This is not the first recent study questioning the use of anti-oxidants as supposed helpers in preventing disease.
A recent very large study in Europe on finding no correlation between high-dosage use of anti-oxidants and improved health outcomes looked at the cellular workings of anti-oxidants, and some indicators in their study that suggested health outcomes were more negative with high anti-oxidant doses, and insignificantly different with moderate doses. They looked for why.
They looked at what exactly “positive” antioxidants do. Primarily they help inhibit cell death. They do that without discrimination of the cells or cell type. What about “bad” cells, like cancer or pre-cancer, or even slightly “bad” cells an organ would be better off if the cell died. Those too have “normal” cell death inhibited by antioxidants. In other words, good or bad, antioxidants are an equal opportunity life saver to cells - any kind, including some you’d be better off without.
Isn’t there already natural processes trying to extend cell life and permit proper cell death? Yes. Does it seem antioxidants improve those processes. No. Added to the bloodstream they provide signals that help decrease the bodies production of normal cell protection and normal cell death processes, as if THEY, the “antioxidants” were going to do more of that job.
Eat a good balanced and nutritious diet, and let the supplements industry survive without you.
Grapeseed extract causes destruction of cancer cells while leaving normals cells untouched. However, you have to have enough of it for it to induce cancer destruction, otherwise it acts as a more conventional antioxidant.
It works against cancer even when the cancer has become cisplaten resistant and the p53 gene goes bad.