Leading in Nutrients – The Affordable Care Act, Part II

What are the natural or innate characteristics of leaders?   The significant characteristic of leadership is the ability to paint a picture of truth that others can understand. When the picture is false it becomes a lie.   The lie is where great leaders have failed us over the years. Much propaganda delivered in health and nutrition now makes it difficult for anyone to find the truth.   This includes you and your doctor.

The ability to paint a picture in leadership that others can understand is a great gift. It is not a developed gift but a gift or quality that is innate in the leader. Research was used to determine the qualities of a leader. Only one quality of leadership could be found through all ages of test participants. The participants were asked to drink a glass of water with lemon juice added – no sugar. They were then asked to describe how great the lemon water was to drink.   This was started with participants at the age of five. The children were then asked to go play. As they played, the researchers noticed that the children who were able to describe the lemon water as tasty without grimace, became the leaders in play. This test was repeated with groups through middle age with the same result.   Participants who were able to describe the lemon water as great to drink became “natural” leaders.

This gift of painting a picture that others can easily understand is what makes a leader great. There have been many examples of leadership when both the lie and the truth were used effectively. However, when the gift was used as a lie, eventually failure of the led was the result. Compare/contrast the words of leadership during WWII between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler.

Has this happened to us in health? The immediate example is the Affordable Care Act. A regular citizen, like yourself, has discovered some serious issues of lack of the truth. Richard Weinstein, MBA, Investment Advisor, found that Jonathan Gruber, the architect-advisor to the ACA, used less than truth to help the ACA pass legislation. Rich was frustrated for a year because he could not get the attention of the press. It was only after his findings became part of a legal challenge to the ACA that he found traction. Huffington Post Article: “This Philly-Based Investment Advisor Has Become Obamacare’s Digital Menace.” 11/11/2014

Rich was driven by the words that got the bill passed, “If you like your policy, you can keep your policy.” Last year, his health insurance policy was cancelled. The closest comparable policy was twice as much. He spent his nights researching the words of the architects of the ACA by reviewing videos that were available on the web. This past week, the Obama Administration was embarrassed by the videos and took immediate action. Obama declared that he wanted “Net Neutrality.” To me this sounds like double-speak as an effort to better control the internet. Glen Beck, on his morning radio show, called this declaration a “Trojan Horse” or subterfuge. A fear tactic was used this week with the words, “if you like Netflix, you can keep Netflix with net neutrality.”

Confusing and confounding findings are now included on a regular basis as a method to advance political advantages. Subterfuge is used in economics, in atmospheric science, and in evidence based medicine. The commonality is the complexity of finding truth. Findings by our elite scholars are being used to manipulate the people for the sole purpose of empire building.   Empire building is simply the maintenance and growth of any organization without concern for the stress on society as a whole.

We, as citizens with concern for the health of government and people, have to now take action. The internet is there for you to determine your own truth. However, be careful, the double-speak artists are paid well to paint beautiful pictures. We do need to follow the leadership of a plain citizen, Richard Weinstein. Have you had a health situation that could be healed with nutrients? It is up to you to talk about this with your friends and family and to help our ethical leaders understand what is happening to our society. – Pandemic Survivor

Leadership in Nutrients – Part I

Leadership is often misidentified as management. Certainly management is necessary to achieve any great goal. However, is it the correct goal? This is where ethical leadership steps in to give clarity to the community in its effort to achieve greatness in that society. There is always tension in what is an ethical goal. The obvious goal in any society for health is to lead long healthy lives with suffering only for very short periods of time before death takes us. When economic principles supersede the desire for health, a very suffering population can result.

The best way to understand the difference in leadership and management is the story that I heard in the 1980’s. We were attempting to add excellence in quality to a manufacturing environment. We listened to many quality gurus describe processes necessary to achieve the goals. But one story clearly differentiated the process of achieving the goal versus defining the goal: There was a team given the assignment of clearing a jungle and building a road to the other side of an island. At one point during the mission, the manager climbed a tall tree that had been cleared from the jungle. He relayed to the workers that the jungle cutters, the brush clearers, the road builders, and the people keeping the crocodiles away were all doing a great job. He could see the other side of the island and exclaimed to the group that they were more than half way there. On a tree that was adjacent, the leader climbed to the top. He raised his arm and shouted, “Wrong Island.”

