Monday, November 7, 2011

Please start Vitamin D3 today for fighing cancer and More!!

This article is shared as it truly makes it clear how important Vitamin D3 is and adds ammo regarding cancer fighting. That is 8,000+ IU daily might be a goal for cancer.

Again, thanks to Dr. Joseph Mercola!!!!!!
Noel

New Study Shows This Vitamin Helps Prevent Depression

by Joseph Mercola

Recently by Joseph Mercola: Child Have ADHD? Stop Feeding Them This





Story at-a-glance

  • Women with the highest intakes of vitamin D were significantly less likely to suffer from depressive symptoms
  • Vitamin D may affect the function of dopamine and nrepinephrine, neurotransmitters that are likely involved in depression
  • Vitamin D modulates inflammation in your body, which is also linked to depression
  • Optimizing your vitamin D levels through proper sun exposure, use of a safe tanning bed or vitamin D3 supplementation may be an important step to protect your mental and emotional health

A study of more than 81,000 women found those with the highest intake of vitamin D from food sources had a significantly lower prevalence of depressive symptoms.

The researchers suggested that vitamin D may affect the function of dopamine and norepinephrine.

These are neurotransmitters that are likely involved in depression, while also modulating the relationship between depression and inflammation.

This adds to growing evidence showing that if you're suffering from depression one of the best choices you can make is to spend as much time outdoors in the sun as possible.

Sun exposure is by far the best way to optimize your levels of vitamin D.

This is particularly useful to know as Daylight Savings Time is now over for most and will not having access to enough sunshine to make vitamin D until spring.


Vitamin D Fights Depression

The connection between vitamin D and depression is not new. In 2006, scientists evaluated the effects of vitamin D on the mental health of 80 elderly patients and found those with the lowest levels of vitamin D were 11 times more prone to be depressed than those who received healthy doses.

In the current study, researchers found that intake of more than 400 IU of vitamin D from food sources was associated with a 20 percent lower risk of depressive symptoms compared with intake of less than 100 IU. This was a significant benefit from a very small amount of vitamin D -- as 400 IU is far too low to benefit most people (not to mention your body is made to get vitamin D primarily from the sun, not food or supplements, as I'll explain below).

It now appears as though most adults need about 8,000 IU's of vitamin D a day in order to get their serum levels above 40 ng/ml, which is the lowest they should be. Ideally your serum levels should be between 50-70 ng/ml, and up to 100 ng/ml to treat cancer and heart disease.

It's likely that vitamin D fights depression via several pathways, not only directly in your brain but also via inflammation. Vitamin D receptors have been identified throughout the human body, and that includes in your brain. Researchers have located metabolic pathways for vitamin D in the hippocampus and cerebellum of the brain, areas that are involved in planning, processing of information, and the formation of new memories.

Sufficient vitamin D is also imperative for proper functioning of your immune system to combat inflammation, and other research has discovered that depressed people tend to have higher levels of inflammation in their brains.

Why it's Best to Get Your Vitamin D From the Sun

The researchers mentioned above noted that studies have shown only about 30 percent of Americans' circulating 25(OH)D (vitamin D) is the product of sunlight exposure. This is an unfortunate byproduct of public health agencies' misguided advice to stay out of the sun to avoid cancer (when in fact vitamin D from sun exposure will prevent cancer). The truth is, vitamin D from sun exposure is the BEST way to optimize your vitamin D levels, and a recent interview with Dr. Stephanie Seneff brought the importance of getting your vitamin D from sun exposure to a whole new level.

Total Video Length: 1:29:57
Download Interview Transcript

I've consistently recommended getting your vitamin D from regular sun exposure whenever possible, and Dr. Seneff's review of how vitamin D – specifically from sun exposure – is intricately tied to healthy cholesterol and sulfur levels, makes this recommendation all the more important.


As a quick summary, when you expose your skin to sunshine, your skin synthesizes vitamin D3 sulfate. This form of vitamin D is water soluble, unlike oral vitamin D3 supplements, which is unsulfated. The water-soluble form can travel freely in your bloodstream, whereas the unsulfated form needs LDL (the so-called "bad" cholesterol) as a vehicle of transport. Her suspicion is that the oral non-sulfated form of vitamin D may not provide all of the same benefits as the vitamin D created in your skin from sun exposure, because it cannot be converted to vitamin D sulfate.

I believe this is a very compelling reason to really make a concerted effort to get most of your vitamin D requirements from exposure to sunshine, or by using a safe tanning bed (one with electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts, to avoid unnecessary exposure to EMF fields). Safe tanning beds also have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones have more UVA than sunlight. If neither of these are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement.

