<!-- google_ad_section_start -->New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Health Forums

Go Back   Health Forums > Cancer > Prostate Cancer > alt.support.cancer.prostate

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-10-2007, 01:11 PM
Jan Drew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention


http://www.newstarget.com/z021892.html

NewsTarget.com printable article
Originally published June 8 2007
New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer
industry refuses to support cancer prevention
by Mike Adams

Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of
Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and
calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This
includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer.
This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most
effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer
drug known to modern science.

The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of
women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily)
while another group was given placebo. Over four year, the group receiving
the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in
cancers. Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an
impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation. (The full
press release of this study is included below. It provides more details
about the findings.)

Note that these astonishing effects were achieved on what many nutritionists
consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates
even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered, and the
quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have
been (it was probably calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate,
aspartate or similar forms). What does all this mean? It means that if you
take high-quality calcium supplements and get lots of natural sunlight
exposure or take premium vitamin D supplements (such as those made from fish
oil), you could easily have a greater reduction than the 77 percent
reduction recorded in this study.


American Cancer Society opposes vitamin D
This research on vitamin D is such good news that the American Cancer
Society, of course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson,
Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the
American Cancer Society, flatly stated that nobody should take supplements
to prevent cancer.

If it seems surprising to you that the American Cancer Society -- which
claims to be against cancer -- would dissuade people from taking supplements
that slash their cancer risk by 77 percent, then you don't know much about
the ACS. In my opinion, the ACS is an organization that actually prevents
prevention and openly supports the continuation of cancer as a way to boost
its power and profits. The ACS is the wealthiest non-profit in America and
has very close ties to pharmaceutical companies, mammography equipment
companies and other corporations that profit from cancer. Notice the name,
too: It isn't the American Anti-Cancer Society, it's the American Cancer
Society! What they really stand for is right in the name!

Click here to read more about the ACS and its financial ties to chemical
companies, pharmaceutical companies and radiology equipment manufacturers.

The cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and I've written
extensively about the criminal organizations that protect and promote the
industry. Just about everything the public is told about cancer by these
cancer institutions is a lie. Those "race for the cure" cancer walks are a
complete scam (they really aren't searching for any way to prevent cancer or
cure cancer, they're only searching for new patented drugs to profit from
cancer).

This research on vitamin D is a huge threat to the cancer industry profit
mongers because it reveals a way to prevent cancer for free -- by seeking
natural sunlight exposure and letting your skin manufacture your own
powerful anti-cancer medicine (vitamin D). The idea that the cancer industry
could lose 80% of its patients due to widespread education about vitamin D
and sunlight scares the living daylights out of the cancer industry.
Billions of dollars in cancer profits are at stake here, so the pro-cancer
groups have to do everything they can to discredit vitamin D by creating
doubt and confusion. The degree of dishonesty at work here is almost
unbelievable to those who don't really know what's happening in the cancer
industry.


Ten questions to ask yourself about the cancer industry
Consider these questions:

#1: Why does the cancer industry refuse to educate people about cancer
prevention?

#2: If people keep donating money for the "search" for a cancer cure, why
won't drug companies pledge to "open source" their patents on cancer drugs
to benefit the people whose donations funded them in the first place? In
other words, why do people donate money for cancer research but then get
charged for cancer drugs?

#3: Why does the entire cancer industry so strongly dissuade people from
using sunlight exposure to dramatically reduce their cancer risk? (Hint:
Follow the money to the sunscreen industry...)

#4: Why have all the really good cancer supplements, clinics and naturopaths
been banned, arrested or run out of the country? (Look up the FDA's
oppression of Lane Labs over MGN-3 for a fascinating review of this...)

#5: The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into the cancer industry over
the last three decades. Cancer cures were promised in the 1970's. Why are
cancer rates still essentially the same today as they were in the 1970's?

#6: Why does the cancer industry continue to use chemotherapy, radiation and
other toxic procedures to "kill tumors" when the latest science clearly
shows that cancer tumors are only the symptoms, not the cause, of cancer?
Chemotherapy destroys immune function and causes permanent damage to the
heart, brain and liver...

#7: The World Health Organization says that 70% of all cancers are easily
preventable through dietary and lifestyle changes. This latest research
shows that sunlight and low-cost calcium supplements can slash cancer risk
by 77% in women. Why won't conventional medicine embrace this low-cost, safe
and highly effective method for preventing cancer?

#8: The cancer industry routinely attacks anti-cancer herbs, superfoods and
supplements. Why is the cancer industry opposed to anti-cancer nutrition?
Why does it believe that only man, not nature, can manufacture anti-cancer
medicines?

#9: Dark skin pigmentation blocks ultraviolet radiation, meaning that people
with black skin need far more time under the sun to generate the same amount
of vitamin D as someone with white skin. Not surprisingly, black women
suffer extremely high rates of breast cancer while black men show similarly
high levels of prostate cancer. The white-dominated medical industry
pretends to be "mystified" by all this. Why won't conventional medicine
simple tell black people the truth about vitamin D, skin pigmentation and
cancer? Why do oncologists try to keep black people ignorant about their
vitamin D deficiencies?

