Health & Families

Rain (AM and PM) 8° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

Revealed: the best protection against cancer

Global study discovers astonishing power of vitamin made by the sun

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

Boosting levels of vitamin D could cut the incidence of breast cancer by a quarter, bowel cancer by a third and it should be offered to the population as part of a public health drive, scientists say.

The finding is based on a review of 2,750 research studies involving vitamin D, sometimes called "bottled sunshine", which show that taking daily supplements of the vitamin could do more for cancer prevention than a library full of lifestyle advice.

Vitamin D is made by the action of sunlight on the skin but the gloomy weather and long winter in countries north of 30 degrees latitude, such as the UK, means that a large part of the earth's population is deficient between October and March.

Vitamin D has attracted increasing attention in recent years as its role in preventing cancer and other conditions including heart disease, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, has been revealed. The weight of evidence has grown so dramatically that governments around the world are reviewing their recommendations. The US and Canadian governments have set up a taskforce on vitamin D, and the Scottish government is taking expert advice. The pressure is now on the Department of Health in England to respond.

Scotland's chief medical officer, Harry Burns, attended a conference last November convened by the Scottish government at which international experts recommended randomised trials be established in the wake of strong evidence that increased intake could improve health.

High rates of heart disease, cancer and multiple sclerosis in Scotland have been blamed on the weak sunlight and short summers. Some experts believe the benefits of the Mediterranean diet have as much to do with the sun as with the regional food. However, too much sun exposure leading to sunburn is damaging to the skin and a cause of malignant melanoma, one of the most rapidly growing – and deadly – cancers. Figures published this month show cases of melanoma have topped 10,000 annually for the first time.

Now scientists at the University of Edinburgh have been awarded a £225,000 grant to investigate the link between low levels of vitamin D in Scotland and bowel cancer.

The US and Canadian government taskforce is examining whether the current recommendation for people to achieve a blood level of vitamin D equivalent to taking 200-600 international units (IU) a day, depending on their age, should be increased. The recommended level was set in 1997 and is based on what was necessary for bone health, not cancer prevention.

The same level is recommended in the UK, where official policy is that sun exposure and diet (oily fish and eggs contain vitamin D) are sufficient to achieve it, without supplements, for most adults. But an increasing body of cancer and other medical experts say a healthy intake of vitamin D should be five to 10 times higher.

Writing in the Annals of Epidemiology, Professor Cedric Garland and colleagues from the University of California, San Diego, say if everyone took 2,000 IUs of vitamin D a day, the current maximum recommended in Canada, it would save an estimated 200,000 cases of breast cancer and 250,000 cases of bowel cancer worldwide.

Professor Garland first recognised the link when, as a young doctor in the late 1970s, he used to drive with his brother Frank Garland across the US from sunny California to John Hopkins University on the snowy east coast. Bowel cancer was more common in the north and east of the country than in the south and west and while cancer specialists at the time looked for an explanation in the amount of fibre in the diet or the way meat cooked on a barbecue, the Garland brothers suspected a link with climate.

Twenty-five years later, after a series of papers establishing the link between breast and bowel cancer and vitamin D, their ideas are being taken seriously. The Canadian Cancer Society was the first to recommend a daily vitamin D supplement (of 1,000 IUs) in 2007, for the whole country in winter and for northern parts that get little sun in summer as well.

However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyons, France, called last year for a major trial to prove the safety and efficacy of vitamin D before supplements are recommended for populations.

IARC scientists have warned that high levels of vitamin D in blood samples may not prevent cancer but instead be a sign of a healthy lifestyle. Supplements have in the past failed to deliver the benefits expected from their naturally occurring versions, and have in some cases been found to be harmful. Beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A, which early research suggested would prevent lung cancer was shown to increase it in smokers.