It is very difficult to get enough vitamin D from food sources alone, as very few foods naturally contain vitamin D, and those that do will not contain enough to optimize your levels. Interestingly, the only vitamin not found in breast milk is vitamin D.

Consider this a giant clue that we were NOT designed to strictly swallow vitamin D. We were designed to produce it by exposing our skin to natural sunlight. Lack of sun exposure is really the very root of the problem, as vitamin D deficiency, which is now at epidemic levels, is a fairly recent health concern, historically speaking.

The Depression-Inflammation Connection That Makes Vitamin D Even More Important


Depression is often found alongside gastrointestinal inflammations and autoimmune diseases as well as with cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, type 2-diabetes and also cancer, in which chronic low-grade inflammation is a significant contributing factor. Researchers have suggested "depression may be a neuropsychiatric manifestation of a chronic inflammatory syndrome."

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased inflammation in otherwise healthy people, and increased concentrations of serum TNF-alpha, an inflammatory marker, were found in women who had insufficient vitamin D levels.

What this all boils down to is that chronic inflammation in your body disrupts the normal functioning of many bodily systems, and can wreak havoc on your brain and possibly cause depressive symptoms.

This is one more route by which vitamin D is important for your mood and brain health, as vitamin D will help reduce systemic inflammation. Vitamin D deficiency is actually more the norm than the exception, and this can impact far more than your mental health. Optimizing your vitamin D levels could help you to prevent at least 16 different types of cancer, along with heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, the flu and much, much more.

Why Antidepressants Don't Work

There are many reasons why they don't work the way most people think they work, or want them to work.

Two such reasons, which I wrote about two years ago, are that:

  1. Chronic stress does not cause the same molecular changes that depression does, but most antidepressants are based on the hypothesis that stress causes depression. The hypothesis appears to be incorrect, which means the drugs are virtually worthless.
  2. An imbalance in neurotransmitters in your brain may not trigger depressive symptoms as has long been thought. Instead, the biochemical events that lead to depression appear to start in the development and functioning of neurons. This means antidepressants focus on the effect of depression, and completely miss the cause.

These findings were presented at the 2009 Neuroscience conference in Chicago, Illinios. The press release announcing the findings reads:

"More than half the people who take antidepressants for depression never get relief. Why?

Because the cause of depression has been oversimplified and drugs designed to treat it aim at the wrong target, according to new research from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. The medications are like arrows shot at the outer rings of a bull's eye instead of the center.

A study from the laboratory of long-time depression researcher Eva Redei... appears to topple two strongly held beliefs about depression. One is that stressful life events are a major cause of depression. The other is that an imbalance in neurotransmitters in the brain triggers depressive symptoms.

Both findings are significant because these beliefs were the basis for developing drugs currently used to treat depression.

Redei, the David Lawrence Stein Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern's Feinberg School, found powerful molecular evidence that quashes the long-held dogma that stress is generally a major cause of depression. Her new research reveals that there is almost no overlap between stress-related genes and depression-related genes.

… [A]nother reason current antidepressants are often ineffective is that they aim to boost neurotransmitters based on the popular molecular explanation of depression, which is that it's the result of decreased levels of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine.

But that's wrong, Redei said. In the second part of the study, Redei found strong indications that depression actually begins further up in the chain of events in the brain. The biochemical events that ultimately result in depression actually start in the development and functioning of neurons.


"The medications have been focusing on the effect, not the cause," she said. "That's why it takes so long for them to work and why they aren't effective for so many people."

Well-Documented Side Effects

The interactions of antidepressants with your brain, liver, digestive system and other systems are still not fully understood, but we do know that the side effects are numerous. Besides the standard laundry list of nausea, dry mouth and loss of libido, more serious side effects of commonly prescribed antidepressants include:

  • Suicidal thoughts and feelings and violent behavior : The main and primary one that you should be concerned about is that they could actually INCREASE your risk of suicide. Your risk for suicide may be twice as high if you take SSRIs. Seven out of 12 school shootings were also perpetrated by children who were either on antidepressants or withdrawing from them.
  • Diabetes: Your risk for type 2 diabetes is two to three times higher if you take antidepressants, according to one study. All types of antidepressants, including tricyclic and SSRIs, increases type 2 diabetes risk.
  • Problems with your immune system: SSRIs cause serotonin to remain in your nerve junctions longer, interfering with immune cell signaling and T cell growth.
  • Stillbirths: A Canadian study of almost 5,000 mothers found that women on SSRIs were twice as likely to have a stillbirth, and almost twice as likely to have a premature or low birth weight baby; another study showed a 40 percent increased risk for birth defects, such as cleft palate.
  • Brittle bones: One study showed women on antidepressants have a 30 percent higher risk of spinal fracture and a 20 percent high risk for all other fractures. This is because serotonin is also involved in the physiology of bone. If you alter serotonin levels with a drug, it can result in low bone density, boosting fracture risk.
  • Stroke: Your risk for stroke may be 45 percent higher if you are on antidepressants, possibly related to how the drugs affect blood clotting
  • Heart disease and Sudden cardiac death: Brand new research reported at a New Orleans meeting of the American College of Cardiology found that antidepressants increase your risk of heart disease by causing your artery walls to thicken. The exact biological mechanism is still unknown. A literature review of studies from 2000-2007, published in Expert Opinion on Drug Safety in 2008, found that "Antipsychotics can increase cardiac risk even at low doses, whereas antidepressants do it generally at high doses or in the setting of drug combinations." Another study published in January 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine also found that antipsychotic drugs doubled the risk of sudden cardiac death. Mortality was found to be dose-dependent, so those taking higher doses were at increased risk of a lethal cardiac event.
  • Death: Overall death rates have been found to be 32 percent higher in women on antidepressants.

