Vitamin D Missing From Breast Cancer... 
Dquixote1217
17 y
4,386
RRR
† Cross †
Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.
Clarkia Extra Strong
Clarkia Tincture 2 oz, 4 oz, 8 oz, and 16 oz
Vitamin D Recommendation Missing From Breast Cancer Task Force Report on Black Women
Tuesday, October 23, 2007 by: Mike Adams
Once in a great while, a report emerges from the medical establishment that's so myopic and devoid of wisdom that it boggles the mind. Today, a new candidate for the "most ignorant medical advice" emerges from none other than the Metropolitan Chicago Breast Cancer Task Force -- a group of over 100 doctors and nurses who collectively have failed to publicly recognize any significant link between diet and breast cancer. By combining their ignorance into a "Task Force," they have managed to create a pompous-sounding document that purports to explain why black women die from breast cancer at much higher rates than white women; yet all they've really created is a self-serving presentation of medical myths grounded upon the false belief that breast cancer is essentially caused by a deficiency in mammograms.
In 113 pages of text containing 37 recommendations for how to solve the breast cancer problem with black women, there is not a single mention of vitamin D. You heard that correctly: This miracle nutrient which has been scientifically shown to prevent 77 percent of all breast cancers -- a nutrient that is deficient in virtually all black women living in North America -- apparently didn't even cross the minds of these 100 doctors, nurses and cancer "experts" who contributed to this highly publicized report. If it did cross their minds, it was certainly not considered significant enough to warrant a single mention in this 113-page report: Not even a footnote!
You can read the full report yourself by clicking here.A remarkable gap in nutritional knowledge
For 100 doctors and health experts to somehow miss the significance of vitamin D in preventing breast cancer in black women seems nothing short of astonishing. As recent research has shown, the vast majority of black women at chronically deficient in vitamin D. How deficient? Consider this: 92.4 percent of their children are being born with vitamin D deficiencies so severe that many are diagnosed with rickets. This is even true among black women who were taking prenatal vitamins. (Click here to read the story.)
So why are black women so much more deficient in vitamin D than white women? The answer is right under our noses: Skin color! Darker skin pigmentation, you see, blocks ultraviolet light absorption which generates vitamin D in the skin. Since vitamin D is a substance that halts the growth of cancer tumors when circulating in the blood, it's not at all complex to understand why vitamin D deficiency in black women would result in higher breast cancer mortality.
This stuff is so simple to understand that I recently explained it to an eight grader who wrote it up for a school report. Yet somehow, these 100 doctors and health experts in the Chicago task force could not even rise to the level of an eight grade student when it comes to reporting on these concepts: There's no mention of vitamin D, sunlight, skin color or even information about how geographical locations alter breast cancer risk due to variations in sunlight intensity!
(Click here to see the map of the United States shaded by breast cancer rates. Once you see this map, you'll instantly understand the link between sunlight, geographic latitude, skin color, vitamin D and breast cancer.)
Is there no sunlight in Chicago?
Is there an IQ vortex in Chicago that sucks the intelligence out of doctors' heads? How did 100 doctors, nurses and cancer experts get together for a task force on breast cancer and completely miss the single most obvious cause of the disease in black women? Maybe they failed to read my own report, Breast Cancer Deception, where I clearly point out the link between sun exposure, skin color and vitamin D creation in the skin. (Or maybe they weren't interested in reading a report that didn't recommend more mammograms...)
Perhaps they have zero nutritional knowledge to begin with and aren't interested in learning anything new from someone else. Or maybe they're all just so steeped in mammography and chemotherapy (the vast majority of panel participants work in conventional oncology) that they are intellectually unable to acknowledge the value of any healing modality outside their own areas of expertise.
One thing is certain: They sure didn't invite any nutritionists to the task force. All it would have taken was one person standing up and saying, "Um, excuse me. Has anybody thought this might be related to vitamin D?" No such person, it seems, was invited to the task force. In fact, it was less of a "task force" and more of a self-serving oncology orgy fest that was clearly designed to sell one thing to black woman: Mammography.
