Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Low vitamin D heightens breast-cancer mortality rate

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:13 PM EDT 15/05/08

Disease twice as likely to spread in women deficient in the nutrient, study finds ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jamie Cool from Moncton, Canada writes: For 100 000 years we spent much of our time oudoor getting plenty of vitamin D. Now that we live most of our time inside artificial caverns, we come to realize: geez, maybe sunshine is good for us afterall.
  2. Michael Griffin from Somewhere East of Ottawa, Canada writes: People:
    Do a little research on the Marshall Protocall and the Th1 inflammatory disease Sarcoidosis before diving in to the Vitamin D craze! It may save you a lot of misery!
    Research and treatment of this disease and Doctors knowledgable in the field are practically nonexistent here in Canada!
  3. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: As a founding father of the food co-op movement in Ontario and Canada I am always for the people knowing how to eat, eat well and eat healthily. What I have always enjoyed the most about the necessity of good food and health mores is the fact that from the food co-op movement came the Health food store. It is nice to see that right nutrition can help people lead better, happier, longer lives. Vitamin D? Go figger! Remember what too much of a good thing will do to you. Now that we know let's do something to make sure that enough is cited for varying people. If you spend all day in the sun then you won't necessarily need as much.
  4. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: This month it's Vit D.
    Next year,it'll be calcium supplements.
    Conflicting opinions any forever changing analysis leave few to have any trust or confidence in today's findings.
  5. JD Wood from Canada writes: Let me make you a promise. As long as Stephen Harper is in power, and the drug lobbyists are at his doorstep, we will never find any cure to cancer, HIV, SARS, etc. that does not cost at least $5000 a month. The sickness industry wants people to be ill. If nobody were sick they would go out of business!
  6. John McCaffery from Australia writes: A real simple survey might be to correlate one's skin condition to breast cancer. Are women with beautifully protected skin more likely to develop breast cancer? One can do their own survey on that. Maybe those sun drenched bodies in bikinisit was for more than just vanity! Unfortunately this leads us to another cancer. Ultimately I think the answer is moderation. Some people these days try to avoid the sun at all times - not a good strategy - worshipping the sun, obviously not the best either.
  7. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: JD Wood - Your comment is quiet ridiculous. Any proof of your rather unlikely conspiracy theory?
  8. John McCaffery from Australia writes: JD Wood - You are onto something there. The same is true of the GDP index and how government's performance is measured. Consider the actions that increase GDP - sickness, crime, accidents, mental illness, etc.. What hurts GDP? Example is: A parent at home nurturing their children and not paying for day care; however, good parenting in the long-term likely delivers real wealth GDP growth, but short-term is all that is being measured. It is not difficult to figure out the reasons for certain drivers in our society.
  9. Dr. Matthew Follwell from Toronto, Canada writes: Wonderul follow-up on the article published yesterday bestowing the protective virtues of exercise in women under 35.
    In addition to breast cancer, a major risk factor for ovarian cancer is increased body weight, and thus circulating estrogen levels.
    The take home message, eat a balnced diet, get outside and exercise.
  10. Wilma De Bruyn from Toronto, Canada writes: JD Wood from Canada writes: Let me make you a promise. As long as Stephen Harper is in power, and the drug lobbyists are at his doorstep, we will never find any cure to cancer, HIV, SARS, etc. that does not cost at least $5000 a month. The sickness industry wants people to be ill. If nobody were sick they would go out of business!
    Posted 15/05/08 at 9:59 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

    I agree 100 per cent. Read BILL C-51. A rally was held saturday, May 10th, 2008 on Bill C-51, part of it states:C-51 would also allow
    federal enforcement agents to:Raid your home or business without a
    warrant, seize your bank accounts, levy fines up to 2 years for selling or drying herbs in your kitchen, now categorized as 'controlled activity', confiscate your property, then charge you storage fees.