But Oliver Gillie, of the Health Research Forum said vitamin D has also been shown to play a vital role in heart disease, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis. "It is like the trick question whether it was Shakespeare who wrote the sonnets or someone else with the same name," he said. "We know what vitamin D does, and there is a very plausible biological hypothesis for how it works. There might be something else that is having the effect, but why would we look for it when it is there under our noses? The amount of research on other supplements is nothing like as great as that on vitamin D."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Sun Cream and cancer
[info]jimjanja wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 12:53 am (UTC)
I can't wait for them to make the link between sun cream and cancer. Skin cancer rates started to increase as the use of sun cream increased.
Odd that we managed to survive without sun cream for a couple of million years isn't it?
Re: Sun Cream and cancer
[info]vitamindguy wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 02:24 am (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive:
Ann Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;17(12):956-63.
Do sunscreens increase risk of melanoma in populations residing at higher latitudes?Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Garland CF, Chaplin G, Garland FC.
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive 0613C, La Jolla, CA 92093-0631, USA.

BACKGROUND: Sunscreens may allow overexposure to ultraviolet A (UVA) in fair-skinned persons and prevent symptoms of sunburn, but their benefits for the prevention of melanoma are uncertain. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed that identified all known studies of the association of sunscreen use with melanoma risk during 1966-2007. A total of 18 studies were identified, of which 17 met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Of these, 10 were conducted at latitudes >40 degrees from the equator and 7 at
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<or=40>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Ask and ye shall receive:
Ann Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;17(12):956-63.
Do sunscreens increase risk of melanoma in populations residing at higher latitudes?Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Garland CF, Chaplin G, Garland FC.
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive 0613C, La Jolla, CA 92093-0631, USA.

BACKGROUND: Sunscreens may allow overexposure to ultraviolet A (UVA) in fair-skinned persons and prevent symptoms of sunburn, but their benefits for the prevention of melanoma are uncertain. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed that identified all known studies of the association of sunscreen use with melanoma risk during 1966-2007. A total of 18 studies were identified, of which 17 met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Of these, 10 were conducted at latitudes >40 degrees from the equator and 7 at <or=40 degrees . Data were pooled for all latitudes combined and also according to these latitude strata. The association of skin pigmentation and latitude with odds ratios was estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: Overall, there was no statistically significant effect of use of sunscreens on risk of melanoma (odds ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.9-1.6; p for heterogeneity < 0.0001). However, there was an interaction with latitude. At >40 degrees from the equator, the odds ratio was 1.6 (95% C.I. 1.3-1.9; p for heterogeneity = 0.006), whereas it was 0.7 at <or=40 degrees (95% C.I. 0.4-1.0; p for heterogeneity = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Use of common sunscreen formulations that absorb UVB almost completely, but transmit large quantities of UVA, may contribute to risk of melanoma in populations at latitudes >40 degrees.

However, those with red hair and freckles have a genetic risk for melanoma, so should be careful in the sun.
Re: Sun Cream and cancer
[info]vitamindguy wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 02:40 am (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive:

Ann Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;17(12):956-63. Links
Do sunscreens increase risk of melanoma in populations residing at higher latitudes?Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Garland CF, Chaplin G, Garland FC.
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive 0613C, La Jolla, CA 92093-0631, USA.

BACKGROUND: Sunscreens may allow overexposure to ultraviolet A (UVA) in fair-skinned persons and prevent symptoms of sunburn, but their benefits for the prevention of melanoma are uncertain. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed that identified all known studies of the association of sunscreen use with melanoma risk during 1966-2007. A total of 18 studies were identified, of which 17 met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Of these, 10 were conducted at latitudes more than 40 degrees from the equator and 7 at less than 40 degrees . Data were pooled for all latitudes combined and also according to these latitude strata. The association of skin pigmentation and latitude with odds ratios was estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: Overall, there was no statistically significant effect of use of sunscreens on risk of melanoma (odds ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.9-1.6; p for heterogeneity < 0.0001). However, there was an interaction with latitude. At greater than 40 degrees from the equator, the odds ratio was 1.6 (95% C.I. 1.3-1.9; p for heterogeneity = 0.006), whereas it was 0.7 at less than 40 degrees (95% C.I. 0.4-1.0; p for heterogeneity = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Use of common sunscreen formulations that absorb UVB almost completely, but transmit large quantities of UVA, may contribute to risk of melanoma in populations at latitudes greater than 40 degrees.