Is managing health through evidence based medicine that spotlights only drugs, surgery, and other medical procedures the right island?

Where is the leader that stands up and declares, “Evidence based medicine when focusing only on drugs, surgery, and medical procedures is the wrong island?” “Evidence based medicine when focusing on drugs, surgery, medical procedures, and nutrients is the right island,” declares the leader.

And the economics shout back, “who is going to pay for the research on nutrients that will have no return except for health?”

“What will replace all the lost jobs in medicine and medical insurance?” the politicians proclaim.

Who is going to pay for the research on nutrients is answered by, us, the people. We have already paid for the research on drugs, surgery, and medical procedures that allowed the medical industry to achieve huge economic benefits. It is now time for the government to direct the largest portion of money spent on research toward nutrients and their interactions for health. It is interesting to note there is presently enough evidence based medicine for ethical leaders to make decisions on nutrients. But, what has clouded the effort is the desire to maintain the large sector of the medical-economic complex. Government has adopted the policy position that money to support the economy of healthcare is more important to the security of the nation. This has resulted in a population that suffers from a severe chronic disease epidemic. Could the problems of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes as the big three killers be corrected?

It is now time for our government leaders, Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court to make ethical leadership decisions. The health of the nation would give a much more thriving, wealth building economy than our present paradigm of the medical-economic complex can ever achieve. Are you going to be the change agent to motivate ethical decision making in health? Only through contacting your leaders at all levels will this ever happen. It is the people’s issue that must develop in a grass roots wave. The other choice is to maintain the status quo and continue with great management of the medical-economic complex.

“Wrong Island!” – Pandemic Survivor

Vitamin D and Prevention of Chronic Diseases

Below is a video about vitamin D that will change your life and possibly help you overcome serious diseases and medical conditions. This video is presented through the University of California Television, UCTV. Dr. Michael Holick has long been a promoter of vitamin D even at the risk of his career. He has been repeatedly attacked and lost his job at one point. He has become very cautious in his presentations on vitamin D. This video was made in 2009 and there has been much new science published since then on the advantages of vitamin D for health.

The video is about one hour long. It is very entertaining as Dr. Holick helps you to understand the science in a consumable reality. In the video Dr. Holick expresses the need to keep your serum level of 25(OH)D above 30 ng/ml. However, at the end of the video, please note that his average level is 52 ng/ml. This is the bottom of the level typically achieve by the indigenous populations along the equator. I do believe that the best levels to maintain are 60 to 80 ng/ml which is well within the norms of clinical practice of 30 ng/ml to 100 ng/ml. At these higher levels, be sure that you are getting enough magnesium as well.

Dr. Michael Holick Vitamin D and Prevention of Chronic Diseases http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq1t9WqOD-0

The only way to know for sure that you have the correct amount of vitamin D is to be tested. Enjoy Health. – Pandemic Survivor

Vitamin D3 Significantly Reduces Asthma Flare-Ups

In recent news headlines, there is the story of a published research paper for vitamin D3 and a steroid inhaler.  The headlines read like this one from MedNews: “Vitamin D3 flops as asthma therapy booster.”  I was amazed at the conclusion of the writer for the paper: “Effect of Vitamin D3 on Asthma Treatment Failures in Adults with Symptomatic Asthma and Lower Vitamin D Levels” Castro, et. Al. JAMA May 18, 2014, Conclusion: “Vitamin D3 did not reduce the rate of first treatment failure or exacerbation in adults with persistent asthma and vitamin D insufficiency. These findings do not support a strategy of therapeutic vitamin D3 supplementation in patients with symptomatic asthma.”