Myth vs. Fact About Breast Cancer
Let's get to some facts about breast cancer. Forget all the hype and propaganda put out by the breast cancer industry and this astonishingly ignorant Chicago task force. Here's the truth about breast cancer you won't read in the mainstream media:
• 90% of breast cancer is preventable through changes in diet and lifestyle
• The average breast cancer patient is worth over $800,000 in revenues to the cancer industry
• Vitamin D, all by itself, can prevent nearly 4 out of 5 cases of breast cancer. See http://www.newstarget.com/021892.html
• You can get all the vitamin D you need absolutely free of charge by exposing your skin to sunlight. See http://www.newstarget.com/rr-sunlight.html
• Every woman who prevents breast cancer represents a LOSS of $800,000 in revenue for the breast cancer industry
• Chemotherapy causes permanent brain damage. See http://www.newstarget.com/020665.html
Also see: http://www.newstarget.com/021200.html
• There is no such thing as a pharmaceutical "cure" for breast cancer. The "search for the cure" is a marketing gimmick.
• Mammography harms 10 women for every 1 woman that it helps. See http://www.newstarget.com/020829.html
• All woman have cancer cells. Microtumors exist in healthy bodies. Simply spotting a microtumor on a mammogram does not mean the tumor is necessarily a health risk.
• Processed meat products containing sodium nitrite cause breast cancer. See http://www.newstarget.com/007024.html
• Many cosmetic products and personal care products contain cancer-causing chemicals.
• There is no motivation for anyone in the cancer industry to teach cancer prevention. Preventing cancer means losing repeat customers.
• Chemotherapy is only effective on 1% - 2% of patients. (Source: Ralph Moss)
• Black men and women are being exploited by the cancer industry as lucrative profit centers for chemotherapy. See http://www.newstarget.com/Report_Breast_Cancer_Deception_9.html
• See the CounterThink chemotherapy cartoon: http://www.newstarget.com/021462.html
Task force theories on breast cancer
The task force report did manage to come up with three theories on why black women are dying from breast cancer at much higher rates than white women. These three theories (along with my comments) are:
1. Black women receive fewer mammograms (Translation: Breast cancer is caused by a deficiency in mammograms...)
2. Black women receive mammograms of inferior quality (Translation: If black women just had better mammograms, they'd be fine...)
3. Black women have inadequate access to quality treatment once a cancer is diagnosed. (Translation: Black women need more chemotherapy...
These three theories are nothing short of ludicrous. If breast cancer was prevented by mammograms, most middle-class white women wouldn't have breast cancer at all! Let me state this bluntly: Mammograms do not prevent breast cancer. They only recruit breast cancer patients. In fact, mammograms actually cause breast cancer because they emit radiation and cause DNA damage in breast cells! See http://www.newstarget.com/019477.html
To claim that black women only need more mammograms and more chemotherapy is nothing less than a grand medical deception. Didn't anyone think to ask the obvious question about differences between white women and black women? Skin pigmentation! Darker skin blocks UV light. Less light means lower vitamin D production, and that means faster tumor growth. Is this so difficult for conventionally-trained medical doctors to understand?
I believe that every single person involved in this task force report should have their medical license stripped and be banished from practicing medicine ever again. In my opinion, their astonishing ignorance of vitamin D's effects on the cancer risk of black women is inexcusable. These people have a responsibility to know the basics when it comes to preventing cancer with nutrition, and when they remain utterly ignorant of these simple concepts, they post a dire risk to public health. Anyone foolish enough to follow their advice will only end up a victim of chemotherapy, radiation or useless cancer surgeries.
And why do I get so riled up about this topic? Because black women are needlessly dying of a disease that's simple to prevent, that's why! The system of organized medicine that controls the cancer industry today is preying upon black women, pretending to not know why they keep dying from cancer, and refusing to tell them the truth about how their skin color causes vitamin D deficiency. I'm outraged that my fellow brothers and sisters are being killed by organized medicine and denied access to truthful information about a simple, safe and absolutely free way to prevent 4 out of 5 cancers.
And I'm outraged at the racism of conventional medicine, where this white-dominated, male-dominated medical system blatantly exploits low-income black women for pure profit. In my opinion, it is a crime against all people of color. It is racist, unethical, and downright criminal. And for the Chicago breast cancer task force to curiously refuse to mention this obvious link between vitamin D and breast cancer mortality in black women is nothing short of criminal negligence.
