If you go to Purina cat chow's web site & take a quick test on your knowledge of breast cancer they will donate $1. to the Susan G. Komen foundation. The questions are not difficult & you keep going until you guess right. Only 5 questions, and no personal info is requested. Takes about 1 minute to complete. Here's the web site:
http://www.catchow.com/pink/?DCMP...HQS=donate
Pass it along to everyone you know ... thanks!!
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
-
ButterflyPrincess
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:06 am
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
In the Breast Cancer scaremongering world there are certain facts that are totally ignored because they don't fit with comfortably with the terrorising atmosphere the disease mongers wish to portray.
Why for instance doesn't every woman know that
Intake of 2000 IU/day of Vitamin D(3), and, when possible, very moderate exposure to sunlight, could raise serum 25(OH)D to 52 ng/ml, a level associated with reduction by 50% in incidence of breast cancer, according to observational studies.
Why in articles such as the Purina quiz isn't the knowledge that higher vitamin D status leads to low breast cancer incidence made absolutely clear.
We know perfectly well that the level of vitamin D satus you have when you are diagnosed and treated for breast cancer predicts the length of survival and ultimate prognosis. but why don't we use that knowledge so that people who are diagnosed and treated when their seasonal level of vitamin D is low are provided with sufficient vitamin D to enjoy the same level of survival as those who are diagnosed and treated in more vitamin d favourable months.
The answer is simply money. Vitamin d at effective stregth is too cheap Unlike expensive drug treatments for breast cancer vitamin d is free from sunlight so no one can profit from it. Even when bought online it's still to cheap for the drug companies to want to deal with it.
It's far more profitable to treat cancer than it is to prevent it. The earlier you start screening the more cancers you will find and the more drugs you can sell. God forbid women should start supplementing with effective strength D3, those early tumours might simply fade away and never develop the what would happen to profit margins.
The longer we can terrorise women into staying out of the sun and away from sunbeds the more profitable cancers we can generate and the more treatments we can perform. That's why you won't find any mention of the benefits of vitamin d on cancer websites. It's not that the research isn't there it's the lack of profit in using it and the threat it poses to profit margins should people understand just how effective it really is if used in natural amounts that your skin would generate if you lay more or less naked in the sun at midday for 20-40minutes.
Why for instance doesn't every woman know that
Intake of 2000 IU/day of Vitamin D(3), and, when possible, very moderate exposure to sunlight, could raise serum 25(OH)D to 52 ng/ml, a level associated with reduction by 50% in incidence of breast cancer, according to observational studies.
Why in articles such as the Purina quiz isn't the knowledge that higher vitamin D status leads to low breast cancer incidence made absolutely clear.
We know perfectly well that the level of vitamin D satus you have when you are diagnosed and treated for breast cancer predicts the length of survival and ultimate prognosis. but why don't we use that knowledge so that people who are diagnosed and treated when their seasonal level of vitamin D is low are provided with sufficient vitamin D to enjoy the same level of survival as those who are diagnosed and treated in more vitamin d favourable months.
The answer is simply money. Vitamin d at effective stregth is too cheap Unlike expensive drug treatments for breast cancer vitamin d is free from sunlight so no one can profit from it. Even when bought online it's still to cheap for the drug companies to want to deal with it.
It's far more profitable to treat cancer than it is to prevent it. The earlier you start screening the more cancers you will find and the more drugs you can sell. God forbid women should start supplementing with effective strength D3, those early tumours might simply fade away and never develop the what would happen to profit margins.
The longer we can terrorise women into staying out of the sun and away from sunbeds the more profitable cancers we can generate and the more treatments we can perform. That's why you won't find any mention of the benefits of vitamin d on cancer websites. It's not that the research isn't there it's the lack of profit in using it and the threat it poses to profit margins should people understand just how effective it really is if used in natural amounts that your skin would generate if you lay more or less naked in the sun at midday for 20-40minutes.
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
tedhutchinson;1033558 wrote: In the Breast Cancer scaremongering world there are certain facts that are totally ignored because they don't fit with comfortably with the terrorising atmosphere the disease mongers wish to portray.
Why for instance doesn't every woman know that
Intake of 2000 IU/day of Vitamin D(3), and, when possible, very moderate exposure to sunlight, could raise serum 25(OH)D to 52 ng/ml, a level associated with reduction by 50% in incidence of breast cancer, according to observational studies.
Why in articles such as the Purina quiz isn't the knowledge that higher vitamin D status leads to low breast cancer incidence made absolutely clear.
We know perfectly well that the level of vitamin D satus you have when you are diagnosed and treated for breast cancer predicts the length of survival and ultimate prognosis. but why don't we use that knowledge so that people who are diagnosed and treated when their seasonal level of vitamin D is low are provided with sufficient vitamin D to enjoy the same level of survival as those who are diagnosed and treated in more vitamin d favourable months.
The answer is simply money. Vitamin d at effective stregth is too cheap Unlike expensive drug treatments for breast cancer vitamin d is free from sunlight so no one can profit from it. Even when bought online it's still to cheap for the drug companies to want to deal with it.
It's far more profitable to treat cancer than it is to prevent it. The earlier you start screening the more cancers you will find and the more drugs you can sell. God forbid women should start supplementing with effective strength D3, those early tumours might simply fade away and never develop the what would happen to profit margins.
The longer we can terrorise women into staying out of the sun and away from sunbeds the more profitable cancers we can generate and the more treatments we can perform. That's why you won't find any mention of the benefits of vitamin d on cancer websites. It's not that the research isn't there it's the lack of profit in using it and the threat it poses to profit margins should people understand just how effective it really is if used in natural amounts that your skin would generate if you lay more or less naked in the sun at midday for 20-40minutes.
