Vitality Unleashed: The Functional Medicine Podcast

Baking Soda vs. Cancer: What Science Really Shows

• Dr. Kumar from LifeWellMD.com • Season 1 • Episode 143

Share episode

Send us a text

Could something as ordinary as baking soda play a role in fighting cancer? The science behind this question reveals a fascinating intersection of basic chemistry and complex cancer biology that's generated both legitimate research and dangerous misinformation.

Tumors create their own acidic microenvironment—a brilliant evolutionary strategy that helps cancer cells invade tissues, build blood vessels, spread throughout the body, and hide from our immune system. This acidity isn't just a byproduct; it's a weapon. Scientists have wondered if neutralizing this acidity with sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) might help combat cancer growth, and the early laboratory results were intriguing enough to warrant deeper investigation.

Mouse studies showed that baking soda could reduce metastasis and slow tumor growth in certain cancer types, but these findings come with crucial caveats. The concentrations used would translate to consuming nearly half a box of baking soda daily for humans—an amount that would cause dangerous electrolyte imbalances and kidney problems. Where sodium bicarbonate shows genuine promise is as an adjunct to conventional treatments. The TELATASE procedure, which adds bicarbonate directly to chemotherapy drugs during liver cancer treatment, achieved remarkable results in a small clinical study. Similarly, common acid reflux medications like Prilosec have shown potential to enhance chemotherapy effectiveness by manipulating tumor pH.

The gap between laboratory findings and practical medical applications remains substantial. No published evidence supports using oral baking soda as a standalone cancer treatment, and attempting such self-treatment could lead to serious health complications while potentially delaying proven medical care. This exploration reminds us that medical progress comes through methodical research rather than miracle cures, and that critical thinking is our best defense against health misinformation. What health claims have you encountered online that seemed too good to be true?

Disclaimer:
The information provided in this podcast is for educational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice. Always consult with a qualified healthcare professional before making changes to your supplement regimen or health routine. Individual needs and reactions vary, so it’s important to make informed decisions with the guidance of your physician.

Connect with Us:
If you enjoyed today’s episode, be sure to subscribe, leave us a review, and share it with someone who might benefit. For more insights and updates, visit our website at Lifewellmd.com.

Stay Informed, Stay Healthy:
Remember, informed choices lead to better health. Until next time, be well and take care of yourself.

Speaker 1:

Okay, let's unpack this. Today we're taking a deep dive into a topic that pops up a lot online and sparks a ton of curiosity the potential role of baking soda in cancer treatment. You've probably seen claims or maybe heard anecdotes, perhaps from various corners of the internet, but what does the actual science say when we, you know, cut through the noise? Our mission today is really to sift through the available research, mainly looking at a comprehensive scientific review from integrative cancer therapies and some other key steddles. We're going to try and give you the clear, evidence-based facts, helping you distinguish between what's well promising in the lab and what's actually practical or safe for human health.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it's truly fascinating how a simple household item like sodium bicarb I mean baking soda can become such a flashpoint in discussions around something as complex as cancer. Our deep dive will explore the real scientific evidence, the nuanced findings, and what it actually means for anyone looking for accurate, trustworthy information, especially with all the sometimes misleading health advice out there.

Speaker 1:

Absolutely. We'll explore the fundamental biology of why tumors are often acidic. How baking soda, might you know, in theory counteract that acidity and then critically examine what the findings from both preclinical studies and the well very limited human trials truly tell us a bit about. Normal body tissues generally keep a pretty tight pH range, usually around 7.2 to 7.4, but a consistent hallmark of malignant tumors is their acidic extracellular environment, often with a pH, or pAH as it's called down around 6.5 to 6.9. It seems like a subtle difference but, as we'll see, it's anything but trivial for how the tumor behaves.

Speaker 2:

Exactly that subtle difference in acidity isn't just some random byproduct. It's actually a critical tool for the tumor. If we kind of zoom out and look at the bigger picture, tumor cells have evolved these unique metabolic patterns. They often thrive in low oxygen or hypoxic regions and they ramp up glycolysis. These processes churn out a lot of H plus ions, lactate and carbon dioxide, all contributing to that highly acidic environment right around the tumor cells.

Speaker 1:

Okay, so the tumor is essentially creating its own acidic neighborhood.