However, those with red hair and freckles have an increased genetic risk for melanoma, so should be very careful in the sun.
Melanoma
[info]toroviolet wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 02:34 am (UTC)
Slick drive to rush but vitamin D. Cancer industry announces soothers like this occasionally to "look busy.."
Cancer has mushroomed on Mediterrenean countries too, Melanoma as well...
Re: Melanoma
[info]w1551ns wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 06:30 pm (UTC)
Yea man it's CHEMOTRAILS get real.
Vitamin D and Melanoma
[info]kaefer71 wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 06:20 am (UTC)
This finding would bear out my own experience. I was diagnosed with malignant melanoma five years ago. Although the melanoma was deep and had penetrated the skin layer where there are blood vessels ready to transport cancer cells into other parts of the body, I have had no metastases (they are the ones so difficult to treat). Since this diagnosis I have taken Vitamin D supplements every day as I must avoid any lengthy exposure to the sun. However, I also eat and live healthily and generally have a positive outlook on life and hope that will give me another few years of cancer-free life.
JEREMY LAURANCE IS IN THE DARK AGES
[info]georgesign wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 06:39 am (UTC)
Dear Jeremy Laurance, so called Health Editor, do people like you live in the dark ages. There has been a cure for cancer for sometime plus there are many cheap ways of preventing cancer. The only problem is that the "conventional" money based medical system underplays or deliberately hides this information. If it doesn't make money for the large drug companies then they try to ban it. I have heard that the FDA in the USA is particularly vigilant when it comes to protecting the shareholders of big pharma. For once it would be nice if people like you investigated the scandal of Chemotherapy and Radiation treatments. They shrink tumours but eventually they come back and kill the patient. Haven't you noticed that not one "celebrity" with cancer has survived with conventional treatment.
Vitamin D cancer
[info]tedhutchinson wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 08:21 am (UTC)
Grassrootshealth.org have a series of videos from the world's leading vitamin D experts. Garland's
"Vitamin D and Cancer Prevention" and "Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma" are worth watching.
Grassrootshealth also offer $40 postal 25(OH)D testing so you can check your level is not too high.
Vieth has shown in "The Risk of Additional Vitamin D." that under 10,000iu/daily is safe even with additional from sunshine.
5000~6000IU /daily will be required for most people in the UK to achieve the 55ng 137.5nmol/l associated with the lowest incidence of/best prognosis for cancer.
These are cheapest imported from the USA.
"The Vitamin D Council" has links to cheap and effective supplies and more detailed information for those with cancer.
money on drugs and gene is a waste in cancer research
[info]mind_ful wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 08:32 am (UTC)
so only 25 years after vitamin d was found to be crucial to prevent a range of chronic diseases, for which billions are spent every year on drug and gene research, the scientific community is finally noticing the b...... obvious. As humans, and not machines, of course vitamins are vital for our health. they all are not just vitamin d. but that is too easy isn't it. what would the drug companies do if we all ate and lived properly! perhaps more natural solutions will be funded now, instead of wasting gazillions on pharmaceutically led pie in the sky when a more elegant and cheaper option is here all along.
Cancer
[info]phm1611 wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)
So, georgesign, what is this cure for cancer which is being hidden by the big pharma - or are you going to keep us all in the dark too?
Re: Cancer
[info]mr_scummy wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 09:20 am (UTC)

Sheesh, didn't you know, it's probably either lots of vitamins or a concoction of hemp oil. It MUST work as it's (a) 100% natural, (b) free of chemicals, and (c) ignored by big pharma. ;)
Re: Cancer
[info]georgesign wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
My cousin died of lung cancer. He tried every conventional treatment going and they were a complete waste of time. If you get lung cancer your chances of a real cure are less under 3 per cent. This started me on a long journey of discovery. Many alternative methods are just quackery but there some that have proved effective. If you have a closed mind and are a complete cynic then don't go any further. If not there is an oncologist in Italy who was so fed up with seeing children die using conventional methods that he tried something wacky which costs little and worked. Was he cheered ... no, he was struck-off. http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/ Read it carefully before you dismiss it. He might one day save your life.
Yeah...right
[info]aegian wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 08:55 am (UTC)
Like artificial vitamin C was supposed to be such a panacea and then such a bad thing... So now we have the miracle properties of vitamin D suddenly discovered. How simple life is. Not.
Randomised trials
[info]cardinalsin wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 09:52 am (UTC)
Interational experts recommended randomised trials.