Ted--------why is it that I get the feeling you are representing the Health Food Industry? Nothing wrong with that, but irrespective of the preventative measures to which you speak, women will still get breast cancer. My wife is a breast cancer survivor which happened to be all gene related. If she had followed some of the non med treatment she might be pushing up daisies.
Why for instance doesn't every woman know that
Intake of 2000 IU/day of Vitamin D(3), and, when possible, very moderate exposure to sunlight, could raise serum 25(OH)D to 52 ng/ml, a level associated with reduction by 50% in incidence of breast cancer, according to observational studies.
Why in articles such as the Purina quiz isn't the knowledge that higher vitamin D status leads to low breast cancer incidence made absolutely clear.
We know perfectly well that the level of vitamin D satus you have when you are diagnosed and treated for breast cancer predicts the length of survival and ultimate prognosis. but why don't we use that knowledge so that people who are diagnosed and treated when their seasonal level of vitamin D is low are provided with sufficient vitamin D to enjoy the same level of survival as those who are diagnosed and treated in more vitamin d favourable months.
The answer is simply money. Vitamin d at effective stregth is too cheap Unlike expensive drug treatments for breast cancer vitamin d is free from sunlight so no one can profit from it. Even when bought online it's still to cheap for the drug companies to want to deal with it.
It's far more profitable to treat cancer than it is to prevent it. The earlier you start screening the more cancers you will find and the more drugs you can sell. God forbid women should start supplementing with effective strength D3, those early tumours might simply fade away and never develop the what would happen to profit margins.
The longer we can terrorise women into staying out of the sun and away from sunbeds the more profitable cancers we can generate and the more treatments we can perform. That's why you won't find any mention of the benefits of vitamin d on cancer websites. It's not that the research isn't there it's the lack of profit in using it and the threat it poses to profit margins should people understand just how effective it really is if used in natural amounts that your skin would generate if you lay more or less naked in the sun at midday for 20-40minutes.
Ted--------why is it that I get the feeling you are representing the Health Food Industry? Nothing wrong with that, but irrespective of the preventative measures to which you speak, women will still get breast cancer. My wife is a breast cancer survivor which happened to be all gene related. If she had followed some of the non med treatment she might be pushing up daisies.
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
Not to take any cancer lightly,
My mother is a Breast Cancer Survivor and my Dr told me my chances of getting Breast Cancer have risen to 3% more than the average woman because of my mother.
IMHO I think it still remains as a huge mystery why we get any kind of cancer.
My mother is a Breast Cancer Survivor and my Dr told me my chances of getting Breast Cancer have risen to 3% more than the average woman because of my mother.
IMHO I think it still remains as a huge mystery why we get any kind of cancer.
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
― Mae West
― Mae West
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
I also have had breast cancer, I eat tons of greens, proper amounts of Vitamin D, exercise daily, and I am on anti-cancer fighting meds.
and I give annually to the Canadian Breast Cancer Association.
does not matter sometimes what you do to help yourself, it can come back.
My mom has two mascetomys at two different times, my grandmother died from it, needless to say its high risk in my family, if and when it returns, I am ready for it, not being negative.....being realistic.
and I give annually to the Canadian Breast Cancer Association.
does not matter sometimes what you do to help yourself, it can come back.
My mom has two mascetomys at two different times, my grandmother died from it, needless to say its high risk in my family, if and when it returns, I am ready for it, not being negative.....being realistic.
Life is just to short for drama.
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
Lon;1033574 wrote: Ted--------why is it that I get the feeling you are representing the Health Food Industry? Probably because you haven't worked out you get Vitamin D from sunshine if you take your clothes off and lay near naked in the sun for 20-40minutes. Because doing that generates at least this much Vitamin D it is impossible to sell it for loads of money.
the preventative measures to which you speak, women will still get breast cancer.I see you are smart enough to realise that if you cut the incidence of breast cancer by 50% there will remain 50% who still get it. So instead of there being 500 women are diagnosed with breast cancer every day that would reduce to 250 daily new cases. Do you not agree that for the sake of suggesting 20-40 minutes near full body non burning sun exposure daily or the consumption of an EQUIVALENT amount of Vitamin D3 which is really a trivial cost this represents good value for money.
My wife is a breast cancer survivor which happened to be all gene related. If she had followed some of the non med treatment she might be pushing up daisies.Where, in any of my posts in this or any other forum, have I ever suggested that non med treatment should replace conventional treatment?
Do you not understand the difference between the words ALTERNATIVE and SUPPLEMENT.
I am not and never have been an advocat for ALTERNATIVE treatments. But I do believe we humans evolved over 2million yearsliving a near naked outdoor existance and our bodies evolved to deal with sun exposure and achieve a natural vitamin D status around 50-70ng. That is the level breast milk flows replete with vitamin D. It's the level at which our bodies daily Vitamin D requirement is met in full and some is available to be stored. This is what gave those with paler skin colour the evolutionary advantage that enabled survival through the winter at more northerly latitudes.
The sooner you and your wife get your 25(OH)D checked and raised to around 60ng 150nmol/l the sooner your risk factors for cancer, heart disease and diabetes will be reduced.
Genes will only determine your propencity to develop cancer if you provide the right environment for that to happen. If you know your risk is higher then it is all the more important to reduce the potential for that to happen by ensuring those risk factors that you are able to change are changed.
If you know that BC develops more often in low Vit d bodies is seems potty to me to avoid the sun or refuse to spend the $15 to change that situation. When you know that those with higher vitamin D status have improved survival times and better prognosis it seems potty to me not to take advantage of that extra benefit.