#10: Why is it illegal for nutritional supplement manufacturers to tell the
truth about the anti-cancer effects of their products? Broccoli, garlic,
onions and sprouts all have powerful anti-cancer effects, as do dozens of
rainforest herbs (Cat's Claw, for example), Chinese herbs and Western herbs.
But the FDA threatens and censors any company that dares to mention cancer
prevention on its supplement products. Why is the FDA enforcing a policy of
nutritional ignorance with U.S. consumers? Why does the federal government
want people to remain ignorant of methods for preventing or treating cancer?

You probably already know the answer to all these questions, because the
answer is the same for each one: Corporate profits. Cancer is hugely
profitable to treat. Substantially preventing cancer would result in a loss
of billions of dollars in profits for the oncologists, drug companies,
hospitals and clinics that currently prey upon the finances of cancer
victims.

The cancer industry is operated like a criminal racket, using false
information, intimidation, political pressure and propaganda to protect its
power base and keep its corporations profitable. And that, my friends, is
exactly why the industry is against the use of sunlight to prevent cancer.
Free medicine from the sky? The very thought of it makes the cancer industry
cringe. Sunlight doesn't even need a prescription, you see, and it can't be
patented, either.


Preventing cancer the healthy way
Let me tell you how I prevent cancer. I take long walks in the desert with
no shirt on, and I don't wear sunscreen. I soak up the sun's rays for many
hours each week, and I never get a sun burn because I eat lots of
antioxidant-rich superfoods, berries and fresh produce.

I drink a raw superfood smoothie each morning, made of fresh produce and
superfoods. My two favorite recipes are chocolate (with raw cacao, coconut
oil or macadamia nut oil, raw avocado, spirulina, quinoa, banana and almond
milk) and super berry (fresh berries, freeze-dried berries, egg white
protein, stevia, aloe vera gel, fresh cucumber or watermelon, celery).

I put no personal care products on my skin whatsoever: No deodorants, no
fragrance, no skin creams, no cosmetics and no sunscreen. This alone saves
me from exposure to hundreds of cancer-causing toxic chemicals added to
personal care products. I refuse to use chemical laundry detergent and,
instead, use natural laundry soap that grows on trees: It's a natural soap
berry product that we sell as a replacement for chemical laundry detergents.
You'll find it at www.betterlifegoods.com


Corporate-controlled U.S. government doesn't want to prevent cancer
The U.S. government doesn't want the population to be free of cancer. That's
a strong statement, so let me offer you an undeniable piece of strong
evidence to back that up: The artificially low RDA numbers for vitamin D.

One of the best ways to keep the population suffering from cancer is to
enforce long-term nutritional deficiencies that lead to cancer. The US
government accomplishes this by keeping the recommendations for vitamin D
artificially low, practically guaranteeing that anyone who follows the
recommendations will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. Vitamin D
deficiency is the leading cause of breast cancer.

Most educated nutritionists agree that the daily dose of vitamin D for an
adult should be at least 1000 IUs, perhaps as high as 1400. But the U.S.
Institute of Medicine (IoM), which controls the recommendations on these
things, currently states that adults under 50 only need 200 IUs of vitamin D
a day. This policy is, in my opinion, an organized conspiracy to keep the
American people diseased by making sure they stay deficient in anti-cancer
nutrients. It serves the interests of all the powerful corporations and
non-profits that run Washington. And yes, it is a conspiracy. I've
documented it in far more detail in my book, Natural Health Solutions and
the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them, which reveals shocking
details, documents and photographs showing how modern medicine is a system
that's literally designed to keep the people in a state of chronic disease.

The FDA doesn't want people to prevent cancer either. That's why they've
aggressively attacked companies offering anti-cancer nutrients, and
completely censored the very mention of the word "cancer" by supplement
companies. In fact, the only reason I can print the information you're
reading right now is because I sell no food or supplements and my free
speech writing is not regulated by the FDA. If I were selling supplements
and writing these same words you're reading right now, I would be arrested,
charged with federal crimes, and put out of business by state and federal
authorities. That's the reality of the oppressive medical environment under
which we live today: Health is outlawed, and only disease is allowed to be
promoted.

The cancer industry, you see, is not merely incompetent; it is criminal.
Intentionally keeping a population sick so that you can profit from disease
is a crime against humanity. And yet this is business as usual in America's
modern cancer industry.

Discrediting simple, free and safe cancer prevention strategies is also
criminal, and yet this is what the American Cancer Society seems to do at
every opportunity.

Plotting to profit from the suffering of other humans beings is evil. And
yet the entire revenue base of the cancer industry is based on precisely
that: Keeping people alive long enough to "treat" them with overpriced toxic
chemicals that can be billed to Medicare at 50,000% markups over their
manufacturing cost.

