- This topic has 23 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
eavesdropper.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 24, 2011 at 7:29 PM #19158September 24, 2011 at 8:11 PM #729741
njtosd
ParticipantIf you go back and look at these articles the findings are very limited – usually looking at people who already have been diagnosed with cancer. From a brief review, it appears that the role of vitamin D seems to be important, which is better gotten from a supplement than unprotected exposure to the sun. These results sound encouraging but still tentative.
September 24, 2011 at 8:18 PM #729742Veritas
ParticipantI agree. D3 seems to be a key ingredient.
September 24, 2011 at 9:50 PM #729744scaredyclassic
Participantbeing a contrarian i have done a lot of shirtless running iover the alst decade n full sun on the theory that sunshine is essential to good health
September 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM #729757eavesdropper
Participant[quote=Veritas]Worth reading. Not an endorsement either way.
“Is Sunshine a Natural Cancer Cure for Melanoma, Prostate Cancer, Lymph Cancer & non-Hodgkins Lymphoma?”
“Ironically, sun exposure may even be a natural cancer cure for a variety of cancers, INCLUDING the feared MELANOMA, according to findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.”
http://www.healthdiscoveries.net/natural-cancer-cure.html%5B/quote%5DVeritas, this is NOT worth reading. I’m not sure what your purpose was in posting it; I’ll assume that it is one of two reasons:
(1) You stand to profit in some way from posting the URL for this site, and used the sensationalism of the title, and the implied NCI imprimatur to draw people in. If this is the case, I’ll assume that you’re not interested in discussing the validity of the information.
Or
(2) You accidentally came upon this website, and, believing that the site owner was of sterling repute, and the information was of sound scientific origin and significant importance, wanted to share. Kudos if this is the situation.
However,
At the risk of sounding harsh, the “information” is pure, unadulterated crap. The website is just another one of thousands that target vulnerable patients and their families, while posing as knowledgeable and highly ethical purveyors of scientific/medical information. In reality, most are cheap marketing sites for some product or the other. In this particular version, potential customers are advised to contact Connie Hargrave, MA, ECT, a “researcher” of dubious distinction for “recommendations” of products (and can anyone tell me the meaning of ECT as used by Ms. Hargrave?).
She claims to have posted medical research findings, but I checked the site over pretty good, and didn’t find a single journal article or conference abstract, or weblink, citation, or reference to supporting literature. The quote you included alluded to “findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute”, which would appear to be a good place for a link to said findings. Instead, there was a link to even more of Ms. Hargrave’s “research findings”. She engages in name-dropping of minor scientific figures, along with incomplete or distorted interpretations of their alleged research findings.
Yes, I took the time to research the information presented on the site. Let’s just say that much of what is presented is very seriously flawed, or outright false.
There’s nothing worth reading here; what’s more is that Ms. Hargrave and her like-minded counterparts on the internet have the potential to do great harm to patients and their families. There is no scientific evidence on record of sunlight or Vitamin D megadoses curing cancer, and there’s been no causal link established between the development of any of the cancers she mentions and lack of sunlight and/or Vitamin D.
If you are in need of accurate, up-to-date medical information, particularly on “cures”, I suggest starting with the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, particularly the National Cancer Institute, who have excellent resources for both the average patient/consumer and for medical/scientific professionals. And, no, they are not “hiding” or withholding miracle cures and treatments from the American public.
September 25, 2011 at 6:59 PM #729760ParticipantI do not profit from any of this. I have heard good things about D3. I am not so sure that NIH or any of the other government sites are any more honest than the quack sites. Some in the corporate medical profession seem to profit from keeping people sick rather than curing them. No need for you to attack me or come up with your pathetic two conclusions. You obviously have some kind of axe to grind and I do not. The only reason I would not recommend the sun is if the radiation from one of these nuke plants spreads, but I am sure the government will continue to lie and say all is good. Keep drinking that NCI and NIH Kool Ade.
You probably think Roundup Ready 2 Yield® food is good for you because the government has approved of it, too.
September 25, 2011 at 8:46 PM #729766Participant[quote=eavesdropper][quote=Veritas]Worth reading. Not an endorsement either way.
“Is Sunshine a Natural Cancer Cure for Melanoma, Prostate Cancer, Lymph Cancer & non-Hodgkins Lymphoma?”
