vitamin D slashes risk of cancers

[ernrol]

Copy and pasted from News Target web site

"New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent.

Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer. This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer drug known to modern science.

The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily) while another group was given placebo. Over four year, the group receiving the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in cancers. Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation. (The full press release of this study is included below. It provides more details about the findings.)

Note that these astonishing effects were achieved on what many nutritionists consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered, and the quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have been (it was probably calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate, aspartate or similar forms). What does all this mean? It means that if you take high-quality calcium supplements and get lots of natural sunlight exposure or take premium vitamin D supplements (such as those made from fish oil), you could easily have a greater reduction than the 77 percent reduction recorded in this study."

I have removed the original link that went to this story, because it contained additional controversial information that I had not read before posting and I don't think this is the place for it. This came from the News Target web site. If anyone is that interested in the other comments they can go there.

Stay positive,

Ernie

[Lady Salt]

Thanks for the info. Will start the whole family on it starting tomorrow.

[Andrea]

I heard something about that on the news, I just stsarted to take my Vitamin D with calcium routinely

[ellakc2]

What a surprise!! The cancer industry supports nothing that doesn't make money for the drug companies. Stay away from sugar. Did you know when you get a Pet Scan they are injecting glucose in you and it goes direct to the cancer cells.

[neilb]

I think Ernie continues to do good research on supplements. I tend to think that supplements are undervalued by traditional doctors. I think there are supplements that can be helpful in preventing and treating cancer. I also am not a big fan of capitalism. I think from reading not just the press release, and not just the propaganda at the link that Ernie gives us (not that I hold Ernie responsible for everything on that web site!!), but also the abstract of the journal article, that this adds to a growing literature that says that Vitamin D helps to prevent cancer. But:

1. This particular study only included post-menopausal women. There might be many reasons that this effect might only apply to that group.

2. Despite what the linked polemic says, we do not "know right now" that Vitamin D supplementation decreases cancer by 77%. The 77% is an estimate based on the sample in the study, and considering that there were only 50 cancers total, it is a pretty rough estimate. And, cutting out the first year after the fact is a little on the shady side (still 60% reduction would be nothing to sneeze at).

3. The ACS did not say to ignore this study, as the link says. They said to be cautious about interpreting it. That's good advice.

4. For those of who are on these boards because we already have lung cancer, there is nothing in this study to say that vitamin D improves survival, reduces tumors, etc. Prevention and treatment are two different things. As always, there is a question regarding how the supplement might interact with other treatments. I suspect that this might not be a problem (and I'm tempted to supplement slightly with Vitamin D), but you can never be sure. If you're already taking a multivitamin, and if you drink some milk, you're already getting around 600IU of Vitamin D in your diet. A little sunshine and you don't need supplements (and the supplement industry is evil capitalism, too!). I've been getting extra sunshine because Vitamin D might help (my view from reading earlier studies). Besides, I figure I'm not that worried about the long-term effects with respect to skin cancer. Recurrent lung cancer kind of changes one's view of long-term effects.

5. The number one thing that the ACS says to do to prevent lung cancer is still the most effective. It's not smoking. And that seems anti-capitalist!

6. I don't intend to get into a debate on this, but my read of the evidence on sugar causing cancer (and/or causing existing tumors to grow) is that this hypothesis is largely unproven. There are probably plenty of reasons to limit sugar in your diet, but that one is quite a stretch.

7. Finally, if you really think that PET Scans are part of a plot to inject our tumors with sugar to make them grow, to require more drugs, you're entitled to that belief. But it's not exactly a secret that the glucose goes to the tumors. That's the whole point. Do you really think the amount of glucose you receive in a PET Scan is comparable to anyone's dietary sugar?

I have lung cancer, I'm scared, I don't think traditional doctors have all the answers, I don't have time to wait for Phase III clinical trials of every possible treatment (and I think American doctors may be too quick to dismiss studies from other countries like those focusing on astragalus and melatonin), but it's also important not to be swayed by bad evidence that sounds good.

