Vitamin D form sunlihgt - seems Ted is right.

Ted_Hutchinson

mr_rush wrote: »

a double blind RCT does not need to be funded by a pharmacological company - how about the MRC or the Wellcome trust - they have an endowment of £10 billion or so so a few million for the miracle wonder pill that is vit d shouldn't be out of their reach. So Ted why does a charity not fund the research? Are you lobbying the Wellcome?

Surely you can see that the cancer charities are up to the neck in the anti vitamin D stance. They would not want to admit their complicity in creating more avoidable cancers .
I pointed to the Freedman study in a previously deleted thread. Freedman DM, et al. Prospective Study of Serum Vitamin D and Cancer Mortality in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 30; [Epub ahead of print]

and you can see that by collecting the sample from the South in the winter (11% lower) and the samples from the north in the summer (100-120% higher) the study was set up to produce the results it did.
Even so they had to admit that colon cancer was down 72% in those with status above 80 and they must have used some clever statisical manipulation to disguise the fact that of the 28 breast cancer deaths the 20 in the low vit d status group were less significant than the fewer 8 with higher vit d status.

Ted_Hutchinson

nightsong wrote: »

The following quotes are all from Ted -

'It therefore is safer IMO for mo79 to take the extra now and raise status to protect himself than go to his doctor only be told 2000iu is the safe upper limit and it is inadvisable to take more. That is all the official advice will permit his doctor to say. '

What do you think would happen to a GP who was known to be giving advice outside the current UK consensus even if that advice is compatible with that given by Canadian GP's.?

'Where is your evidence your GP has a suitable product available to correct vitamin D3 insufficiency?
Name that product and state the NHS product identifier.
If you can't put up shut up.'

Explain why it is permissible for people to tell lies on this forum?

'I know it is difficult for health professionals to grasp the idea that by abiding by official policy they are doing more harm than good but until you spend as much time as I do researching this matter you will continue to do so. '

The deaths from cancers that would not occur if people kept optimal vitamin D status outweigh by 60 to one those cancer deaths that result from excessive sun exposure. So telling people to stay out of the sun (without telling them the correct vitamin d input needed to replace that vitamin D they would have otherwise acquired) cause more deaths than it prevents.

I could start another thread on the dangers of statins and lowering cholesterol but that start another hate campaign.

Ted_Hutchinson

mr_rush wrote: »

patients with lung cancer,

Hopefully all now vitamin D replete. Vitamin D Is Associated with Improved Survival in Early-Stage Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients

MI's

Myocardial Infarction is Inversely Associated with Plasma 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 Levels: A Community-Based Study

COPD exacerbations.

Relationship Between Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Pulmonary Function in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey*

It's no wonder you keep yourself busy by not correcting vitamin D insufficiency in your patients.

Ted_Hutchinson

mr_rush wrote: »

Show me one double blind randomised controlled trial that backs up what you say. then perhaps I might pay some attention to the rubbish you spew out.

Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial.

PS Not in reply to Mr Rush but other readers may like to search through the online text of The Vitamin D Cure

mr_rush

A bigger and better designed study in the best medical journal in the world finds the complete opposite:

[URL="javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'N Engl J Med.');"]N Engl J Med.[/URL] 2006 Feb 16;354(7):684-96

BACKGROUND: Higher intake of calcium and vitamin D has been associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer in epidemiologic studies and polyp recurrence in polyp-prevention trials. However, randomized-trial evidence that calcium with vitamin D supplementation is beneficial in the primary prevention of colorectal cancer is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 36,282 postmenopausal women from 40 Women's Health Initiative centers: 18,176 women received 500 mg of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate with 200 IU of vitamin D3 [corrected] twice daily (1000 mg of elemental calcium and 400 IU of vitamin D3) and 18,106 received a matching placebo for an average of 7.0 years. The incidence of pathologically confirmed colorectal cancer was the designated secondary outcome. Baseline levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D were assessed in a nested case-control study. RESULTS: The incidence of invasive colorectal cancer did not differ significantly between women assigned to calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and those assigned to placebo (168 and 154 cases; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.34; P=0.51), and the tumor characteristics were similar in the two groups. The frequency of colorectal-cancer screening and abdominal symptoms was similar in the two groups. There were no significant treatment interactions with baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Daily supplementation of calcium with vitamin D for seven years had no effect on the incidence of colorectal cancer among postmenopausal women. The long latency associated with the development of colorectal cancer, along with the seven-year duration of the trial, may have contributed to this null finding. Ongoing follow-up will assess the longer-term effect of this intervention.