These doctors and cancer "experts" have a responsibility to know what they're talking about. They are licensed by the state to practice medicine, after all, and yet they demonstrate absolutely no ability to cover even the fundamentals of anti-cancer nutrition that could save hundreds of thousands of women from breast cancer deaths.
Who are these task force "experts?"
By associating their names with this document, these doctors, nurses and oncologists have cemented their names in a document of great historical significance: It will be looked upon with ridicule and laughter in the near future -- held up as an example of the incredible arrogance and short-sightedness of doctors in an era of pharmaceutical-controlled medicine.
In my view, there is hardly a greater example of high-IQ stupidity in organized medicine today than this breast cancer task force document. It stretches the limits of credibility and makes one wonder just how a hundred health experts could remain so utterly ignorant of the healing power of sunlight and vitamin D.
Ultimately, what they've shown us is that doctors and oncologists are simply not qualified to talk about breast cancer. They apparently have no education in cancer prevention, no understanding of nutrition and absolutely no willingness to teach themselves the most important facts about how to really prevent breast cancer in black women.
Personally, I am ashamed of my fellow human beings who operate organized medicine today. They, too, are my brothers and sisters, but they remain intellectual infants, and they need to be put back into pre-school and not let loose practicing medicine on live patients. Somehow, those individuals who know the least have been put in charge of health care, and those who know the most about how to prevent disease have been labeled criminals or run out of the country.
The Dark Ages of modern medicine
This is how we have arrived at the system of medicine in America today, where we have the highest rates of degenerative disease of any nation in the world, where we pay the highest prices (by far) for medical care of any nation in the world, and we have an entire system of medicine that somehow, astonishingly, has not yet realized that what you eat and absorb is the primary determining factor of the health your body expresses.
We remain in the Dark Ages of modern medicine. What will lead us out of it? A return to nature, as usual. Look at the sun: Our answers are being broadcast across the universe, spanning the emptiness of space and illuminating our own skin. Look at the weeds in your yard, the bushes, trees and plants growing in the fields and forests nearby. Those are your medicines. Look at the foods growing out of the ground: The nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits. These are your nourishment. Mother Nature provides all the medicine we need to slash cancer rates by 90%, and she doesn't charge a dime in royalties or patent fees. She keeps on giving, generation after generation, hoping that one day a race of human beings will walk this planet with the humility to listen to her.
Until that day comes, our fellow human beings will continue to suffer under the arrogance, greed and myopia so eloquently demonstrated by this Chicago Breast Cancer Task Force. Through the combined efforts of over 100 cancer experts, they have produced a document of remarkable ignorance, and one that shall forever serve as a valuable reminder of what went wrong with 21st century medicine and why so many human beings were lost to a disease that could be prevented for free.
###
About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health author and technology pioneer with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guies, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NewsTarget email newsletters. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates. He's also author of numerous health books published by Truth Publishing and is the creator of several consumer-oriented grassroots campaigns, including the Spam. Don't Buy It! campaign, and the free downloadable Honest Food Guide. He also created the free reference sites HerbReference.com and HealingFoodReference.com. Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and the ending of corporate control over medicines, genes and seeds. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at www.HealthRanger.org
More
- Re: Vitamin D Missing From Breast Ca... grzbear
17 y
2,827
MoreThis is a reply to # 1,027,556This article illustrates human adaptive uniqueness (diversity) that is overlooked in almost ALL medical studies and most often chalked up to "genetics" (gene differences caused by adaptations to environments and diets over time/generations), pointing out the very real differences in nutritional "need".
Good stuff...
thank you... - Re: Vitamin D Missing From Breast Ca... chrisb1
17 y
3,010
This is a reply to # 1,027,556Of all the vitamin D things that happened in the last few months, the most dramatic occurred in Canada, and will spare Canadian mothers from seeing tragic diseases develop in their children. Unfortunately, the same foresight didn't occur in Washington, D.C., where a much publicized conference on 21st century vitamin D at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) turned out to be an "evidence based" cover-up of 21st century vitamin D research and resulted in no mothers, or children, being spared.