When you're talking about antipsychotics, which are meant for more severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, the risks can be even more severe, depending on the drug. For example, a recent study published in JAMA discovered that contrary to what we've previously thought, schizophrenia itself does not alter your brain mass.

What was previously believed to be evidence of the disease causing brain shrinkage was actually the effect of the antipsychotic drugs prescribed to schizophrenics…

Keeping that fact in mind, is it wise to prescribe antipsychotics to anyone who does not suffer from schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder?

Well, whether it's sensible or not, the fact is they are being prescribed to a whole lot of people who are neither bi-polar nor schizophrenic, and the side effects are just as bad either way.

And as another example of the dangerous mis-use and off-label prescribing that is so rampant today, a 2009 article in Medscape Today reveals that 60 percent of the US military veterans who received antipsychotic medication in 2007 were not diagnosed with any of the mental illnesses for which these drugs were approved. So that year, more than 162,440 military veterans – the MAJORITY; 60 percent – were prescribed brain-damaging drugs without a diagnosis warranting their use!

And that's just one group of people. You also have hundreds of thousands of civilians being prescribed antipsychotic for off-label uses every year. Again, drugs that cause BRAIN SHRINKAGE are being given to people without proper diagnosis of mental illness!

How is this NOT an outrage?

How could I possibly keep quiet about something as harmful as this?

If you're given a prescription for an antipsychotic, and you're not actually schizophrenic, wouldn't you want to know about this potentially devastating side effect?

Do I Feel the Use of these Drugs is Ever Appropriate?

Please understand that I am not seeking to diminish the impact of mental illness. It is massively pervasive and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths every year and needless suffering in millions of others.


My clinical experience leads me to believe that the only appropriate use of these dangerous medications is as a last ditch effort when the patient is at a serious risk to themselves or others. The drugs should be continued until the condition is under control and they are out of harm's way.

This is a very similar strategy to the way you would employ by going to the ER and orthopedic surgeon for a cast when you are in an accident and fracture a major bone. You don't use that cast the rest of your life. You use it until your bone is healed.

The REAL tragedy is that most of the drug companies do NOT view antidepressants this way. There are enormous marketing efforts to classify normal behavior as aberrant or diseased, which then requires lifelong therapy with their drug solution.

Four More Top Tips for Overcoming Depression

Optimizing your vitamin D is not the the only treatment strategy you can use to overcome depression. Virtually everyone with depression should also be:

  1. Exercising: Regular physical activity works better than antidepressant drugs to improve your mood. In fact, it's one of the most powerful strategies you can take to prevent and treat depression and boost your mood.
  2. Avoiding sugar and fructose: Sugar (including fructose) also has a seriously detrimental impact on your brain function. There's a great book on this subject, The Sugar Blues, written by William Dufty more than 30 years ago, that delves into this topic in great detail.
  3. Increasing high quality animal-based omega-3 fats: Your brain consists of about 60 percent fat, DHA specifically, so you need a constant input of essential animal-based omega-3 fats like krill oil for your brain to work properly.

    In fact, one study showed that people with lower blood levels of omega-3s were more likely to have symptoms of depression and a more negative outlook while those with higher blood levels demonstrated the opposite emotional states.

  4. Addressing emotional stress: If you've followed my articles even a little while, you know that I highly recommend taking an active role in your emotional health. This includes engaging in stress-relief modalities that appeal to you and are effective, like exercise, massage, journaling, guided imagery and more.

Depression is often a serious, even life threatening, condition, and I do not recommend that you self-treat. Instead, find a health care practitioner who can guide you through natural treatment options, providing holistic emotional and physical support so you can heal at the deepest level.