I am not sure why he decided to use the rate to the first flare-up or exacerbation.  I suppose the aim of the steroid inhaler is to eliminate flare-ups.  The test was run by dividing the test participants into two groups.  One group was given vitamin D3 and the steroid.  The other group was given a placebo and the steroid.  The vitamin D group had serum levels above 40 ng/ml while the placebo group was 20 ng/ml or less.

It is interesting to look at the design of the experiment.  It was obviously about using the steroid as a treatment for asthma with vitamin D3 as an aid.   I do believe that the title of the trial should have been the same as the title of this post.  If you look at figure 3 in the paper, it shows that there was a significant reduction in the total number of exacerbations in the vitamin D3 group.   The paper states: “The adjusted hazard ratio for cumulative number of exacerbations that occurred over the course of the trial was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.39-1.01; P = .05).”  This represents a 37 percent reduction in total accumulated exacerbations in the vitamin D group.  To me, this is really exciting news, but then, the writer is working for the pharmaceutical industry.

It should also be noted how the delivery of the vitamin D3 was made.  I agree with the initial dose of 100,000 IU.  However, I do not believe the 4000 IU of D3 was adequate for treatment of asthma.  The mean BMI of the test subjects was 32 or borderline obese.  It would have been better if the participants were given 10,000 IU of D3 per day to try to get the serum levels of vitamin D > 60 ng/ml.  This is the level that most doctors agree is necessary for treating disease and within the clinical standards of 30-100 ng/ml.

Also, I would not have given the steroid inhaler to the vitamin D group.  I would have used a placebo inhaler.  The purpose of not using the steroid in the vitamin D group is the reduction of vitamin D receptors from steroid use.  Treatment of an overdose of vitamin D is to use steroids to reduce the effect of vitamin D.  I would also be sure the participants were given at least 5000 IU of vitamin A as fish liver oil with the control group getting placebo fish oil.  It is well known that vitamin D/vitamin A dimers are very significant in the expression pathways for DNA and immune system boosting. Don’t do this without talking to your doctor first.

To further assure the use of the best available vitamins, I would not allow any synthetics to be consumed during the trials.  That is in particular synthetic beta carotene or synthetic vitamin E, both known to have negative effects in the lungs.  I would also not allow any vitamin or the steroid for that matter to be processed using blue-green algae or cyanobacteria.  This is to assure that there is no contamination by microcytins or protein mimics.  I will write more about this cyanotoxin later.

I do believe the result of this trial would show significant reduction in exacerbations, if not elimination after many weeks.  Why the rate to first exacerbation was used should be self-evident after looking at the disclosure for conflicts of interest.  But then the press has no clue and would not want to lose pharmaceutical advertising.   – Pandemic Survivor.

Vitamins and Minerals or Not

“There are two kinds of charlatan: the man who is called a charlatan, and the man who really is one. The first is the quack who cures you; the second is the highly qualified person who doesn’t.”  G. K. Chesterton Illustrated London News 2-15-1908 from Chesterton.org.

There has been a flurry of news articles during December about vitamins and minerals.  It was started by an editorial in the Annals of Internal Medicine, “Enough is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamins and Mineral Supplements.” – E. Guallar, et. Al. The editorial ended with the words of total authority, “case closed” and “enough is enough”.  Following the large gathering crowd movement or jumping on the “bandwagon” of lemmings, there were also many negative articles about vitamin D, like “Vitamin D Fails to Ease Winter Colds and Coughs” New York Times Blog.   Of course the study represented was using only 1000 IU of vitamin D.  Not nearly enough to adequately boost your immune system.  Why do a study to determine if one to five minutes in the midday summer sun will stop a cold?

Toward the end of the month and even today you can find articles that are refuting the negative news about vitamin and minerals.  Doctors and writers site case after case of where vitamins and minerals are necessary to heal and prevent disease.  It is a war of seeming experts explaining how the interpretation of the research is invalid and the research is also flawed.  But what are you to do if you cannot read the research and make a decision on your own?  You can choose to trust the experts, but which experts?  You can do nothing and not assure you are getting enough vitamins and minerals and you have followed the expert’s advice by default.  You can wait until you get a very life threatening disease and when allopathic medicine has failed you, start looking for a solution.  I am sorry that I waited until I was almost dead before evaluating the research myself.  I know that most of you do not have the means, time, or understanding necessary to make these decisions on your own.  How are you going to believe the quack that wants to cure you?