Your doctors won't tell you this because they prescribe the synthetic form of vitamin d2 that isn't absorbed well by people so they generally are not aware of the benefits of NATURAL form that is biologically identical to the stuff your skin makes in sunlight.
the preventative measures to which you speak, women will still get breast cancer.I see you are smart enough to realise that if you cut the incidence of breast cancer by 50% there will remain 50% who still get it. So instead of there being 500 women are diagnosed with breast cancer every day that would reduce to 250 daily new cases. Do you not agree that for the sake of suggesting 20-40 minutes near full body non burning sun exposure daily or the consumption of an EQUIVALENT amount of Vitamin D3 which is really a trivial cost this represents good value for money.
My wife is a breast cancer survivor which happened to be all gene related. If she had followed some of the non med treatment she might be pushing up daisies.Where, in any of my posts in this or any other forum, have I ever suggested that non med treatment should replace conventional treatment?
Do you not understand the difference between the words ALTERNATIVE and SUPPLEMENT.
I am not and never have been an advocat for ALTERNATIVE treatments. But I do believe we humans evolved over 2million yearsliving a near naked outdoor existance and our bodies evolved to deal with sun exposure and achieve a natural vitamin D status around 50-70ng. That is the level breast milk flows replete with vitamin D. It's the level at which our bodies daily Vitamin D requirement is met in full and some is available to be stored. This is what gave those with paler skin colour the evolutionary advantage that enabled survival through the winter at more northerly latitudes.
The sooner you and your wife get your 25(OH)D checked and raised to around 60ng 150nmol/l the sooner your risk factors for cancer, heart disease and diabetes will be reduced.
Genes will only determine your propencity to develop cancer if you provide the right environment for that to happen. If you know your risk is higher then it is all the more important to reduce the potential for that to happen by ensuring those risk factors that you are able to change are changed.
If you know that BC develops more often in low Vit d bodies is seems potty to me to avoid the sun or refuse to spend the $15 to change that situation. When you know that those with higher vitamin D status have improved survival times and better prognosis it seems potty to me not to take advantage of that extra benefit.
Your doctors won't tell you this because they prescribe the synthetic form of vitamin d2 that isn't absorbed well by people so they generally are not aware of the benefits of NATURAL form that is biologically identical to the stuff your skin makes in sunlight.
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
Odie;1033751 wrote: I also have had breast cancer, I eat tons of greens, proper amounts of Vitamin D, exercise daily, and I am on anti-cancer fighting meds.While eating tons of greens will be very good for you no amount of greens will improve your vitamin D status. Oily fish every day will help but as each portion of wild salmon contains only 400iu approx and each glass of milk at most (probably less) 100iu there is absolutely NO WAY you can obtain from diet alone sufficient vitamin D to meet your daily needs. If you exercise outdoors daily when your shadow is shorter than your height and you wear a mini bikini (or less) then maybe you will be raise your status above the level associated with least breast cancer incidence and optimum survival.
This calculator enables you to work out how long to stay outdoors. UK readers can get the UV index from the BBC 5 DAY FORECAST.
and I give annually to the Canadian Breast Cancer Association. I don't. I think they promote breast cancer incidence by keeping up to date scientific information about the reduced incidence of breast cancer in vitamin D replete women off their website. They know perfectly well that women taking effective 2000iu+ amounts of D3 daily have lower BC incidence but they simply won't apply this knowledge because their major sponsors are the big drug companies and they put their interests before the best interests of BC sufferers.
does not matter sometimes what you do to help yourself, it can come back. But why make that more likely by failing to spend the trivial amount of money needed on effective strength D3 supplements or spending even less money but making sure you get sun on as much skin as possible every day when that's possible.
This calculator enables you to work out how long to stay outdoors. UK readers can get the UV index from the BBC 5 DAY FORECAST.
and I give annually to the Canadian Breast Cancer Association. I don't. I think they promote breast cancer incidence by keeping up to date scientific information about the reduced incidence of breast cancer in vitamin D replete women off their website. They know perfectly well that women taking effective 2000iu+ amounts of D3 daily have lower BC incidence but they simply won't apply this knowledge because their major sponsors are the big drug companies and they put their interests before the best interests of BC sufferers.
does not matter sometimes what you do to help yourself, it can come back. But why make that more likely by failing to spend the trivial amount of money needed on effective strength D3 supplements or spending even less money but making sure you get sun on as much skin as possible every day when that's possible.
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
minks;1033738 wrote: IMHO I think it still remains as a huge mystery why we get any kind of cancer.While I agree there is still much to be learnt there are certain facts that it is foolish to ignore.
Why ignore the fact that BC incidence could be 50% lower if Vitamin D status is kept above 60ng 150nmol/l?
Why ignore the fact that the more alcohol you drink the higher your risk of BC. 6 alcoholic drinks daily means you are virtually twice as likely to get BC compared to someone drinking no alcohol at all daily.
Why ignore the fact that BC incidence is 30% higher in postmenopausal women with a BMI above 28kg/m2 compared to a BMI of less than 21kg/m. I've dropped my weight by 51lbs this year without exercise, without counting calories or carbs simply by not eating those foods that raise insulin and disrupt blood glucose levels.
Exercise is also an important modifyable risk factor. Greatest risk reduction was observed among women who reported walking/hiking for exercise 10 or more hours per week compared with those reporting no walking/hiking. But do be aware that people who are walking/hiking 10hrs or more a week are generally spending more time in the sunshine and will also have higher Vitamin d status.
Why ignore the fact that BC incidence could be 50% lower if Vitamin D status is kept above 60ng 150nmol/l?
Why ignore the fact that the more alcohol you drink the higher your risk of BC. 6 alcoholic drinks daily means you are virtually twice as likely to get BC compared to someone drinking no alcohol at all daily.