Cancer is big, big business. And curing cancer is a threat to all the
criminals participating in that industry: The non-profit employees,
oncologists, doctors, federal regulators, drug company executives, med
school propaganda teachers, pharmaceutical reps and many others. These
people cannot allow cancer to be prevented or cured. Their jobs and careers
are at stake.

Another outstanding source for learning more about the evils of the cancer
industry is G. Edward Griffin. Click here to read our article about Griffin
or click here for his website.

Click here to see his video documentary on vitamin B17


A world free from cancer and full of abundance
Personally, I believe we could create a world virtually free of cancer. We
could accomplish it in two generations by taking tough action to outlaw
cancer-causing chemicals and investing in genuine cancer prevention
education. Drug companies would lose trillions of dollars in profits,
hospitals would lose huge amounts of patients, and pro-cancer non-profit
groups would lose power, money and prestige. But guess what? We'd all be
better off without cancer.

Here's a startling statistic: Did you know that reducing the cancer death
rate by just 1% would be worth almost $500 billion to the U.S. economy over
the next hundred years or so? (Source: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention) Drop the cancer rate by 10% and it's worth $5 trillion dollars
to the economy. (These gains are due to increased productivity and life
spans of working, contributing people.)

We know right now that vitamin D and calcium can slash cancer rates by 77
percent. Do the math on that, and you realize that sunlight and calcium
could result in a $38.5 trillion boost to the U.S. economy over the next
century.

That's enough economic productivity to pay off our entire national debt,
build new schools in every town and city in the country, provide free
college educations to all young people who wish to go to college, invest
billions in new energy technologies and even fund massive health education
campaigns to keep our population healthy. $38 trillion is a lot of money.
With that kind of increased abundance, we could build a whole new society of
health, wealth and education.

But guess what? The cancer industry won't let that happen. There's too much
short term profit to be made in keeping everybody sick. The cancer industry
is so evil that it will sell out our future in order to maintain power,
profits and control over the people today. The cancer industry doesn't want
cancer rates to go down, regardless of the benefits to society or individual
lives. The cancer industry wants there to be MORE cancer, which is exactly
why it opposes commonsense prevention strategies that would reduce cancers.
(It's true, this industry actually opposes removing cancer-causing chemicals
from the workplace...)

Read more at Dr. Sam Epstein's website: http://www.preventcancer.com

The bottom line in all this? New research shows us that using low-cost
calcium and vitamin D supplements (or just natural sunlight), we could slash
cancer rates by an astonishing 77 percent. The cancer industry opposes this
and is firmly positioned as an opponent of cancer prevention. The industry
depends on cancer to grow its own power and profits, and it will invest in
the de-education of the public in order to maximize its own revenues.

Cures for cancer exist all around us: Sunlight, rainforest herbs,
anti-cancer foods and superfoods, etc. The causes of cancer are well known:
Toxic chemicals in foods, cosmetics, personal care products, home cleaning
products, and so on. So why don't we, as a nation, take steps to outlaw the
things that cause cancer while promoting the things that prevent cancer?

The reason, once again, is because there's too much money at stake here. The
corporations are in charge, and as long as they're running the show, cancer
cures or prevention strategies that really work will simply not be
tolerated.


Creighton press release
Here's the original press release about the new findings on vitamin D and
cancer prevention:

OMAHA, Neb., June 8 -- Most Americans and others are not taking enough
vitamin D, a fact that may put them at significant risk for developing
cancer, according to a landmark study conducted by Creighton University
School of Medicine.

The four-year, randomized study followed 1,179 healthy, postmenopausal women
from rural eastern Nebraska.* Participants taking calcium, as well as a
quantity of vitamin D3 nearly three times the U.S. government's Recommended
Daily Amount (RDA) for middle-age adults, showed a dramatic 60 percent or
greater reduction in cancer risk than women who did not get the vitamin.

The results of the study, conducted between 2000 and 2005, were reported in
the June 8 online edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

"The findings are very exciting. They confirm what a number of vitamin D
proponents have suspected for some time but that, until now, have not been
substantiated through clinical trial," said principal investigator Joan
Lappe, Ph.D., R.N., Creighton professor of medicine and holder of the
Criss/Beirne Endowed Chair in the School of Nursing. "Vitamin D is a
critical tool in fighting cancer as well as many other diseases."

Other Creighton researchers involved in the study included Robert Recker,
M.D.; Robert Heaney, M.D.; Dianne Travers-Gustafson, M.S.; and K. Michael
Davies, Ph.D.

Research participants were all 55 years and older and free of known cancers
for at least 10 years prior to entering the Creighton study. Subjects were
randomly assigned to take daily dosages of 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental
calcium, 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium plus 1,100 IU of vitamin D3, or
placebos. National Institutes of Health funded the study.