“Ironically, sun exposure may even be a natural cancer cure for a variety of cancers, INCLUDING the feared MELANOMA, according to findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.”
http://www.healthdiscoveries.net/natural-cancer-cure.html%5B/quote%5DVeritas, this is NOT worth reading. I’m not sure what your purpose was in posting it; I’ll assume that it is one of two reasons:
(1) You stand to profit in some way from posting the URL for this site, and used the sensationalism of the title, and the implied NCI imprimatur to draw people in. If this is the case, I’ll assume that you’re not interested in discussing the validity of the information.
Or
(2) You accidentally came upon this website, and, believing that the site owner was of sterling repute, and the information was of sound scientific origin and significant importance, wanted to share. Kudos if this is the situation.
However,
At the risk of sounding harsh, the “information” is pure, unadulterated crap. The website is just another one of thousands that target vulnerable patients and their families, while posing as knowledgeable and highly ethical purveyors of scientific/medical information. In reality, most are cheap marketing sites for some product or the other. In this particular version, potential customers are advised to contact Connie Hargrave, MA, ECT, a “researcher” of dubious distinction for “recommendations” of products (and can anyone tell me the meaning of ECT as used by Ms. Hargrave?).
She claims to have posted medical research findings, but I checked the site over pretty good, and didn’t find a single journal article or conference abstract, or weblink, citation, or reference to supporting literature. The quote you included alluded to “findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute”, which would appear to be a good place for a link to said findings. Instead, there was a link to even more of Ms. Hargrave’s “research findings”. She engages in name-dropping of minor scientific figures, along with incomplete or distorted interpretations of their alleged research findings.
Yes, I took the time to research the information presented on the site. Let’s just say that much of what is presented is very seriously flawed, or outright false.
There’s nothing worth reading here; what’s more is that Ms. Hargrave and her like-minded counterparts on the internet have the potential to do great harm to patients and their families. There is no scientific evidence on record of sunlight or Vitamin D megadoses curing cancer, and there’s been no causal link established between the development of any of the cancers she mentions and lack of sunlight and/or Vitamin D.
If you are in need of accurate, up-to-date medical information, particularly on “cures”, I suggest starting with the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, particularly the National Cancer Institute, who have excellent resources for both the average patient/consumer and for medical/scientific professionals. And, no, they are not “hiding” or withholding miracle cures and treatments from the American public.[/quote]
Eavesdropper –
I agree that everything should be viewed with a skeptical eye, and I agree that the website mentioned in the original post is a little heavy on hype. However, the journal citation that you are looking for is here:
Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C, et al. Sun Exposure and Mortality From Melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:195–99.
And furthermore, there is an interesting (although I know very little about this) summary in Science Daily entitled “Two Studies Find Evidence That Sunlight May Have Beneficial Influence On Cancer”
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050205130639.htm)
The Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide, in “Benefits of Moderate Sun Exposure” admits the possibility of a relationship between low Vitamin D levels and cancer, and suggests that people may have gone a little too far in avoiding sunshine: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0604d.shtml
And you’re right – there is no evidence that megadoses of Vitamin D cures cancer, but dismissing the possibility of a relationship out of hand (and you were pretty harsh) seems a little closed minded. I used to TA for a class at Michigan called “The Biology of Cancer;” the number of things that have gone from being accepted to disproved (and vice versa) over the years should make everyone a little careful about dismissing ideas that make some sense.
Finally, if you click on people’s screen names you can see how long they’ve been on this board (Veritas has been here over 3 years) and how many posts (in the case of Veritas – lots) which would have shown that he/she probably wasn’t posting for the purpose of selling.
September 25, 2011 at 8:57 PM #729767Anonymous
Guestif it’s really true then a lot of people especially those who are suffering from cancer can now manage their disease in natural way and at a less costly therapy. Anyway talking about new study here, I also read in an article that parents are now able to have “designer babies,” or using genetic engineering to have exactly the child they want. The technology and techniques involved were produced out of a practical reason. However, it is now that individuals are creating human beings to order. Source for this article: Trend of designer babies still alive and well
September 25, 2011 at 11:29 PM #729775Aecetia
ParticipantNice post njtosd and thanks for the updated information. It is always good to look at both sides of the question in the interest of honest discussion. Rich does a good job of weeding out people who direct others to places for the purpose of selling products.