Why ignore the fact that BC incidence is 30% higher in postmenopausal women with a BMI above 28kg/m2 compared to a BMI of less than 21kg/m. I've dropped my weight by 51lbs this year without exercise, without counting calories or carbs simply by not eating those foods that raise insulin and disrupt blood glucose levels.
Exercise is also an important modifyable risk factor. Greatest risk reduction was observed among women who reported walking/hiking for exercise 10 or more hours per week compared with those reporting no walking/hiking. But do be aware that people who are walking/hiking 10hrs or more a week are generally spending more time in the sunshine and will also have higher Vitamin d status.
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
There are a useful series of videos explainining the science behind Vitamin D status and cancer incidence here.
Grassroots health Vitamin D and cancer videos.
You can download the actual slides used in those presentation from these links
Dose-Response of Vitamin D and a Mechanism for Prevention of Cancer
Vitamin D Deficiency: Analysis and Approach in a Comprehensive Cancer Center
by Donald L. Trump, M.D.
We know that for most people raising vitamin d status to 60ng/ml 150nol/l improves glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity.
We also know that breast cancers diagnosed/treated when vitamin d status is high have a better prognosis than those diagnosed treated when 25(OH)D status is low.
This graph (one of the many slides) shows the number of women who did NOT develop distant metastases with early breast cancer relative to 25(OH)D status.
Keeping your vitamin D3 status at the NATURAL level our bodies evolved to function best with, not only helps your diabetes but also improves your prospects regarding cancer and heart disease.
Grassroots health Vitamin D and cancer videos.
You can download the actual slides used in those presentation from these links
Dose-Response of Vitamin D and a Mechanism for Prevention of Cancer
Vitamin D Deficiency: Analysis and Approach in a Comprehensive Cancer Center
by Donald L. Trump, M.D.
We know that for most people raising vitamin d status to 60ng/ml 150nol/l improves glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity.
We also know that breast cancers diagnosed/treated when vitamin d status is high have a better prognosis than those diagnosed treated when 25(OH)D status is low.
This graph (one of the many slides) shows the number of women who did NOT develop distant metastases with early breast cancer relative to 25(OH)D status.
Keeping your vitamin D3 status at the NATURAL level our bodies evolved to function best with, not only helps your diabetes but also improves your prospects regarding cancer and heart disease.
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
Possible 75% cancer mortality reduction with Vitamin D
50,000 deaths from Breast cancer in USA/Canada could be prevented if people raised their vitamin D status to over 40ng ideally around 60ng as that gives a bigger reserve for seasonal variation.
The importance of this is to have a reserve to prevent tumors forming. It's the initial decoupling process that starts the tumor forming.
To get to the upper level 60ng usually requires 5000iu/daily. I get mine from IHERB Now foods 5000iu code WAB666 for $5 discount.
You can get the test they are talking about from here $40 by post worldwide
50,000 deaths from Breast cancer in USA/Canada could be prevented if people raised their vitamin D status to over 40ng ideally around 60ng as that gives a bigger reserve for seasonal variation.
The importance of this is to have a reserve to prevent tumors forming. It's the initial decoupling process that starts the tumor forming.
To get to the upper level 60ng usually requires 5000iu/daily. I get mine from IHERB Now foods 5000iu code WAB666 for $5 discount.
You can get the test they are talking about from here $40 by post worldwide
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
tedhutchinson;1033852 wrote: While eating tons of greens will be very good for you no amount of greens will improve your vitamin D status. Oily fish every day will help but as each portion of wild salmon contains only 400iu approx and each glass of milk at most (probably less) 100iu there is absolutely NO WAY you can obtain from diet alone sufficient vitamin D to meet your daily needs. If you exercise outdoors daily when your shadow is shorter than your height and you wear a mini bikini (or less) then maybe you will be raise your status above the level associated with least breast cancer incidence and optimum survival.
never said the cancer won't come back.
I do take vitamin D
2 large glasses of milk per day
I also take omega 3-6-9 three times a day.
I exercise daily
never said the cancer won't come back.
I do take vitamin D
2 large glasses of milk per day
I also take omega 3-6-9 three times a day.
I exercise daily
Life is just to short for drama.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
Ted....... Do you have any idea of how insensitive all of this is?
No good for me young sister............... SHE'S DEAD
There were Doctors far better qualified than you with far better drugs than you.
You are 'selling' women false hope.
No good for me young sister............... SHE'S DEAD
There were Doctors far better qualified than you with far better drugs than you.
You are 'selling' women false hope.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
oscar;1173035 wrote: Ted....... Do you have any idea of how insensitive all of this is?I see absolutely nothing insensitive in providing people with the scientific evidence that low vitamin d status is associated with a higher incidence and worse progression of breast cancer.
When people are properly educated and fully informed about how Vitamin D insufficiency is implicated in every stage of this cancer they are able to do something about making sure they stay above
No good for me young sister............... SHE'S DEAD It is precisely to reduce the same disaster happening to other people that I spend my time trying to explain what the latest science is telling us.
There were Doctors far better qualified than you with far better drugs than you. So you think there are other substances that are proven to reduce cancer incidence as much as vitamin D repletion will do?
I doubt you are right I would be pleased if you could provide the evidence you use to make that claim.
You are 'selling' women false hope.Absolutely not. Just go back and follow each of the links I have provided and spend some time trying to understand what these scientists are telling us.
Eating a low carbohydrate diet when combined with reducing omega 6 oils like sunflower oil/corn oil while attaining an optimal vitamin d status of around 60ng will reduce cancer incidence. Of that I am absolutely certain and if you want to go through the evidence with me I am perfectly happy to take you through the reasons for my conviction. But you first have to try to make the effort to understand the links I have provided so far.
