Almost all breast cancer patients vitamin D deficient

We have a generation of women who are told that abortion is okay and to stay out of the sun.

Lack of vitamin D and abortions are both proven breast cancer causes.

We're all told to stay out the sun and if we are going in it well slap on the sunscreens.

That's interesting... is miscarriage a cause too? Because that is very unfortunate if so :(

Neither are proven breast cancer causes at all.
As the original post stated quite clearly, the study states that there is a vit D deficiency in newly diagnosed patients. That means there is a link. It doesn't mean that lack of vit D is a cause.
There is a big difference.

The abortion statement you mentioned is completely wrong though. There's no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Sounds reasonable. I had testicular cancer 6 years ago, and after that i did some research on why you get it. Turned out kalcium is the main reason for getting it. In countries with high dairy consumption (Sweden, Denmark, USA etc) the rates are very high. Nut in countries with low consumption (Almost all asian countries) the rates are very low. Thankfully it's an easy cancer to cure, and a disease noone should have to get.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Nonetheless, it does indicate the possibility of causation.

Personally, I think that the consumption of sugar and refined starches are likely linked to breast cancer.

I hope you are 100% in the clear.

calcium used to be straight forward for me years ago but seems that without its companion vitamins/minerals like magnesium, Vitamin K2 and such the calcium becomes a problem as it ends up everywhere its not meant to be.

I don't have a link but I've read a couple of studies that showed similar results for women who use antiperspirants. Apparently the atomized aluminum particals intended to block sweat glands collect in the fatty tissue of the breasts leading to tumors.

Cancer is a process not a disease. The underlying causes are toxicities (food toxins, environmental toxins, and the toxic shit women slap on their faces to impress each other) and nutritional deficiencies.

Hopefully one of the biggest scams of the 20th century will not last long in this century.

Likewise, most breast cancer patients are iodine deficient.

Likely caused by constant over-exposure to flouride, bromide and chlorine, all of which will compete with iodine for uptake.

[link to www.amazon.com]

Last Edited by MindShaft on 09/18/2012 01:04 PM

100% in the clear! Thank you!

People should be really careful with what they put in their mouths. I'm very sure eating processed food is much worse than smoking. And all extra added vitamins and stuff. That's why we get cancer.

So, in conclusion, breast cancer like every other cancer, is caused by a myriad of reasons and there isn't one definitive cause or cure for all or any.

Yes their are many things that push the body towards cancer of any form but to say there is no definitive cause is something the cancer industry would say!

Things are pointing towards calcitriol (Vit D) been a big player in many health issues to which cancer is one. It directly influences 229 genes and 2,776 binding sites for the vitamin D receptor along the length of the genome.

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

A ChIP-seq defined genome-wide map of vitamin D receptor binding: Associations with disease and evolution
[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Wrong, the opposite is what quacks would say.
They like to suggest a specific cause therefore making a specific cure more plausible when the truth is far from it.

Take the premise of this post, the vit D deficiency found in Pakistani women just after diagnosis. If you look at the actual published trial, it has a few very notable caveats and several assumptions.

[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

"Vitamin D concentration may be a risk and/or a valuable prognostic factor in breast cancer patients on the basis of various studies but data from large randomized trials are still sparse."

"Low levels of vitamin D are the norm rather than an exception in South East Asia. The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in healthy asymptomatic people is reported in the range of 70-97% in Pakistan and this is more common in the urban population.[14] The incidence is twice that in western population."

"The relatively small size of the study population limited our ability to detect statistically significant trends of vitamin D deficiency with respect to histopathological characteristics of the breast cancer. Vitamin D deficiency is rampant in Pakistan and also serum 25(OH)2D levels are reflective of a recent and not life time vitamin D intake; hence one single measurement of vitamin D levels in our study may not be reflective of long term exposure. The relevant time period during which 25(OH)2D levels may affect breast cancer occurrence or survival is currently unknown."

Again, to suggest that cancer is caused by a single factor is naive at best and downright dangerous at worst.

No I will tell you what’s dangerous and that’s the cancer industries constant bullshit of Oh we don’t know what causes cancer when it’s staring the world in the face!

Even in our daily lives the average human gets exposed to so many chemicals that are linked, known or suspected cancer causing chemicals.

A snip from the environmental working groups findings on such:

287 chemicals we detected in umbilical cord blood, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests.

[link to www.ewg.org]

And chemicals can turn genes on or off and cause chaos.