Speaker 2:

Precisely, and this isn't just a passive characteristic. This acidic microenvironment actively fuels the tumor's progression. It makes it easier for cancer cells to invade local tissues, it encourages angiogenesis, that's, the formation of new blood vessels that feed the tumor, and it even promotes distant metastasis, where cancer cells spread throughout the body. What's more, this acidity also works to suppress our immune system, letting the tumor sort of evade detection and destruction by our body's natural defenses. It's really quite a hostile takeover at the cellular level.

Speaker 1:

Wow, that's a pretty insidious mechanism. So if acidity is the tumor's weapon, is the logical counter-argument then to fight it with albalinity. And is that where baking soda enters the picture?

Speaker 2:

That's exactly the core hypothesis. If you can neutralize that acidity, perhaps you can cripple the tumor or at least slow it down. This is precisely what early researchers began investigating with sodium bicarbonate. They conducted several in vivo experiments, mostly using mouse models, to test this very idea.

Speaker 1:

Right, and some of those initial findings in mice were quite compelling, weren't they? What did they see when baking soda was used just on its own?

Speaker 2:

Indeed, yeah, the early results were promising enough to warrant further investigation. Studies showed that sodium bicarbonate could reduce the formation of spontaneous metastases and lymph node involvement in mouth models of metastatic breast, prostate and melanoma cancer. It also helped delay tumor growth in prostate, breast and colorectal cancer models and in some cases it even appeared to boost the immune system somewhat, improving CD8 plus T cell infiltration in melanoma and increasing natural killer or NK cell activity in a B cell lymphoma model.

Speaker 1:

Those early mouse experiments certainly paint a promising picture. But you know, as with all scientific breakthroughs, there's always a but, isn't there? Was baking soda considered some kind of magic bullet on its own, or did researchers quickly identify limitations?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, you're hitting on the core challenge there, because those initial studies, while exciting, they quickly showed it wasn't a standalone cure, not by a long shot. Baking soda alone was mainly effective for the less aggressive cancer cell lines, like breast cancer, m-mb231 and prostate cancer, pc3m, but for more aggressive phenotypes like B16 melanoma or Pancu2 pancreatic cancer, the mice often died rapidly from substantial tumor burdens, even with the baking soda.

Speaker 1:

Okay, so it wasn't universally effective, even in mice.

Speaker 2:

Not at all. So the biggest takeaway from those preclinical results is really a cautionary one. There's simply no clinical evidence to suggest baking soda alone could ever replace proven anti-cancer treatments. These were controlled animal studies, not a basis for self-treatment. It's incredibly important to stress this. Relying on such limited data for self-treatment could lead to really severe health risks and, crucially, divert patients from proven, effective medical care. And you see a lot of misinformation from non-medical you know biohackers and influencers on this point, which is quite dangerous.

Speaker 1:

Absolutely so. If baking soda wasn't a standalone miracle, where did the research go next? This is where it gets really interesting for me, because I imagine scientists started asking well, how could they enhance existing treatments?

Speaker 2:

Exactly. You've captured the shift perfectly. Researchers understood that the acidic microenvironment doesn't just promote tumor growth, it also makes many existing anti-cancer agents less effective. So the natural next step was to see if baking soda could maybe potentiate these conventional treatments, make them work better.

Speaker 1:

And this led to some genuinely groundbreaking findings. Didn't it Like the TELATASE procedure? Can you walk us through that? It sounds incredibly targeted.

Speaker 2:

The TELATASE procedure is a fantastic example of this combination approach. Yeah, for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or HCC, the type of liver cancer a modified TASE procedure was developed. Tasa stands for transarterial chemoembolization. This modified version involved adding a 5% sodium bicarbonate solution directly to the cytotoxic drugs like doxorubicin or oxaloplatin.

Speaker 1:

Right during the procedure.

Speaker 2:

Yes, exactly during the chemoembolization. What's truly remarkable is that, in a non-randomized cohort study by Chao and colleagues, every single patient treated with this modified TACE achieved complete or partial remission.

Speaker 1:

Wow, every single patient achieving remission in that study, that's. That's an astonishing result. It really highlights the power of precision, doesn't it?

Speaker 2:

It absolutely does. The key insight here is that this was a local application and, in combination with an established therapy, it accurately targeted the tumor microenvironment without drastically altering the pH of the entire body. This isn't about, you know, just drinking baking soda water. It's about using it as a sophisticated adjuvant therapy, something that enhances existing conventional treatments rather than replacing them.

Speaker 1:

Okay, that makes sense. Were there other combination studies that showed similar promise or maybe even some limitations in combining baking soda with other drugs, because it sounds like it might depend on the drug.