[url=http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmed ... ryId=40144]Vitamin D Deficiency Common in Breast Cancer Patients
When people are properly educated and fully informed about how Vitamin D insufficiency is implicated in every stage of this cancer they are able to do something about making sure they stay above
No good for me young sister............... SHE'S DEAD It is precisely to reduce the same disaster happening to other people that I spend my time trying to explain what the latest science is telling us.
There were Doctors far better qualified than you with far better drugs than you. So you think there are other substances that are proven to reduce cancer incidence as much as vitamin D repletion will do?
I doubt you are right I would be pleased if you could provide the evidence you use to make that claim.
You are 'selling' women false hope.Absolutely not. Just go back and follow each of the links I have provided and spend some time trying to understand what these scientists are telling us.
Eating a low carbohydrate diet when combined with reducing omega 6 oils like sunflower oil/corn oil while attaining an optimal vitamin d status of around 60ng will reduce cancer incidence. Of that I am absolutely certain and if you want to go through the evidence with me I am perfectly happy to take you through the reasons for my conviction. But you first have to try to make the effort to understand the links I have provided so far.
[url=http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmed ... ryId=40144]Vitamin D Deficiency Common in Breast Cancer Patients
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
tedhutchinson;1173413 wrote: I see absolutely nothing insensitive in providing people with the scientific evidence that low vitamin d status is associated with a higher incidence and worse progression of breast cancer.
When people are properly educated and fully informed about how Vitamin D insufficiency is implicated in every stage of this cancer they are able to do something about making sure they stay above
It is precisely to reduce the same disaster happening to other people that I spend my time trying to explain what the latest science is telling us.
So you think there are other substances that are proven to reduce cancer incidence as much as vitamin D repletion will do?
I doubt you are right I would be pleased if you could provide the evidence you use to make that claim.
Absolutely not. Just go back and follow each of the links I have provided and spend some time trying to understand what these scientists are telling us.
Eating a low carbohydrate diet when combined with reducing omega 6 oils like sunflower oil/corn oil while attaining an optimal vitamin d status of around 60ng will reduce cancer incidence. Of that I am absolutely certain and if you want to go through the evidence with me I am perfectly happy to take you through the reasons for my conviction. But you first have to try to make the effort to understand the links I have provided so far.
[url=http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmed ... ryId=40144]Vitamin D Deficiency Common in Breast Cancer Patients
And how do you know that my sister did not take all of this while she was aive?
When people are properly educated and fully informed about how Vitamin D insufficiency is implicated in every stage of this cancer they are able to do something about making sure they stay above
It is precisely to reduce the same disaster happening to other people that I spend my time trying to explain what the latest science is telling us.
So you think there are other substances that are proven to reduce cancer incidence as much as vitamin D repletion will do?
I doubt you are right I would be pleased if you could provide the evidence you use to make that claim.
Absolutely not. Just go back and follow each of the links I have provided and spend some time trying to understand what these scientists are telling us.
Eating a low carbohydrate diet when combined with reducing omega 6 oils like sunflower oil/corn oil while attaining an optimal vitamin d status of around 60ng will reduce cancer incidence. Of that I am absolutely certain and if you want to go through the evidence with me I am perfectly happy to take you through the reasons for my conviction. But you first have to try to make the effort to understand the links I have provided so far.
[url=http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmed ... ryId=40144]Vitamin D Deficiency Common in Breast Cancer Patients
And how do you know that my sister did not take all of this while she was aive?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
tedhutchinson;1173413 wrote: I see absolutely nothing insensitive in providing people with the scientific evidence that low vitamin d status is associated with a higher incidence and worse progression of breast cancer.
When people are properly educated and fully informed about how Vitamin D insufficiency is implicated in every stage of this cancer they are able to do something about making sure they stay above[url=http://www.grassrootshealth.org/_downlo ... 072608.pdf} the level at which most breast cancer occur.[/url]
It is precisely to reduce the same disaster happening to other people that I spend my time trying to explain what the latest science is telling us.
The more info we can get, the more it lessons women getting it.....not insensitive to myself as I have had breast cancer......and my gramma died from it and my mom had it 3 times in her breasts....2 mastectomys at 2 different times, then it came back into her breast area again....she is 85 and still living....so for me, yes, the more educated I can be, will help myself in future.
I am on 1000UIC Vitamin D tablets....once a day,.
you had mentioned that I because I have had breast cancer I should be on more, was it 4 or 5000?.........and I am not sure if bottles come in the higher amounts, but I can just buy 2 at 20000 and take them twice daily?
I also drink 2 glasses of 1% milk each day which has Vitamin D
-also I am taking Aromasin, a cancer fighting cell tablet
thanks Ted.
When people are properly educated and fully informed about how Vitamin D insufficiency is implicated in every stage of this cancer they are able to do something about making sure they stay above[url=http://www.grassrootshealth.org/_downlo ... 072608.pdf} the level at which most breast cancer occur.[/url]
It is precisely to reduce the same disaster happening to other people that I spend my time trying to explain what the latest science is telling us.
The more info we can get, the more it lessons women getting it.....not insensitive to myself as I have had breast cancer......and my gramma died from it and my mom had it 3 times in her breasts....2 mastectomys at 2 different times, then it came back into her breast area again....she is 85 and still living....so for me, yes, the more educated I can be, will help myself in future.
I am on 1000UIC Vitamin D tablets....once a day,.
you had mentioned that I because I have had breast cancer I should be on more, was it 4 or 5000?.........and I am not sure if bottles come in the higher amounts, but I can just buy 2 at 20000 and take them twice daily?
