Tag Archives: news

Vitamin D and Cancer – Vitamin D Outperforms Pharmaceuticals at Treating Cancer


Everyone is deathly afraid of coming down with cancer, yet the very lifestyle that promotes cancer is the most popular. Cancer has been one of the leading causes of death in the United States, UK, and many other nations for years. Something is terribly wrong, as the war on cancer is failing miserably. The use of pharmaceutical drugs is not the answer, and the idea of prevention is seldom voiced. Luckily, making some dietary changes can reduce your cancer risk significantly. One example is showcased with research showing that a relationship between vitamin D and cancer exists; raising vitamin Dlevels can be more effective and much safer than dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and treatments. It costs a whole lot less as well.

Vitamin D and Cancer

Angus Dalgleish, a consultant medical oncologist residing in a city known as Tooting in south-west London, tests all of his patients for vitamin D levels and prescribes supplements for when the levels are low. Dalgleish noticed that patients at his clinic at St Georges suffering from melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, almost all were vitamin D deficient. Not only does the medical oncologist prescribe vitamin D for his melanoma patients, but he also prescribes the vitamin for other patients who are stricken with other types of cancer.

“If we supplement people who are low they may do better than expected. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if vitamin D turns out to be more useful in improving outcomes in cases of early relapse than drugs costing £10,000 a year,” said Professor Dalgleish. “I spent a decade studying interferon for which the NHS paid £10,000 annually per patient for years for very little benefit. Vitamin D is much more likely to give a benefit in my view.”

Other research from the University of Leeds showed similar connections between vitamin D and cancer, specifically melanoma. Patients with the lowest vitamin D levels had the gloomiest outlook and were also 30 percent more likely to suffer from the disease in the future than those with higher vitamin D levels.

At Creighton University in Nebraska, Joan Lappe, a professor of medicine, also noticed a strong link between vitamin D and cancer. He took note of the vitamin d and cancer relationship when cancer patients who received vitamin d and calcium supplementation increased their survival rates significantly. Although the trial was originally meant to evaluate the effects of supplements on osteoporosis, this accidental finding led Lappe to examine  the effects of supplements on cancer.

You May Not Be Getting the Vitamin D You Think You Are

Of course, none of this matters if you aren’t giving your body the necessary amount of vitamin D to work with. Foods fortified with vitamin d contain a synthetic, potentially harmful type of vitamin D called vitamin D2. Vitamin D2 is both inferior and could be harmful, so you may not want to search for fortified foods like milk and cereal just yet. Instead of chomping down on fortified foods, consume foods that naturally possess vitamin D such as cod liver oil, eggs, and seafood such as salmon, oysters, catfish, sardines, or shrimp. However, be careful when consuming fish, as most fish is toxic due to contaminates and chemicals residing in the water.

The best source of vitamin D is the sun, but the amount of vitamin D produced from sun exposure can vary greatly. Getting sun exposure in the summer when the rays are very strong can produce a lot of vitamin D – as much as 10,000 IU’s in just 20-30 minutes (a bit longer for dark skin). But soaking up the rays in winter months will not produce the same amount as the sun is less powerful.

One last thing to remember is to avoid using sunscreen if possible. Not only does research show that sunscreen causes cancer, but lathering on sunscreen also compromises your body’s ability to produce vitamin D from UV rays.

Additional sources:

Creighton University

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Vitamin D Association

Read more:
Article Source:

Vitamin D Kills Breast Cancer


Vitamin D kills breast cancer. Read more about it in Dr. Madrid’s book, Vitamin D Prescription

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/study-vitamin-d-kills-cancer-cells/story?id=9904415

How Much Water Do You Really Need?


There has been much talk over the years about everyone drinking 8 – 8 ounce glasses of water a day.   8 ounces is  236 ml. Many people drink from water bottles nowadays in addition to a glass.  In reality, each person is different and the amount of water we need depends on our lifestyle. However,  science shows that for every calorie we burn, 1 ml of water is used.

Assuming no heavy sweating,  a person who burns  1500 calories a day requires 1.5 L (1500 ml).  This is the equivalent to 3 water bottles, more or less.   Another way to calculate your water requirement is to drink your weight in ml.  If you weigh 200 lbs, drink 2000 ml (2 L).  If you weigh 150 lbs, drink 1500 (1.5 L).

*Please invest in a BPA free water bottle. Using disposable water

Are Mammograms Helpful or Harmful?


According to Recent Article in JAMA. The beneifts of mammogram screening in average risk women with no symptoms are marginal at best.

Imagine   we took   4,000 women,    40  years of age, with no symptoms, and separated them into 2 groups.  We offer 2,000 of the women a mammogram yearly or every other year  for 10 years.   The other 2,000 women  don’t   have a mammogram  for 10 years.  What would the difference in breast cancer death rates be over the following 10 years between the two groups?  The results may surprise you.

In the women who do NOT undergo yearly or every other year  mammogram for 10 years (5- 10 mammograms),  7 of the 2,ooo,  would die from breast cancer

In the women who DO undergo a  mammogram yearly or every other year for 10 years (5-10 mammograms), 6 of the 2,000 women would die from the mammogram.

In other words, the science shows that   1 in 2000 women, aged 40-49,  will avoid breast cancer due to the screening mammogram. Stated another way,  between 10,000 to 20,000 mammograms (assuming one is done every 1-2 years) need to be conducted to prevent 1 breast  cancer death for an average risk women between the age of 40-49.

Likewise, there will be 120-400 false positive screening tests requiring a surgical biospy  and 2-10 women will be “overdiagnosed” resulting in unnecessary  diagnosis and treatment resulting in surgery, radiation, chemotherapy for breast cancer.

While I am NOT recommending women avoid mammograms, I do recommend women talk to their doctors, their risk factors for breast cancer and what the best course of prevention and screening is  best for them.   In addition, eating a healthy diet, maintaining a healthy body weight and exercising routinely are  strongly encouraged to help prevent cancer from beginning in the first place.

Remember, a mammogram simply finds a cancer that is already there. It does not prevent cancer itself.  In fact, the cumulative radiation doses may increase risk of cancer for  a small number of women after 10 to 30 years of mammograms. In addition, low levels of vitamin D are also a risk factor for developing breast cancer. I would recommend you ask your doctor to measure your vitamin D level and strive to reach levels >50 ng/ml.

Sources:

The Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening, JAMA January 13, 2010. Vol. 303, No. 2

Vitamin D Prescription- The Healing Power of the Sun

Is Tamiflu any good against swine flu or is it worthless?


A major controversy about the efficacy of the antiviral agent Tamiflu in treating influenza has erupted in the online version of BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal. A team from the prestigious Cochrane Review says that its analysis of published data about clinical trials of the drug, known generically as oseltamivir, shows that the drug is able to reduce the course of an influenza infection by a day but that they are unable to conclude that the drug is effective at reducing complications and hospitalizations caused by flu because they do not have access to key data from eight clinical trials sponsored by the drug’s manufacturer, Roche Laboratories Inc. In acommentary accompanying the report, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee said, “Governments around the world have spent billions of pounds on a drug that the scientific community now finds itself unable to judge.”

In a response, Roche officials said that the data from the eight trials simply duplicated the results from published trials and did not provide enough new information to justify publication. The company also said that all of the data were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies when the company sought approval to market the drug and that those agencies found it convincing. Roche also said it would post the eight disputed trials on a pasword-protected website so that researchers would have access to it — although that has not occurred yet…read more here…