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
Vitamin D Deficiency Survivor 
Mark, your claim about the NCI will be proven true in time. I don’t know if you’ve read about it these past couple of days but researchers at UPenn have successfully treated 2 out of 3 advanced Leukemia patients. The treatment essentially used the patients’ immune systems against the cancer cells.
It would not surprise you that the NCI had refused to fund the research.
The medical-insurance complex will someday be exposed for what they have done to promote the ‘walking ill’ model of health. Miserable people with painful, debilitating, sometimes progressive conditions who don’t die right away but certainly pump billions into the complex. Never mind the misery, disability, and the pain of their loved ones as they suffer.
Sahra,
I believe this technology was from Wake Forest University originally. The deference was that they used immune cells from other healthy persons. I suspect the the genetic treatment that is used to boast the immune cells is nothing more than what vitamin D does inside of the body as it has been confirmed in affecting ten percent or more of the genome.
The key to make vitamin D totally effective in tumors and not just in the blood stream is to figure out a way to prevent the blocking enzyme that comes from tumors. This is the very area that Glenville Jones, PhD -Queens University, patented and leased to John Hopkins University for the vitamin D blocking enzyme CYP24. The company he founded, Cytochroma is busy developing drugs and procedures. It still amazes me that he was on the IOM committee and was able to defend his financial position in his patents by keeping the guidelines for vitamin D low. Government corruption, both Canada and the US at its best!
Mark, I wasn’t aware that that is the technology behind the treatment, thank you! I shall read more about it. I’ve been curious about both enzymes secreted by tumors which block Vitamin D and if people with Vitamin D receptor problems are more likely to develop cancers. The entire IOM committee and its recommendations on VitD has been a case study in corruption and conflicts of interest.
Rich,
I think that you are absolutely correct. I believe that I would certainly try the natural route before giving in to current therapy technologies. If they were that effective then the cancer death rate would have dropped significantly more.
Everyone should check out Henry Lahore’s VitaminDWiki for his graphic presentation of the advantages of vitamin D. Overview of Cancer and Vitamin D http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=931
Mark, another excellent post as usual. After reading several books and doing many hours of research, I think I have uncovered the business model for the cancer industry. First, understand that virtually all adults have pre-cancerous lesions somewhere in their body. Your body encapsulates it with a protein shell where it stays often for years without bothering anything. Then one fine day you decide to get an MRI to check for problems and – “uh oh – look what I found: a pre-cancerous lesion. Mr. Pegram, I’d better do a biopsy to make sure you don’t sue me for malpractice. I’m just going to stick this little needle in that bad boy and let’s see what the lab says.” Of course, poking a hole through the protective shell helps the pre-cancerous cells escape into your bloodstream where they take up residence in more friendly environments. To add insult to injury, if they start you on a regimen of chemotherapy your immune system gets seriously compromised, thereby allowing cancer cells which have been spread by the doctor to thrive without a functioning immune system from stopping them.
In short, you didn’t really have cancer until the doctor gave it to you by mucking up your natural defenses. Or to put it differently, the act of looking for cancer actually creates cancer. Furthermore, what the medical profession calls a relapse is actually a result of deadly radiation and toxic chemotherapy. And if you should happen to be one of the 550,000 poor saps who dies each year as a result, understand the medical profession got what it was looking for: hundreds of thousands of dollars from your insurance company.
Personally, I refuse to give them that satisfaction, so I make sure my 25(OH)D level stays above 50 ng/mL. In addition, I limit exposure to dangerous chemicals as much as possible, avoid fluoridated water and high fructose corn syrup as much as possible; totally avoid Aspartame, try to stay hydrated, keep my body mass index under 25, learn to handle stress, get a good night’s sleep without pills, obtain digestive enzymes from raw fruits and vegetables, get safe sun and a little outdoor exercise, stay socially connected and involved, and take supplements in addition to vitamin D. If all 310 million Americans did the same, it would usher in a new age of health and prosperity where easily-preventable chronic degenerative disease almost disappears. A hundred years ago cancer was virtually unknown and with a little effort, we can bring it back to that place where it rightfully deserves to be.