So, in other words, none have happened yet. So, in other words, there is no reliable scientific evidence that vitamin d does what the article claims.

What actual evidence is there? So far, having read the article, all I could spot was "testimonials" from scientists, and a review casually mentioned in the first few paras but then not looked at again.

So where is the justification for the headline? I hope that Independent readers don't end up sun-bathing themselves to death on the back of badly-evidenced advice in this article.
Vitamin D
[info]lserff wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 09:55 am (UTC)
It is important to clarify that to gain benefit from Vitamin D supplements, they must contain vitamin D3, the natural form of Vitamin D. Some studies of vitamins which have questioned their value were based on studies using synthetic forms a vitamins, which do not offer the same benefits as the natural ones.
data on vitamin D
[info]mbarnes01 wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 11:42 am (UTC)
anyone who doubts what is said in this article should take a look at www.vitamind3UK.com Every statement is linked to an orginal publication. The site also offers a good newsletter
vitamin D and clinical trials
[info]mbarnes01 wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 11:57 am (UTC)
Those who post and say vitamin D needs to be proven in double blind clinical trials first-remember that first, no one is going to pay for those trials because there is no money to be made with vitamnin D.
Second-the cause effect relations ship can be proven by masses of epidemiological data pointing in the same direction along with a good scientific rationalle as to why it should be true-remember the link between smoking and cancer was never proven in a double blind trial. It was massses of epi data, just like we have here with vitamin D. But indeed there is a double blind placebo trial with vitamin D done by Lappe in the US and published nearly two years ago-showed up to 77% reduction in cancer cases over four years using just 1100IIU of vitmain D per day.
Third-we are dealing with a deficiency situation here. If you live in sunny areas and exposure your body to the sun you will have much higher levels-makes sense to tell those who live in cloudy areas to bring their levels up to those in sunnny areas. Remember this whole story started with the observation that those living in sunny areas had less cancer and did better when they did get cancer compared to those living in Northern regions. Unfortunately now even those living in sunny areas are showing to be deficient because of life styles leading to low sun exposure and wonderful advice from dermatologigsts and cancer reasearch UK to stay out to the sun. Think about it--without the sun there is nothing-does it come as such a surprise that being exposed to the sun might in some way benefit humans, or are we the only life form on the planet that does not need it!!
THE SUN GIVES YOU CANCER!!!
[info]whiterabbi7 wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 01:05 pm (UTC)
Oh hang about, my mistake. Apparently Vit C cures cancer, as does laetrille. Standing, naked, on one leg for 8.3 minutes on a Sunday evening with a tennis ball stuffed in one's gob also cures cancer, or so my wife keeps telling me.

Utter shite, the lot of it. We already know the secret to long life: eat well, drink well, take regular exercise, use common sense and be born with the right genes: not necessarily in that order. The rest is academic / pharma waffle.

