Page 8 - The DHEA Debate - Life Extensions Magazine

of the mice were fed DHEA. At the end of the experiment, the DHEA-supplemented mice had a
significant decrease in precancerous lesions compared to controls.88
In another animal study, small doses of DHEA were shown to significantly prevent breast
cancer. DHEA treatment resulted in a marked reduction in tumor incidence and a whopping
92% reduction in tumor size compared to controls.89

Naysayer: But these are animal studies. They don’t prove that DHEA prevents breast cancer in
human beings.

Stephen Cherniske: Agreed. But they certainly disprove your “sky-is-falling” diatribe that DHEA
might cause breast cancer. There isn’t any evidence whatsoever that DHEA increases risk for
breast cancer. In fact, a study published in the prestigious journal The Lancet showed a
remarkable correlation between breast cancer and low DHEA levels.
In this longitudinal study, researchers measured DHEA metabolites in 5,000 women, and then
followed these subjects for nine years for breast cancer. DHEA levels were significantly lower in
cases (women who were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer) compared to matched
controls, leading the researchers to conclude that women with low DHEA levels are at increased
risk for breast cancer.90
So the breast cancer scare is a red herring. You also claim that DHEA might cause prostate
cancer, when all the evidence is to the contrary.

Naysayer: I disagree. DHEA can be converted to testosterone.

Stephen Cherniske: So? Human studies show that there is no correlation between DHEA or
testosterone and prostate cancer.91-95 In- vitro studies show that DHEA actually inhibits
prostate cancer,96 and even giving massive amounts of DHEA to animals does not induce
abnormal growth in the prostate. A study published in the journal Cancer Research states:
“No effect on the development of prostate cancer precursor lesions was observed when
mice were treated with DHEA.”83

Naysayer: But I’ve read in dozens of articles that DHEA might cause prostate cancer. All of
those articles can’t be wrong.

Stephen Cherniske: Sure they can. Journalists are not scientists. If they believe their source to
be accurate, they print the information without checking the medical literature. Then the story is
repeated and, as you know, if an error is repeated enough, it appears to be true. If journalists
were willing or able to carefully research this topic, they’d find an animal study reported in the
European Journal of Urology that concludes:
“DHEA and 9-cis-retinoic acid are the most active [cancer-preventive] agents identified to
date. DHEA inhibits prostate cancer induction both when chronic administration is begun
prior to carcinogen exposure, and when administration is delayed until preneoplastic
pros-tate lesions are present.”97
Notice that DHEA administration inhibited prostate cancer when given prior to carcinogen
exposure, and was effective even after the initial stages of prostate cancer.

Naysayer: But again, that’s an animal study.

Stephen Cherniske: And animal studies are routinely used to establish safety and efficacy,
especially when there is no evidence that DHEA might cause or accelerate abnormal prostate
growth in humans.

Naysayer: There must be evidence.