Study Participants Needed: Get Your Vitamin D Tested at Home

You can become a participant in the still ongoing Grassroots Health D*Action study, which is evaluating vitamin D's impact on your overall health status.

When you join D*action, you agree to test your vitamin D levels twice a year during a five-year program, and share your health status to demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient. There is a $60 fee each 6 months ($120/year) for your sponsorship of the project, which includes a complete new test kit to be used at home, and electronic reports on your ongoing progress.

You will get a follow up email every six months reminding you "it's time for your next test and health survey." To join now, please follow this link to the sign up form.

You may want to consider joining this study not only because you'll be helping to create awareness about the profound importance of vitamin D for optimal health, but also because it's an ideal way to test and monitor your own vitamin D levels, which is highly recommended.


Important Concluding Thoughts – Please Read!

I want to make something abundantly clear before I leave you. I know firsthand that depression is devastating. It takes a toll on the healthiest of families and can destroy lifelong friendships. Few things are harder in life than watching someone you love lose their sense of joy, hope, and purpose in life, and wonder if they will ever find it again. And to not have anything within your power that can change things for them. You wonder if you will ever have your loved one "back" again.

It's impossible to impart the will to live to somebody who no longer possesses it. No amount of logic, reasoning, or reminders about all they have to live for will put a smile back on the face of a loved one masked by the black cloud of depression.

Oftentimes you cannot change your circumstances. You can, however, change your response to them. I encourage you to be balanced in your life. Don't ignore your body's warning signs that something needs to change. Sometimes people are so busy taking care of everybody else that they lose sight of themselves.

There are times when a prescription drug may help restore balance to your body. But it's unclear whether it is the drug providing benefits, or the unbelievable power of your mind that is convinced it is going to work.

If you have been personally affected by depression, my heart goes out to you.

A broken body can be easier to fix than a broken mind. Depression is real. It is my hope that you don't feel judged here, but that you are encouraged and inspired by those who have been there.

Sources:

November 7, 2011

Copyright © 2011 Dr. Joseph Mercola

Friday, October 21, 2011

Slash Your Breast Cancer Risk TODAY!!!!

An update on what you can do to overcome your concerns and fears of breast cancer. D3 for sure, plus analysis of what else you can do. You, NOT mainstream cancer groups pushing wrong-headed tests and treatments.

Slash Your Breast Cancer Risk: Remove the Real Cause

Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 21 2011 | 46,006 views

Story at-a-glance

  • While increase in breast cancer screenings has resulted in soaring breast cancer diagnoses, rates of invasive breast cancer have still increased in certain populations. According to one recent study, mammography screening may "save" only 1 person for every 2,500 screened.
  • The rate of "false alarms" from mammogram screening is as high as 40 percent, resulting in high rates of unnecessary biopsies and other tests.
  • A growing body of clinical evidence indicates that the "low energy" x-rays used in breast screenings are up to 500 percent more carcinogenic than previously assumed.
  • Breast Cancer Awareness Month is fraught with conflicts of interest, and instead of increasing awareness about the preventable causes of breast cancer, it feeds the cancer industry’s need to raise money for drug research, and to promote its primary means of “prevention”: early detection via x-ray mammography.
  • The primary causes of breast cancer: nutritional deficiencies, environmental toxins, inflammation, and estrogen dominance, are entirely overlooked as the cancer industry is primarily fixated on providing drug therapies to treat symptoms rather than preventing the cause.

By Sayer Ji

October is the National Breast Cancer Awareness month in the U.S., and October 21 is National Mammography Day.

Zeneca Group plc., a pharmaceutical subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries and manufacturer of the blockbuster breast cancer drugs Arimidex andTamoxifen, founded the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985 in order to promote the widespread adoption of x-ray mammography (and the sale of their products).1

While the increase in routine screenings has resulted in soaring breast cancer diagnoses, rates of invasive breast cancer have actually INCREASED in certain populations.2

Shocking Statistic: False Alarms May Be as High as 40 Percent!

A recent study and editorial published in the New England Journal of Medicine indicated that x-ray mammography screening may "save" only 1 person for every 2,500 screened.

Among the 2,500 screened at least 1,000 will have a false alarm, 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, and 5 or more would become treated for abnormal finds that would never become fatal, i.e. their lives will be shortened due to medication/surgical/stress-induced adverse effects.

Given these findings X-ray mammography may be far more effective at generating increased numbers of breast cancer diagnoses than in "preventing" malignancy and mortality associated with the disease. To the contrary, a growing body of clinical evidence indicates that the "low energy" x-rays used in breast screenings are up to 500% more carcinogenic than previously assumed and upon which current radiation risk models that favor mass breast screenings with ionizing diagnostic technologies find justification.