    Does this not indicate they wish to PUSH DRUGS, THERES MORE IN THIS BIL, READ, RESEARCH AND HOPE THIS BILL DOES NOT GO THROUGH!!!
  11. Dave Hunt from Canada writes: 'THE DOCTOR OF THE FUTURE WILL GIVE NO DRUGS BUT WILL INTEREST HIS PATIENTS IN THE CARE OF THE HUMAN BODY, IN DIET AND IN THE CAUSE AND PREVENTION OF DISEASE'

    Thomas Edison
    (This is how far ahead the man was)
  12. Jason Kinney from Canada writes: Totally agree Wilma and JD, once Bill C-51 passes and it becomes illegal to use OTC supplements we'll be paying through the nose for prescription drugs with their myriad of side effects and costing the health system i.e. taxpayers billions more for ailments that could have been prevented for pennies. Another typical and sound Harpy policy. Political donations flooding in from the drug industry? Vioxx anyone?
  13. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Sunshine helps the body manufacture vitamin D?

    Ergo, topless sunbathing , especially while in your 20's I would imagine, would be a preventative.

    Alberta is very sunny. Cold, but sunny.

    I would propose 'health parks' where young nubile women could work on this preventative therapy. I would propose one near my office in downtown Calgary for example.

    Oh, and JD Wood, I believe sunshine helps with raging paranoia as well. In your case however, you may have to sunbathe on Mercury's surface to see the required palliative benefit.
  14. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Unlike anti-oxidants, this has panned out repeatedly in clinical studies. It's certainly looking like the real thing. The Canadian Cancer Society correctly recommends that people not sun bathe as a means to obtain Vitamin D. Skin cancer is a genuine threat and sunscreens block the UV light that is necessary for the body to synthesize its own. UV light is a mutagen.

    JD Wood, the reason why we won't have a cure for cancer in the near future has nothing to do with conspiracies involving Big Pharma and you are being duped if you think that the overpriced supplements available as alternative health care provide the answer. The reason why we won't have a cure for cancer in the near future is because we still understand very little about our own biology. The fundamentals of how cells work is absolutely essential to understand if we are to treat the body in the way that a mechanic treats an automobile. We've made enormous strides but it is the equivalent of going from being an infant to graduating kindergarten. We have a very long way to go and the only people that pay for the type of research necessary to take us there are governments. This government has not been friendly to research because this government thinks that everything needs to have a 3-5 year payoff. Fundamental research is a long term solution to the greatest of human problems.
  15. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    Inredible,Harper is to blame for the lack of cures for cancer,HIV etc.Surely those socialist paradises like Cuba and North Korea should have come up with the answer by now if it's all due to the faults of capitalism.
  16. David Lee from Toronto, Canada writes: Somebody please remind the public that you can actually overdose on vitamin D, and can lead to mineralization of soft tissues (i.e. heart valves, articular joints, etc) in the long term and just plain toxicity in the short term.
  17. Antonio San from Canada writes: What an amazing society we live in: no need for cancer cures, vitamin D does it; we have electricity but don't use it please; we have water, but don't use it either. You have a car but don't use it, ride the bus, but buy a car every 2 years pleeeaaase. Next no need for surgeons, operate yourself on line!
  18. John Deriso from Edmonton, Canada writes: Forgive me if this is off topic, but the responses to this article are astounding. Why even bother with science anymore? Everyone already has all of the answers, judging from some of the responses here on the G&M story! Trying to understand the world with an open mind must be a weakness!
  19. Thomas Anderson from Canada writes: Countless studies have shown that vitamin D LEVELS (measured in the blood) are associated with a lower risk for breast cancer, but vitamin D INTAKE is not. The public is terribly confused about this, thanks in part to misleading headlines. Vitamin D is no simple fix for cancer, and -- as David Lee suggests -- it can do a lot of harm.
  20. bob gervitz from United States writes: Hardly matters what this study has proven. Once Bill C-51 is proclaimed - the stealth program to pass it is well underway - supplements of all kinds other than artificial pharma drugs (and vitamins don't qualify) will be banned and criminalized. This is the third time, apparently, that this bill has been attempted to be passed. Saner heads prevailed previously but so far the stealth program is working well. Minimal opposition and third reading? imminent.