I don't mean to be critical and there are many things I don't like about the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, there are many unscrupulous people in the supplement industry as well. These are tough choices that we have to make, and everyone chooses differently. I'm glad Ernie has provided us with so much information (and I agree with many of his conclusions). Thanks!--Neil

[ernrol]

I did not mean to get everyone upset. I read only the study part of the web page. It was the same story that was in our local newspaper this morning. The comments that followed we have all heard before some of them are just the opinion of a few. There may or may not have any merit.

Trails with supplements are few and far between. Unfortunately there is little profit in testing supplements. I think that it is worth noting that in China they use some Chinese herbs along with modern day chemo. The most important in the study is that vitamin D and Calcium may help and there is no proof that it will do any harm.

Stay positive,

Ernie

[neilb]

And Ernie, I certainly didn't mean to demean the incredibly hard work that you put it to research. You and I have exchanged emails before on this, and I think we're actually pretty close to agreement on supplements. My standard is whether there's some reasonable chance that the supplement is helpful and little chance that it's harmful (which may vary depending upon what conventional treatment you're doing). Others may have different standards. As I mentioned, I find the Chinese research on Astragalus during chemotherapy, as well as the Italian work on melatonin during chemotherapy as well as on its own, to be very compelling. I do think the web page that you linked to over-hyped the findings and was unjustly overly critical of the American Cancer Society.

I was responding more to the claims in that piece and to the PET Scan claims than to your original post or even the fairly promising findings from Creighton. Many of us are in precarious situations, and I think it's important to keep hope alive but also to try to separate hype from reality. And that applies equally to traditional drugs and supplements.

Again, I commend you on all the research that you do for all of us. I'm learning a lot from your series on supplements.--Neil

[Welthy]

Thank you Neil for your post.

I don't think "everyone" was upset, but this stands as a great reminder that people need to closely examine sources and, when possible, post from the actual source or at the very least a credible reporting agency. The conspiracy hyperbole at this link was mind-boggling.

It is important for everyone to utilize posts regarding new treatments, alternative treatments, etc. as a launchpad for your own research, then discuss your findings with your Doctors.

I do take Vitamin D every day myself -- probably don't need to since warm weather has begun and I can get adequate sunshine. It has shown some benefit for skin conditions, so I've tried it with minor success. I also read the initial reports on Vitamin D as a possible cancer preventative a few months ago. So, what the heck, I'm post-menopausal, maybe it will keep the cancer away from me!

Why is this a general category post anyway?

Take care all.

[ernrol]

Because it was meant to be general information. Why else?

Stay positive,

Ernie

[Welthy]

It should be considered as alternative/complementary information. That's why.

Welthy

[ernrol]

Welthy,

I post information under general to reach the most people. My only goal is to help the most people with their fight with cancer. I had not read the part that followed the story that I wanted to post. This was my error. I edited it so that it does not interfere with the message and that is that this may help.

Stay positive,

Ernie

[ursol]

Ernie,

Keep doing what you are doing for us because as a mother of 3 and actively working and going through chemo as much as I need to stay alive, i have no more energy at the end of the day to research my own disease. I am grateful whenever you or anyone else finds the time to do so. thank you.

Lilly

[neilb]

Here's a link to a more balanced (but still very positive) story on this study. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19098606/

Note that it raises some of the points that I raised earlier. Note also that while the difference between the placebo group and the "Calcium plus Vitamin D" group is large, the difference between the "Calcium Only" and "Calcium plus Vitamin D" groups is relatively small (23%) and not statistically significant (17 cases of cancer versus 13 could easily be due to chance, especially when there's nothing here about which kinds of cancer, etc.). Any effect here could easily be a calcium effect. And again, discounting the first year, unless it was part of the original research design, is NOT acceptable scientific practice.

Again, thanks to Ernie for all his research!

[ernrol]

Neil,

Thanks, that is a better link. Supplementation is important to me because I have had multiple skin cancers including one squamous cell. In Florida we have more direct sun rays than I can handle. I did check back and found that I was taking at least 1000mg of D3 with the calcium that I was taking.

Stay positive,

Ernie

[J.C.]

Just found this today

http://healthandfitness.sympatico.msn.c ... t=&abc=abc

Jackie

[alexan]

Thank you Ernie !!! Even if I am in the sun a lot I will start with v D tomorrow.

bucky