I also drink 2 glasses of 1% milk each day which has Vitamin D
-also I am taking Aromasin, a cancer fighting cell tablet
thanks Ted.
Life is just to short for drama.
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
oscar;1173457 wrote: And how do you know that my sister did not take all of this while she was aive?Are you saying she did?
The chances are she is like most other USA/CANADIAN/UK women and have less than that third the D3 that evolution determined was necessary.
I doubt very much that your sister or any other woman you know spends around 20~30 minutes every day laying naked in the sun.
But that is the time necessary to make the amount of vitamin d3 your body uses (or ideally would like to have access to) every day.
Either you take a supplement to cover the D3 your body would have made if you did lay naked at noon for half an hour, or you remain vitamin D insufficient and more likely to get one of 17 different cancers of which prostate breast and colon are in the top 3.
Getting sufficient D3 daily cuts the risk of those and all those other cancers by 75%.
Now of course it is possible that your sister was one of those 25% for whom correcting vitamin d status would not have prevented the cancer or changed the outcome. But it is important for the all the readers of this thread to be aware of the major role vitamin D insufficiency has in enabling cancer cells to develop and replicate.
I am absolutely certain you would not want anyone else to suffer the way you sister did and would want to support any action that may prevent others going through what she did.
The chances are she is like most other USA/CANADIAN/UK women and have less than that third the D3 that evolution determined was necessary.
I doubt very much that your sister or any other woman you know spends around 20~30 minutes every day laying naked in the sun.
But that is the time necessary to make the amount of vitamin d3 your body uses (or ideally would like to have access to) every day.
Either you take a supplement to cover the D3 your body would have made if you did lay naked at noon for half an hour, or you remain vitamin D insufficient and more likely to get one of 17 different cancers of which prostate breast and colon are in the top 3.
Getting sufficient D3 daily cuts the risk of those and all those other cancers by 75%.
Now of course it is possible that your sister was one of those 25% for whom correcting vitamin d status would not have prevented the cancer or changed the outcome. But it is important for the all the readers of this thread to be aware of the major role vitamin D insufficiency has in enabling cancer cells to develop and replicate.
I am absolutely certain you would not want anyone else to suffer the way you sister did and would want to support any action that may prevent others going through what she did.
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
Odie;1173471 wrote: I am on 1000UIC Vitamin D tablets....once a day,.
you had mentioned that I because I have had breast cancer I should be on more, was it 4 or 5000?.........and I am not sure if bottles come in the higher amounts, but I can just buy 2 at 20000 and take them twice daily? The important thing is not how much vitamin d you are taking but what effect that Vitamin D3 is having on your 25(OH)D status.
To minimise Breast cancer to it's lowest level we need a NATURAL 25(OH)D LEVEL around 60ng or 150nmol/l. That is the kind of level our paleolithic ancestors achieved when they lived naked outdoors and that is when our DNA evolved. It is the level at which human breasts work as they evolved to function producing milk replete with vitamin d3.
Paleo babies did not have access to vitamin d drops nor did they need them.
Toronto is latitude 43 around the same a Wisconsin and there Dr Davis of the heartscanblog finds the average woman requires 5000iu/daily to reach that level.
If you are unhappy about taking that amount then spend $40 on a 25(OH)d TEST to check if you are around 60ng or not.
Most people are well below that level.
I use IHERB Now foods 5000iu Code $5 discount WAB 666.
but I've also used BIOTECH 5000IU in the past. providing it says D3 cholecalciferol and 5000iu that's fine. The cheaper it is the more you save.
I would still suggest you take any opportunity to get plenty of sun on as much skin as you day without getting burnt. 20mins is sufficient and it won't push you over the limit. you need 40,000iu /d to do that and that's not possible with one 5000iu/d and a bit of sun.
Vit d is fat soluble so 1% milk is not going to have much fat to carry the vit d.
Most vit d is fortified with D2 and most people find it hard to utilise D2. forget about the vitamin d in milk. It's not worth bothering about it's such a trivial amount anyway.
-also I am taking Aromasin, a cancer fighting cell tabletI can see no reason why having a natural vitamin d status should interfere with or impede the work of Aromasin. With Prostate cancer they find that improving vitamin d status improves the outcome of cancer therapy. I see no reason why it should not do the same for breast cancer indeed the graphs I've previously presented show just that. But they were considering 30ng while I'm suggesting double that because that is the level we know the DNA evolved to expect.
you had mentioned that I because I have had breast cancer I should be on more, was it 4 or 5000?.........and I am not sure if bottles come in the higher amounts, but I can just buy 2 at 20000 and take them twice daily? The important thing is not how much vitamin d you are taking but what effect that Vitamin D3 is having on your 25(OH)D status.
To minimise Breast cancer to it's lowest level we need a NATURAL 25(OH)D LEVEL around 60ng or 150nmol/l. That is the kind of level our paleolithic ancestors achieved when they lived naked outdoors and that is when our DNA evolved. It is the level at which human breasts work as they evolved to function producing milk replete with vitamin d3.
Paleo babies did not have access to vitamin d drops nor did they need them.
Toronto is latitude 43 around the same a Wisconsin and there Dr Davis of the heartscanblog finds the average woman requires 5000iu/daily to reach that level.
If you are unhappy about taking that amount then spend $40 on a 25(OH)d TEST to check if you are around 60ng or not.
Most people are well below that level.
I use IHERB Now foods 5000iu Code $5 discount WAB 666.
but I've also used BIOTECH 5000IU in the past. providing it says D3 cholecalciferol and 5000iu that's fine. The cheaper it is the more you save.