    A colossal and draconian step backward for patient rights and sensible alternative treatments in Canada. Other countries are moving in the opposite direction realizing that traditional synthetic drug-based medicine is only ONE of the options to consider, and, in many cases, the least effective and most harmful of the bunch.

    Odd, isn't it, that Canada's medical system kills tens of thousands annually through inappropriate synthetic drug administration, badly planned prescriptions for drug combinations, botched surgeries, emergency room waits measures by the hours rather than minutes, general incompetence, etc., etc., yet a handful of people die from ill-advised or overdosed natural supplements or chiropractic medicine and it's time to ban em all and remove patient choice. What a retarded approach!

    So if you currently go to a naturopath, chiropractor, homeopath, accurpuncturist, or take vitamins, ecchinacia, or any other natural supplements, enjoy it while you can. Your freedom to do so is about to end.
  21. Thomas Anderson from Canada writes: Can you buy milk that does not have vitamin D and retinol added to it? I can’t. Our freedoms ended long ago.
  22. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: bob gervitz, much of 'alternative health' is not only a scam, it is dangerous. Plants are the source of many of our pharmaceuticals but there is a reason why we don't simply employ plants instead of isolated drugs--many plants have evolved to contain toxins in order to preserve the species. Many of these toxins have value as pharmaceuticals and many of them do not. The problem with employing plants as drugs is that they often contain a mixture of beneficial as well as harmful compounds. In rare cases, there are synergisms that are not present in isolated compounds. These can be identified and employed as purified drugs. This is a far safer approach.
  23. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Thomas Anderson, the toxic doses of Vitamin D are well beyond anything that is being recommended, somewhere around 45,000 units/day over months. Your claim about vitamin D supplements not being shown to reduce cancer is absolutely false. A recent clinical trial in the U.S. involving 1200 women found a 60% reduction in cancer over the 4 year study when the women took vitamin D supplements. Your claim to the contrary would imply that vitamin D is not absorbed (i.e., blood levels are not correlated with the use of supplements when sunlight exposure is low). What is the basis for this claim?
  24. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: bob gervitz, I certainly hope that naturopaths and homeopaths become tightly regulated as a result of this bill but I highly doubt it. These people are largely involved in taking advantage of ignorance. If they charged $20/hr for their services, it might be acceptable. They don't. They charge essentially at the same rate as physicians. The 'remedies' that are sold are ridiculously expensive given the cost of the materials and the complete absence of the need to support the research necessary to sell these things. I am no fan of Big Pharma but I am even less of a fan of the exploitation of people by selling pennies worth of plant material for outrageous prices. While both groups may be 'criminals', the bigger 'crimes' are executed by the alternative health industry.
  25. E. Biggs from Canada writes: The University of California at San Diego did a compilation of all the studies on Vit D and concluded that were was indeed some real benefit from Vit D.

    In northern climes like most of us here in Canada we need between 1500-2000 MG per day to be effective. They also concluded that there were benefits even for those with cancer of various kinds.

    I ask you to google for yourselves and do your own research. Most Dr.s have no clue on this.

    Harvard University also did some research on this and came to a similar conclusion. You can get your daily allowance from a variety of sources but up here the Vit D pill is probably the best.
  26. S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: Today it'll save you, tomorrow they'll find that it'll kill you. People have survived for billions of years without suppliments. Eat right and exercise. maybe get your kids away from the video games for a bit and yourself away from the computer and go outside. Play some ball with them, maybe some street hockey. Ride a bike with them or just take a walk and talk. Maybe if we stopped worrying about making money and spent some quality time with our kids, got outside for a bit, maybe we'd have better relationships, healthier us and kids and we'd get some exercise and vitamins. This society is just looking for the quick fix for everything except the family unit. That's an endangered species. This is just another sales pitch for something you really don't need if you just lived your life healthily, got outside and enjoyed what the world has to offer instead of worrying about getting rich.