Can I have 225,000 quid of the taxpayers' money please? I just thought of an ace new trial that involves me, Barbados and some rum.
Re: THE SUN GIVES YOU CANCER!!!
[info]mbarnes01 wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 02:12 pm (UTC)
Moron!!
Vitamin D(3) is very good for you
[info]ralph7 wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 02:44 pm (UTC)
Well who are you going to believe? Big Pharma (BP), or eating natural (quality organic) foodstuffs? If everybody got enough Vit D (3, not 2, for most people, and not synthetic), this would impact on the sales and profits of BP.
Clearly, sunshine/Vit D is good for you, but obviously not to the extent of sunburn, as this is obviously telling you that you are getting too much sunshine. Easy to understand, isn't it? White skinned people need about 15 mins in sunlight (in summer here in Britain), or in their diet like eggs and fish; preferably both.
And how do you like this Orwellian logic?: 'Beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A, which early research suggested would prevent lung cancer was shown to increase it in smokers.' Well DUH, don't stop taking the Vit A, but do STOP SMOKING!!! It's not the Vit A that's the problem, it's the smoke that is. Likewise where certain good foodstuffs detrimentally impact medicines, it's not the food at fault, but the medicine from BP.
It's been known for years, why are medics so ignorant?
[info]deeflymaster wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC)
I can say to this report is...well d'uh. This has been known since the discovery of the vitamin. The only real reasons that the rise in Victorian diseases have re-emerged is: consumption of processed vegetable oils, overuse of sunblocks, sunphobic medics, fatphobic 'nutritionists', cholesterol fearing medics and general ignorance of the medical profession about how absolutely vital this vitamin is. If Nature hadn't intended us to make this vitamin as a cancer protective/preventer/treater we wouldn't have the ability to make it in our own skins. Of course, men always know better than Nature. Well now they are being proved they don't. Get out in the sun without sunblock, your skin will protect you Nature's way, eat dairy, eat fish and eat CHOLESTEROL, you can't make vitamin D without it.

To Jimjanja, you will find that skin cancer cases have risen in line with sun cream use. People who don't use sunblocks and tan gently, not burn, don't get skin cancer. It is a modern disease caused by interference from those who should know better.

Agree also with Ralph, the body can only use D3, foods are fortified with D2 which is useless.
I tell you why the British and American go to Egypt.
[info]famulla wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 06:12 pm (UTC)
Revealed: the best protection against cancer
Global study discovers astonishing power of vitamin made by the sun. I guess you have the right medicines for those who can afford. Vitamin D comes plenty from the cod liver oil, Vitamin A for eyes added. D alone is useless ad al the vitamins have the combination with others minerals. C is water-soluble and has to be taken with other. D is good for bones and bones are goof bone marrows. If your marrow is good, the blood is good. That is logic and the poor try to keep the marrow fit in the manner they can without taking 1000 mg Vitamin D bottled like many Vitamins. The facial creams for UV are also making money. Let us have new news please. The monkeys, memory tonic, the Boots skin cream to make you wrinkle free is a story for selling the chemical to make the pharmaceuticals corporation rich.
I tell you why the British and American go to Egypt. Vitamin D, sunshine Vitamins.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Cancer
[info]frktavares wrote:
Saturday, 30 May 2009 at 06:12 pm (UTC)
Today, nobody believes that the problem of cancer be solved with vitamins.
Even experts acknoweledge that the probem is the so-called "chronic virus". The first step was the vaccine of HPV for the cervical cancer. The next step is an antidote for HSV.
Re: Cancer
[info]naturyl wrote:
Sunday, 31 May 2009 at 08:39 am (UTC)
Fine, but "nobody believes" vitamins are useful? Doubtful, since the article just told us otherwise.

I'm open to all possibilities - if there is credible data to support them. Cancer is obviously;y not a simple illness and we would be crazy to expect one single approach to be sufficient. I want to hear about ever angle that might be useful. Vitamins are one such possibility.
Re: Cancer
[info]frktavares wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 12:08 am (UTC)
A key question we must understand when talking about cancer is: when does cancer really initiate?

The health industry wants the response to be: when the neoplasia has a certain size, perhaps when a metastasis occurs.

Experts say that we may talk about cancer when three organs, at least, were affected.

I use to consult AZ Home Medical Encyclopedia, Dorling Kindersley. It states that neoplasia, which corresponds to an uncontrolled multiplication of the cells, is caused by the modification of the onco genes induced by the virus after it invades the nucleous of the cell.

So, the very beginning of the cancer is when the virus enters in the body! But this goes unnoticed.