Over the course of four years, women in the calcium/vitamin D3 group
experienced a 60 percent decrease in their cancer risk than the group taking
placebos.

On the premise that some women entered the study with undiagnosed cancers,
researchers then eliminated the first-year results and looked at the last
three years of the study. When they did that, the results became even more
dramatic with the calcium/vitamin D3 group showing a startling 77 percent
cancer-risk reduction.

In the three-year analysis, there was no statistically significant
difference in cancer incidence between participants taking placebos and
those taking just calcium supplements.

Through the course of the study, 50 participants developed nonskin cancers,
including breast, colon, lung and other cancers.

Lappe said further studies are needed to determine whether the Creighton
research results apply to other populations, including men, women of all
ages, and different ethnic groups. While the study was open to all ethnic
groups, all participants were Caucasian, she noted.

There is a growing body of evidence that a higher intake of vitamin D may be
helpful in the prevention and treatment of cancer, high blood pressure,
fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid
arthritis and other diseases.

Humans make their own vitamin D3 when they are exposed to sunlight. In fact,
only 10-15 minutes a day in a bright summer sun creates large amounts of the
vitamin, Lappe said. However, people need to exercise caution since the
sun's ultraviolet B rays also can cause skin cancer; sunscreen blocks most
vitamin D production.

In addition, the latitude at which you live and your ancestry also influence
your body's ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D. People with dark
skin have more difficulty making the vitamin. Persons living at latitudes
north of the 37th parallel -- Omaha is near the 41st parallel -- cannot get
their vitamin D naturally during the winter months because of the sun's
angle. Experts generally agree that the RDA** for vitamin D needs to be
increased substantially, however there is debate about the amount.
Supplements are available in two forms -- vitamin D2 and vitamin D3.
Creighton researchers recommend vitamin D3, because it is more active and
thus more effective in humans.

* Study participants came from the Nebraska counties of Douglas, Colfax,
Cuming, Dodge, Saunders, Washington, Sarpy, Burt and Butler. ** RDA
recommendations for vitamin D are 200 IU/d, birth-age 50; 400 IU/d, 50-70
years; and 600 IU/d, 70 years and older.


Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-11-2007, 02:56 AM
Alan Meyer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention


"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
newsDJai.13344$2v1.3727@newssvr14.news.prodigy.n et...
>
> http://www.newstarget.com/z021892.html


There is a pubmed abstract of the Nebraska study at:
http://tinyurl.com/2qxjs7.

> American Cancer Society opposes vitamin D
> This research on vitamin D is such good news that the American Cancer Society, of
> course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson, Marji McCullough,
> strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, flatly
> stated that nobody should take supplements to prevent cancer.


I'm not a fan of ACS, but I'd like to see the citation for the above
statement. I found an ACS statement quoting Marji McCullough on
Vitamin D at: http://tinyurl.com/2wymbe. It's from December, 2005,
before the Nebraska study was published.

It is a cautious article, saying that there is evidence for the efficacy
of vitamin D and offering a number of different experts' advice on
recommended dosage. However it said that, at the time of writing,
ACS had not yet taken an official position on it.

Alan


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-11-2007, 02:56 AM
swabymanor@googlemail.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

On 10 Jun, 17:37, "Alan Meyer" <amey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> newsDJai.13344$2v1.3727@newssvr14.news.prodigy.n et...
>
>
>
> >http://www.newstarget.com/z021892.html

>
> There is a pubmed abstract of the Nebraska study at:http://tinyurl.com/2qxjs7.
>
> > American Cancer Society opposesvitaminD
> > This research onvitaminDis such good news that the American Cancer Society, of
> > course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson, Marji McCullough,
> > strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, flatly
> > stated that nobody should take supplements to prevent cancer.

>
> I'm not a fan of ACS, but I'dlike to see the citation for the above
> statement. I found an ACS statement quoting Marji McCullough onVitaminDat:http://tinyurl.com/2wymbe. It's from December, 2005,
> before the Nebraska study was published.
>

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=605382
"But Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology
for the American Cancer Society, who is familiar with the new study
and other similar research, said in a prepared statement that the
society doesn't currently recommend taking vitamin or mineral
supplements to reduce cancer risk. But it has joined other health
organization to weigh the evidence of vitamin D, and a joint panel
recommends supplementation and small amounts of ultraviolet exposure
"as the best way to achieve proper vitamin D status."

Anyone who takes any notice of disease mongers like the American
Cancer Society needs help. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/1/6
Risk assessment for vitamin D shows the No Observable Adverse Events
Level to be 10,000iu/d so anyone who thinks that 2000iu is toxic is
simply demonstrating their incometance. Who but someone of fairly
limited intelligence would think 2000iu toxic when we know
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204 the body uses 3000-5000
IU cholecalciferol/d, No the current RDA and TUL are sick joke and The
urgent need to recommend an intake of vitamin D that is effective
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649 shows everyone who knows
anything about Vitamin D agrees.