The success of this highly popularized model of "prevention," which prevents nothing, is explained when we look deeper into who is behind AstraZeneca, the founding sponsor of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

AstraZeneca's Role in the Cancer Industry

AstraZeneca was in fact a by-product of one of the world's largest chemical (and carcinogen) producers, Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). Before being acquired by AkzoNobel in 2008, ICI produced millions of pounds annually of known mammary carcinogens such as vinyl chloride. ICI demerged its pharmaceutical bioscience businesses in 1993 to form Zeneca Group plc., which later merged with Astra AB to form AstraZeneca in 1999.

AstraZeneca's best-selling cancer drug Tamoxifen is actually classified by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen. (To view toxicological data on this chemical visit our Problem Substances Database page on Tamoxifen). Presently all campaign ads and promotional events that are run by the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month foundation (which operates year round) must be "approved," i.e. "pink-washed," by AstraZeneca before being released for public consumption.

Other experts and organizations have pointed out this glaring conflict of interest:

"A decade-old multi-million dollar deal between National Breast Cancer Awareness Month sponsors and Imperical Chemical Industries (ICI) has produced reckless misinformation on breast cancer," ~ Dr. Samuel Epstein [a leading international authority on cancer-causing effects of environmental pollutants.]

"Imperial Chemical Industries has supported the cancer establishment's blame-the-victim attitude toward the causes of breast and other cancers. This theory attributes escalating cancer rates to heredity and faulty lifestyle, rather than avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens contaminating air, water, food, consumer products, and the workplace."

~ Cancer Prevention Coalition

Prevention as Watchful Profiteering

Sadly, Breast Cancer Awareness Month has not become a time of increasing awareness of the preventable causes of breast cancer and has instead fed the breast cancer industry's insatiable need to raise money for research into a pharmaceutical cure, and to promote its primary means of "prevention": early detection via x-ray mammography.

On first account, a pharmaceutical "cure" is as unlikely as it is oxymoronic. Drugs do not cure disease anymore than bullets cure war. Beneath modern medicine's showy display of diagnostic contraptions, heroic "life-saving" procedures, and an armory of exotic drugs of strange origin and power, it is the body's ability to heal itself – beneath the pomp and circumstance – that is truly responsible for medicine's apparent successes. Too often, in spite of what medicine does to "treat" or "save" the body, it is the body which, while against invasive chemical and surgical medical interventions, silently treats and saves itself.

If it were not for the body's truly miraculous self-healing abilities, and the ceaseless self-correction process that occurs each and every moment within each and every cell, our bodies would perish within a matter of minutes. The mystery is not in how our body succumbs to cancer; rather the mystery is in how, after years and even decades of chemical exposure and nutrient deprivation our bodies prevail against cancer for so long.

Prevention versus Early Diagnosis

The primary causes of breast cancer: nutritional deficiencies, exposure to environmental toxicity, inflammation, estrogen dominance and the resultant breakdown in genetic integrity and immune surveillance, are entirely overlooked by this fixation on drug therapy and its would-be "magic bullets" and the completely dumbed down and pseudo-scientific concept that "genes cause disease." (See: DNA: Not The Final Word On Health).

Billions of dollars are raised and funneled towards drug research, when the lowly turmeric plant, the humble cabbage and the unassuming bowl of miso soup may offer far more promise in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer than all the toximolecular drugs on the market put together. (To view several dozen substances go to GreenMedinfo: Breast Cancer)

When it comes to the breast cancer industry's emphasis on equating "prevention" with "early detection" through x-ray mammography, nowhere is the inherently pathological ideology of allopathic medicine more clearly evident.

Not only is the ionizing radiation used to discern pathological lesions in breast tissue one of the very risk factors for the development of breast cancer, but the identification of the word "prevention" with "early detection," is a disingenuous way of saying that all we can do to prevent breast cancer is to detect its inevitable presence sooner than would be possible without this technology. (View our X-Ray Mammography page on our Anti-Therapeutic Actions database).

If women succumb to the idea of prevention as doing nothing but waiting for the detection of the disease, many will find a similarly deranged logic re-emerge later when the self-fulfilling prophecy of prevention-through-doing-nothing is fulfilled and "treatment" is now required. "Treatment," when not strictly surgical, involves the use of very powerful chemicals and high doses of ionizing radiation which "poison" the cancer cells.

The obvious problem with this approach is that the application of either form of death energy is not suitably selective, and in the long run, many women die sooner from the side effects of toximolecular "therapy" than from the cancer itself. Why is the obvious question never asked: if exposure to the genotoxic and immune system disabling effects of chemicals and radiation is causative in breast cancer, then why is blasting the body with more poisonous chemicals and radiation considered sound treatment?

