Cancer Institute: Vit D does not prevent cancer | Arthritis Information

 

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/djm204

Results: We identified 536 cancer deaths in 146578 person-years. Total cancer mortality was unrelated to baseline vitamin D status in the entire population, men, women, non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, Mexican Americans, and in persons younger than 70 or 70 years or older. We found no interaction between vitamin D and season or vitamin D and serum retinol. Colorectal cancer mortality was inversely related to serum 25(OH)D level, with levels 80 nmol/L or higher associated with a 72% risk reduction (95% confidence interval = 32% to 89%) compared with lower than 50 nmol/L, Ptrend = .02.

Conclusions: Our results do not support an association between 25(OH)D and total cancer mortality, although there was an inverse relationship between 25(OH)D levels and colorectal cancer mortality.


Opinions, as always, vary...........

http://www.revolutionhealth.com/conditions/breast-cancer/vitamin-d

 

http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/Prevention/Use%20SunSense/Vitamin%20D.aspx?sc_lang=en

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18265099

 

http://stanford.wellsphere.com/vitamins-supplements-article/vitamin-d-stops-cancer-cuts-risk-in-half-study/413011

 

Lynn, you have to stop confusing opinions with facts. I posted a study. You posted 4 articles by journalists. One talked about the breast cancer study which showed as reduction in Cancer after 5 years. That study has been debunked since it turns out women who have higher levels of vitamin D actually have MORE incidents of breast cancer after 15 years.

What I posted was a study from the NATIONAL INSTITUTE of CANCER.

Does it ever occur to you you might be encouraging people to do long term harm to themselves with your, in my opinion, irresponsible and frequent promotion of Vitamin D?

While it may be helpful for some things, people should be examining both sides of the coin before taking your daily advice to take more vitamin D. It might not be "never a bad thing" as you have often said.I've got some concerns about this from the Reuters article:
"The new study led by Dr. Kimmie Ng of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston involved 304 men and women diagnosed with colorectal cancer from 1991 to 2002, to see if higher levels of vitamin D in the patients affected their survival chances.

In fact, that turned out to be the case.

The researchers in the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, used blood samples to determine vitamin D levels of the patients, and they were tracked for an average of about 6-1/2 years.

Those in the highest 25 percent of vitamin D levels were about 50 percent less likely to die during the study from their cancer or any other cause compared to the patients in the lowest 25 percent of vitamin D levels.

During the study, 123 of the patients died, 96 of them from colorectal cancer.

"It's probably premature to say that we should be recommending this as treatment for colon cancer, but vitamin D should definitely be studied in the setting of a clinical trial to see if it has any benefit to treating colorectal cancer," Ng said in a telephone interview.

Ng said a clinical study is being planned to test vitamin D as part of colorectal cancer treatment. It would involve patients who already have gotten their cancer surgically removed, with some getting chemotherapy with vitamin D after surgery and the others getting just the standard chemotherapy.

"Definitive evidence of a benefit of vitamin D in treating colon cancer would have to come from a clinical trial," Ng said."


It makes sense to me that those who were very sick with cancer and therefor more likely to die were probably not spending a lot of time in the sun, tanning bed, outdoors, or for that matter eating very much.  Would supplementing D help them?  Or were there counterparts with higher levels of D just doing better anyway and able to live a healthier lifestyle?

Like they said, a clinical trial is needed for 'proof'.
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00208793  <  this is one starting after a short duration trial.. I can say there is some lack of knowledge on the con-side of the spectrum. I can say it with confidence! Because the vitamin D lobby has an incredibly effective marketing group, all the stories we get are the pro side of the Vitamin. And yet there are many voices in the wilderness trying to present the con side that people are completely unaware of.

To be clear, I am neither for or against Vitamin D. The jury is out (but stacked). There is just not enough evidence on either side.

I am leery of anything which is promoted as a panacea for as many conditions as Vitamin D is. Isn't that what we're warned to look out for from Snake Oil salesmen? [QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]

To be clear, I am neither for or against Vitamin D. The jury is out (but stacked). There is just not enough evidence on either side.

I am leery of anything which is promoted as a panacea for as many conditions as Vitamin D is. Isn't that what we're warned to look out for from Snake Oil salesmen?[/QUOTE]

That's where I am coming from, too!  All these scary conditions linked to low D and even if it is true, not everybody has low D!  So much has been put out there, it seems the marketers want you to skip the important step of finding out what your levels are.  'I'll just buy a bottle next time I'm at Costco, and be protected from cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Cat Scratch Fever, indigestion, and hangnails.'
someone tell me... what advantage is it to push Vit D?  to lobby it?  It's not an enbrel that brings in MEGA cash... it's a vitamin....... often taken in a host of vitamins..  and  nothing is particularly special about any one VitD over another.. it's Vit D *shrug*