Abbas S, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer - results of a large case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2007 Oct 31; [Epub ahead of print] In the above study, 1,394 women with breast cancer were case-controlled with a similar number of women without breast cancer. The women with breast cancer were three times more likely to have low vitamin D levels.
appe JM, et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.
The above randomised controlled trial shows a 60% reduction in internal cancers in women taking even a modest 1,100 IU per day of vitamin D.
It still blows me away that health agencies - Government and non-Government - do not give this essential health measure the credit it deserves. If a drug was discovered that had the documented benefits of vitamin D, the discoverers would be both wealthy and famous. They would win the Nobel Prize for medicine.
So far, every person I have had blood tested for vitamin D levels has been either clinically deficient or much less than optimum. Cheap, quality Vitamin D is available from my website store.
Why is the importance of Vitamin D for preventing cancer as good as ignored? Is it because it is cheap? Because it is found in unprocessed foods? Is it because the sun is the principal source of Vitamin D? Is it because going out in the sun contradicts the huge investment by anti-cancer agencies in the Sun Smart message? Is it because Vitamin D cannot be patented and sold at exorbitant prices? Is it because Vitamin D threatens to undermine the profitability of the burgeoning cancer fund-raising and treatment industry? I don't know - you tell me what's going on because I am at a loss to explain the mix of silence and understatement.