    JD Wood, are there RCMP officers outside your house watching you 24/7? I hope so because your showing all the signs as one of those guys who shows up at parliment covered in oil with a bucket of KFC in one hand and an automatic rifle in the other. Really, you need to seek professional help with regards to your government hatred issue.
  27. D K from Canada writes: One study is not a basis of a conclusion
  28. CD W from Canada writes: Watch out, too much sunshine, you gets skin cancer.
  29. South Paw from Montreal, Canada writes: Must be a slow news day at the G&M for this to be a lead story.

    On April 28th they ran a similar story.

    theglobeandmail.com

    I guess they want to get out to cottage country early today.
  30. Dean The Machine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Preventative medicine. One more step in becoming a better world.
  31. F/A josquin from Canada writes:
    heh South paw. This is one of many amazing stories. If you have been following the vitamin D story recently, this is another to marvel at.

    Imagine a simple lack of sunshine and sunshine's curative properties, and we could possibly cure a ravaging disease, among other maladies.

    After the billions and billions spent, after the millions of painful deaths, wouldn't it be wonderful to perhaps find a serendipitous answer.

    shake your head, every story on this 'not really a vitamin'---- D is marvellous.

    As one very well known doctor at an equally well-known research hospital in Toronto recently said----paraphrased----if this little pill was a drug, the results of these many studies and the properties of vitamin D would be smeared across the headlines, worldwide, for months, it is that important.
  32. F/A josquin from Canada writes: to "D K from Canada writes: One study is not a basis of a conclusion " DK It seems you have missed the headlines in every major paper on the planet in the last 6 months?? There have been a myriad of recent studies, large ones, impressive ones, by very well known institutions. It has been a hot topic now for months. just start a search and you will be overwhelmed . There is a solid reason the Canadian Cancer Society, among many many other, very conservative groups have rushed out dramatic new consumption guidelines and demanded govt tests recently. This is not, by far, fly-by-night info from doubtful universities. The recent studies have been done BECAUSE of decades of exciting evidence building up to such a point that it can't be ignored Or so I have read, almost everyday on every paper I click onto. I am willing to believe for now, especially since it is not a drug, and no one is making money from this. ps---- it isn't a vitamin either------misnomer------it is something completely different. We are not talking magic pill here, this is something almost every cell in our body has receptors for. It is not silly vitamin C that is being touted. We don't piss this one out. There is an underlying, and hopefully simple reason, warm sunny countries have significantly lower rates of cancer than cold wintery ones, and that is after other factors (like eating habits ....) are factored in. I see no reason why we can't stumble on a simple answer to such a vexing problem. We've done just that before. There is certain amount of justice in such findings, balanced and very humbling. Answers often lie under our proverbial noses----no? I have my fingers more than crossed.
  33. F/A josquin from Canada writes:
    Found him----------I know, I know, just another expert, however, he is one of many touting D as an interesting substance (more than interesting, crucial)

    Dr. Reinhold Vieth has been a researcher in the field of vitamin D for over 30 years. He is a Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Clinical Biochemists, and is a Professor at the University of Toronto, in the Department of Nutritional Sciences, and the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology. At Mount Sinai Hospital he is Director of the Bone and Mineral Laboratory, which is the regional reference laboratory for biochemical testing related to vitamin D nutrition and osteoporosis. Dr. Vieth is as an expert in the toxicology and clinical nutrition of vitamin D.

    And if we can't put some faith in the findings of an entire career dedicated to one substance, and it's effects, then we might as well give up---non.

    I am a skeptic when there evidence is lacking. When there is so much, and it can't be ignored, I will listen.
  34. F/A josquin from Canada writes:

    S L S from small town-------it is 'not' an additive-----it is 'not' a vitamin----it is an essential substance we cannot live without.

    Our bones would break---and perhaps, just perhaps, we have found other more interesting attributes of D.

    we simply don't get enough sunlight.
  35. F/A josquin from Canada writes:

    And S L S---- it is cheap as dirt-----ain't no one making money off of this.

