• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Research

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Uptightgirl

Lieutenant
This is incredible and should be publicized more widely as 500000 Americans from the United States are killed by cancer every year proving that chemotherapy is a fraud and a snake oil.


Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77%

I quote :-

"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.....


Read the full story below by clicking the link but a simple supplement reduces the cancer risk by a huge amount.

This suggests that the daily R.D.A are totally wrong and that modern food does not have these vital vitamins.

Many studies suggest that the R.D.A is wrong and was influenced by the drug companies and set too low to ensure a sick population who continue to buy their crappy symptom relieving drugs forever.

There are no recorded cases of people dying from vitamins or minerals.

There are at least 200000 recorded cases of people being killed by FDA approved drugs every year in the United States which is now run by Big Pharma as they have bribed all the 533 senators by donating a billion dollars to election expenses and also have 2 lobbyists for each one.


Think about it.


http://www.newstarget.com/021892.html

"...Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation."


American Society Response:-

"This research on vitamin D is such good news that the American Cancer Society, of course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson, Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, flatly stated that nobody should take supplements to prevent cancer"...

Notice the name, too: It isn't the American Anti-Cancer Society, it's the American Cancer Society!

Have you noticed how the mass media pimps always promote the latest crappy drug from Big Pharma.
This is because get they get paid to advertise these dangerous drugs with side effects.

Notice how all the drug adverts come with a warning that it may cause death!

I am so angry.
 
You're the same person who posted earlier about those fraudulent sites promoting a toxic substance as a "miracle cancer cure." How dare you try to spread misinformation about something as serious as this? You're either a tragically misinformed and ignorant person or you're a very dangerous troll who's deliberately lying to people in order to steer them away from things that could save their lives. You're angry?? How dare you claim you're the one who has a right to be angry?! The only reason I'm alive and have all my original parts today is because the medical establishment saved me with the fruits of state-of-the-art scientific research. If I'd fallen for the kind of BS you're selling, I would've died nearly two decades ago. What you're doing here goes beyond ordinary trolling. It's dangerous and it's malicious.
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

"Notice the name, too: It isn't the American Anti-Cancer Society, it's the American Cancer Society!"

THEIR TERRIBLE PLAN REVEALED!! :eek:
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

I think that one sentence sums up just how inane the whole post is.
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Christopher said:
The only reason I'm alive and have all my original parts today is because the medical establishment saved me with the fruits of state-of-the-art scientific research.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Vitamin D and other such forms of vitamins and minerals do indeed have a good effect at PREVENTING cancer, obviously they wont CURE cancer, but there is indeed good research done into specific Vitamins, Minerals and herbs that have been shown to help reduce the risk of getting it.
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Uptightgirl said:

...proving that chemotherapy is a fraud and a snake oil.
Click to expand...


And for that sentence alone, you FAIL.

Chemo and radiation have dropped cancer death rates to unprecedented lows.

Creighton University School of Medicine is an "ALTERNATIVE Homeopathic school" and the alarm bells are ringing in my head non-stop.....
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Okay, everyone. Tone it down.

There is evidence that Vitamin D can lower cancer risk. Just run a Google if you don't believe me.

Christopher, I respect what you've gone through, but you've got a scientific mind, and I know you can rebut these things scientifically and logically without resorting to histrionics and flaming.

Uptightgirl, please remember that the way you present a scientific subject is just as important as the information presented. Presenting a credible, logical case with sources that are known to be reliable and solid will get you a lot further in discussions here than flippantly trying to pass off a known and well-established method of medical treatment for a serious illness as "snake oil." Don't get me wrong, I agree with the healing power of nature as well as the healing power of medical science. However, the way in which such cases are presented can affect how they're received just as much as the information presented.

Everyone, let's just take a breath, settle down, and try to have a calm discussion of the subject, please?
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Terrio I have not flamed anyone.I was merely reporting this life saving information and suddenly extreme hostility.

The study done over 3 years showed a REDUCED RISK of getting cancer by 77%.

Yet some people deliberately twist this.Why?


"Chemo and radiation have dropped cancer death rates to unprecedented lows." Really? Could you explain that and quote some sources with figures?

"Creighton University School of Medicine is an "ALTERNATIVE Homeopathic school" and the alarm bells are ringing in my head non-stop.....".

So Christopher and JustAfriend members are saying the above paragraph is lies?

Can I ask Christopher and JustAfriend if Creighton University School of Medicine sells calcium or vitamin D?

Where is the paypal button?

Did they even read the linked article?