I would still suggest you take any opportunity to get plenty of sun on as much skin as you day without getting burnt. 20mins is sufficient and it won't push you over the limit. you need 40,000iu /d to do that and that's not possible with one 5000iu/d and a bit of sun.
Vit d is fat soluble so 1% milk is not going to have much fat to carry the vit d.
Most vit d is fortified with D2 and most people find it hard to utilise D2. forget about the vitamin d in milk. It's not worth bothering about it's such a trivial amount anyway.
-also I am taking Aromasin, a cancer fighting cell tabletI can see no reason why having a natural vitamin d status should interfere with or impede the work of Aromasin. With Prostate cancer they find that improving vitamin d status improves the outcome of cancer therapy. I see no reason why it should not do the same for breast cancer indeed the graphs I've previously presented show just that. But they were considering 30ng while I'm suggesting double that because that is the level we know the DNA evolved to expect.
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
tedhutchinson;1175634 wrote: The important thing is not how much vitamin d you are taking but what effect that Vitamin D3 is having on your 25(OH)D status.
To minimise Breast cancer to it's lowest level we need a NATURAL 25(OH)D LEVEL around 60ng or 150nmol/l. That is the kind of level our paleolithic ancestors achieved when they lived naked outdoors and that is when our DNA evolved. It is the level at which human breasts work as the evolved to function and produce human breast milk replete with vitamin d3. Paleo babies did not have access to vitamin d drops nor did they need them.
Toronto is latitude 43 around the same a Wisconsin and there Dr Davis of the heartscanblog finds the average woman requires 5000iu/daily to reach that level.
If you are unhappy about taking that amount then spend $40 on a 25(OH)d TEST to check if you are around 60ng or not.
Most people are well below that level.
I use IHERB Now foods 5000iu Code $5 discount WAB 666.
but I've also used BIOTECH 5000IU in the past. providing it says D3 cholecalciferol and 5000iu that's fine. The cheaper it is the more you save.
I would still suggest you take any opportunity to get plenty of sun on as much skin as you day without getting burnt. 20mins is sufficient and it won't push you over the limit. you need 40,000iu /d to do that and that's not possible with one 5000iu/d and a bit of sun.
Vit d is fat soluble so 1% milk is not going to have much fat to carry the vit d.
Most vit d is fortified with D2 and most people find it hard to utilise D2. forget about the vitamin d in milk. It's not worth bothering about it's such a trivial amount anyway.
I can see no reason why having a natural vitamin d status should interfere with or impede the work of Aromasin. With Prostate cancer they find that improving vitamin d status improves the outcome of cancer therapy. I see no reason why it should not do the same for breast cancer indeed the graphs I've previously presented show just that. But they were considering 30ng while I'm suggesting double that because that is the level we know the DNA evolved to expect.
Vitamin D and Cancer Mini-Symposium: The Risk of Additional Vitamin D.
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364661]Evidence from clinical trials shows, with a wide margin of confidence, that a prolonged intake of 10,000IU/d of vitamin D(3) poses no risk of adverse effects for adults, even if this is added to a rather high physiologic background level of vitamin D.
What that means is that in a cancer scenario, 10,000iu daily (that's TEN time daily what you are currently taking,) is a safe amount IRRESPECTIVE of the level of vitamin d you may have through prolonged sun exposure.
I am suggesting just half that amount is probably going to be be sufficient but after you have been taking 5000iu/daily for 3 months a 25(OH)d test would make it clear if you were over the 60ng threshold and did have an adequate store of D3 to zap any potential miscreant cancer cells in the bud.
To minimise Breast cancer to it's lowest level we need a NATURAL 25(OH)D LEVEL around 60ng or 150nmol/l. That is the kind of level our paleolithic ancestors achieved when they lived naked outdoors and that is when our DNA evolved. It is the level at which human breasts work as the evolved to function and produce human breast milk replete with vitamin d3. Paleo babies did not have access to vitamin d drops nor did they need them.
Toronto is latitude 43 around the same a Wisconsin and there Dr Davis of the heartscanblog finds the average woman requires 5000iu/daily to reach that level.
If you are unhappy about taking that amount then spend $40 on a 25(OH)d TEST to check if you are around 60ng or not.
Most people are well below that level.
I use IHERB Now foods 5000iu Code $5 discount WAB 666.
but I've also used BIOTECH 5000IU in the past. providing it says D3 cholecalciferol and 5000iu that's fine. The cheaper it is the more you save.
I would still suggest you take any opportunity to get plenty of sun on as much skin as you day without getting burnt. 20mins is sufficient and it won't push you over the limit. you need 40,000iu /d to do that and that's not possible with one 5000iu/d and a bit of sun.
Vit d is fat soluble so 1% milk is not going to have much fat to carry the vit d.
Most vit d is fortified with D2 and most people find it hard to utilise D2. forget about the vitamin d in milk. It's not worth bothering about it's such a trivial amount anyway.
I can see no reason why having a natural vitamin d status should interfere with or impede the work of Aromasin. With Prostate cancer they find that improving vitamin d status improves the outcome of cancer therapy. I see no reason why it should not do the same for breast cancer indeed the graphs I've previously presented show just that. But they were considering 30ng while I'm suggesting double that because that is the level we know the DNA evolved to expect.
Vitamin D and Cancer Mini-Symposium: The Risk of Additional Vitamin D.
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364661]Evidence from clinical trials shows, with a wide margin of confidence, that a prolonged intake of 10,000IU/d of vitamin D(3) poses no risk of adverse effects for adults, even if this is added to a rather high physiologic background level of vitamin D.
What that means is that in a cancer scenario, 10,000iu daily (that's TEN time daily what you are currently taking,) is a safe amount IRRESPECTIVE of the level of vitamin d you may have through prolonged sun exposure.