    Which is why the headlines are even more interesting.
  36. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: JD Wood, given that the sickness industry is your only hope for recovery from the cruel and relentless mental disease with which you suffer, I wouldn't be so quick to write them off.

    As for vitamin D, dermatologists have been preaching the "there's no such thing as a healthy tan" mantra for the past 20 years. As a result, we've seen an increase in breast and colon cancer rates which have claimed many times more victims than melanoma would have. Sometimes the "scientific consensus" is worse than the disease. Moderate your sun exposure definitely. Try to completely avoid tanning, as has been the standard advice for the past 20 years? Forget it. Just goes to show you how quickly scientific consensus can change as we gain more knowledge. 20 years from now, we'll be scoffing at dearly held scientific consensus beliefs of today.
  37. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    According to this newspaper article, this Canadian project is "the first time researchers have been able to link not having enough of the sunshine vitamin to the progression of breast cancer and the fate of those with the dreaded disease".

    Well, about a decade ago a group in Sweden actually did publish a paper called "Association of BREAST CANCER PROGRESSION with a vitamin D receptor gene polymorphism".

    And in that old (published in 1999 in Cancer Research) Swedish paper, the Swedish researchers did at that time note that patients without "increased serum levels of 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3" had a "significantly increased risk for lymph node metastasis" of the breast cancer.
  38. E. Biggs from Canada writes: F/A Jonquin. I am please that you are taking your meds today and nobody has mentioned religion yet so you really are quite rational.

    I could not agree with you more. For the last several years this has been a great story with some real benefits for people.

    South Paw if you have ever watched helplessly as somebody dies a slow painful death with cancer you would have some clue why this is a great story. Anything that might prevent cancer or help in the cure is a great story.

    There is just too much research all pointing in the same direction now for it to be ignored or written off. No I don't sell it, but I sure am using it.
  39. eucharisto kleinberg from Canada writes: Researches should study that Austrian woman who was locked up in the basement for years by her father. She and her children lived without sun light. It might be interesting to see what effect lack of sunlight had on their bodies, especially the children that never left the basement since birth until the day they were found by police. Just a thought.
  40. comments closed again! fuck from toronto, Canada writes: we need more clothing optional beaches
  41. Antonio San from Canada writes: Poll Globe: And already over 60% are willing to gobble some vitamins but the same clowns will claim they eat natural...
  42. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes:

    S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: "Today it'll save you, tomorrow they'll find that it'll kill you. People have survived for billions of years without suppliments."

    Yes, they have survived.................. some even to the ripe old age of 35. Cheers!

    .
  43. F/A josquin from Canada writes:
    heh E biggs -----------I am willing to believe D is beneficial BECAUSE there is overwhelming evidence, as soon as there is more, either pro or con, I will adjust.

    However, there is no evidence for a god-----there, are you happy now?

    “WHAT CAN BE ASSERTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE, CAN ALSO BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE“
  44. comments closed again! fuck from toronto, Canada writes: the government doesnt have enough money for pension if we all live that long
  45. F/A josquin from Canada writes:

    you nay sayers have all missed the point, haven't you. Evidence is showing otherwise.

    This is not really a supplement----it is something far more essential. I guess you ignore this at personal peril----up to you.
  46. Kevin Dooley from Canada writes: When I was in grad school (Ph.D. Theoretical Physics) I was shocked at the bad quality of much of the peer-reviewed published scientific research that I read. I clung to a hope that this was just isolated to theoretical physics, and that medical research, where peoples' lives hang on the results, was more carefully executed. Then I made the mistake of actually reading some of the medical journals. All I can say is at least the physicists know basic statistics, while the medical researchers usually can't understand the difference between correlation and causality. Medical researchers frequently do a terrible job of isolating co-causal factors (my favourite example is serum cholesterol, which is correlated with heart problems, but almost certainly not causative, so those cholesterol drugs are almost certainly a complete waste of money). Medical researchers almost always construct their clinical tests with severely biased initial samples leading to highly suspect final results.