Speaker 2:

Yes, exactly, the picture is definitely nuanced In other mouse models. Bicarbonate supplemented water did increase the efficacy of doxorubicin, which is a weak base chemotherapeutic drug, by like two to three times. It also improved the therapeutic index of another drug, midoxantrone. However, it's not a universal enhancer. It actually reduced the efficacy of some weak acidic chemotherapeutics like chlorambucil, oh interesting.

Speaker 1:

So it can work against some drugs too, some weak acidic chemotherapeutics like chlorambucil.

Speaker 2:

Oh, interesting, so it can work against some drugs too. It can, yeah. We also saw positive results when combined with certain molecular targeting therapies like VEGFR2 inhibitors and MTRC1 inhibitors. But in immunotherapy the results were mixed. While it showed maybe a modest effect with anti-PD-1 therapy in some models, it had no effect with anti-CTLA-4 or adoptive T-cell therapy in others. So its role is very specific. It really depends on the type of cancer and the specific drug being used.

Speaker 1:

So this is clearly not a one-size-fits-all situation at all, which makes me wonder what does all this mean for someone considering using baking soda themselves, maybe after seeing something online? You mentioned those animal experiments used very specific concentrations.

Speaker 2:

That's a critical point to address directly. Yeah, many of those animal studies use concentrations like 200 millimolar sodium bicarbonate in drinking water. Now if you try to scale that up for a human, well, for a mouse that's roughly three grams per kilogram of body weight. For an average 70 kilogram human, that translates to an astounding 210 grams of sodium bicarbonate per day 210 grams. Yeah, to put that into perspective, a standard box of baking soda is about 454 grams. You'd be consuming almost half a box every single day.

Speaker 1:

Almost half a box a day. That sounds well. Not only impractical but also quite dangerous. Surely what kind of safety concerns would arise from such a massive dose?

Speaker 2:

Oh, absolutely. The implications here lead us straight into severe safety hazards. Chronic administration of such high doses in humans would almost certainly cause hypernatremia, that's, a dangerous excess of sodium in the blood, along with other serious metabolic disorders. You're also looking at potential kidney complications, renal issues and severe indigestion. It's simply not something you can take lightly or experiment with.

Speaker 1:

Okay, that's a very stark warning.

Speaker 2:

And it's precisely these concerns that led to a phase one clinical trial launched by a researcher named Roby. They aim to explore the tolerability and practicality of a more modest dose 0.5 grams per kilogram per day of sodium bicarbonate. They looked at it for short or long terms. However, the crucial results of this study, which was completed way back in 2016. 2016. Yeah, they have not yet been published.

Speaker 1:

Still not published. Why not?

Speaker 2:

That's the question. It means the optimal and safe dose for humans is still in dispute and we lack the essential safety and efficacy data from rigorous human trials. Without that published data, we just don't know.

Speaker 1:

So, without published human trial results and given those significant risks you just laid out, it's crystal clear this isn't something anyone should be trying at home based on anecdotes or online claims. What kind of monitoring would even be necessary if this were ever to be administered clinically, maybe in the future?

Speaker 2:

If it were ever to be clinically administered, say based on future positive trials, you'd need absolutely rigorous monitoring of both urine and blood pH. It would be essential to prevent those serious health hazards we discussed. It's a really precise balancing act. Balancing act. And again, that telatase example really underlines why local application, like direct intratumor injections, even though they're difficult to perform, has such a significant advantage it accurately targets the tumor microenvironment while being far less likely to drastically change the systemic pH, which reduces those whole body side effects. Precision is absolutely key.

Speaker 1:

Right. It seems that manipulating pH in the tumor microenvironment is definitely a hot area of research, even beyond just baking soda itself. What other buffer therapies, as I think they're called, are scientists exploring?

Speaker 2:

Indeed, it's a whole field of study. Now Researchers are investigating other buffering agents in preclinical studies, things like trisbase, another compound called 2-imidazole-1-IL-3-ethoxycarbinopropionic acid.

Speaker 1:

Quite a mouthful yeah.

Speaker 2:

And freebase lysine. All of these have shown some potential to inhibit tumor progression in lab settings. And here's another intriguing angle Even proton pump inhibitors, ppis like omeprazole or asumprazole, which you might know as common medications for acid reflux.

Speaker 1:

Oh yeah, like Prilosec or Nexium.

Speaker 2:

Exactly those are being explored too. They work by hampering the export of H plus ions from tumor cells, which effectively elevates the tumor's internal pH, making it less acidic inside.

