As more people start to supplement with vitamin D, the cancer rates will fall drastically. This will leave the National Cancer Institute without an explanation. Their position that vitamin D has no significant effect on cancer will confirm that NCI is not an institute of government to promote strategies that reduce cancer, but an institution to maintain the large cancer industry. How can I make this claim – let’s explore.
NCI’s lack of understanding is plainly shown in their table of items that they consider to significantly increase the incidence of cancer: Trends at glance from NCI. Of course the things that they consider to be the most significant are tobacco, red meat, fat consumption, obesity, and exposure to the sun. Following the table you also notice that their claims of diagnosis and treatment are significant in their estimation of what is important for survival from cancer and the reduction of incidence.
The reduction in all cancer mortality has dropped from 215 per 100,000 in 1991 to 178 in 2007. The drop can be contributed primarily to the reduction in the use of tobacco and the decrease in lung cancer. Further down the page you can see from the graph that most of the reduction has occurred from the reduction in lung cancer death in males.
Treatment to give us significant reduction in death from cancer has not been effective. The only exception to this is the treatment of stomach ulcers with antibiotics and bismuth. This treatment has cause death from stomach cancer to plunge by seventy percent. Not because we are better at treating cancer, but more effective by medically preventing cancer. The incidence of cancer has increase from 396 per 100,000 in 1975 to a peak in 1992 of 510 to the 2007 incidence 473. Again, the rate of death has not dropped from treatment but from decreased incidence for various reasons. The significance of the 1970’s was when we declared a war on cancer with the National Cancer Act of 1971 that was signed into law by Richard Nixon. This act gave NCI significantly broaden powers “in order to carry out the national effort against cancer.”
Exposure to the sun is a real interesting case of how far off NCI’s understanding of what causes cancer. Supposedly the reduction of exposure to the sun and the use of sun screens will reduce the rate of melanoma. In the last fifty years the fear of the sun with the constant reminders of doctors, in particular dermatologists, the melanoma rate has grown from 8 per 100,000 in 1975 to 22 in 2006. What is more interesting is the database of cancer rates that has been kept by the state of Connecticut. From Ed Gorham’s 2008 presentation of Skin Cancer/Sunscreen – The Dilemma, slide 47, we see that as sun reduction and sunscreen use has increased the rate of melanoma has increased. If you or someone you know has melanoma, it would be to your advantage to watch this presentation through Grass RootsHealth and UCSD public tv. Video presentation: Skin Cancer/Sunscreen the Dilemma
With several studies already in showing a reduction of cancer greater than seventy percent with marginal use of vitamin D3, the reduction of the incidence of cancer will be significant as the population becomes more aware. Not only will cancer be prevented by the use of vitamin D, but treatment of cancer will improve significantly as blood serum for vitamin D is taken to the level of life guards in the summertime. The National Cancer Institute will make all kinds of claims until it has become obvious the blunder that they have made since the early ‘70’s.
You know what is really interesting is the understanding of the tobacco industry and vitamin D. I suspect the tobacco industry would never have been attacked if they had known the significance of vitamin D and cancer. The NCI claims there have only been epidemiological studies done for vitamin D3. This is also true for all the claims that have been made against tobacco. Why the aggression against tobacco and no proclamations about vitamin D. One causes cancer and the other prevents and maybe helps to heal it – follow the money! (A high serum level of vitamin D is no excuse to keep using tobacco. Any addictive substance is not a good thing.)
So can we make a prediction about the rate of incidence of cancer? If the numbers follow the studies about vitamin D and cancer, then as the population gets an average serum level above 40 ng/ml, we can expect the cancer incidence to drop by greater than seventy percent from all causes. Seven out of ten people that you know have cancer would not have had that result. What happens to the medical economy if that occurs? After all, it is not only cancer that vitamin D3 impacts, it is heart disease and diabetes as well, the other two large killers. I am sure this scares the leaders at NCI, HHS, and the medical industry as if they were facing a mountain base-jump with no parachute.
