[The
Vitamin D Newsletter December, 2007]
Does vitamin D prevent cancer?
Both Canadians and
Americans are shocked to think their doctors care about money, are in
the illness business. In some ways people think of their doctors like
they do their local public schools. They know medicine is a business
and know doctors do things for money but they don't think their own
doctors do.
The fact is that doctors, hospitals, regional cancer centers, and the
cancer drug manufacturers are all in business to make money and all of
these businesses make money off the sick, not off the well. Just a
fact, but, as Aldous Huxley once observed, "Facts do not cease to exist
because they are ignored."
Vitamin D will save the Canadian government enormous amounts of
money but will cause widespread economic disruption in the USA. Do the
physicians leading the American Cancer Society have strong economic ties
to the cancer industry in the form of patents, stock options, and
consulting fees? If so, what do you expect them to do? What would you
do? It's simple. You would believe what you have to believe, what you
need to believe, that is, anything with the word "vitamin" in it is
simply the latest Laetrile.
Look to Canada, not the USA, to lead the
way.
Dr. Lichtenfeld, implied the Canadian Cancer Society has acted
precipitously in recommending that all Canadians take 1,000 IU of
vitamin D daily. He implied that Americans should placidly wait
until more randomized controlled trials, such as Lappe JM, et al
(above), accumulate before they address their vitamin D deficiency.
That is, nothing should be done until more randomized controlled
trials prove vitamin D prevents cancer, one randomized controlled
trial is not enough; epidemiological studies are not enough, animal
studies are not enough, multiple anti-cancer mechanisms of action
are not enough? If that is his position, I challenge him to point
to one human randomized controlled trial that proves smoking is
dangerous?
If he cannot, then he must admit that the American Cancer Society's
position on smoking is entirely derived from epidemiological
studies, animal studies, and a demonstrable mechanism of action, not
on human randomized controlled trials? Vitamin D not only has
hundreds of epidemiological studies, thousand of animal studies, and
at least four anti-cancer mechanisms of action, vitamin D
deficiency has something smoking does not have, it has a high
quality randomized controlled trial. If future randomized
controlled trials fail to show vitamin D prevents cancer - and Dr.
Lichtenfeld better hope they do - he can have the satisfaction of
saying "I told you so." If future randomized controlled trials
confirm vitamin D prevents cancer, then he needs to look at his
hands, the red he sees is the blood of needless cancer deaths.