Speaker 1:

That's a really clever repurposing of existing drugs. Are there any examples of these PPIs showing promise in actual human trials for cancer?

Speaker 2:

There are, yeah. A phase three clinical trial, for instance, showed that high doses of esomeprazole enhanced the effects of a chemo combination, docetaxel cisplatin, in metastatic breast cancer patients and, critically, it did so without adding significant toxicity, which is always a major concern. That's crucial, absolutely. Also, a retrospective study linked omeprazole use with improved chemoradiotherapy efficacy and decreased recurrence in rectal cancer patients, so it certainly highlights how understanding these fundamental biological mechanisms like pH regulation can lead to novel therapeutic strategies, sometimes using drugs we already have.

Speaker 1:

Okay, so beyond just the hydrogen ions and CO2 making things acidic, you mentioned lactate earlier. That's another key player in this tumor. Microenvironment right. Many of us probably associate lactate with like self-fatigue after exercise. What role does it play in cancer? Is it different?

Speaker 2:

It plays a much more sinister role in cancer, unfortunately. Lactate helps cancer cells survive in those hypoxic conditions, the low oxygen environments we talked about. It also stimulates angiogenesis, essentially helping to build the tumor's blood supply, feeding its growth. And, perhaps most importantly, it significantly contributes to what scientists call immune escape. It does this by inhibiting various crucial immune cells, including T-lymphocytes, monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and natural killer cells. It effectively helps the tumor hide from our immune system and grow unchecked.

Speaker 1:

Wow, Okay. So given how detrimental lactate seems to be for the immune response and for tumor growth, you might wonder why don't we just inhibit it directly? Is that a viable strategy?

Speaker 2:

That's a very logical question, and researchers have tried. While glycolysis inhibitors, like a drug called dicloracetate or specific lactate transport inhibitors, do exist, their clinical studies have faced considerable challenges. The big problem is that these metabolic processes glycolysis, lactate transport they're also crucial for our normal, healthy cells, and particularly for many immune cells themselves. Ah, so you risk harming the good cells too. Precisely Inhibiting these processes broadly can lead to severe adverse events, making them difficult to use safely and effectively in a clinical setting without causing significant systemic toxicity. It's yet another example of the immense complexity involved in developing targeted cancer therapies that are both effective against the cancer and safe for the patient.

Speaker 1:

Right. So, after covering all this ground, where does this leave us on the journey from the scientific bench to, hopefully, the patient's bedside someday?

Speaker 2:

The science around baking soda and tumor acidity has clearly been investigated for decades it's not brand new and that TELA taste study, despite its small scale, certainly sparked some real excitement by showcasing a successful, targeted clinical application. Yeah, to put this all in perspective, I think it earns, of course, a really vital point. While these preclinical studies show genuine potential, especially when sodium bicarbonate is used locally and in combination with other established cancer therapies, a large-scale, well-designed clinical trial is absolutely necessary to truly test and verify these hypotheses in humans. We're still a long way from having a simple, universally applicable cure that someone could just self-administer, and any claims you see suggesting otherwise, particularly from non-medical sources online, they're just not supported by the rigorous scientific evidence required for medical practice. It's crucial people understand that.

Speaker 1:

Absolutely so. What this deep dive really shares us, I think, is that science, especially in incredibly complex areas like cancer biology, demands precision, context and just rigorous, painstaking testing. You know the idea of simple solutions for incredibly complex diseases. They're just rarely simple, are they Almost never? The idea of baking soda as a standalone cure, particularly through self-administration, is clearly not supported by current evidence and, as you've outlined, carries significant health risks. It's just so crucial for you, the listener, to consult with qualified medical professionals for any health concerns or treatment decisions, making sure your wellness journey is guided by sound science, not by internet fads. And that wraps up our deep dive into baking soda and cancer. What an insightful journey, I think, into the complexities of cancer biology and the really careful steps required in scientific research. Remember, the world of medical information out there is vast. It can be overwhelming, and knowing what's actually backed by solid evidence is key to your wellness journey.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and maybe this raises an important question for you to consider how do we as individuals best navigate this absolute wealth or sometimes flood of health information available today? How do we ensure we focus on evidence-based strategies for our own well-being and don't fall prey to potentially harmful misinformation? It's a challenge, isn't it? It requires ongoing curiosity and definitely critical thinking.

Speaker 1:

Well said Stay curious, stay informed, stay critical, and we'll be here for your next deep dive.