Reduce All Cancer Incidence by 77% with Vitamin D? - Seminar

influenza and vitamin d hypotheses remain unproven. it's contradictory. if high-dose vitamin d is immunosuppressive enough to prevent autoimmune disorders (where excessive immune reaction occurs), why would it protect against infection where rapid proliferation of immune cells is needed?

when i look up influenza and vitamin d on the internetz where everyone is an expert, what i see are freaking germ theory denialists! this is contrary to EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. if you reject the KNOWN FACT that viruses cause influenza, you don't get to be an expert in anything- except maybe quackery and preying on people who don't know any better to make some money completely absent of ethics.

by all means, take your vitamins. but don't let people tell you that their special-powered-formula xyz is going to keep away all ills. correlation does not imply causation. to break that down, just because you have low vitamin d levels does not imply that the low vitamin d caused your ills. it also does not mean that increasing your blood concentration of vitamin d will help. disease is a complex process, and correlations such as these studies tell us nothing about cause.

 

RobH isn't there any other internet forum you can spread your voodoo on?

 

And there we have the crux of the matter. Do we go by what the study says, or by sensationalist articles about the study in the popular press?

Thanks, Galaxee!

 

So it wont help protect against cancer "germs".
Who'd of guessed?

Heres one study.
Pretty simple stuff.
http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/pap1468.pdf

 

mojo, what part of "correlation does not imply causation" are you failing to grasp here?

 

I guess we will never know.
Meanwhile everyone wanting to avoid cancer , move to the Equator.
Might be in the Rum?

 

It looks to me as though they've reached their conclusion in advance, and now they're just fishing for "evidence" of their foregone conclusion.

What's interesting in your statement is that you trust a small group of people who began with a conclusion, rather than going in with open minds, while rejecting the rest of the scientific community. This is a conspiracy mentality: anything advocated by the bulk of the "establishment" must be wrong, and anything advocated by a small group of renegades must be right.

A more rational approach would be to look for someone who has no horse in this race and is competent to read and understand the actual studies being cited. Prius Chat has a surprising breadth of expertise among its members, and we have such a one right here. But the conspiracy mentality is so strong that it rejects scientific education in favor of sensationalism.

Well, the rest of us are grateful for Galaxee's input, even if you think you are better able to understand the available information than she is. And we will refrain from over-dosing on alleged miracle cures. A well-balanced diet with the full complement of vitamins and minerals is important to good health. But massive doses of any one vitamin is likely to cause more harm than good.

Here's a thought experiment: What if massive doses of Vitamin X were guaranteed to reduce your chances of cancer from one in a hundred thousand to one in five hundred thousand, but at the same time it increased your chances of heart attack from one in a thousand to one in five hundred? Would you insist on taking Vitamin X?

 

yes, they do choose to believe, because the data don't back that belief up. they have no basis whatsoever for claiming that vitamin d supplementation prevents or cures cancer.

somehow in all this, there was a legitimate correlative claim which, while interesting, doesn't say much on its own. then, the word "correlate" got replaced with "cause" and it all promptly went to hell.

but we don't know that increased vitamin d does anything for "better health" in the first place! how can it be a conspiracy when there are no findings to cover up? get the data first, then commence the whining about how it's all a big industry/big medical/big pharma/big science cover-up.

 

The important aspect of this is that many people are deficient in D.
Get your levels checked .
My breast cancer survivor friend ,checked her blood level after reading about the studies and had a low D measurement.
Sun block has a lot to do with the malnourishment in our culture.

 

The correct response, if you are low in vitamin D, is to eat more foods with D, or take a multivitamin pill; not to take massive doses.

 

No one is recommending "massive doses"
They are saying the previous recommendation of 400 units is too low to provide a correct blood level.
A recent major study used 400 iu as the dosage and found no effect.
No sh*t Sherlock,you studied the wrong dosage.

Thus multivitamins have too low a D ratio .To obtain a proper D blood level you would OD on A.
The easiest way to get the proper amount of D is to get sufficient sunlight exposure.
Unless you are dark skinned wherein you would need much longer exposure time.

 

So the old sayings 'ski nekkid, sail nekkid and swim nekkid' all were based on scientific fact?!?

Let's talk sunscreen. Have we gone too far in our use of it? Should it be to avoid serious sunburn, but not used as often as it is? How effective is it anyway without PABA? As I've stated in other posts, this is an experimental year whereby I have avoided all sunscreen and I must tell you my mental and physical health are improved over previous sunscreen usage years. I would still use it if I expected sunburn to be a major factor during the day, but not use it prophylacticly.

 

I'm with the 'have it checked when you visit the doctor' group. My doctor checked it and my levels are good. (And I live near Bremerton, Washington!) Of course, I believe they put Vitamin D in milk, and I drink my fair share of that.

 

My personal nirvana is swimming 1 hour in hot sun ,no sunscreen(no risk of burn though,Im already tan).

 

You're better off tanning, indoors or outdoors.

Tanning Truth

Also, Cheeseburgers cure heart disease.

TransfatsFacts.com—trans fats are actually good for you. Quote, “Trans fats contain a compound called conjugated linoleic acid, CLA, which has demonstrated beneficial health benefits, including fighting cancer, enhancing immunity and decreasing artery-clogging plaque. Eat more cheeseburgers, it will unclog your arteries.

'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, September 30 - Rachel Maddow show- msnbc.com

 

I am sure you meant this as a joke. But a lot of people don't seem to get it: Let's say we all agree that spinach is good for you. Adding spinach extract to injectible cobra venom does not make it good for you. Vitamin B12 is good for you, but a compound of poison ivy with B12 is not healthy.

People look for one "beneficial" ingredient in something deleterious, and then claim it's good for you. It's very popular to say that chocolate is good for you because of one compound which, if isolated, might have some health benefits.

Again, I know you are joking about the cheeseburgers. But the pathetic thing is that some folks will actually justify their high-fat high-cholesterol high-salt high-sugar crap foods by pointing to one compound that has some beneficial effects.

 

All the details are in this clip. Toward the end it also points you to websites that extole the advantages of corn syrup and advises pregnant women to eat more fish.