Vitamin D and Health in the 21st Century: An Update
http://vitamindandhealth.od.nih.gov/
The same week the NIH was conducting their cover-up at latitude 39 degrees North, the Canadian Pediatric Society, at 43 degrees North, used evidence based medicine to recommend that pregnant women begin taking 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day, which is 10 (ten) times more than the 200 IU/day the NIH recommended for pregnant women four degrees further south. According to the Canadian press, the Canadian Pediatric Society acted "to protect babies from a litany of illnesses later in life." How can two different mainstream medical organizations look at the same scientific data and come up with recommendations that vary by an order of magnitude? Perhaps a latitudinal gradient exists for evidence based medicine.
Experts prescribe massive increase of vitamin D
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=55ca8d6a-ab7f-40b2-a...
Take more vitamin D, mothers told
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?use...
Some will point out that 2,000 IU (.05 mg) per day is often not enough to adequately prevent or treat vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy. This is true.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToS...
Hollis BW, Wagner CL. Vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy: an ongoing epidemic. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Aug;84(2):273.
Others will point out that even 4,000 IU/day (.1 mg) is not enough for breast-feeding mothers to maintain adequate levels of vitamin D in their breast milk; that takes about 6,000 IU/ day (.15 mg). This is also true.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToS...
Basile LA, et al. The effect of high-dose vitamin D supplementation on serum vitamin D levels and milk calcium concentration in lactating women and their infants. Breastfeed Med. 2006 Spring;1(1):27-35.
Wagner CL, et al. High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in a cohort of breastfeeding mothers and their infants: a 6-month follow-up pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2006 Summer;1(2):59-70.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToS...
However, both criticisms miss the point. For a large mainstream professional organization like the Canadian Pediatric Association to buck both the Canadian and U.S. established health authorities by a factor of ten is unprecedented. It means the vitamin D message is getting through to some in organized medicine.
Health Canada, the official Canadian governmental health agency, immediately took exception to its own pediatricians, using brilliant bureaucratic thinking. They said, "The United States Institute of Medicine (IOM) establishes nutrient reference values, which are used by Health Canada to set policies and standards. Until an update of the Dietary Reference Intakes for vitamin D is issued by the IOM, Health Canada continues to recommend 200 IU of vitamin D per day for adults 19 to 50 years of age, including pregnant and lactating women." They could have added, "regardless of the scientific and medical evidence."
Vitamin D intake should stay the same for now: Health Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/09/24/vitamind-healthcanada.html?ref=rss
Apparently, Health Canada wants to continue the naturalistic Tuskegee experiment being conducted on developing babies over the last 20 years, especially on the brains of African American babies. This vitamin D experiment began in the late 1980s when every relevant official organization began telling us all, including pregnant women and children, to assiduously avoid sunlight. OK, who wants to get squamous cell skin cancer or age their skin? But did those same organizations recommend compensatory vitamin D to make up for what our skin stopped making with sun-avoidance? No. In fact, as you will see, several years after the American Pediatric Association recommended strict sun avoidance for all children, they reduced - not increased - recommended vitamin D intakes in childhood!
The story begins in the 1980s, when dermatologists, heavily funded by the cosmetics and sun screen industry, began warning about the dangers of sunlight. In 1989, the American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs sided with the dermatologists and formally warned about the dangers of sun-exposure, advising mothers and children to "stay out of the sun as much as possible." The dermatologists, or should I say cosmetologists, rejoiced.
American Medical Association. Harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA 1989;262(3):380-4.
But something else happened in the 1980s; the current triple childhood epidemics of asthma, diabetes, and autism all quietly began.
van den Hazel P, et al. Today's epidemics in children: possible relations to environmental pollution and suggested preventive measures. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 2006 Oct;95(453):18-25.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToS...
Next, in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics went further, advising mothers to always keep infants out of direct sunlight, use sun-protective clothes, sun block, and make sure children's activities in general minimize sunlight exposure. Furthermore, quite inexplicably, they reported there was "no evidence" that rigorous sun protection would affect vitamin D levels. The triple childhood epidemics exploded.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract...
American Pediatric Association. Ultraviolet light: a hazard to children. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Environmental Health. Pediatrics 1999;104(2 Pt 1):328-33.
By 2002, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) gleefully reported sun avoidance advice was successful: "protection from sun exposure is now reported for a high proportion of children." Not a word of concern from the CDC about the vitamin D levels of these sun-deprived children, but plenty of wonder about what was causing the childhood epidemics of asthma, diabetes, and autism.