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-11-2007, 02:56 AM
I.P. Freely
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent;cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

Alan Meyer wrote:
> "Jan Drew" wrote


'Nuff said.

I.P.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-17-2007, 07:53 AM
Caesar J. B. Squitti
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

On Jun 9, 10:48 pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> http://www.newstarget.com/z021892.html
>
> NewsTarget.com printable article
> Originally published June 8 2007
> New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer
> industry refuses to support cancer prevention
> by Mike Adams
>
> Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of
> Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and
> calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This
> includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer.
> This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most
> effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer
> drug known to modern science.
>
> The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of
> women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily)
> while another group was given placebo. Over four year, the group receiving
> the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in
> cancers. Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an
> impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation. (The full
> press release of this study is included below. It provides more details
> about the findings.)
>
> Note that these astonishing effects were achieved on what many nutritionists
> consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates
> even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered, and the
> quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have
> been (it was probably calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate,
> aspartate or similar forms). What does all this mean? It means that if you
> take high-quality calcium supplements and get lots of natural sunlight
> exposure or take premium vitamin D supplements (such as those made from fish
> oil), you could easily have a greater reduction than the 77 percent
> reduction recorded in this study.
>
> American Cancer Society opposes vitamin D
> This research on vitamin D is such good news that the American Cancer
> Society, of course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson,
> Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the
> American Cancer Society, flatly stated that nobody should take supplements
> to prevent cancer.
>
> If it seems surprising to you that the American Cancer Society -- which
> claims to be against cancer -- would dissuade people from taking supplements
> that slash their cancer risk by 77 percent, then you don't know much about
> the ACS. In my opinion, the ACS is an organization that actually prevents
> prevention and openly supports the continuation of cancer as a way to boost
> its power and profits. The ACS is the wealthiest non-profit in America and
> has very close ties to pharmaceutical companies, mammography equipment
> companies and other corporations that profit from cancer. Notice the name,
> too: It isn't the American Anti-Cancer Society, it's the American Cancer
> Society! What they really stand for is right in the name!
>
> Click here to read more about the ACS and its financial ties to chemical
> companies, pharmaceutical companies and radiology equipment manufacturers.
>
> The cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and I've written
> extensively about the criminal organizations that protect and promote the
> industry. Just about everything the public is told about cancer by these
> cancer institutions is a lie. Those "race for the cure" cancer walks are a
> complete scam (they really aren't searching for any way to prevent cancer or
> cure cancer, they're only searching for new patented drugs to profit from
> cancer).
>
> This research on vitamin D is a huge threat to the cancer industry profit
> mongers because it reveals a way to prevent cancer for free -- by seeking
> natural sunlight exposure and letting your skin manufacture your own
> powerful anti-cancer medicine (vitamin D). The idea that the cancer industry
> could lose 80% of its patients due to widespread education about vitamin D
> and sunlight scares the living daylights out of the cancer industry.
> Billions of dollars in cancer profits are at stake here, so the pro-cancer
> groups have to do everything they can to discredit vitamin D by creating
> doubt and confusion. The degree of dishonesty at work here is almost
> unbelievable to those who don't really know what's happening in the cancer
> industry.
>
> Ten questions to ask yourself about the cancer industry
> Consider these questions:
>
> #1: Why does the cancer industry refuse to educate people about cancer
> prevention?
>
> #2: If people keep donating money for the "search" for a cancer cure, why
> won't drug companies pledge to "open source" their patents on cancer drugs
> to benefit the people whose donations funded them in the first place? In
> other words, why do people donate money for cancer research but then get
> charged for cancer drugs?
>
> #3: Why does the entire cancer industry so strongly dissuade people from
> using sunlight exposure to dramatically reduce their cancer risk? (Hint:
> Follow the money to the sunscreen industry...)
>
> #4: Why have all the really good cancer supplements, clinics and naturopaths
> been banned, arrested or run out of the country? (Look up the FDA's
> oppression of Lane Labs over MGN-3 for a fascinating review of this...)
>
> #5: The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into the cancer industry over
> the last three decades. Cancer cures were promised in the 1970's. Why are
> cancer rates still essentially the same today as they were in the 1970's?
>
> #6: Why does the cancer industry continue to use chemotherapy, radiation and
> other toxic procedures to "kill tumors" when the latest science clearly
> shows that cancer tumors are only the symptoms, not the cause, of cancer?
> Chemotherapy destroys immune function and causes permanent damage to the
> heart, brain and liver...
>
> #7: The World Health Organization says that 70% of all cancers are easily
> preventable through dietary and lifestyle changes. This latest research
> shows that sunlight and low-cost calcium supplements can slash cancer risk
> by 77% in women. Why won't conventional medicine embrace this low-cost, safe
> and highly effective method for preventing cancer?
>
> #8: The cancer industry routinely attacks anti-cancer herbs, superfoods and
> supplements. Why is the cancer industry opposed to anti-cancer nutrition?
> Why does it believe that only man, not nature, can manufacture anti-cancer
> medicines?
>
> #9: Dark skin pigmentation blocks ultraviolet radiation, meaning that people
> with black skin need far more time under the sun to generate the same amount
> of vitamin D as someone with white skin. Not surprisingly, black women
> suffer extremely high rates of breast cancer while black men show similarly
> high levels of prostate cancer. The white-dominated medical industry
> pretends to be "mystified" by all this. Why won't conventional medicine
