Tag Archives: prescription

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:

Too Often, Taking Drugs Is Like Playing Roulette


PEOPLE’S PHARMACY

Too Often, Taking Drugs Is Like Playing Roulette

By JOE GRAEDON and TERESA GRAEDON

February 15, 2008

dcmaxversion = 9 dcminversion = 6 Do On Error Resume Next plugin = (IsObject(CreateObject(“ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.” & dcmaxversion & “”))) If plugin = true Then Exit Do dcmaxversion = dcmaxversion – 1 Loop While dcmaxversion >= dcminversion

Taking medicine is often a gamble. You are betting that the benefits will outweigh the risks. But do you realize a payoff is far from certain?

Drug companies rarely have to prove that their pills actually produce the desired outcome. All they have to show is that the medication moves the needle on some gauge or lab test.

These numbers are called surrogate endpoints. They are things like blood pressure, cholesterol or blood sugar. If you have hypertension, elevated cholesterol levels or diabetes, it is assumed that getting the numbers down is good enough. But the real aim is reducing the risk of kidney disease, strokes and heart attacks. Few drugs are proved to accomplish those goals.

Imagine going to a casino. If you want to play poker or roulette, you buy chips. Those chips are your surrogate money. If you win, you get to cash the chips back in for real money.

Any gambler would be outraged if the casino refused to trade the chips for cash at the end of a successful night. No casino would last long if it didn’t pay up.

Drug companies, though, get away without delivering on the eventual outcome because such studies are expensive and take a long time to complete. It is far easier just to prove that your pills lower cholesterol or blood sugar — and that is all the Food and Drug Administration requires.

Several recent studies suggest that such surrogates are no longer adequate. A huge diabetes study financed by the federal government was halted prematurely because the results were so disappointing.

The ACCORD trial (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) was designed to lower blood sugar aggressively in high-risk diabetes patients. To everyone’s surprise, those who got the most intensive treatment with insulin and oral medications were more likely to die than those on standard therapy.

Researchers were shocked that better blood-sugar control did not result in an improved outcome as expected. In fact, just the reverse occurred. It would be like winning the lottery and discovering you had to pay money instead of taking your winnings.

Another study, Allhat, shocked the cardiology community when it revealed that an inexpensive diuretic outperformed newer, fancier drugs in preventing heart attacks and heart failure. All the drugs lowered blood pressure, but most doctors expected the more expensive drugs to provide a survival advantage. Some of the most popular pills actually increased the risk for heart failure.

These disappointments are reminiscent of another recent setback. The Enhance study was supposed to prove that lowering bad LDL cholesterol aggressively with a combination pill called Vytorin (Zetia plus simvastatin) would reduce clogging of carotid arteries. Vytorin did work better than simvastatin alone to reduce LDL. But to everyone’s surprise, the lower cholesterol numbers did not lead to cleaner arteries.

The study was not large enough to tell scientists whether the drug would reduce the likelihood of heart attacks or strokes. Those studies will take years to complete. In the meantime, the unexpected outcome of the ACCORD trial should make everyone wary of just assuming that lower numbers by themselves mean better health and longer survival.

Contact Joe Graedon and Teresa Graedon at their website: www.PeoplesPharmacy.com.

<!–