Rolf Zinkernagel, virologist, 1996 Medicine Nobel Prize, said in an interview to a magazine(Visao), that the real problem about health were the virus that cause slow evolution chronic diseases.

It's hard to understand why there is a vaccine for HPV, because of cervical cancer, and there is not a vaccine for HSV, virus that is supposed to initiate cancers, and spreads in all the organism. HSV is considered to infect 90% of the population. However, it is not easy to produce an HSV vaccine. Experts say that an HSV vaccine should not mimic an infection.

It is not difficult to accept that HSV gets easily pancreas (and other near organs like liver), causing chronic, asymptomatic, progressive, degenerative diabetes (and hepatitis). An ill pancreas degrades the ability to produce enzymes. As it is known, enzymes are critical to a well succeeded food assimilation. After all, in the long run, we die by starvation, with a quality of life degrading unceasingly.

The lack of assimilated food weakens the metabolic processes, including those of the immune system.
The less T-cells are produced, the more infected cells grow in the organism aiming at neoplasia.

It is funny, or perhaps not, that after middle age the prominent abdomen be considered obesity. The more likely is that the apparent obesity be swelling, that aims at neoplasia. On this subject, it is interesting to read a text by the NYT journalist Gina Kolata (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/health/26fat.html). "A study of 12,067 people over three decades found that people were at a greater risk of becoming obese when a close friend became obese", the text says. It is talking about contagious situation, of course. What else could it be?

Anyway, there is no doubt that the liver produces bile, hormone that regulates the fat in the organism. If you are obese that is because your liver is ill and cannot produce enough bile to elimate the exceeding fat.

We may talk about cancer in two ways. About what makes the illness to start, in the very begining, and what causes its worsening. The start is when the virus enters in the body, the worsening is caused by tobacco, sun(skin cancer), fat(not fat but swelling), etc.

It is used to be said that skin cancer is caused by the sun. Indeed, the sun eases the the entrance of he virus through the skin. The doctors talk about the care that must be taken on the beach. That is because of the kisses. The saliva has herpes virus.

Immunity also plays a role in cancer. It is used to say that immunity may be acquired or inherited. And the sooner a contact is done with the virus, the better immunity is acquired. If our parents, and grand-parents, have had contact with virus, better immunity we inherit.

Lack of immunity is a worsening factor. So, a vaccine to HSV is needed to increase the needed immunity.

About cancer, read the texts these links guide to: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E1DB1630F933A0575AC0A96E9C8B63
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E1DC1438F932A35753C1A96E9C8B63
http://www.wadsworth.org/databank/herpes.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/3282/title/Coconspirator%3F_Genital_herpes_linked_to_cervical_cancer
Re: Cancer
[info]frktavares wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 03:17 pm (UTC)
In my response yesterday I forgot answer directly to the question of how vitamins act over the cancer. I may say the vitamins are a minimizing factor.
Vitamin D - The Best Protection
[info]hetn wrote:
Monday, 1 June 2009 at 09:06 am (UTC)
Good article. Vitamin D is also crucial in chronic infections like TB and HIV. It is good that you talk about sunshine but, sadly, food gets scant mention in the article and should be top of the list. The foods that are rich in Vitamin D are eggs, dairy products and oily fish (herring, kippers, mackerel, pilchards, sardines, salmon, tuna, cod liver oil and roe). For heaven's sake, let's think food, not drugs! Look at http://hetnorg.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/an-epidemic-of-rickets/
Vitamin d levels in sunny parts of the world
[info]mbarnes01 wrote:
Thursday, 11 June 2009 at 06:18 pm (UTC)
Recent studies have shown that even in Lebanon, Arizona and Florida the majority are still deficient. We have been taught for so long to stay covered up and out of the sun that even those living in sunny parts of the world are deficient. Take a look at www.vitaminD3UK.com for some good summaries of the data. The site also offers a new tiny vitamin D pill and will provide customers children free of charge

Most popular in Life & Style


Free gym pass

Get fit for summer with Fitness First gyms in London

Download a free gym pass from Fitness First today

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date