“Study shines more light on benefit of vitamin D in fighting cancer. University of California – San Diego — 600,000 cases a year of breast and colorectal cancer could be prevented each year by adequate intake of vitamin D, according to researcher.”
September 26, 2011 at 3:23 AM #729780Participant[quote=Veritas] I am not so sure that NIH or any of the other government sites are any more honest than the quack sites. Some in the corporate medical profession seem to profit from keeping people sick rather than curing them. [/quote]
On what non-anecdotal evidence do you base these statements? And I’m not talking “honesty”. I’m talking scientific evidence.
Unfortunately, you’re not alone in your broad-based judgements. Statements identical to yours are being repeated by millions of Americans, including some of our esteemed presidential candidates. And I will probably regret asking this, but what in the world does the “corporate medical profession” and your allegation that they are keeping people sick have to do with the NIH? What IS the “corporate medical profession”?
[quote=Veritas]No need for you to attack me or come up with your pathetic two conclusions. You obviously have some kind of axe to grind and I do not. [/quote]
You’re right. I do have an axe to grind. But not with you.
If you had read the statement carefully, and endeavored to comprehend it, you would have realized that I (1) stated that I didn’t understand WHY you had posted it, (2) that, in the absence of any information to that effect in your post, I was left to determine whether it was (a) you were profiting from it, or (b) you had had an altruistic motive in doing so. Since I did not elaborate on Possibility #1, and addressed only Possibility #2, it would appear that I was NOT of the opinion that you had posted the information in the pursuit of personal profit. And despite what njtosd assumed in another post, I am well aware of your lengthy history as a Pigg’s poster, and took that as further evidence of your just wanting to share what you believed to be important and scientifically-accurate health information.
I didn’t attack you. However, I did attack the source of your information, and I don’t regret doing so. I admit to having major issues with people, such as the “researcher” in your source website (and, I suspect, owner of the site), who disseminate false or distorted health-related information in an effort to sell a product, or advance an agenda. I am particularly angered when they claim impressive-sounding credentials, and partner that with a claim that they promote only “natural” remedies and cures.
Over the years, I have spent countless hours (i.e., thousands) counseling patients, and also family members and friends, who have heard about the latest “miracle” cure from a friend or a magazine article or a “health website” that was actually a marketing site. And contrary to what you and others on this thread may believe, I never dismiss anything out of hand that I haven’t checked out thoroughly.
I don’t research things to prove that they’re not true. I wish that I did since that would take next to no time at all: one can always find “evidence” to support their opinion. To support a position, you have to approach the subject with a completely open mind. So what that means is that I spend a tremendous amount of time trying to establish the validity of the information someone has given me. Since I initially decided to respond to your original post, I have done several lengthy literature searches (and that’s not the same as a Google search), and I’ve read a few dozen scientific papers regarding the role of Vitamin D in preventing both a wide variety of cancers, and in preventing serious illnesses. I’ve also done exhaustive research on the authors of these papers and articles, in addition to reading a large number of articles in a variety of publications, some geared to laypersons, other to the medical/scientific community. I did this for the initial post, and I did it again following the more recent ones.
Just to establish a point you raised. Despite your statement to “Keep drinking that NCI and NIH Kool Ade”, that, in no way describes how I approach these issues. Despite my trust in the competence of the NIH, NCI, and CDC, and in the validity of the information they post on their sites, I wouldn’t automatically take their word for anything. I trust the information they disseminate because it is *always* accompanied by the references to scientific research studies/publications that they have cited, and I read THAT material AND cross-reference it, before accepting, or rejecting, the particular agency’s opinions. Because I go to those lengths to establish validity, I feel comfortable telling those who have consulted me that they should use these agencies to gather their own information when necessary.
