site map



Health news:
June 2010 - Dec 2013

Minimizing breast cancer risk

May 2010

Time to move beyond salt ?

Salt hypothesis vs. reality

Is sodium bad?

April 2010

Salt studies: the latest score

From Dahl to INTERSALT

Salt hypothesis' story

March 2010

Salt war

Do bone drugs work?

Diabetes vs. drugs, 3:0?

February 2010

The MMR vaccine war: Wakefield vs. ?

Wakefield proceedings: an exception?

Who's afraid of a littl' 1998 study?

January 2010

Antibiotic children

Physical activity benefits late-life health

Healthier life for New Year's resolution


December 2009

Autism epidemic worsening: CDC report

Rosuvastatin indication broadened

High-protein diet effects


November 2009

Folic acid cancer risk

Folic acid studies: message in a bottle?

Sweet, short life on a sugary diet


October 2009

Smoking health hazards: no dose-response

C. difficile warning

Asthma risk and waist size in women


September 2009

Antioxidants' melanoma risk: 4-fold or none?

Murky waters of vitamin D status

Is vitamin D deficiency hurting you?


August 2009

Pill-crushing children

New gut test for children and adults

Unhealthy habits - whistling past the graveyard?


July 2009

Asthma solution - between two opposites that don't attract

Light wave therapy - how does it actually work?

Hodgkin's lymphoma in children: better alternatives


June 2009

Hodgkin's, kids, and the abuse of power

Efficacy and safety of the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's:
behind the hype

Long-term mortality and morbidity after conventional treatments for pediatric Hodgkin's


May 2009

Late health effects of the toxicity of the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's

Daniel's true 5-year chances with the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's

Daniel Hauser Hodgkin's case: child protection or medical oppression?

April 2009

Protection from EMF: you're on your own

EMF pollution battle: same old...

EMF health threat and the politics of status quo

March 2009

Electromagnetic danger? No such thing, in our view...

EMF safety standards: are they safe?

Power-frequency field exposure

February 2009

Electricity and health

Electromagnetic spectrum: health connection

Is power pollution making you sick?

January 2009

Pneumococcal vaccine for adults useless?

DHA in brain development study - why not boys?

HRT shrinks brains


Bookmark and Share


June 2007

Vitamin D and cancer

Is your low vitamin D level you are not aware of increasing your risk of cancer? Even if vitamin D cancer preventing ability is steadily indicated over decades in a number of (mostly animal) studies, as well as by statistical data, the answer still sounds much like: "Yes, but...".

A recent 4-year study at Creighton University in Omaha, on nearly 1200 women from eastern Nebraska over the age of 55, found that those receiving regular calcium+vitaminD3 supplementation (1450mg and 1100I.U. daily, respectively), had

two and a half times lower cancer incidence rate than those
taking placebo.

The third group, taking calcium only, had nearly two times lower incidence of cancer than the placebo group (Lappe, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition).

While main focus was on the effect of supplementation on hip fracture incidence, cancer-related numbers were too good to ignore. The study conclusion is that "improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women".

 Media articles, however, seem to be putting main accent on vitamin D and its cancer-preventing ability. What the study numbers imply is just the opposite: it is calcium supplementation that resulted in most of the beneficial effect, with the addition of vitamin D only somewhat improving upon it.

What makes it harder to draw specific conclusions is another recent study, at Harvard, published just week earlier (Lin, journal Archives of Internal Medicine), in which the beneficial effect of high calcium and vitamin D supplementation in a 10-year period benefited only a group of 10,578 premenopausal women in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer by 39% and 35%, respectively. There was no benefit of supplementation for the 20,909 postmenopausal women, which is in direct contrast with the Omaha study.

While the latter study  is more reliable in that the supplemental intake was directly controlled (instead of being reported in the larger, Harvard study), the discrepancy makes either result doubtful. It also reminds that no study result, even when coming from those conducted to high professional standards and in good fate, are not necessarily correct.

What we do know is that vitamin D is, among other functions, necessary for proper functioning of the immune system - particularly the part in charge of warding off infections - and that is needed for proper cell formation and proliferation. That alone makes it an anti-cancer factor; we just can't put reliable numbers on it yet. R