Unfortunately for you, the articles refuting the earlier articles are mostly being ignored by the main stream press and the population in general.  First in is really a big deal in a marketing war.  You become immune to the rhetoric and just skip over the article even if it did make it to your consumed media.

Many of you do not realize that there is a large marketing campaign happening on both sides to get your money.  Whether it is the “experts” that practice allopathic medicine or the “alternative” group that also wants to get your money, a marketing war is being fought hard in the press.  In earlier times, especially in a time of manipulation of the world’s population, this type of action was called propaganda.  Propaganda is a word that you don’t see much anymore because of the negative connotation, but its practice and techniques are deluged on you every day.

Consider the various types of propaganda techniques as listed by Oracle ThinkQuest Education Foundation:   Assertion, Bandwagon, Card Stacking or selective omission, Glittering Generalities, Lesser of Two Evils, Name Calling, Pinpointing the Enemy, Plain Folks (this is my favorite technique), Simplification or Stereotyping, Testimonials, and Transfer or viewing one item the same way you view another item.  Are you dizzy yet?  The marketers depend on that.  We have all used these techniques to persuade people to come around to our viewpoint.  Politics, marketing, and marketing passing itself off as science are thrown at us every day from our many media sources. Experts are paid handsomely to present confusing facts as “case closed”.  All of these propaganda techniques were tossed at you in December.

Your health is important to you.  Health insurance is not the solution.  Becoming informed is the solution and don’t throw away the advice of quacks just because some expert used name calling to try to get you away from their understanding.  Don’t always trust the information from experts without confirming what is being said.  This is a life-long task of hard work to sort through marketing versus fact, truth versus relative truth, and what is it really that gives you health.  To not do this deadly – Pandemic Survivor

“There are two kinds of paradoxes. They are not so much the good and the bad, nor even the true and the false. Rather they are the fruitful and the barren; the paradoxes which produce life and the paradoxes that merely announce death. Nearly all modern paradoxes merely announce death.”  G.K. Chesterton ILN 3-11-1911, Chesterton.org.

Find the comment balloon to the right of the title.  You may have to move your cursor over it for it to show.  I would like to know your thoughts.

Worshiping at the Vitamin Church

An Open Letter to Margaret Wente; from her profile: “Margaret Wente is one of Canada’s leading columnists. As a writer for The Globe and Mail, she provokes heated debate with her views on health care, education, and social issues. She is winner of the National Newspaper Award for column-writing.”

Re: Why I’m Leaving the Vitamin Church – Globe and Mail, Canada 

Dearest Margaret,

I am extremely sorry for your demise.  I assume you’re writing from the grave.  Anyone taking 1000 mg of vitamin D (forty million IU per day for years?) for as long as you suggest would certainly be dead.  At your autopsy, your death was stated to be idiopathic.  In plain English that means the idiots did not know the cause.

The study from the Lancet that you refer to suggested that vitamin D does not improve bone density.  If you had read the abstract closely, you would have noted that they did not use more than 800 IU of vitamin D.  Simple logic would suggest that the study was devised to keep researchers employed as everyone knows that two minutes of mid day summer sun, the equivalent of 800 IU of vitamin D, would not improve bone density.

What are worse than flawed science research papers are extremely flawed opinion articles by renowned authors.  You used the weight of your public face to express an opinion that really means nothing even though it is beautifully written.  At some point the realization that process and content are both important must infuse your vitamin deprived soul.  The cutback in advertising for your publication must have got the technical editor.  Or worse, maybe your publication was given more advertising for the writing of this article by the pharmaceutical/medical insurance industry.