> simple tell black people the truth about vitamin D, skin pigmentation and
> cancer? Why do oncologists try to keep black people ignorant about their
> vitamin D deficiencies?
>
> #10: Why is it illegal for nutritional supplement manufacturers to tell the
> truth about the anti-cancer effects of their products? Broccoli, garlic,
> onions and sprouts all have powerful anti-cancer effects, as do dozens of
> rainforest herbs (Cat's Claw, for example), Chinese herbs and Western herbs.
> But the FDA threatens and censors any company that dares to mention cancer
> prevention on its supplement products. Why is the FDA enforcing a policy of
> nutritional ignorance with U.S. consumers? Why does the federal government
> want people to remain ignorant of methods for preventing or treating cancer?
>
> You probably already know the answer to all these questions, because the
> answer is the same for each one: Corporate profits. Cancer is hugely
> profitable to treat. Substantially preventing cancer would result in a loss
> of billions of dollars in profits for the oncologists, drug companies,
> hospitals and clinics that currently prey upon the finances of cancer
> victims.
>
> The cancer industry is operated like a criminal racket, using false
> information, intimidation, political pressure and propaganda to protect its
> power base and keep its corporations profitable. And that, my friends, is
> exactly why the industry is against the use of sunlight to prevent cancer.
> Free medicine from the sky? The very thought of it makes the cancer industry
> cringe. Sunlight doesn't even need a prescription, you see, and it can't be
> patented, either.
>
> Preventing cancer the healthy way
> Let me tell you how I prevent cancer. I take long walks in the desert with
> no shirt on, and I don't wear sunscreen. I soak up the sun's rays for many
> hours each week, and I never get a sun burn because I eat lots of
> antioxidant-rich superfoods, berries and fresh produce.
>
> I drink a raw superfood smoothie each morning, made of fresh produce and
> superfoods. My two favorite recipes are chocolate (with raw cacao, coconut
> oil or macadamia nut oil, raw avocado, spirulina, quinoa, banana and almond
> milk) and super berry (fresh berries, freeze-dried berries, egg white
> protein, stevia, aloe vera gel, fresh cucumber or watermelon, celery).
>
> I put no personal care products on my skin whatsoever: No deodorants, no
> fragrance, no skin creams, no cosmetics and no sunscreen. This alone saves
> me from exposure to hundreds of cancer-causing toxic chemicals added to
> personal care products. I refuse to use chemical laundry detergent and,
> instead, use natural laundry soap that grows on trees: It's a natural soap
> berry product that we sell as a replacement for chemical laundry detergents.
> You'll find it atwww.betterlifegoods.com
>
> Corporate-controlled U.S. government doesn't want to prevent cancer
> The U.S. government doesn't want the population to be free of cancer. That's
> a strong statement, so let me offer you an undeniable piece of strong
> evidence to back that up: The artificially low RDA numbers for vitamin D.
>
> One of the best ways to keep the population suffering from cancer is to
> enforce long-term nutritional deficiencies that lead to cancer. The US
> government accomplishes this by keeping the recommendations for vitamin D
> artificially low, practically guaranteeing that anyone who follows the
> recommendations will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. Vitamin D
> deficiency is the leading cause of breast cancer.
>
> Most educated nutritionists agree that the daily dose of vitamin D for an
> adult should be at least 1000 IUs, perhaps as high as 1400. But the U.S.
> Institute of Medicine (IoM), which controls the recommendations on these
> things, currently states that adults under 50 only need 200 IUs of vitamin D
> a day. This policy is, in my opinion, an organized conspiracy to keep the
> American people diseased by making sure they stay deficient in anti-cancer
> nutrients. It serves the interests of all the powerful corporations and
> non-profits that run Washington. And yes, it is a conspiracy. I've
> documented it in far more detail in my book, Natural Health Solutions and
> the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them, which reveals shocking
> details, documents and photographs showing how modern medicine is a system
> that's literally designed to keep the people in a state of chronic disease.
>
> The FDA doesn't want people to prevent cancer either. That's why they've
> aggressively attacked companies offering anti-cancer nutrients, and
> completely censored the very mention of the word "cancer" by supplement
> companies. In fact, the only reason I can print the information you're
> reading right now is because I sell no food or supplements and my free
> speech writing is not regulated by the FDA. If I were selling supplements
> and writing these same words you're reading right now, I would be arrested,
> charged with federal crimes, and put out of business by state and federal
> authorities. That's the reality of the oppressive medical environment under
> which we live today: Health is outlawed, and only disease is allowed to be
> promoted.
>
> The cancer industry, you see, is not merely incompetent; it is criminal.
> Intentionally keeping a population sick so that you can profit from disease
> is a crime against humanity. And yet this is business as usual in America's
> modern cancer industry.
>
> Discrediting simple, free and safe cancer prevention strategies is also
> criminal, and yet this is what the American Cancer Society seems to do at
> every opportunity.
>
> Plotting to profit from the suffering of other humans beings is evil. And
> yet the entire revenue base of the cancer industry is based on precisely
> that: Keeping people alive long enough to "treat" them with overpriced toxic
> chemicals that can be billed to Medicare at 50,000% markups over their
> manufacturing cost.
>
> Cancer is big, big business. And curing cancer is a threat to all the
> criminals participating in that industry: The non-profit employees,
> oncologists, doctors, federal regulators, drug company executives, med
> school propaganda teachers, pharmaceutical reps and many others. These
> people cannot allow cancer to be prevented or cured. Their jobs and careers
> are at stake.
>
> Another outstanding source for learning more about the evils of the cancer
> industry is G. Edward Griffin. Click here to read our article about Griffin
> or click here for his website.
>
> Click here to see his video documentary on vitamin B17
>
> A world free from cancer and full of abundance
> Personally, I believe we could create a world virtually free of cancer. We
> could accomplish it in two generations by taking tough action to outlaw
> cancer-causing chemicals and investing in genuine cancer prevention
> education. Drug companies would lose trillions of dollars in profits,
> hospitals would lose huge amounts of patients, and pro-cancer non-profit
> groups would lose power, money and prestige. But guess what? We'd all be
> better off without cancer.
>
> Here's a startling statistic: Did you know that reducing the cancer death
> rate by just 1% would be worth almost $500 billion to the U.S. economy over