In case you don’t remember, YOU started this thread with this statement: “Ironically, sun exposure may even be a natural cancer cure for a variety of cancers, INCLUDING the feared MELANOMA, according to findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.” That would be the very same National Cancer Institute (NCI) I referred you to in my post. If you feel more comfortable doing so, you can subscribe to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Cancer Cell, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Environmental & Molecular Mutagenesis, Cell & Molecular Biology, and many other journals to establish that you are directly accessing information from the scientists and researchers conducting these studies, rather than placing your trust in agencies that you believe lack scientific integrity. Subscriptions to the journals can be quite expensive (several hundreds of dollars yearly for each one), but virtually all of the reputable peer-reviewed journals post their contents in PubMed, which contains over 20 million biomedical lit citations. But keep in mind that it’s run by the NIH and National Library of Medicine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
[quote=Veritas]You probably think Roundup Ready 2 Yield® food is good for you because the government has approved of it, too.[/quote]
I know nothing about this subject, and honestly don’t have the time to delve into it right now. Since I don’t sense that you’re actually asking for a discussion of the pros and cons of Roundup Ready 2 Yield® food, I’ll simply make sure that I avoid it if I’m offered any.
However, if you have important information on its safety, or lack thereof, I wish you would share it. I mean that sincerely. I’m sorry that I didn’t adopt a “kinder, gentler” way of casting my doubt on the source of information in your original post, but I’m not always politically correct in these situations. I honestly was not attacking you, Veritas, and I apologize if it sounded that way.
September 26, 2011 at 6:19 AM #729783Participant[quote=njtosd]I agree that everything should be viewed with a skeptical eye, and I agree that the website mentioned in the original post is a little heavy on hype. [/quote]
njtosd, the website wasn’t “a little heavy on hype”. It was nothing but hype. If you read through it, it made claims of “natural” cures for a large number of widely differing diseases and disorders. It misquoted legitimate research, used material quoted on similar sites as “research findings, and made wild claims of extraordinarily successful results from technologies that don’t exist.
Are you aware of the incredibly high number of sites out there just like this one? All being read by people who take it as gospel because the site owners put on a white coat, talk about a “natural” cure, and talk about “research findings” from “scientists” at institutions with immediately recognizable prestigious names.
[quote=njtosd]However, the journal citation that you are looking for is here:
Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C, et al. Sun Exposure and Mortality From Melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:195–99.
And furthermore, there is an interesting (although I know very little about this) summary in Science Daily entitled “Two Studies Find Evidence That Sunlight May Have Beneficial Influence On Cancer”
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050205130639.htm)
The Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide, in “Benefits of Moderate Sun Exposure” admits the possibility of a relationship between low Vitamin D levels and cancer, and suggests that people may have gone a little too far in avoiding sunshine: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0604d.shtml%5B/quote%5D
There’s a lot of completely different stuff here. But if you actually read these papers, you find that virtually every one talks about “risk” and “incidence” of cancers. These are epidemiological studies, and the papers are authored by epidemiological researchers. They look at a certain number of people who have or have had some form (or various forms, but I won’t go into why that’s not a good idea…) of cancer, and then ask them all sorts of questions about their health, habits, diet, family history, work, education, etc. They do the same with a group of people who have never had cancer. Then they look at the common factors, and low levels of Vitamin D is one of them. Supposedly, many of these studies show very low or nonexistent levels, and these are the ones that the “natural cure” proponents are all over.
Epi studies are very tricky, and quite often, even though the papers are supposed to have been peer-reviewed, they have very serious flaws. or design issues. But even more important is the fact that INCIDENCE does not mean CAUSE. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is no scientific evidence on record of sunlight or Vitamin D megadoses curing cancer, and there’s been no causal link established between the development of any of the cancers she mentions and lack of sunlight and/or Vitamin D.
The Journal of the NCI reference you provided is from 2005. Six years have elapsed since then, during which time, some causal link should have been isolated, if it indeed exists. But there’s nothing on record.
I’m sorry: establishing increased incidence is not enough to go around the country claiming that hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer could have been prevented, or avoided, as many of these epidemiologists have done. That is wildly irresponsible.
[quote=njtosd]
The Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide, in “Benefits of Moderate Sun Exposure” admits the possibility of a relationship between low Vitamin D levels and cancer, and suggests that people may have gone a little too far in avoiding sunshine: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0604d.shtml[/quote]
No offense, but……Gee, y’think?! And that’s precisely the problem with what these people are doing. It doesn’t take much for the news media to get all up in arms about medical “discoveries.” That’s how sunscreen got to be so popular and, ultimately, completely abused.
