. They are putting their effort into skewing large RCTs. Their animal experiments are kept secret in-house and are for R&D most of the time. It’s highly unlikely some random mouse experiment in a journal about biosensors is a Pharma psyop.
I think you’re reading this into it based on the social media reaction to it. But the social media reaction is not a result of the study. It’s a result of the religious fervor within supplement advocates to knee-jerk attack anything that criticizes supplements.
Certainly the banking industry wants to take down decentralized crypto, but that doesn’t mean Tether isn’t being printed out of thin air or that FTX isn’t a complete fraud.
Motivations are real, but evidence needs to be analyzed on its own merit.
This study isn’t demonizing niacin at all. You should read through the intro and discussion. The cite lots of potential benefits and they limit their conclusions to saying they are drawing attention to the need to individually tailor supplementation to specific patient populations.
I think that’s a ridiculous conclusion as you do, but I don’t think it’s any less ridiculous to dismiss the ability of otherwise good nutrients to fuel cancer. Once you have cancer, nutrition is quite tricky and we have a lot to learn.
Sure, but that niacin should be such a target does not invalidate the results of any study that raises questions about it. That filter does not allow anything you believe to be helpful to ever be shown to have any downsides.
Yes, but as I wrote you have a tug of war once a cancer is established, and you still need to be well nourished but you need strategic ways to not make that equally feed the cancer. It is best to be well nourished to begin with in hopes this prevents a cancer from establishing in the first place.
Thank you Chris for the balanced article clarifying this study. Are you currently experimenting with any of these supplements NAD+ related supplements, Niacain/Niacinamide/Nicotinamide riboside/etc?
I have some in my cabinet, but I’m currently doing a much more important experiment that requires my supplements stay constant and it’s related to biotin so I’m not taking them now.
Thank you, I am also doing a biotin experiment using a supplement, so far 5-days in I have not experienced any noticeable changes, nevertheless very interested to hear the results of your experiment once concluded if you end up sharing.
I will do a big write up. I would think that adjusting the dose like that wouldn’t do much unless you’re very deficient, in a short period like 5 days, since it would take a while to build up body stores.
I wish the corrupted FDA considered mouse studies the way you put it in this article, instead of the way they say it.
"The study doesn’t show anything about what happens to human taking NR at any dose.
However, the study does raise a safety concern that as little as 23-29 milligrams of NR per day could fuel cancer growth and metastasis in specific patient populations to whom we believe this mouse model might be generalized."
Now, that's science! Not TheScience™
Actually, the safety factors I got are from the FDA.
So that is officially FDA guidance.
However, they do not apply any semblance of their own guidance to COVID vaccines. Everything went completely out the window.
FYI - Eighteen months after successful treatment of Lymphoma (axilla) I tried NMN on the recommendation of a Harvard medical researcher active online. Within a week of starting NMN what I thought was a cyst had formed in my lower left jaw. The "cyst" was 2 centimetres in diameter after 10 days, and I stopped taking the NMN as it seemed too much of a coincidence. A year later the "cyst" had not grown further, and I had it surgically removed. The "cyst" was routinely biopsied and declared to be lymphoma. Subsequent PET-CT scans were negative. Just putting this out there...
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing!
Your calculation for HED for the 400mg/kg of NR given to the mice is this study seems incorrect. For some reason you divided by 1230 instead of by 12.3 - which would give you 32.5mg/kg for a person or about a dose of 2276mg for a 70 kg person. Big difference don’t you think.
My calculation is correct and fully explained. I detailed each step of the calculation.
Really appreciate the analysis. What is the normal conversion from NR to NAD in mice cells? If there's a differencem maybe that ratio ought to apply when extrapolating dosage from mice to human.
Also it seems strange to just pick on NR supplementation as it can be generalized to any nutrient essential for cell function or growth, like you mentioned with protein. I wonder if this is why I've read many cases that a 21 day water fast works as an immediate an effective cancer intervention.
I agree NR shouldn't be singled out. I don't think the authors were doing that, they were simply looking at a specific topic. I think I was clear that this lies in the context of anything needed for growth.
I don't think the conversion in mice cells matters. What matters is the dependency of the cancer cell. I think you are on to the right idea, but what you want to know is if triple-negative breast cancer cells from humans have the same NR-dependency that the ones from mice have. I believe the way they handled this given what is known was correct.
I ordered the Vitamins and Minerals cheat sheet and have never received a link. I have sent two follow-up emails requesting the information that I purchased. Crickets.
I would like to buy additional material but am put off by the lack of response. Is anyone else experiencing something similar???
Did you email support@chrismasterjohnphd.com?
They need to vilify the NAD+ supplements so they can be taken off the market before China releases one of the viral hemorrhagic fever viruses. They kill by depleting NAD+.
I think you should read the paper. It’s hardly villifying at all.
Most likely the rosacea was healing from a nutritional effect of the niacin that would have occurred with any form. Peter Attia told me healing rosacea is the one thing that has stood out from putting his patients on NR. Skin has a very high requirement for niacin as a result of UV-induced DNA damage on the exposed parts.
On the other hand the drug-like effect of nicotinic acid on free fatty acid release, which has the hypolipidemic effect, is only obtainable with nicotinic acid (called “niacin” on supplement labels) and would not replicate with other forms.
I’m glad they never came back!
I agree with you on Pharma but that isn’t a useful framework for understanding these studies. They are putting their effort into skewing large RCTs. Their animal experiments are kept secret in-house and are for R&D most of the time. It’s highly unlikely some random mouse experiment in a journal about biosensors is a Pharma psyop.
I think you’re reading this into it based on the social media reaction to it. But the social media reaction is not a result of the study. It’s a result of the religious fervor within supplement advocates to knee-jerk attack anything that criticizes supplements.
Certainly the banking industry wants to take down decentralized crypto, but that doesn’t mean Tether isn’t being printed out of thin air or that FTX isn’t a complete fraud.
Motivations are real, but evidence needs to be analyzed on its own merit.
This study isn’t demonizing niacin at all. You should read through the intro and discussion. The cite lots of potential benefits and they limit their conclusions to saying they are drawing attention to the need to individually tailor supplementation to specific patient populations.
I think that’s a ridiculous conclusion as you do, but I don’t think it’s any less ridiculous to dismiss the ability of otherwise good nutrients to fuel cancer. Once you have cancer, nutrition is quite tricky and we have a lot to learn.
Sure, but that niacin should be such a target does not invalidate the results of any study that raises questions about it. That filter does not allow anything you believe to be helpful to ever be shown to have any downsides.
I think what you and I are saying are the same, up to the point where someone already has cancer, at which point the emphasis has to shift.
Yes, but as I wrote you have a tug of war once a cancer is established, and you still need to be well nourished but you need strategic ways to not make that equally feed the cancer. It is best to be well nourished to begin with in hopes this prevents a cancer from establishing in the first place.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!