> the next hundred years or so? (Source: Centers for Disease Control and
> Prevention) Drop the cancer rate by 10% and it's worth $5 trillion dollars
> to the economy. (These gains are due to increased productivity and life
> spans of working, contributing people.)
>
> We know right now that vitamin D and calcium can slash cancer rates by 77
> percent. Do the math on that, and you realize that sunlight and calcium
> could result in a $38.5 trillion boost to the U.S. economy over the next
> century.
>
> That's enough economic productivity to pay off our entire national debt,
> build new schools in every town and city in the country, provide free
> college educations to all young people who wish to go to college, invest
> billions in new energy technologies and even fund massive health education
> campaigns to keep our population healthy. $38 trillion is a lot of money.
> With that kind of increased abundance, we could build a whole new society of
> health, wealth and education.
>
> But guess what? The cancer industry won't let that happen. There's too much
> short term profit to be made in keeping everybody sick. The cancer industry
> is so evil that it will sell out our future in order to maintain power,
> profits and control over the people today. The cancer industry doesn't want
> cancer rates to go down, regardless of the benefits to society or individual
> lives. The cancer industry wants there to be MORE cancer, which is exactly
> why it opposes commonsense prevention strategies that would reduce cancers.
> (It's true, this industry actually opposes removing cancer-causing chemicals
> from the workplace...)
>
> Read more at Dr. Sam Epstein's website:http://www.preventcancer.com
>
> The bottom line in all this? New research shows us that using low-cost
> calcium and vitamin D supplements (or just natural sunlight), we could slash
> cancer rates by an astonishing 77 percent. The cancer industry opposes this
> and is firmly positioned as an opponent of cancer prevention. The industry
> depends on cancer to grow its own power and profits, and it will invest in
> the de-education of the public in order to maximize its own revenues.
>
> Cures for cancer exist all around us: Sunlight, rainforest herbs,
> anti-cancer foods and superfoods, etc. The causes of cancer are well known:
> Toxic chemicals in foods, cosmetics, personal care products, home cleaning
> products, and so on. So why don't we, as a nation, take steps to outlaw the
> things that cause cancer while promoting the things that prevent cancer?
>
> The reason, once again, is because there's too much money at stake here. The
> corporations are in charge, and as long as they're running the show, cancer
> cures or prevention strategies that really work will simply not be
> tolerated.
>
> Creighton press release
> Here's the original press release about the new findings on vitamin D and
> cancer prevention:
>
> OMAHA, Neb., June 8 -- Most Americans and others are not taking enough
> vitamin D, a fact that may put them at significant risk for developing
> cancer, according to a landmark study conducted by Creighton University
> School of Medicine.
>
> The four-year, randomized study followed 1,179 healthy, postmenopausal women
> from rural eastern Nebraska.* Participants taking calcium, as well as a
> quantity of vitamin D3 nearly three times the U.S. government's Recommended
> Daily Amount (RDA) for middle-age adults, showed a dramatic 60 percent or
> greater reduction in cancer risk than women who did not get the vitamin.
>
> The results of the study, conducted between 2000 and 2005, were reported in
> the June 8 online edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
>
> "The findings are very exciting. They confirm what a number of vitamin D
> proponents have suspected for some time but that, until now, have not been
> substantiated through clinical trial," said principal investigator Joan
> Lappe, Ph.D., R.N., Creighton professor of medicine and holder of the
> Criss/Beirne Endowed Chair in the School of Nursing. "Vitamin D is a
> critical tool in fighting cancer as well as many other diseases."
>
> Other Creighton researchers involved in the study included Robert Recker,
> M.D.; Robert Heaney, M.D.; Dianne Travers-Gustafson, M.S.; and K. Michael
> Davies, Ph.D.
>
> Research participants were all 55 years and older and free of known cancers
> for at least 10 years prior to entering the Creighton study. Subjects were
> randomly assigned to take daily dosages of 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental
> calcium, 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium plus 1,100 IU of vitamin D3, or
> placebos. National Institutes of Health funded the study.
>
> Over the course of four years, women in the calcium/vitamin D3 group
> experienced a 60 percent decrease in their cancer risk than the group taking
> placebos.
>
> On the premise that some women entered the study with undiagnosed cancers,
> researchers then eliminated the first-year results and looked at the last
> three years of the study. When they did that, the results became even more
> dramatic with the calcium/vitamin D3 group showing a startling 77 percent
> cancer-risk reduction.
>
> In the three-year analysis, there was no statistically significant
> difference in cancer incidence between participants taking placebos and
> those taking just calcium supplements.
>
> Through the course of the study, 50 participants developed nonskin cancers,
> including breast, colon, lung and other cancers.
>
> Lappe said further studies are needed to determine whether the Creighton
> research results apply to other populations, including men, women of all
> ages, and different ethnic groups. While the study was open to all ethnic
> groups, all participants were Caucasian, she noted.
>
> There is a growing body of evidence that a higher intake of vitamin D may be
> helpful in the prevention and treatment of cancer, high blood pressure,
> fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid
> arthritis and other diseases.
>
> Humans make their own vitamin D3 when they are exposed to sunlight. In fact,
> only 10-15 minutes a day in a bright summer sun creates large amounts of the
> vitamin, Lappe said. However, people need to exercise caution since the
> sun's ultraviolet B rays also can cause skin cancer; sunscreen blocks most
> vitamin D production.
>
> In addition, the latitude at which you live and your ancestry also influence
> your body's ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D. People with dark
> skin have more difficulty making the vitamin. Persons living at latitudes
> north of the 37th parallel -- Omaha is near the 41st parallel -- cannot get
> their vitamin D naturally during the winter months because of the sun's
> angle. Experts generally agree that the RDA** for vitamin D needs to be
> increased substantially, however there is debate about the amount.
> Supplements are available in two forms -- vitamin D2 and vitamin D3.
> Creighton researchers recommend vitamin D3, because it is more active and
> thus more effective in humans.
>
> * Study participants came from the Nebraska counties of Douglas, Colfax,
> Cuming, Dodge, Saunders, Washington, Sarpy, Burt and Butler. ** RDA
> recommendations for vitamin D are 200 IU/d, birth-age 50; 400 IU/d, 50-70
> years; and 600 IU/d, 70 years and older.


