Not logged in
Will the mainstream ignore this cancer link?
By Christine O'Brien on 05/18/2011
The mainstream may want to cling to their claims that vitamin D isn't as big a deal as we make it out to be, but that slippery line is getting harder and harder to pull.
Especially when it comes down to the link between vitamin intake and cancer -- that's when the mainstream's willful ignorance gets downright dangerous.
Recently, a group of researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center released the results of a groundbreaking study, one of the first to examine the relationship between vitamin D and cancer progression. Breast cancer, specifically.
And what they found was big -- so big that it surprised even these expert scientists. They're calling for doctors to "strongly consider monitoring vitamin D levels among breast cancer patients" and to correct those levels as needed.
Why? Because they found that low levels of vitamin D are linked to more aggressive tumors and poorer prognosis. Translation: Vitamin D could make a very big difference in beating breast cancer.
Researchers looked at prognostic factors for 155 women who went under the knife for breast cancer between the beginning of 2009 and September 2010, as well as records of blood tests of vitamin D levels for one year before or after surgery.
They also looked at several other factors and worked with a new test called the Oncotype Dx score, which determines the likelihood of a recurrence of cancer based on a score of 0 to 100 (higher risk coming with scores over 30).
When vitamin D test results were separated into "optimal" and "sub-optimal" groups, they found that more aggressive cancers were correlated with low vitamin D levels. Low vitamin D levels were linked to high Oncotype Dx scores. As if that weren't enough, women with invasive cancer were also more likely to have low levels of D.
Something tells me we're not going to see these discoveries about D openly celebrated in the mainstream press. Which is a shame, because who knows how many lives could be saved.
But no matter what the mainstream says, don't let them convince you that vitamin D levels aren't a big deal. Work with a physician skilled in natural medicine to find your optimal levels of D (and other vitamins). And please make sure every woman in your life sees this post.
Printer-friendly versionAbout the author
Christine O'Brien writes the e-letter Health eTips for Dr. Wright's Nutrition and Healing.
You can sign up for the free eTips at www.wrightnewsletter.com.
Email this Article
Comments
Lori
This is so important that it probably won't be mainstream any time soon. It's such a cheap way to save lives that our pharmaceutical community certainly wouldn't want anyone to know. Okay, so I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the IOM recently said we only need 600 IUs daily and that Americans are not largely deficient. Any surprise that there was not one vitamin D "expert" on the panel, that they ignored hundreds of studies, or that one member has since created a D3 analog and cancer protocols that he has licensed?? I have been working with breast cancer patients and nutrition for several years and rarely has there been an oncologist that has even mentioned vitamin D. And the one who does cautions his patients not to exceed 1000 IUs daily because of toxicity. Obviously they don't even take the time to read the research published in their own journals. In a country where the almighty prescription is worth billions, I doubt we'll ever see the day where a nutrient is respected for its ability to promote health and sustain life. It's a damn shame...
Helen Wenley
Just follow the money....Personally I take 4000iu Vitamin D3 daily plus go out into the sun. It is so easy to test for and take Vitamin D.
At a recent doctor's visit he gave me a lecture about High Blood Pressure and all he could suggest was that I get my BP taken weekly by the nurses. No mention of exercise, diet, relaxation, stress, vitamin D, omega-3...WHY???? because they are brain washed by Big Pharma! BTW I suffer from 'white coat syndrome' - my husband has monitored my BP at home and it is normal.
Hanif, KL Malaysia
Please pardon my audacity but let us just take a layman reading the following: "Low vitamin D levels were linked to high Oncotype Dx scores".
I am disappointed that 1) there has been NO ATTEMPT at mention of how LOW is Low? 400 iu or what? or for that matter what is HIGH? 1000 iu, 4000iu? & 2) Simplify understanding for the sake of general public, instead of introducing daunting Medical or perhaps Statistical jargon.
It is not that I do not appreciate your attempts to highlight the importance of Vitamin D (D3?), but I get confused at what levels were administered in these studies referenced. At what levels are benefits &/ or dangers. Thank you.
Anonymous
Of course they would think that we are not vitamin D deficient since they fortify certain foods with same, they think that is enough, wrong, they still have blinders and we are paying the consequences of their act, now we know which vitamin D is the right one that is absorbable by our system and more beneficial, we were using the wrong type for so long that we were lacking all the good benefits of this wonderful hormone. JAM
Anonymous
Hanif there is a test for vitamin D, at the end it will be decided at what optimal levels the person is, therefore the supplementation starts, that is the beginning of how much to take when you reach these optimal levels the maintenance begins to maintain such levels, some people may need 1000 IU for maintenance some people 5000 IU to reach optimal levels there is no specific numbers we have to test beforehand and then take action. JAM
Post new comment