Another book, "Foods that Fight Cancer" made the recommendation to avoid 
supplements because the acive ingredient is too purefied. The author thinks 
that any anti-carcinogenic effect comes from a synergistic effect between it 
and the other constituents of the particular whole food . I think he thought 
that supplements are a waste of money and basicall ineffective. I can't 
recall what if anything was said about Vitamin D.

I take Vitamin D in the way of cod liver oil and sometimes add ground 
eggshells for calcium - a practice I started a couple of years ago during 
the fall/winter seasons to help stave off potential osteoporosis. If it is 
an effective anti-carcinogenic as well, then all the better.

I am taken aback at your dismissal of 20 years of research versus one (or 
more?) studies.

Marilyn

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: Supplements/Cancer Risk


> Marilyn Harris wrote:
>> How many studies have there been that validate what you are saying? The 
>> WCRF/ACIR reports are each 10 years in the making (that's 20 years of 
>> data gathering/analyses). One or two studies cannot make a serious health 
>> recommendation.
>>
>> Marilyn
>>
>>
>>> My gut reaction to this report is "trash".  Supplementing just with 
>>> vitamin D for example reduced cancer by 77% over a 3 year period.   Most 
>>> people should be taking vitamin D since few run around in loin cloths 
>>> during the summer months
>
> Perhaps it's your contention Marilyn that low vitamin D status is not 
> correlated with higher cancer rates and that there is no benefit to 
> raising vitamin D levels to normal regardless of the method and that your 
> contention is that supplementing with vitamin D WILL INCREASE cancer risk. 
> A 77% decrease in cancer is however very dramatic no matter how you choose 
> to slice it.  It is strong evidence that the general statement that 
> "supplements increase cancer risk" is "trash" talk with motives that seem 
> to be less than honorable.
>
> Personally, I take over 7000 IU of vitamin D daily to get my vitamin D 
> levels up to the mid normal range but ultimately I will be adjusting them 
> to the high normal range.  Vitamin D levels are correlated with latitude 
> with higher latitudes resulting in lower vitamin D blood levels and 
> increased cardiovascular disease.  I don't intend to ignore the mounting 
> evidence so that cancer interests can continue to make larger and larger 
> profits.
>
> My gut reaction to the "report" posted is still that it is generally 
> "trash". Even then, the evidence is so OVERWHELMING that vitamins 
> supplements are necessary in our modern environment for better health 
> (ignoring life extension objectives some of us have along with achieving 
> optimum vitamin/mineral levels) that the article recommend vitamins in 
> some cases at the end of the article.
>
> I can see the next article they might publish now; "Daily multi-vitamins 
> cause cancer: Avoid all vitamin enriched foods" not because of the lower 
> quality from being processed but because vitamins have been added back in. 
> Trash.
>
> The primary purpose of the American Medical Association, American Diabetic 
> Association, American Heart Association, etc., it to keeps their members 
> enriched, not to cure these problems and put the "associations" out of 
> business. Consequently, the American Institute for Cancer Research output 
> should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt and I doubt thay have much if 
> any positive things to say about eating Paleo - it probably causes cancer 
> too in their book.
>
> -- 
>
> Steve - [log in to unmask]
>
> Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at
> http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
>
> "If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march
> to truth we must still march on." --Stopford Brooke
>
>