We have been sadly mistaken about cancer research....

We have a 'war industry' whereby 'they' are searching for a
profitable, patentable traetment of cancer, not a simple cure, not a
simple preventative....that would be bad for business....!

Time to socialize health care, and legal aid, and take the profit out
of disease, and crime....

Caesar J. B. Squitti

Editor
http://www.thunderbayonline.com

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-18-2007, 12:42 AM
I.P. Freely
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent;cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

Caesar J. B. Squitti sprayed . . .
"Jan Drew" puked . . .
Bob'n'Caroll (Bob has to spell it the feminine way to conceal his
secret) pranced . . .

.. . . whatever . . .

Damn . . . it's like playing Whack-a-Mole.
But I'm whittling away, and the noise is subsidizing. ;-)

I.P.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EARTHTIMES: Vitamin D Reduces Cancer Risk Ilena Rose alt.support.cancer 3 06-17-2007 07:11 PM
New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention Jan Drew alt.support.cancer 1 06-17-2007 07:52 AM
Vitamin D Lowers Cancer Risk california_chief alt.support.cancer.prostate 0 06-08-2007 07:21 AM
'Calcium and Vitamin D cut breast cancer risk by more than a third' Roman Bystrianyk alt.support.cancer.breast 0 05-29-2007 06:54 PM
Selenium boost could slash rates of bladder cancer by 70 percent, concludes research Jan Drew alt.support.cancer 77 12-20-2006 04:55 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
     
   
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41