The answer to this question has much more to do with ignorance than it does an intentional desire to do harm. But the results are the same: unnecessary pain, suffering and death.

Faced with a situation where medieval notions of prevention and treatment of breast cancer are the norm, it is no wonder that when polled over 40% of women believe they will contract breast cancer sometime in their life – well over three times their actual risk. After all, have any of them been given a sense that there is something they can do to actually prevent their disease other than "watchful waiting"?

Pink-Washing Away the Preventable Causes of Breast Cancer

Obfuscating the real preventative measures available to women to combat breast cancer, and all cancers for that matter, trusted "authoritative" sources like the Susan G. Komen Foundation publish irresponsible statements like this:

"It is unclear what the exact relationship is between eating fruits and vegetables and breast cancer risk…little, if any link was found between the two in a pooled analysis that combined data from eight large studies."

Have we really come to the point where the common sense consumption of fruits and vegetables in the prevention of disease can so matter-of-factly be called into question? Do we really need randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our bodies can benefit from the phytonutrients and antioxidants in fruits and vegetables in the prevention of cancer?

Another atrocious example of this conspiracy against identifying the obvious causes and cures for diseases like breast cancer is theNational Breast Cancer Foundation's website. Go to the bottom of their homepage and type in "carcinogen" in their site wide search box. This is what will appear on the results page:

"Your search – carcinogen – did not match any documents. No pages were found containing "carcinogen".

On Susan G. Komen's website the term only emerges three times, and always in the context of minimizing the causative connection between smoking, high saturated fat consumption from meat and breast cancer. If you can remove the reality of carcinogenicity by erasing from the minds of would-be cancer sufferers the word carcinogen, and thereby conceal the link between environmental and dietary exposures of a multitude of toxins, then the obvious "cure" these massive organizations which are vacuuming in billions of dollars of donations every year to find, namely, the removal of carcinogens and detoxification of the system, will never be discovered.

Final Thoughts

Examples like these make it increasingly apparent that orthodox medicine, and the world view it represents, is approaching a theoretical end-time perhaps most accurately described as Pharmageddon. Within the horizon of this perspective vitamins are considered toxic, fruits and vegetables simply a source of caloric content (a poor one, at that), and cancer-causing drugs are understood as the only legitimate and, for that matter, legal, way to combat cancer. Are we really at the tipping point, or is there still hope?

Fortunately there are thousands of scientific studies extant today on the therapeutic value of foods, herbs and spices in breast health, many of which can be found on the government's own biomedical database known as MEDLINE. Decades of research have confirmed the veracity of the Hippocratic phrase: "Let food be thy medicine," and until a prescription is required to obtain and consume organic food, we can still draw from a vast cornucopia of natural substances whose safety and efficacy put the conventional pharmacopeia to shame.



Download Interview Transcript

Breast Cancer Prevention Month Initiated by GrassrootsHealth

GrassrootsHealth is changing the current Breast Cancer Awareness Month to Breast Cancer Prevention Month with a focus on taking action to prevent breast cancer with vitamin D testing and education.

"It's time to take action, women are already fully aware of breast cancer and its consequences," says Carole Baggerly, director of GrassrootsHealth. "When you can project that fully 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented with higher vitamin D serum levels, there is no justification for waiting to take preventive measures such as getting one's vitamin D level up to the recommended range of 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/L)."

According to Dr. Cedric F. Garland of the Moores Cancer Center and the UCSD School of Medicine:

"This will potentially be the most important action ever conducted toward prevention of breast cancer. The more women who participate in this study, the greater the chance that we will defeat breast cancer within our lifetimes."

Women across the world are invited to enroll in a 5-year Breast Cancer Prevention Study initiated by GrassrootsHealth. To be eligible to enroll, you must be at least 60 years of age and have no current cancer. A free vitamin D home test kit will be provided for the first 1,000 women to enroll. The study aims to fully demonstrate health outcomes of vitamin D serum levels in the range of 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/L) and will examine the occurrence of breast cancer among a population of women 60 and over who achieve and maintain a targeted vitamin D serum level in the bloodstream. In addition to breast cancer prevention, short-term effects of vitamin D such as hypertension, falls, colds and flu will also be tracked. More information can be found at www.grassrootshealth.net.

Funding for this initial enrollment is provided by GrassrootsHealth founder, Carole Baggerly.

"We are expecting to find like-minded individuals and organizations who will provide support to keep the full enrollment funded; our funding goal for the project is $300,000/year. We have been funded entirely by private individuals and organizations in the past. There is a large group of people who are ready for action to prevent breast cancer. We sincerely hope that those people will help by donating directly to this effort to demonstrate how we can do primary prevention, not just early detection."

You can make a donation to this important project here.