I am suggesting just half that amount is probably going to be be sufficient but after you have been taking 5000iu/daily for 3 months a 25(OH)d test would make it clear if you were over the 60ng threshold and did have an adequate store of D3 to zap any potential miscreant cancer cells in the bud.
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
tedhutchinson;1175634 wrote: The important thing is not how much vitamin d you are taking but what effect that Vitamin D3 is having on your 25(OH)D status.
To minimise Breast cancer to it's lowest level we need a NATURAL 25(OH)D LEVEL around 60ng or 150nmol/l. That is the kind of level our paleolithic ancestors achieved when they lived naked outdoors and that is when our DNA evolved. It is the level at which human breasts work as they evolved to function producing milk replete with vitamin d3.
Paleo babies did not have access to vitamin d drops nor did they need them.
Toronto is latitude 43 around the same a Wisconsin and there Dr Davis of the heartscanblog finds the average woman requires 5000iu/daily to reach that level.
If you are unhappy about taking that amount then spend $40 on a 25(OH)d TEST to check if you are around 60ng or not.
Most people are well below that level.
I use IHERB Now foods 5000iu Code $5 discount WAB 666.
but I've also used BIOTECH 5000IU in the past. providing it says D3 cholecalciferol and 5000iu that's fine. The cheaper it is the more you save.
I would still suggest you take any opportunity to get plenty of sun on as much skin as you day without getting burnt. 20mins is sufficient and it won't push you over the limit. you need 40,000iu /d to do that and that's not possible with one 5000iu/d and a bit of sun.
Vit d is fat soluble so 1% milk is not going to have much fat to carry the vit d.
Most vit d is fortified with D2 and most people find it hard to utilise D2. forget about the vitamin d in milk. It's not worth bothering about it's such a trivial amount anyway.
I can see no reason why having a natural vitamin d status should interfere with or impede the work of Aromasin. With Prostate cancer they find that improving vitamin d status improves the outcome of cancer therapy. I see no reason why it should not do the same for breast cancer indeed the graphs I've previously presented show just that. But they were considering 30ng while I'm suggesting double that because that is the level we know the DNA evolved to expect.
right now I really cannot afford that for a blood test, but I wil check into this as here in Ontario, medical is paid for.
If it does not cover this test, will it do me any harm in taking 5000 per day?
The Aromasin I just added in so you would know everything I am taking.
thanks Ted!
To minimise Breast cancer to it's lowest level we need a NATURAL 25(OH)D LEVEL around 60ng or 150nmol/l. That is the kind of level our paleolithic ancestors achieved when they lived naked outdoors and that is when our DNA evolved. It is the level at which human breasts work as they evolved to function producing milk replete with vitamin d3.
Paleo babies did not have access to vitamin d drops nor did they need them.
Toronto is latitude 43 around the same a Wisconsin and there Dr Davis of the heartscanblog finds the average woman requires 5000iu/daily to reach that level.
If you are unhappy about taking that amount then spend $40 on a 25(OH)d TEST to check if you are around 60ng or not.
Most people are well below that level.
I use IHERB Now foods 5000iu Code $5 discount WAB 666.
but I've also used BIOTECH 5000IU in the past. providing it says D3 cholecalciferol and 5000iu that's fine. The cheaper it is the more you save.
I would still suggest you take any opportunity to get plenty of sun on as much skin as you day without getting burnt. 20mins is sufficient and it won't push you over the limit. you need 40,000iu /d to do that and that's not possible with one 5000iu/d and a bit of sun.
Vit d is fat soluble so 1% milk is not going to have much fat to carry the vit d.
Most vit d is fortified with D2 and most people find it hard to utilise D2. forget about the vitamin d in milk. It's not worth bothering about it's such a trivial amount anyway.
I can see no reason why having a natural vitamin d status should interfere with or impede the work of Aromasin. With Prostate cancer they find that improving vitamin d status improves the outcome of cancer therapy. I see no reason why it should not do the same for breast cancer indeed the graphs I've previously presented show just that. But they were considering 30ng while I'm suggesting double that because that is the level we know the DNA evolved to expect.
right now I really cannot afford that for a blood test, but I wil check into this as here in Ontario, medical is paid for.
If it does not cover this test, will it do me any harm in taking 5000 per day?
The Aromasin I just added in so you would know everything I am taking.
thanks Ted!
Life is just to short for drama.
-
tedhutchinson
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:02 am
Breast Cancer- PLEASE READ
Odie;1175774 wrote: right now I really cannot afford that for a blood test, but I wil check into this as here in Ontario, medical is paid for. If you can get it free then fine. In the UK most Doctors are a bit reluctant to order the test where they (because they don't understand what the true consequences of vitamin D insufficiency are) do not see a medical reason to do so.
If it does not cover this test, will it do me any harm in taking 5000 per day? absolutely NOT you may take up to 10,000iu/daily without any risk whatsoever even if you also lay naked in the sun every day at noon.
Natural levels of Vitamin D status go from 50ng to 80ng 125~200nmol/l
The level above which adverse events may occur is 200ng or 500nmol/l
You would need an intake of 40,000iu/daily to get to danger level so 5000iu + sunshine simply won't/can't do any harm.
If it does not cover this test, will it do me any harm in taking 5000 per day? absolutely NOT you may take up to 10,000iu/daily without any risk whatsoever even if you also lay naked in the sun every day at noon.
Natural levels of Vitamin D status go from 50ng to 80ng 125~200nmol/l
The level above which adverse events may occur is 200ng or 500nmol/l
You would need an intake of 40,000iu/daily to get to danger level so 5000iu + sunshine simply won't/can't do any harm.