Animal studies indicate that some environmental chemicals cause epigenetic changes that trigger breast and prostate cancer, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, asthma, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and learning disabilities, she said. And some new human studies are now adding to the evidence.

[link to axisoflogic.com]

Think I cut a bit too much out your quote there but concerning vitamin D deficiency its wide spread.

“While it was reassuring that only four per cent of the population had severely deficient levels, national strategies are urgently needed to attack the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Australia before the problem worsens.”

For the study, the researchers measured the vitamin D levels of 11,218 adults aged 25-95 years from all six states and the Northern Territory as part of the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) study conducted by the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in 1999-2000.

The study revealed:
• 31 per cent of the population were vitamin D deficient
• Nearly three quarters (73 per cent) had levels considered by many experts as below the optimal for musculoskeletal health
• The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency increased with age, especially in women; 26 per cent of women aged 25-34 years were deficient which increased to 57 per cent for those aged 75 years and over. This is an important finding as vitamin D deficiency is a key risk factor for falls and fractures in the elderly.
• People of non-European origin were 4-5 times more likely to be deficient
• Those who were obese and physically inactive were around twice as likely to be vitamin D deficient

[link to www.deakin.edu.au]

Last Edited by Fhirinne on 09/18/2012 04:04 PM

deodorant/parabens/cancer....connect the dots.

So going on your first rant, explain why cancer has always been prevalent in humans since well before heavy metals and other pollutants were around.

Your first "study" used a massive 10 samples! That's right, 10 (ten). How can I fail to be convinced with such a large sample selection.
I've absolutely no doubt that people, especially those who live in urban areas, are subjected to horrific amounts of pollution on a daily basis but for you to suggest that it's the definitive cause of cancer again shows your naiveity and lack of comprehension of how cancer starts. Surely by your reckoning everyone who lives in a city and/or has poor nutrition should contract cancer. But guess what, they don't. Weird eh? That may be something to do with the multiple factors concerned with cancer causation rather than just the one.
Where you've said "180 chemicals cause cancer" you should really have added the word can.

The second study is just telling us what we already know. Chemicals can cause other chemicals to change however even in that study their research is only at an indicative stage.

Thirdly I have no beef about vit D levels being reduced, you can look around and see similar studies about it in several countries and the majority all come to the same conclusion.
However the amount of people with such a deficiency in no way matches the levels of cancer at all.

None of what you've shown me has enough evidence or credibility to convince me to change my thinking on what I know about cancer.
You can come up with all the usual anti " cancer industry" conspiracy bullshit that you want but until one of these alternative causes, cures, therapies, miracles, whatever you want to call them actually comes with fully documented and irrevocable proof then I'm afraid I'll always be very skeptical of them.
I would love there to be a simple cause and cure believe me.

Cancer has so they say has been around for some time but never in the rates the world is now seeing and they are saying by 2030 cases of cancer will have rose some 75%.

Now I notice you totally threw out the first study because of the low numbers involved and you threw out its findings just because you don’t believe chemicals cause cancer when in so many studies they actually induce cancer in animals using chemicals! Its not just urban areas too it’s the countryside too!

And it’s not where I said they cause cancer its people with a lot more knowing than me, they said it!

The 2nd study is talking not about chemicals cause other chemicals to change its about turning genes on and off.

And seen as you wanted more numbers here are a another two studies giving more numbers.

Reduced birth weight in relation to pesticide mixtures detected in cord blood of full-term infants.
[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Into adults

Human biomonitoring of environmental chemicals--early results of the 2007-2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey for males and females.
[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Levels of selected organochlorine insecticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, phthalates and perfluorinated aliphatic substances in blood--Polish WWF study

The limited number of samples does not allow for making an analysis of potential impact of different factors on concentrations of particular contaminants in human blood. Results obtained in this survey confirm the ubiquitous contamination by a cocktail of hazardous chemicals of every person tested. Humans being a part of the environment are being contaminated with the same chemicals which are present in surrounding air, water, food, consumer articles, etc.
[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

this is where i get my vitamin D from...

[link to www.vitamist.com]

90% absorbed in 22 to 30 seconds right into the blood stream, COMPLETELY by-passing the gastro tract.

Anyways back on track now.