Are they saying that if the SAME research had been done by Merck then it would be true?

Are they saying Merck is more trustworthy?
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

I have no objection to pointing out that vitamins and a healthy diet reduce cancer risk. Given my own medical history, I'm naturally quite aware of that and use it in my everyday life.

What I object to is that the poster is simply using that fact to add a whiff of credence to her totally slanderous and ludicrous attacks on the medical establishment. She's twisting a truth to serve a dangerous lie.

And let's not forget that her signature still contains a link to that site advocating the use of a highly poisonous chemical as a "cancer cure." I have to wonder if she's a spammer working for a company that sells the stuff.
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Christopher said:
I think that one sentence sums up just how inane the whole post is.
Click to expand...

The same page claims that sunscreen causes cancer and the same old claims that big pharm doesn't want to cure disease.

I mean, never mind the fact that any company that came up with a cure for cancer (or Aids, or any other major disease) would have it's stock price shoot through the roof and instantly become the largest pharma company on the planet. Never mind the fact that there are hundreds of diseases to make money from and curing one simply leaves you with others to deal with.
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Uptightgirl said:
Terrio I have not flamed anyone.I was merely reporting this life saving information and suddenly extreme hostility.
Click to expand...

First off, I never said you flamed anyone.

Second, I was pointing out that the manner in which you present such "life saving information" is what's getting you the extreme hostility.

The study done over 3 years showed a REDUCED RISK of getting cancer by 77%.

Yet some people deliberately twist this.Why?
Click to expand...

Because the site you're linking to is obviously not an unbiased source? It's difficult to take a concept seriously when it's presented in a manner that already smacks of bias. How can we trust these facts when they are put before us in such a manner?

For those who are interested, here is the news release from Creighton University itself, which adds a few details that the originally-linked article doesn't mention, like the fact that all of the women in the study were post-menopausal, over age 55, and had been cancer-free for at least 10 years. These are rather vital details to examining the results, and they are completely left out of the article you linked to, Uptightgirl.

One thing that I find very telling? This information from the Creighton report appears nowhere in the newstarget.com report on the article:

Research participants were all 55 years and older and free of known cancers for at least 10 years prior to entering the Creighton study. Subjects were randomly assigned to take daily dosages of 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium, 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium plus 1,100 IU of vitamin D3, or placebos. National Institutes of Health funded the study.

...

In the three-year analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in cancer incidence between participants taking placebos and those taking just calcium supplements.
Click to expand...

So, newstarget.com is reporting that there were two groups in the study, while there were actually three. They're also ignoring the biological implications of the age and post-menopausal state of the women in the study. They aren't even reporting the details of the study accurately. Any argument they make based on those details falls apart before they can even get started.

"Chemo and radiation have dropped cancer death rates to unprecedented lows." Really? Could you explain that and quote some sources with figures?
Click to expand...

I'm not certain what he was specifically referring to, but Yale New Haven Hospital reported in 2005 that chemotherapy following lung cancer surgery improves survival rate.

There are plenty of other studies coming up on a quick google of "chemo and cancer rates," in case you'd like to take a look.

"Creighton University School of Medicine is an "ALTERNATIVE Homeopathic school" and the alarm bells are ringing in my head non-stop.....".

So Christopher and JustAfriend members are saying the above paragraph is lies?
Click to expand...

No. Some people see "alternative homeopathic school" and it raises alarm bells in their head, that's all. There are many that see it as a good complement for traditional medication, and there are people who will only do homeopathic medication. Personally, I'm in the middle, but I know enough of each side to suggest that's probably what's happening here.

Can I ask Christopher and JustAfriend if Creighton University School of Medicine sells calcium or vitamin D?

Where is the paypal button?
Click to expand...

Why should they? Anyone can get calcium or Vitamin D at the drug store.

Did they even read the linked article?
Click to expand...

I did. And it's a pretty biased article from a source I've never heard of before today. Would you happen to know of a more established source for the information that won't present it in a manner that screams "look at what the evil pharmaceutical companies are hiding from you!" hyperbole?

Are they saying that if the SAME research had been done by Merck then it would be true?

Are they saying Merck is more trustworthy?
Click to expand...

Merck certainly has quite the research department. I know that from personal experience.

Just personally? Now that I've actually seen the news release from the University on the study? Yeah, I'd trust Merck more than I'd trust newstarget.com's reporting of a study. Withholding information that's vital to understanding the results of a study when you're supposed to be reporting on those findings to your readership? Not a way to earn much respect in an examination of the scientific merits of that study.