Keep your serum level of vitamin D3 high if you have concerns about cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Go into the sun, but do not get sun burned. – Pandemic Survivor
As more people start to supplement with vitamin D, the cancer rates will fall drastically. This will leave the National Cancer Institute without an explanation. Their position that vitamin D has no significant effect on cancer will confirm that NCI is not an institute of government to promote strategies that reduce cancer, but an institution to maintain the large cancer industry. How can I make this claim – let’s explore.
NCI’s lack of understanding is plainly shown in their table of items that they consider to significantly increase the incidence of cancer: Trends at glance from NCI. Of course the things that they consider to be the most significant are tobacco, red meat, fat consumption, obesity, and exposure to the sun. Following the table you also notice that their claims of diagnosis and treatment are significant in their estimation of what is important for survival from cancer and the reduction of incidence.
The reduction in all cancer mortality has dropped from 215 per 100,000 in 1991 to 178 in 2007. The drop can be contributed primarily to the reduction in the use of tobacco and the decrease in lung cancer. Further down the page you can see from the graph that most of the reduction has occurred from the reduction in lung cancer death in males.
Treatment to give us significant reduction in death from cancer has not been effective. The only exception to this is the treatment of stomach ulcers with antibiotics and bismuth. This treatment has cause death from stomach cancer to plunge by seventy percent. Not because we are better at treating cancer, but more effective by medically preventing cancer. The incidence of cancer has increase from 396 per 100,000 in 1975 to a peak in 1992 of 510 to the 2007 incidence 473. Again, the rate of death has not dropped from treatment but from decreased incidence for various reasons. The significance of the 1970’s was when we declared a war on cancer with the National Cancer Act of 1971 that was signed into law by Richard Nixon. This act gave NCI significantly broaden powers “in order to carry out the national effort against cancer.”
Exposure to the sun is a real interesting case of how far off NCI’s understanding of what causes cancer. Supposedly the reduction of exposure to the sun and the use of sun screens will reduce the rate of melanoma. In the last fifty years the fear of the sun with the constant reminders of doctors, in particular dermatologists, the melanoma rate has grown from 8 per 100,000 in 1975 to 22 in 2006. What is more interesting is the database of cancer rates that has been kept by the state of Connecticut. From Ed Gorham’s 2008 presentation of Skin Cancer/Sunscreen – The Dilemma, slide 47, we see that as sun reduction and sunscreen use has increased the rate of melanoma has increased. If you or someone you know has melanoma, it would be to your advantage to watch this presentation through Grass RootsHealth and UCSD public tv. Video presentation: Skin Cancer/Sunscreen the Dilemma
With several studies already in showing a reduction of cancer greater than seventy percent with marginal use of vitamin D3, the reduction of the incidence of cancer will be significant as the population becomes more aware. Not only will cancer be prevented by the use of vitamin D, but treatment of cancer will improve significantly as blood serum for vitamin D is taken to the level of life guards in the summertime. The National Cancer Institute will make all kinds of claims until it has become obvious the blunder that they have made since the early ‘70’s.
You know what is really interesting is the understanding of the tobacco industry and vitamin D. I suspect the tobacco industry would never have been attacked if they had known the significance of vitamin D and cancer. The NCI claims there have only been epidemiological studies done for vitamin D3. This is also true for all the claims that have been made against tobacco. Why the aggression against tobacco and no proclamations about vitamin D. One causes cancer and the other prevents and maybe helps to heal it – follow the money! (A high serum level of vitamin D is no excuse to keep using tobacco. Any addictive substance is not a good thing.)
So can we make a prediction about the rate of incidence of cancer? If the numbers follow the studies about vitamin D and cancer, then as the population gets an average serum level above 40 ng/ml, we can expect the cancer incidence to drop by greater than seventy percent from all causes. Seven out of ten people that you know have cancer would not have had that result. What happens to the medical economy if that occurs? After all, it is not only cancer that vitamin D3 impacts, it is heart disease and diabetes as well, the other two large killers. I am sure this scares the leaders at NCI, HHS, and the medical industry as if they were facing a mountain base-jump with no parachute.
Keep your serum level of vitamin D3 high if you have concerns about cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Go into the sun, but do not get sun burned. – Pandemic Survivor