Vitamin D Improves Survival for Breast, Lung, Colon Cancers and Lymphoma: This new study from Norway showed that cancer patients (with the above four types of cancer) in the highest quartile for vitamin D levels (> 80 nmol/L) were 64% less likey to die from their cancers compared to those in the lowest quartile of vitamin D levels (<50 nmol/L). This study was done on 658 patients over a 24 year period, with at least a 4 year follow-up per patient after diganosis.

[link to www.foodconsumer.org]

Vitamin D3 Shrinks Breast & Prostate Tumours in Mice: This breakthrough study has just shown that high doses of vitamin D3 shrunk xenografted human breast tumours (MCF-7) by 50% in mice, with similar results for PC-4 prostate tumours. Importantly, the high doses of vitamin D3 administered did not alter the serum calcium levels of the mice, which is a potential danger if using the hormonally active form of vitamin D (calcitriol).

[link to www.foodconsumer.org]

Vitamin D to Prevent Breast Cancer: This latest study shows that high levels of vitamin D (> 30 ng/dL) decreased the risk of getting breast cancer by 63% in postmenopausal women and by 40% in premenopausal women compared to those with lower levels of the vitamin (<20 ng/dL). This case-control study was carried out in Mexico on over 2,000 women aged 35-69.

[link to www.foodconsumer.org]

All cancers=Lack of vitamin D

Thought I'd take a look at them myself and shakes head at them.

The Vitamin D/D3 Spray contains Polysorbate 80.

Why would someone 1 star this???? Nobody knows what causes cancer. Why not discuss??????

Nobody knows what causes cancer

Yes we do

H BOMB testing and reator leaks

"Cancer they say has been around for some time"????
What exactly do you mean by that? Years, decades, centuries, what?
Cancer has ALWAYS been around and by that I mean since there has been multi-cellular animals there has been cancer.

I didn't throw away the first study at all if you actually take time to read what I posted. I don't believe it's a particular robust study because of the numbers involved as it cannot be a true cross-section by definition.
I'll say again, I don't doubt that we are subjected to gross amounts of pollutants on a daily basis which that very limited study would indicate. What I disagree with, again, is that being the definitive cause. It may well be a contributory factor but it's not the be-all and end-all.
Cancer is induced in animals by using quite large doses of chemicals, certainly far more than you would be subjected to by background pollution.

For the second study, what are genes made of?
They're made of chemicals. So what I said about chemicals changing other chemicals still applies. If a gene "turns off" it means its own chemical composition has changed.

What you tend to be clinging to is singular non-verified studies of which there are legion. The importance of a study on its own in quite low. It's only when that particular study is verified by another that it gains credence. Quite often, singular studies like virtually all of the ones you cite can be turned completely on there heads by subsequent studies proving the exact opposite.
Hence why I said what you're showing me doesn't change what I think.
And no, I didn't ask for more numbers unless the studies your showing me actually corroborate each other as per the reasons above.

Essentially you're suggesting that increasing your vit D intake will protect you from cancer. It MAY help in some cases but in most it won't change a thing.

.
... and the truth of this was know years ago ...
.
... but ... who wants to go against the establishment ...
.

Do you use antiperspirants? If you do then you are asking for trouble.

You keep sayin I am suggesting but I am just the messenger in a way. Its the scientists and their research and evidence is mounting up saying blood serum levels of vitamin D are related both to cancer and keeping it under control, like some have said it puts the brakes on.

If indeed you are a "messenger" you're not a particularly good one as you only give a very biased message.
The truth is although vitamin D HAS been found to be deficient in some people with cancers (not ALL by the way) there has been no study at the moment which proves that it is the cause or that increasing the levels will cure or prevent cancer. All they show is that the deficiency is an association, nothing more. There could be lots of reasons why this is so.

Perhaps I am a little biased away from big pharma and that’s through my own experiences with such so I like to give the other side of the coin a voice because of what I personally experienced. That said my mind is not closed to coexistence, in fact I've found so many natural things that complement many pharma treatments protecting the person from the harm of the drug or ncreasing a drugs ability to say kill cancer cells .

As to been deficient in blood serum levels of vitamin D been a cause for cancer; there is no direct evidence as you say but it does play a roll as the evidence is pointing towards just as it plays a roll in growth inhibition of certain cancers one of which is certain forms of breast cancer.

You said above in comments that its not just one study that proves a point its when many start saying the same thing well I hate to break it to you but that is just what is taking place out there in research land. There are many studies by different scientists researching vitamin D and Cancers are are saying basicly the same thing.