mr_rush

And another from the world's most prestigious cardiology journal again finding no benefit:

[URL="javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'Circulation.');"]Circulation.[/URL] 2007 Feb 20;115(7):846-54

BACKGROUND: Individuals with vascular or valvular calcification are at increased risk for coronary events, but the relationship between calcium consumption and cardiovascular events is uncertain. We evaluated the risk of coronary and cerebrovascular events in the Women's Health Initiative randomized trial of calcium plus vitamin D supplementation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 36,282 postmenopausal women 50 to 79 years of age at 40 clinical sites to calcium carbonate 500 mg with vitamin D 200 IU twice daily or to placebo. Cardiovascular disease was a prespecified secondary efficacy outcome. During 7 years of follow-up, myocardial infarction or coronary heart disease death was confirmed for 499 women assigned to calcium/vitamin D and 475 women assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.18). Stroke was confirmed among 362 women assigned to calcium/vitamin D and 377 assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.10). In subgroup analyses, women with higher total calcium intake (diet plus supplements) at baseline were not at higher risk for coronary events (P=0.91 for interaction) or stroke (P=0.14 for interaction) if assigned to active calcium/vitamin D. CONCLUSIONS: Calcium/vitamin D supplementation neither increased nor decreased coronary or cerebrovascular risk in generally healthy postmenopausal women over a 7-year use period.

Ted_Hutchinson

mr_rush wrote: »

A bigger and better designed study in the best medical journal in the world finds the complete opposite:

N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 16;354(7):684-96

Interaction of estrogen therapy with calcium and vitamin D supplementation on colorectal cancer risk: Reanalysis of Women's Health Initiative randomized trial.

mr_rush

Surely you can see that the cancer charities are up to the neck in the anti vitamin D stance. They would not want to admit their complicity in creating more avoidable cancers

So Ted thinks there is a massive conspiracy involving the pharmaceutical industry, British doctors and now cancer charities who are all trying to create disease rather then manage and cure it!

You are losing the plot - I think you need a psychiatrist. PM me, I'm sure I can recommend a good one in your area.

Ted_Hutchinson

mr_rush wrote: »

And another from the world's most prestigious cardiology journal again finding no benefit:

Circulation. 2007 Feb 20;115(7):846-54

With all your experience training and understanding of research and access to the full text of these papers you have to apply common sense.
This trial used vitamin D 200 IU
that will raise status by as much as 4.5nmol/l

200iu will not raise the current status of the average UK adult to a level at which calcium homeostasis is optimal. Even in the USA most adults have lower than optimal status and they live further south, have more hours sunshine and drink fortified milk. The Lappe trial used 1100 IU vitamin D3/d an amount that could more reasonably be expected to make a significant difference as it could raise status approx 27nmol/L and that would have raised many Canadians over the 80nmol/L threshold for optimal calcium uptake.

No one with any common sense would expect giving a bankrupt obliged spend £4000 daily only £200/daily could save him from bankruptcy. To hold the situation the bankrupt needs to have income matching expenditure.

Ted_Hutchinson

mr_rush wrote: »

Surely you can see that the cancer charities are up to the neck in the anti vitamin D stance. They would not want to admit their complicity in creating more avoidable cancers

Come on then explain the logic of the FREEDMAN trial previously linked to collecting blood samples from the South in the cooler winter months and from the North in the Summer months.
If that wasn't a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth what was it?

You can find confirmation of this from this Medpage commentary on the research.