Now that we have the actual news release from the University on the study's findings, how about we work off of that instead of the original article?
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Cannot access Creighton University website,connection times out.

I just read Merck falsified/withheld safety data from Vioxx trials to make vast profits and Vioxx was responsible for thousands of deaths recently.It is subject to litigation now.

Hardly a trustworthy source.

Were you aware of this Terrio?

The omitted 3rd group was the placebo group which took dummy pills as a control.

A different source as below states the same:-

I quote from :- http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/605382.html
======================================================

Lappe's team followed 1,179 study participants who were all postmenopausal and lived in rural Nebraska. The women were free of known cancers for the 10 years before entering the study. They were assigned to one of three groups and followed for four years.

One group took 1,400 to 1,500 milligrams of supplementary calcium a day, another group took that same amount of calcium plus 1,100 IUs of vitamin D daily, while the third group took placebo pills every day.

After four years, those in the combination vitamin D and calcium group had a 60 percent lower risk of developing cancer, compared to the placebo group. The calcium-only group had a 47 percent reduced risk.

Then the researchers eliminated data from the first year of the study, figuring some women may have entered the study with cancer that had not yet been diagnosed. The results were more dramatic, Lappe said.

When the researchers looked at results from just the last three years of the trial, they found the combination calcium-and-vitamin D group had a 77 percent reduced risk of cancers, compared to the placebo group. The risk for the calcium-only group was essentially unchanged.

In all, a total of 50 women got non-skin cancers during the study, with breast cancer the most common. The other cancers included lung and colon tumors.

The findings are published in the June edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition .

In May, Harvard Medical School researchers reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine that high intakes of vitamin D and calcium cut the risk of breast cancer by nearly one-third in premenopausal women, but not women past menopause.

Dr. Michael Holick, professor of medicine, physiology and biophysics at the Boston University School of Medicine and a long-time vitamin D researcher, said the Lappe study adds to growing evidence of the health and disease-fighting effects of vitamin D.

"It's very clear the data are significant," he said of the Lappe study.

Vitamin D is thought to act through the immune system to help prevent the formation of abnormal cells, Lappe said.

To date, both Lappe and Holick said, high intake of vitamin D has been found to reduce the risk of many forms of cancer as well as type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and high blood pressure.

Both researchers think the current recommendations for daily vitamin D intake should be boosted. The U.S. Institute of Medicine, which makes recommendations on vitamin and mineral requirements, considers 200 IUs of vitamin D adequate for children and adults up to age 50; 400 IUs adequate for adults 51 to 70, and 600 for those 71 and older. The levels aren't Recommended Dietary Allowances, or RDAs, because the institute doesn't think there's enough evidence to establish an RDA for vitamin D.

"I think it's safe to say the current recommendations are much too low," Lappe said, adding that postmenopausal women should "probably be taking 1,100 IUs a day."

She recommends vitamin D3 supplements, the type used in the study, over D2, because D3 is more active, she said.

But Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, who is familiar with the new study and other similar research, said in a prepared statement that the society doesn't currently recommend taking vitamin or mineral supplements to reduce cancer risk.

====================================================
Read that last part again.

"American Cancer Society,doesn't currently recommend taking vitamin or mineral supplements to reduce cancer risk."

The reason being that members of the ACS are pharmaceutical companies who benefit from high cancer rates.It is a huge industry.Nearly everyone of the 500000 who die from cancer every year in the USA gets chemo.Even at a lowly $50000 treatment cost per patient this is big bucks.

$25 billion.

Even a smsll reduction in people getting cancer would mean a loss of big bucks.

The second and third studies by Harvard and Boston points in the same direction.Taking supplements reduces cancer risk.

The women chosen in the study was to get consistant results.

It is well known most people who have had cancer before finds it returns again later.So they chose people who did not have it in the previous 10 years and they chose post menopausel women so that the age related factors were similar for all of them to get a sample of reasonably consistent,uniform,test subjects.


"Chemo improves survival rate is pretty vague".160000 still dead from lung cancer according to that link you gave.


They have been saying the same thing for decades about "improved survival rates" but the annual total death rate from cancer has stayed the same or even gone up.

30 minutes of exercise daily "improves" survival rate for heart attack patients too.

To summarize whether the risk reduction is 33%,47%,60%,or 77% as quoted above these are hugely significant figures and the actual number of people who could be saved would be in the thousands simply by taking these supplements.

