The AICR Report actually does in fact recommend Vitamin D although it is not emphasized as much as it sould have been IMO. However the thesis of these two reports has been of prevention of cancer through food consumption. 

http://www.aicr.org/site/PageServer?pagename=dc_recs_08_no_supplements

"Older people should consider taking a vitamin D supplement, as should: people who rarely go outdoors; people who cover up all their skin when outdoors; those who don't eat meat or oily fish. "

Marilyn


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marilyn Harris" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: Supplements/Cancer Risk


> 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
>>
>> 
> 
>