[quote=njtosd] And you’re right – there is no evidence that megadoses of Vitamin D cures cancer, but dismissing the possibility of a relationship out of hand (and you were pretty harsh) seems a little closed minded. I used to TA for a class at Michigan called “The Biology of Cancer;” the number of things that have gone from being accepted to disproved (and vice versa) over the years should make everyone a little careful about dismissing ideas that make some sense. [/quote]
njtosd, I didn’t dismiss the possibility out of hand. Not at all. But establishing a causal link means that a researcher has to be able to identify the mechanism of the link, if it exists. That HAS NOT happened. There was some preliminary identification of some D3 pathways as possibly complicit, several years back, but very little since then. What’s more is that there’s almost no one working on it.
When you really start to examine this in greater detail, you begin to recognize the same names coming up over and over on lists of researchers working on the Vit D issue. The list is strikingly short, and it is made up primarily of epidemiologists whose work is being disseminated not by respected medical journals, but by non-peer-reviewed nutrition site.
I do believe that most Americans probably lack sufficient Vit D in their diets, and a whole mess of other vitamins also. But that doesn’t mean that suddenly increasing Vit D intake by 1000% will instantly cure you of cancer, or totally prevent it from developing.
There’s a lot of ideas out there that appear to make sense. That doesn’t mean that we should try to force them to fit desired results. Wouldn’t that defeats the whole purpose of the scientific method, doesn’t it?
September 26, 2011 at 7:12 AM #729785ParticipantAnother monkey wrench; scientific studies which show what appear to be ironclad causal links tend to decline over tome when tests are done over a period of years in many cases. I don’t have the cite but this was a lengthy new yorker article a few months back.
Scientists are puzzled.
Never accept anything as established.
September 26, 2011 at 8:40 AM #729786jpinpb
ParticipantI am very conflicted on this Vitamin D issue. My doctor says I have low (very low) Vitamin D. But I have some health issues. I think Vitamin D deficiency is caused by something, some underlying disease process. That doesn’t mean supplementing it will improve one’s condition, IMO. I don’t know quite what to think any more.
I read this article from 2008 and it has me wondering.
Vitamin D Deficiency Study Raises New Questions About Disease And Supplements
Low blood levels of vitamin D have long been associated with disease, and the assumption has been that vitamin D supplements may protect against disease. However, this new research demonstrates that ingested vitamin D is immunosuppressive and that low blood levels of vitamin D may be actually a result of the disease process. Supplementation may make the disease worse…….Molecular biology is now forcing us to re-think the idea that a low measured value of vitamin D means we simply must add more to our diet….
“Our disease model has shown us why low levels of vitamin D are observed in association with major and chronic illness,” Marshall added. “Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone, and the body regulates the production of all it needs. In fact, the use of supplements can be harmful, because they suppress the immune system so that the body cannot fight disease and infection effectively.”
Marshall’s research has demonstrated how ingested vitamin D can actually block VDR activation, the opposite effect to that of Sunshine…..
Vitamin D deficiency, long interpreted as a cause of disease, is more likely the result of the disease process, and increasing intake of vitamin D often makes the disease worse.
September 26, 2011 at 9:08 AM #729789The-Shoveler
ParticipantWell I think a little (or at least some) sun is a good thing, as I understand it we evolved either running around naked in the garden of Eden or the African savanna chasing down prey and attempted not to become the same.
September 26, 2011 at 2:01 PM #729798ParticipantHere you go eaves- not sure if you like the Huff Post or not, but here is an article on Roundup Ready crops. I wonder if all the food allergies are not to the food, per se, but as a reaction to being poisoned by this chemical cocktail. The article says the the Sec. of Ag. is deregulating RRA. This will be fed to animals and the chemical then will work its way into humans via the animal products we ingest. Here it is:
“Recent research claims that Monsanto’s Roundup Ready genetically modified crops contain an organism, previously unknown to science, that can cause miscarriages in farm animals. This disturbing find comes on the heels of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s decision to deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA). Roundup Ready is designed to survive Roundup, Monsanto’s weed-killing chemical.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto-roundup-ready-miscarriages_n_827135.html
Finally, this was at the end of the original article. A Note To The Reader:
“The ideas contained on this website are for educational purposes only, and are not intended to treat any disease, nor as a substitute for consulting with your physician. All matters regarding your health require medical supervision. The information provided is not intended to serve as health, medical, or other professional advice
related to individual situations. No therapeutic or medical claims are either implied or made.
No particular results are guaranteed.”
http://www.healthdiscoveries.net/natural-cancer-cure.html -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.