References:

  1. Official National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM) Frequenlty Asked Questions
  2. GreenMedInfo.com: X-Ray Mammography Studies

Additional Sources:

Saturday, March 5, 2011

D3 is NOW going Mainstream as BEST cancer Preventative & treatment!!


8000 IUs of Vitamin D Daily Necessary to Raise Blood Levels of 'Miracle' Anti-Cancer Nutrient, Declares Groundbreaking New Research

by Mike Adams
Natural News

Recently by Mike Adams: 'Unscientific' Is Secret Code for Anyone Who Opposes GMOs or Pesticides

The reign of censorship and suppression against vitamin D is now coming to an end. Even though the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and many institutions leading the cancer industry (including the ACS) have intentionally tried to downplay the ability of vitamin D to prevent cancer, a new study appearing in the journal Anticancer Researchlays out the simple, powerful truth about vitamin D that we've been teaching at NaturalNews for years: A typical adults needs4,000-8,000 IUs of vitamin D each day to prevent cancer, MS and type-1 diabetes, not the ridiculously low 400-800 IUs recommended by the U.S. government.

The new research was conducted by scientists at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha. It is groundbreakingresearch because it establishes the relationship between vitamin D dosage and circulating vitamin D levels in the blood.

This is a first. It is crucial information for the health care revolution that will be necessary to save states and nations from total health care bankruptcy in the coming years. Vitamin D turns out to be one of the simplest, safest and most affordable ways to prevent degenerative diseaseand sharply reduce long-term health care costs.

Up to 8,000 IUs needed daily

"We found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 4,000 to 8,000 IU [international units] are needed to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half therisk of several diseases – breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes," said Dr. Cedric Garland.

Dr. Garland is the professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center. He went on to say:

"I was surprised to find that the intakes required to maintain vitamin D status for disease prevention were so high – much higher than the minimal intake of vitamin D of 400 IU/day that was needed to defeat rickets in the 20th century."

Study reveals 90% vitamin D deficiency rate across U.S. population

This particular study involved over 3,000 volunteers who were taking vitamin D supplements. Researchers drew blood samples from them in order to determine their levels of 25-vitamin D (the common form circulating in the blood).

The results were shocking even to the study authors, revealing that 90 percent of those studied were deficient in vitamin D, falling below the 40-60 ng/ml range now considered healthy. (Most nutritionally-aware experts in the natural health world recommend higher ranges of 60-70 ng/ml, actually.)

The U.S. government's Institute of Medicine has intentionally downplayed vitamin D recommendations, seemingly in an effort to keep boosting the profits of the cancer industry by denying any real benefit to vitamin D. The IOMs most recent recommendations seemed designed to actuallycause vitamin D deficiency in the U.S. population.

The IOM has even gone out of its way to artificially lower the threshold of vitamin D deficiency by claiming that 20 ng/ml is a sufficient level. This magically transforms a "deficient" person into a "non-deficient" person by merely changing the definition. So a person with a level of 22 ng/ml, for example, is not considered "vitamin D deficient" by the established medical system, even though their vitamin D levels are so low that they may not be able to prevent cancer, MS or type-1 diabetes.

Why the truth about vitamin D is a huge threat to the established for-profit medical system

As NaturalNews has documented and reported many times over the last several years, the medical establishment – and especially the cancer industry – has willfully engaged in attempts to prevent people from learning the truth about vitamin D in order to protect the lucrative profits generated from sickness and disease. Vitamin D represents a greater threat to the medical establishment than any other single nutrient for three reasons:

1) Vitamin D is FREE (you can get it from the sun, without a prescription).

2) Vitamin D prevents over a dozen high-profit diseases and health conditions (osteoporosis, cancer, diabetes, MS, and others).

3) Vitamin D is extremely safe, even when taken in supplement form, because it's a natural vitamin / hormone that the body recognizes.

Read more in our downloadable special report, "The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D."

Or watch the incredibly popular video from the Health Ranger that explains how African Americans, Asians and Latinos are being exploited by the cancer industry through vitamin D censorship and encouraged nutritional deficiencies.

Highlights from the study

The following summary is extracted from the results of the study:

  • The study examined 3,667 people and their vitamin D intake habits.
  • Vitamin D intake of 10,000 IU / day had no toxicity.
  • For those severely deficient in vitamin D, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 10 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.
  • For those with existing blood levels above 30 ng / ml, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 8 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.
  • For those with existing blood levels above 50 ng / ml, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 5 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.
  • In other words, vitamin D supplementation has a curve of diminishing returns. Those with existing high levels of vitamin D do not experience as much benefit from vitamin D supplements as those with low levels (which is roughly 90% of the population).
  • Vitamin D sales have increased 600% since 2001 (due largely to the efforts of those in both the natural health and honest science communities who are telling the truth about vitamin D).
  • Vitamin D is remarkably safe! From the conclusion of the study:
    "Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity."