Hall HI, Jorgensen CM, McDavid K, Kraft JM, Breslow R. Protection from sun exposure in US white children ages 6 months to 11 years. Public Health Rep 2001;116(4):353-61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToS...
In an act of nonfeasance that some mothers may eventually find unforgivable, these same medical organizations made no effort to compensate for the vitamin D deficiency their sun-avoidance advice would predictably induce. For example, when the AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs (cited above) warned about the dangers of sunlight, they did not even mention that sunlight triggers the formation of vitamin D.
Furthermore, the Food and Nutrition Board's (FNB) recommendations for young women, pregnant women, infants, and children did not increase during the decades of sun-avoidance advice, 200 units (which is a minuscule .005 mg) per day for all infants, children, pregnant women, and young adults regardless of body weight. That is, the FNB did and does recommend the same daily .005 mg for 5 pound infants as they do for 150 pound pregnant women! Let's see, five pounds divided by .005 mg versus 150 pounds divided by .005 mg? Does a pregnant woman really need 30 times less vitamin D than her baby per pound of body weight or are the folks at the FNB mathematically challenged?
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5776&page=250
Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine., 1997
Tragically, in 2001, the American Academy of Pediatrics cut their longstanding 400 IU (.01 mg) per day recommendation for children in half, to 200 IU (.005 mg) - apparently simply due to a bureaucratic need to comply with FNB recommendations - despite their earlier advice that children should assiduously avoid sunlight. The triple epidemics exploded.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract...
Gartner LM, Greer FR; Section on Breastfeeding and Committee on Nutrition. American Academy of Pediatrics. Prevention of rickets and vitamin D deficiency: new guidelines for vitamin D intake. Pediatrics 2003;111(4 Pt 1):908-10.
Of course, the result of this "evidence based," but common senseless, medical advice was that now almost no newborns have adequate levels and many black infants have virtually no vitamin D in their blood stream. Certainly evidence based medicine started out as a great idea, but too often it has deteriorated to mean, "Have the drug companies sponsored a relevant clinical trial?" Women mistakenly think evidence based medicine was used to set the amount of vitamin D in prenatal vitamins and they think taking them prevents vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy. But the 200 IU/day (.005 mg) recommendation for pregnant women by the FNB was afterthought based, not evidence based, and the standard 400 IU (.01 mg) of vitamin D in most prenatal vitamins was set by the vitamin industry, not the FNB. However, the 400 IU (.01 mg) in most prenatal vitamins is still such a tiny amount, it has almost no effect on vitamin D levels.
Bodnar LM, et al. High prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency in black and white pregnant women residing in the northern United States and their neonates. J Nutr. 2007 Feb;137(2):447-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToS...
What happened next? The triple childhood epidemics of asthma, diabetes, and autism blossomed. And there is abundant evidence (but no proof) all three epidemics are a direct result, a tragic result, of sunlight deprivation. Whenever you see a child with asthma, diabetes or autism, just think: American Medical Association, American Pediatric Association, Institute of Medicine, Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, or Food and Nutrition Board.
Litonjua AA, Weiss ST. Is vitamin D deficiency to blame for the asthma epidemic? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007 Oct 3; [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToS...
Hypponen E, et al. Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study. Lancet. 2001 Nov 3;358(9292):1500-3.
Cannell JJ. Autism and vitamin D. Med Hypotheses. 2007 Oct 4; [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToS...
Of course, children not only need vitamin D in the womb, they need it after they are born, 400 IU per day extra if they are on formula; breast fed infants need even more, around 600 IU per day. Around the age of one, when they switch from vitamin D rich formula to the empty calories of juice, they need even more, about 1,000 IU per day. (By the way, it's no wonder parents of autistic children think vaccinations cause autism. Their child deteriorated around the time they got their 12 -18 month vaccinations, which is, coincidentally, the same time they started juice and stopped infant formula, thus depriving their child's brain of any meaningful sources of vitamin D.)
What can pregnant women who follow the new Canadian Pediatric Society recommendation for 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day expect to see in their children? It is more what they won't see than what they will see. They won't see their child gasping for breath, giving themselves insulin injections, or repetitively banging their head on the televison screen.
John Cannell, MD
This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:
The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
- Re: Vitamin D Missing From Breast Ca... grzbear
17 y
2,827
fetched in 0.0625 sec, IP =172.69.214.243, y=1