    Perhaps the worst group among the general category of medical researchers are the nutritionists. In their defense, they have a particularly difficult problem to work on because individual nutrients behave differently on the human body when taken in isolation than they do when taken in conjunction with other nutrients (like, for example, actual food). But they persist in behaving as if it is a reasonable approximation to study the nutrients separately. It's not.

    So next time you read about some study that says you should take (or not take) vitamin XYZ, bear in mind that it's almost certainly wrong. What you *should* do is eat a balanced diet, get some exercise, keep you weight under control, and try to stay away from obvious poisons like alcohol and tobacco. But if you need a doctor to tell you these things, the battle is already lost.
  47. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Kevin Dooley, climate science in particular is the latest example of peer reviewed science run amock. A "scientific consensus" is agreed upon, based on almost no evidence. Then numerous peer reviewed studies are published that support the consensus. Of course, the peers reject any study that might threaten their cherished consensus. Your assertion that statins are useless is, however, incorrect. There is substantial evidence that they do make a big difference. However, your point about mistaking correlation with causation is very true. Correlations are often tangled with each other, and almost impossible to isolate. In my opinion, standard statistical methodology puts WAY too much effort on finding and measuring correlations. Discovering a "correlation" seems to be the holy grail of scientific inquiry nowadays. Yet correlation itself is quite often indicative of exactly NOTHING.
  48. stand up mimi from Vancouver, Canada writes: Kevin Dooley from Canada writes: "So next time you read about some study that says you should take (or not take) vitamin XYZ, bear in mind that it's almost certainly wrong."

    I haven't read anything so far claiming everyone needs Vitamin D supplements. This study simply links Vitamin D deficiency to increased risk of cancer spread and death. However, I can draw my own conclusions based on this and other studies, as well as personal experience. So I agree with all these incompetent medical researchers, at the risk of disagreeing with physicists, who as we know are never, ever wrong. :)
  49. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Perhaps Kevin Dooley from Canada should stick to Theoretical Physics. He apparently does not know what he is talking about when it comes to modern medical research.

    Contrary to his claims, medical researchers nowadays usually DO understand the difference between correlation and causality.

    For example, regarding his babbling about his favorite example: It is nonsense ("my favorite example is serum cholesterol, which is correlated with heart problems, but almost certainly not causative, so those cholesterol drugs are almost certainly a complete waste of money").

    Hello?

    Where did that unfounded rant of his originate?

    Contrary to his suggestion, the way that the effect of such drugs is actually measured is to assess the rate of bad clinical outcomes (heart attacks, strokes and such) in randomized prospective trials that follow serum cholesterol levels.

    As an example, one paper that did this was "Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis" which found that "there was a 9 percent proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in participants with diabetes" and that "after 5 years, 42 (95 percent confidence interval 30-55) fewer people with diabetes had major vascular events per 1000 allocated statin therapy".

    Sure, there are SOME medical researchers who confuse correlation with causality, just as there are SOME botanists and astronomers and chemists who confuse the two. But Kevin Dooley's weird targeting of medical researchers is ridiculous.

    What on Earth does he have against meta-analyses of randomized prospective clinical trials looking at outcome based measures?
  50. Ricky Bobbie from Canada writes: What's most clear from these comments (and true for other medical and scientific research stories) is that there is a significant problem in the public's ability to assimilate or understand information. Perhaps its because things are dumbed down too much or sensationalized (newspapers exist to sell newspapers). This study is one of several that show significant linkages between serum levels of Vitamin D and breast cancer risk and progression. Sure, there are many questions (as the interviewed scientist readily admitted) but it is also clear that women in Canada in general have too little vitamin D and this is adversely affecting them. The same is likely true in men. This is a consequence of the awareness of skin cancer and the increasing trend of working in-doors. It would be interesting to see whether women who, for religious reasons, are fully covered have decreased vitamin D and increased risk of various diseases. If so, these women should be educated as to the benefits of dietary supplementation.