Even the lowest number of 33% would mean tens of thousands of lives saved.

here is the link:-

http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/605382.html
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Uptightgirl said:
Cannot access Creighton University website,connection times out.

I just read Merck falsified safty data from Vioxx trials to make vast profits and Vioxx was responsible for thousands of deaths recently.It is subject to litigation now.
Hardly a trustworthy source.

Were you aware of this Terrio?
Click to expand...

Yes, actually, I was. However, considering that it's a subject under litigation, there are obviously issues there for a court of law to decide.

Okay, I'm getting the distinct feeling that you have some problems with the medical establishment. That's fine. However, bias in presentation of a subject is going to automatically color the way in which that subject is received.

The omitted 3rd group was the placebo group which took dummy pills as a control.
Click to expand...

How can you know what group was omitted if you can't access the actual report? :vulcan:

I'll respond to the rest of this when I've had a chance to give it a proper reading.
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Ah, I was waiting for uptightgirl to wander into the Science and Technology forum and raise hell, ever since I checked out the links in her signature line...
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Uptightgirl said:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/6/1586


http://news.aol.co.uk/vitamin-d-call-to-pregnant-women/article/20071228021909990001


I quote:-In winter months, at latitudes of 52 degrees north (above Birmingham), there is no ultraviolet light of the appropriate wavelength for the body to make vitamin D in the skin, according to the Department.
Click to expand...

And this changes the fact that all women should be taking a vitamin D and calcium supplement regularly how, exactly?

You're really not saying anything that most women shouldn't already be doing. Goddess knows my doctor always checks to make sure I'm taking Vitamin D and Calcium supplements whenever I go in for a visit. Vitamin D helps the absorption of Calcium, which all women should be monitoring at some point before menopause to stave off osteoporosis. My doctor likes to get the habit started when her female patients are in their 30s. Each doctor may have their own approach, however.

While I respect what you're saying and applaud your level of advocacy, if you want to get militant with advocacy about a medical subject, there are far better places to do it than here--and I say that as a staunch advocate of both mental health and Multiple Sclerosis issues. Check out your local advocacy groups. Build a website to get the word out on your platform. Take this energy and turn it into positive activity for your cause. Lend credibility to your arguments with backing that you know you can trust and that you know will be respected when you're presenting the information.
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

I was merely pointing that r.d.a levels are inadequate and that the newer doses recommended by the trials would reduce cancer RISK by up to 77% and thus save lives,but all I got was a slap in the face.

If people here don't want to use a simple correct R.D.A "higher dose that works" supplement that is fine with me.

I never argue with fools or ignorant people or people set in their ways or people mentally imprisoned by out of date theories and unwilling to change as in my opinion the only way to get change is for these people to die off and thus a new generation can replace them with fresh thought and ideas...and in my opinion such people deserve what is coming to them and thinking on it further it is a good thing as that means more food for me and keeps the population down and chemotherapy people in jobs and off welfare.

Your idea that I should set up websites and promote this idea is absurd as I don't want to waste my precious time on saving ignorant people or fight the good fight at all as shown by the representative sample here of ingratitude and hostile responses to the initial post by the resident coterie.

I am not a glutton for punishment and I don't try to move immovable objects.

As they say no good deed goes unpunished and I have been punished enough here.

Happy cancer to you all.
 
Re: Vitamin D + Calcium reduces CANCER risk by 77% ! - Resea

Okay, could you please enlighten me on how suggesting ways to spread your message to more people than you'll ever reach on this BBS is "absurd" and punishing your good deed? Because I'm a bit at a loss on that. Especially when your original post says it should be publicized more widely.

I don't think anyone here is immovable, when presented with credible, reliable scientific evidence on a subject. This doesn't tend toward a place where histrionics rule the day. Civilized discussions of some really controversial subjects have happened here, and that's a rarity for this board. There are a lot of posters here accustomed to peer-reviewed articles, academic journals, and credible research presented in a scientific manner. It's hard to deny that the article originally presented was pretty biased. The tone of the writing screams some sort of vendetta against the medical establishment. In the interest of facilitating an actual discussion of the subject, and not the article, I found the original report on the study so we could actually have a report that fit the usual way the folks here see data presented. It was never intended as a slight. And it was never intended to "punish" anyone. It was purely intended to facilitate a better, more well-informed discussion of the very subject that you yourself brought up.

It's more than obvious this thread has run its course, so I'm going to shut it down before anyone says anything they'll regret. However, my inbox is always open. I would welcome a PM if you wish to continue this discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top