A simple interview with anyone that has recovered from serious disease by the use of nutrition would have rendered your heart so that out of love you would not have written such an error riddle article.  Without knowing it, you may have caused the deaths of thousands of people.  You should heed the words of the nutrition evangelist, Dr. Randy Jirtle, renowned genomic researcher and Time Magazine Person of the Year 2007; “Food is Medicine”.

Judging from your photo showing your ashy white pallor, I suspect you are already starting to get your first cold of the season.  Given the half life of vitamin D is only three weeks, you should expect to get your second cold or the flu about Christmas since you have stopped taking vitamin D.  If you had truly been keeping up with the vitamin D science, you would know that it is not how much you take, but how high your serum level of 25(OH)D.

Worshiping at any church other than a church of God is nothing more than idolatry.  I really am glad that you have decided to give up the vitamin church and free yourself of this evil. Perhaps you should help others in this effort.

To your good health,
Pandemic Survivor

All Governments Should Promote Vitamin D3 Supplementation

The best and most effective way to immediately reduce the cost of healthcare, have a more effective medical system because of less chronic disease, a healthier population where wellness will increase productivity, and a better economy is to promote the supplementation of vitamin D3 and sun exposure without sunburn.  All citizens could be given free vitamin D3.  This program would be by choice of the individual so as to not force government on the people.

This would be very effective for all countries of the world except for the US.  For countries with single payer medical insurance or government medical insurance for the entire population, this would be particularly beneficial for cost reduction in healthcare.  Also, it would solve a lot of problems with doctor shortage because physicians would be freed up from treating as much chronic disease.

Mary Meeker, in her report to promote general discourse on economic conditions in the US, USA, Inc. (image below is plate 315 from the slides– for full report visit KPCB where Mary works: http://www.kpcb.com/insights/usa-inc-full-report ), had very interesting suggestions in how to bring a dying US economy back to life.  This report suggests treating the US as a company and handle revitalization in a similar manner as a corporate rescue.  She suggested that the largest drain on the economy of the US is entitlements, in particular Medicare and Medicaid.

And then there is this graph that is most startling from her discussion of healthcare cost in the US:

The thing that is blatantly obvious about this graph is that we are not getting the benefit from our healthcare dollar as the rest of the world.  Why is this?  There is approximately $4000 per capita that goes as the cost of medical insurance (!?) every year and not medical treatment.  We truly have given up freedom for security.  The medical industry has become this bloated by extremely poor government policy that allows insurance companies to profit without providing wealth creation to the population.  If the US was being treated as a company, the CEO and board of directors would be replaced by the stock holders (or citizens should vote to replace all of our present leaders – congressmen and president).  I believe the Affordable Health Care Act was designed intentionally to fail in an effort to force all medical insurance under government control, but not necessarily to correct this blotted system.  It certainly has driven the cost of healthcare higher.  Just imagine what we could do with national debt if we used 1.2 trillion dollars ($4000 x 300 million people) each year as an investment in things that would create wealth (insurance does  not create wealth – just imagine if you were paying a third party to pay for your oil changes – why you do this with preventative healthcare?).

To President Barack Obama and the Congress:  If you want to solve the healthcare dilemma, then, create a healthy population by being sure we have enough proper nutrition to prevent disease and allow a long healthy life through your administrative departments.  This includes in particular magnesium, sulfur, iodine, vitamin C, and vitamin D3.  Limit the things that cause disease as most of the rest of the world has already done – ban fluorine in our drinking water, stop the use of bromines in food and citrus drinks, limit the use of genetically modified plants and animals until complete assessment of safety and efficacy can be made, and require labeling on existing genetically modified foods so that we know what we are consuming.  Yes, there would be a struggle as people in the healthcare insurance industry, a non-wealth creator, find new jobs, but poor government policy has already slammed the economy as manufacturing, a wealth creator, has been run out of the country.  If your beliefs are; we have limited resources in the world and population should be controlled, then continue to allow us to die off for the benefit of the elite.  You still have time to act even if the ‘stock holders’ kick you out of office in January.    – Pandemic Survivor

USPSTF, Government Panel Sends Up Trial Balloon for Negative Vitamin D Findings

Panel to post menopausal women: Don’t take vitamin D, Calcium – USA Today:  “A government advisory panel’s recommendation Tuesday that healthy postmenopausal women should not take daily low doses of vitamin D and calcium to prevent bone fractures is a wakeup call to millions of Baby Boomer women that more is not always better.”