Yes, that's 40,000 IUs per day.

See the abstract reprinted below.

Why nearly everyone in first-world nations needs more vitamin D

Thanks in large part to this remarkable research, it's now clear that all the intelligent people are going to up their vitamin D intake to something in the range of 8,000 IUs per day (or more), especially through the winter months.

Based on this study, I am personally increasing my intake to 10,000 IUs per day from October through April (in North America). And I'll be sure to get plenty of sunshine during the other months.

"Now that the results of this study are in, it will become common for almost every adult to take 4000 IU/day," said Dr. Garland. "This is comfortably under the 10,000 IU/day that the IOM Committee Report considers as the lower limit of risk, and the benefits are substantial."

"Now is the time for virtually everyone to take more vitamin D to help prevent some major types of cancer, several other serious illnesses, and fractures," said Robert P. Heaney, MD, of Creighton University, an experienced biomedical scientist.

It seems the conventional cancer industry, the IOM and even the FDA will not be able to censor the truth about vitamin D much longer. The truth is getting out, thanks in large part due to you, the NaturalNews readers who share these stories and help educate and inform your friends and family members.

Spread the news: Take more vitamin D! Please share this story on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere. Let people know that the research is in, and vitamin D is a remarkably safe "miracle" nutrient that nearly everyone needs to be supplementing. This is especially true if they have darker skin.

(We recommend vitamin D3 from quality nutritional supplement companies. Beware of cheap "multivitamin" sources that you find at common retailers. Go for quality supplements from reputable sources.)

Here's the title and abstract of the original study:

Vitamin D Supplement Doses and Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D in the Range Associated with Cancer Prevention

CEDRIC F. GARLAND, CHRISTINE B. FRENCH, , LEO L. BAGGERLY, and ROBERT P. HEANEY,

"This paper provides a long awaited insight into a dose-response relationship between orally administered vitamin D3 and the resulting levels of serum 25(OH)D in over 3600 citizens. The results will allow new definition of high vitamin D dose safety and reduce concerns about toxicity. This is a landmark contribution in the vitamin D nutrition field!"- Anthony Norman, Distinguished Professor of Biochemistry & Biomedical Sciences, Emeritus, University of California Riverside

Abstract. Background: Studies indicate that intake of vitamin D in the range from 1,100 to 4,000 IU/d and a serum 25- hydroxyvitamin D concentration [25(OH)D] from 60-80 ng/ml may be needed to reduce cancer risk. Few community-based studies allow estimation of the dose–response relationship between oral intake of vitamin D and corresponding serum 25(OH)D in the range above 1,000 IU/d. Materials and Methods: A descriptive study of serum 25(OH)D concentration and self-reported vitamin D intake in a community-based cohort (n=3,667, mean age 51.3±13.4 y). Results: Serum 25(OH)D rose as a function of self-reported vitamin D supplement ingestion in a curvilinear fashion, with no intakes of 10,000 IU/d or lower producing 25(OH)D values above the lower-bound of the zone of potential toxicity (200 ng/ml). Unsupplemented all-source input was estimated at 3,300 IU/d. The supplemental dose ensuring that 97.5% of this population achieved a serum 25(OH)D of at least 40 ng/ml was 9,600 IU/d. Conclusion: Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity.

The recent increase in interest in vitamin D by the general public has fueled a better than 200% increase in sales of over-the-counter vitamin D preparations from 2008 to 2009, and a more than 6-fold increase since 2001 (1). Additionally, products with progressively increasing content of vitamin D have been introduced with similar rapidity. There seems to have been little precedent for a change of this magnitude and duration for other nutrients (e.g., vitamins C and E) that have enjoyed brief periods of popularity among the general public. There is essentially no information on how the public uses these products or on their impact on the vitamin D status of consumers.

GrassrootsHealth (GRH), a non-profit community service organization dedicated to promoting public awareness about vitamin D, has assembled a database that includes information on supplemental vitamin D intake by a self-selected population cohort, and links these intakes to measured values for serum 25(OH)D, various demographic variables, and a variety of health status measures. GRH data include values from many individuals with daily supplemental intakes in and above the ranges often used today forcancer prevention and co-therapy (2, 3).

This study used the GRH database to describe the relationship of measured vitamin D status to vitamin D supplementation, both as practiced by health conscious individuals and as related to cancer prevention.

Read more.

Reprinted with permission from Natural News.

March 5, 2011

Mike Adams is a natural health author and award-winning journalist. He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers' guides, and books on topics like health and the environment. He is the editor of Natural News.