    As for the quote about future doctors dealing with prevention rather than cure, its not forward thinking, its naive. It's clear that lifestyle choices trump health implications for the most important environmental causes of disease (smoking and alcohol). The gains from banning chemicals such as bisphenol A are vanishingly small. Everyone gets old and gets diseases. These diseases will not be eradicated like Smallpox. Some may be controlled (through earlier detection) but, realistically, prevention will remain a relatively small aspect of healthcare, delaying the inevitable.
  51. S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: Dave Medich from Windsor, and others to the ripe old age of 108. So what's your point?
  52. S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: F/A josquin from Canada, people have survived for billions of years because they weren't stuck in their homes and offices attached to their electronic gadgets. They were outside working the land and making their livings. Outside being the key word. All you need in the form of Vitamin D is absolutely free from the sun. Doesn't get much cheaper than that. All you have to do is actually go outside. Society today is far to indoor structured. If it were more outdorr structure this would be much less a concern. Mortality has gone up due to the curing of diseases like small pox, measels, mumps, all which used to kill people. They don't today so the use of that stupid arguement that people lived to the ripe old age of 35 is just ignorance. They also had people who lived to the ripe old age of 108 so that point proves nothing. Each individual is different. Vitamin D is a supliment, Your suplimenting the lack of sunshine because your inside all the time. Our society has just simply become lazy and this is just another excuse to stay in, ignore your kids grow fat and lazy. You people pop your pills and sit around inside, I'm going outside to have fun and get all the Vitamin D I need for absolutely free.
  53. sari grove from Toronto, Canada writes: so, tumours feed on Vitamin D, which is related to bone, depleting the rest of the body of Vitamin D, which causes higher mortality rates...so, supplementing with D, will strengthen the body of those suffering from breast cancer, allowing the body to fight the tumours itself , & also allowing other new biotherapies like tamoxifen to eradicate the tumours, without the patient dying during treatment due to Vitamin D deficiency...I am just working this out in my mind...but, more importantly, I think, though not to denigrate this wonderful new discovery, the cause...The cause, I believe is this generation's addition of progesterone based birth control , which we know causes immediate ovarian cysts, & certainly related retained tumours in other centres of the body...though directed at women, because men have XY chromosomes, their X chromosome would also be vulnerable to progesterone's tumour creating tendencies, hence in all probability leading to male format tumours or cancers (if left untreated)...My concern is that the cause of cancers is being left unnamed, as the lawsuits I guess to sellers of progesterone birth control would be enormous, as the loss in revenue to sell cures...yes, this may sound conspiracy theory, even to myself, but, I wonder, why hasn't the correlation between birth control & cancer been established publicly yet ? Or is it because the male dominant history of the medical profession does not want to admit what it has done to women ? no anger here actually, as a women in this generation, I am just as guilty of chauvinism as any man...
  54. stand up mimi from Vancouver, Canada writes: S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: "Your suplimenting the lack of sunshine because your inside all the time. Our society has just simply become lazy and this is just another excuse to stay in, ignore your kids grow fat and lazy."

    Actually, our society was largely agrarian until the last several decades. For many people, summer days were spent almost entirely outdoors, so it stands to reason they were able to store enough D for the Canadian winter. Now most people work inside all year round and many don't get enough sunshine, even in the summer. Certainly not as much as they used to. Believe me, I'd be outside all day if I didn't have to work for a living. And on top of this, we've been told for decades to stay out of the sun. (Good thing I wasn't listening.)
  55. S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: stand up mimi from Vancouver, that's what I've been saying. Even during our free time people today spend too much time inside. I've been fortunate enough to have a job that requires me to spend 75% of my time outside and my hobby also requires me to be outside. I spend 65% of my life outside. Technology is great and all but we've lost the will to go outside, especially kids. I can't remember the last time I saw a bunch of kids playing street hockey. We did that from the time we woke up til the time we went to bed when we were kids, year round regardless of weather. Yes, the sun has it's draw backs but if you use your head and dress logically then it isn't a problem. Although this is an interesting study it still remains my opinion that society today does not take the time, for themselves or for the family, to get outside enough and is becoming more reliant on suppliments to enhance our techno junkie and fast food lifestyle.
  56. F/A josquin from Canada writes:

    SLS small town------- in a perfect world we could all lie around in the sun.
  57. S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: F/A josquin from Canada life is what you make it. You control it so if the world isn't perfect then your not doing something right.
  58. Thomas Anderson from Canada writes: Regarding the Lappe study referred to by Bobby Dy above:

    The study subjects were given calcium, calcium with vitamin D, or a placebo. Those receiving calcium alone, as well as those receiving calcium with vitamin D, had less cancer. Since no one received vitamin D alone, the study cannot be cited as proof that supplements of vitamin D may reduce the risk for cancer.

    Studies relating to rickets, bone health, fracture risk etc. have also found that vitamin D does not work alone. Calcium deficiency is nearly always the cause of these conditions, and calcium corrects them -- with or without vitamin D.

    As for harm in low doses, please see the Jansen letter at this link:

    http://www.members.shaw.ca/healthsciences/vit-d-danger.jpg
  59. Jo L from Halifax, Canada writes: use sunscreen to avoid cancer and you become deficient in vitamin D which helps prevent cancer mortality... but you can buy the vitamin suppliment! Genius.
  60. Jo L from Halifax, Canada writes: Bobby Dy your understanding of Naturopaths is limited. One of the Dr.'s teaching research methods at the Dalhousie Med school is a trained Naturopath who's school taught remedies based on evidenced based research. Most conventional medicine schools are only starting to follow these high standards of research to base treatments on. I personally would be willing to pay the same price for preventative evidence based counselling on caring for my health as I pay to visit my doctor who's "cures" and tests have ended up causing me more harm then help. My doctor spends 5 mins listening to "what's wrong" and determines what drug I need.... the Naturopath takes an hour to go over my individual health history and needs. They aren't charging too much, remember they have the same amount of time in educational institutions studying health.
  61. Corresponded Fish from WATCH THE GUY IN THE PINK SHIRT AT 1 MIN 52 SECS INTO THIS VIDEO WALK AWAY WITH A BIG WAD OF DONATED CASH, Canada writes:

    WATCH THE GUY IN THE PINK SHIRT AT 1 MIN 52 SECS INTO THIS VIDEO WALK AWAY WITH A BIG WAD OF DONATED CASH

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUoWR3q9eSY

    Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials at No. 3 Middle School in Huizhou, Guangdong, China were caught on video, by a student secretly filming them from a 3rd floor balcony, taking money donated for Sichuan earthquake victims out of a donation box. In the video, plainly seen are several corrupt CCP officials taking the donated money out of the donation box and then video-taping themselves making 'large cash donations'. More cash is then donated by others, including students, and the donation box is again emptied by another corrupt CCP official wearing a pink shirt who at 1 minute and 52 seconds into the video disappears off-camera with a large wad of donated Sichuan earthquake victim cash.

    Will China ever change its evil ways?
  62. Rusty Brown from Cobourg, Ontario, Canada writes: Re the comment "Everyone gets old and gets diseases..." Did it ever occur to you that the reason that seniors get all these diseases - cancer, CV problems, prostate, vision loss etc. is not just that they are old, but that they have spent a whole lifetime in a state of inadequate nutrition? Not enough Vitamin D, C, calcium etc., rather like a house that falls into disrepair over time because the owner does not or cannot provide the materials to keep it in shape, as compared to a Victorian reno of the same age brought up to standard by the application of adequate materials. Think of the implications of this for our bodies! Never deteriorating because always supplied with its needs.

    At the very least, folks, please allow me the choice to supplement or not, and to do my own research and decide what is best for me, even if you don't agree with my conclusions. Thank you.

    RB

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top