“In its draft recommendations, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also said existing research is insufficient to assess the risks or benefits of taking vitamin D — with or without calcium — to prevent cancer in adults.”

Older Women Should Not Take Calcium, Vitamin D, Task Force – Philadelphia Inquirer

Panel: Postmenopausal women shouldn’t take vitamin D, calcium to prevent bone fractures – CBS News

Government Panel Says Calcium, Vitamin D Won’t Prevent Bone Fractures – USA News & World Report

Vitamin D Doesn’t Prevent Osteoporosis in Healthy Women, Task Force Says – Huffington Post

On and on and on and beat me with a stick!  What goes on here?  Why has this government panel come out now and what have they really said?  US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), a division of Health and Human Services (HHS).  Of course this is ultimately your President, but I suspect he does not have a clue as to what is going on with his health agencies.  AHRQ is the same agency that provided the package for the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board that says you only need to take 800 IU vitamin D per day.  As I have warned you in the past to ignore studies that use such small amounts, the USPSTF review as based on 400 IU vitamin D and 1000 mg of calcium per day.

The Endocrine Society (ES) was bothered by the IOM’s suggestions and said the IOM was wrong.  This was based on practice experience where women have much worse osteoporosis and bone fractures with low levels of vitamin D.  The ES suggested that 25(OH)D levels be above 30 ng/ml and not the 20 ng/ml suggested by IOM.   My sister-in-law benefited from this understanding.  She had multiple bone breaks per year and planter fasciitis.  After her endocrinologist went to hear Michael Holick speak, he put her on 4000 IU per day of vitamin D and she healed.

The other thing that is alarming about the USPSTF’s suggestions is that all of the news stories are based on a draft recommendation release.  In other words, the government is sending up a trial balloon and maintains deniability.  I suspect a real recommendation will never come forward.  They have accomplished what they had set out to do – keep people from taking vitamin D because its positive effects are already being seen in the health statistics. Shame on you Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary HHS, for allowing markets before mandates!  The medical economy is not more important than our health.

By the way, there is a study showing better than twenty five percent improvements in bone density in a year with 5000 IU/d of vitamin D.  Beat me with a stick!  Ouch!  – Pandemic Survivor

Memorial Day Irony at HHS

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services, has a difficult and daunting job.  Every day she must balance between your health and the health of the economy.  As with any other job she has to do what the boss tells her to do.  With HHS and its eleven divisions, that sometime contradict each other’s efforts, decisions must be precise.  HHS has done a reasonably good job since 1960 with life expectancy moving from 69.77 to 78.9 in 2009.   Also during this same time period the rate of death has moved from 950 per 100,000 in 1960  to 794 per 100,000 in 2010. The growth of the medical sector of the economy has done well also.  It has moved from five percent of GDP in 1960 to over 18 percent now.  So giving you ten more years of life expectancy and reducing the death rate by 150 per 100,000 has had significant impact on keeping Americans employed.

On this Memorial Day, we should all remember with great appreciation the effort of many fallen Americans to protect our country against foreign attack.  We also should remember the effort of many Americans that never picked up a gun or joined the military but died so that we may have a better life.

Women’s Choice: According to the CDC -50 million abortions since 1970
Failure by the HHS to treat nutrition with the same importance as drugs:  250,000 unnecessary deaths per year.

If you factor in the above additional deaths, it changes our death rate to about 1350 per 100,000 or where we were in 1910.

Remember the efforts of many brave Americans to protect our “way of life.”  – Pandemic Survivor

NCI Fights for its Life in the War on Cancer

The National Cancer Institute was established August 6, 1937 by Congress when it passed the National Cancer Institute Act. It was later made part of the National Institute of Health by the Public Health Service Act of July 1, 1944.  Its powers were later broadened in 1971 when Richard Nixon declared “war on cancer” (“in order more effectively to carry out the national effort against cancer”) by signing the National Cancer Act. It is now one of eleven divisions of Health and Human Services.  The funding for NCI for 2012 was roughly 5.2 billion dollars.

In 2008, Senators Biden and Obama issued a plan to double the funding for cancer research in five years that focused on the NIH and NCI.  The US Senate on March 26, 2009 issued the 21st Century Cancer Access to Life-Saving Early detection, Research and Treatment (Alert) Act.  (Wow, sounds really impressive).  The “stimulus package of 2009” included 10 billion dollars for the NIH for funding cancer research.  Thinking of his mother’s battle with ovarian cancer, President Barack Obama stated: “Now is the time to commit ourselves to waging a war against cancer as aggressive as the war cancer wages against us.”  Then in September 2009 Obama announced an additional 1 billion dollar package for genetic causes of cancer and targeted research.

So let’s look at the report card for the government’s funding of the war on cancer.  Deaths rates for cancer since 1970:

  • 1970 – 162.8 deaths per 100,000 in population
  • 1990 – 203.2
  • 1997 – 210.0
  • 2010 – 184.5

I am sure that the NCI has done a lot of good in the forty-two years since 1970 in things like drug development and genome mapping.  However, if you just look at the effect the government spending has had on death rates for cancer, then our efforts have been a miserable failure.  What is the solution?  Eliminate the National Cancer Institute.  With all of government funding for cancer in the HHS and its eleven divisions, the NCI has become a useless blight.

Does NCI hear the footsteps of the grim reaper?  Consider the paper they published in their own journal in April this year and read about the fear of supplements:  “Dietary Supplements and Cancer Prevention: Potential Benefits Against Proven Harms” – Martinez, et. Al. April 25, 2012.

Abstract

Nutritional supplementation is now a multibillion dollar industry, and about half of all US adults take supplements. Supplement use is fueled in part by the belief that nutritional supplements can ward off chronic disease, including cancer, although several expert committees and organizations have concluded that there is little to no scientific evidence that supplements reduce cancer risk. To the contrary, there is now evidence that high doses of some supplements increase cancer risk. Despite this evidence, marketing claims by the supplement industry continue to imply anticancer benefits. Insufficient government regulation of the marketing of dietary supplement products may continue to result in unsound advice to consumers. Both the scientific community and government regulators need to provide clear guidance to the public about the use of dietary supplements to lower cancer risk.

If you think about the cancer death rate at 162.8 in 1970 when the population smoked like a 19th century steel mill it makes one wonder. It seems to have increased to a peak in 1997 at 210.4.  It was in the late 90’s that the researchers for vitamin D got really active in promoting vitamin D for cancer prevention and cure.  Since that time the death rate has reduced to 184.5 in 2010.  It was in the 60’s when the promotion of sun fear and the dangers of the sun causing skin cancer really started being promoted.  I believe this was responsible for the increase in cancer to its peak in 1997.  Could the impact of our connection with the sun and the change in vitamin D production in the body be solely responsible for the change in cancer rates?

Based on the fear of supplements by the NCI as it fights for its life, I believe the answer is yes.  The above article was bad enough, but to send out its shills to promote the misinformation is outrageous.  Consider this article in EmaxHealth by Timothy Boyer – “Dr. Oz Vitamin D Dose Advice Supported by Vitamin D Megadoze Warnings”    Look at the fear promotion from this extract as Mr. Boyer promotes some significant miss-truths: A past National Cancer Institute study reported no cancer protection from Vitamin D and the possibility of an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in people with the very highest Vitamin D levels. Megadoses of and above 10,000 IUs a day are also known to cause kidney damage.  And by the way, vitamin D will make your hair turn grey and hairs grow on your nose.

The sound of your footsteps is scaring the crap out of NCI.  Do not become collateral damage in this war on cancer.  Keep your 25(OH)D above 60 ng/ml and watch the NCI squirm.  – Pandemic Survivor