http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/165/6/684?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Fontana&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Showing posts with label healthy: vitamin D. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthy: vitamin D. Show all posts
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Sun 'protects against cancer'
Sun 'protects against cancer'
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2003/11/21 10:27:30 GMT
Sun 'protects against cancer'
Staying out of the sun completely may increase your chances of developing
cancer, say doctors.
For years, experts have advised people to cover up in the sun to protect
themselves from skin cancer.
But a letter in this week's British Medical Journal warns people against
taking this advice to the extreme.
Professor Cedric Garland from the University of California said a lack of
sun can reduce levels of vitamin D, which may increase the risk of cancer.
The sun is a major source of vitamin D. Studies have suggested this
vitamin can protect against colon, breast, prostate and other cancers.
Sun exposure Professor Garland said people living in Britain should ensure they are get between 10 and 15 minutes of sun exposure each day, weather permitting.
"Residents of the UK should aim for 10 to 15 minutes a day in the sun when
the weather allows, without sunscreen to allow adequate synthesis of vitamin D," he wrote.
Our diet is also an important source of Vitamin D
Sara Hiom, Cancer Research UK
He also suggested they should supplement their diets to ensure they are
getting enough vitamin D, particularly during winter.
To read the full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3226184.stm
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2003/11/21 10:27:30 GMT
Sun 'protects against cancer'
Staying out of the sun completely may increase your chances of developing
cancer, say doctors.
For years, experts have advised people to cover up in the sun to protect
themselves from skin cancer.
But a letter in this week's British Medical Journal warns people against
taking this advice to the extreme.
Professor Cedric Garland from the University of California said a lack of
sun can reduce levels of vitamin D, which may increase the risk of cancer.
The sun is a major source of vitamin D. Studies have suggested this
vitamin can protect against colon, breast, prostate and other cancers.
Sun exposure Professor Garland said people living in Britain should ensure they are get between 10 and 15 minutes of sun exposure each day, weather permitting.
"Residents of the UK should aim for 10 to 15 minutes a day in the sun when
the weather allows, without sunscreen to allow adequate synthesis of vitamin D," he wrote.
Our diet is also an important source of Vitamin D
Sara Hiom, Cancer Research UK
He also suggested they should supplement their diets to ensure they are
getting enough vitamin D, particularly during winter.
To read the full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3226184.stm
Thursday, February 26, 2009
How to Slash World Cancer Rates By 90 Percent: Healthy Foods, Exercise and Vitamin D
How to Slash World Cancer Rates By 90 Percent: Healthy Foods, Exercise and Vitamin D
http://www.NaturalNews.com/025730.html
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) Although you won't hear this from the cancer industry or the drug companies that profit from cancer, there's an easy, low-cost and remarkably safe way to slash cancer rates around the world by about one-third, says the World Cancer Research Fund: Promote healthy foods and exercise! (http://www.wcrf-uk.org)
According to research just released by the WCRF, simple changes in diet and exercise can prevent nearly 40 percent of breast and pancreatic cancers, 36 percent of lung cancers, over 60 percent of mouth cancers, a quarter of kidney cancers and 45 percent of bowel cancers.
Remarkably, these results were achieved without any mention of vitamin D! By adding vitamin D to the mix, which by itself has been demonstrated to prevent an astonishing 77 percent of all cancers (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html), cancer prevention rates approaching 90 percent overall can be easily achieved.
This report also did not mention eliminating dangerous cancer-causing chemicals from the diet, such as sodium nitrite found in processed meats (hot dogs, sausage, bacon, etc.) and artificial chemical sweeteners. It also did not take into account the health benefits of avoiding cancer-causing chemicals in personal care products such as shampoo, antibacterial soap, common fragrance products, hand lotions and so on (choose 100% natural, USDA-certified organic versions of these products to avoid the toxic chemicals).
Avoiding mammograms, which harm ten women for every one that it helps (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html), also greatly reduces the risk of breast cancer. A much safer alternative is to use breast thermograms, which offer far more accurate detection without the dangerous radiation.
If you take all lifestyle changes into account, achieving a 90 percent reduction in overall cancer rates is quite readily achievable.
Low cancer rates means low profits for the cancer industry
This is terrible news for the cancer industry, which preys on cancer patients and exploits them for profit. As of today, the cancer industry still refuses to teach women about vitamin D. This includes all the pink ribbon cancer non-profit groups, by the way, who simultaneously claim to be searching for "the cure" even while insisting there is no such thing as a cure. Prevention of cancer isn't even on their radar. After all, if 9 out of 10 women never even got breast cancer, these groups would lose their power (and their jobs).
The success of the cancer industry depends entirely on the population remaining ignorant about cancer prevention strategies that are cheap, safe and remarkably effective.
Mammogram and chemotherapy pushers want women to believe cancer is inevitable -- a genetic defect they have no control over. What they refuse to admit (publicly, at least) is that the expression of so-called "cancer genes" is almost entirely controlled by lifestyle choices. Thus, even a woman whose mother and grandmother had breast cancer can reduce her risk of breast cancer to near zero by simply changing her lifestyle choices, starting with dietary choices and healthy sunlight exposure (for vitamin D).
http://www.NaturalNews.com/025730.html
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) Although you won't hear this from the cancer industry or the drug companies that profit from cancer, there's an easy, low-cost and remarkably safe way to slash cancer rates around the world by about one-third, says the World Cancer Research Fund: Promote healthy foods and exercise! (http://www.wcrf-uk.org)
According to research just released by the WCRF, simple changes in diet and exercise can prevent nearly 40 percent of breast and pancreatic cancers, 36 percent of lung cancers, over 60 percent of mouth cancers, a quarter of kidney cancers and 45 percent of bowel cancers.
Remarkably, these results were achieved without any mention of vitamin D! By adding vitamin D to the mix, which by itself has been demonstrated to prevent an astonishing 77 percent of all cancers (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html), cancer prevention rates approaching 90 percent overall can be easily achieved.
This report also did not mention eliminating dangerous cancer-causing chemicals from the diet, such as sodium nitrite found in processed meats (hot dogs, sausage, bacon, etc.) and artificial chemical sweeteners. It also did not take into account the health benefits of avoiding cancer-causing chemicals in personal care products such as shampoo, antibacterial soap, common fragrance products, hand lotions and so on (choose 100% natural, USDA-certified organic versions of these products to avoid the toxic chemicals).
Avoiding mammograms, which harm ten women for every one that it helps (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html), also greatly reduces the risk of breast cancer. A much safer alternative is to use breast thermograms, which offer far more accurate detection without the dangerous radiation.
If you take all lifestyle changes into account, achieving a 90 percent reduction in overall cancer rates is quite readily achievable.
Low cancer rates means low profits for the cancer industry
This is terrible news for the cancer industry, which preys on cancer patients and exploits them for profit. As of today, the cancer industry still refuses to teach women about vitamin D. This includes all the pink ribbon cancer non-profit groups, by the way, who simultaneously claim to be searching for "the cure" even while insisting there is no such thing as a cure. Prevention of cancer isn't even on their radar. After all, if 9 out of 10 women never even got breast cancer, these groups would lose their power (and their jobs).
The success of the cancer industry depends entirely on the population remaining ignorant about cancer prevention strategies that are cheap, safe and remarkably effective.
Mammogram and chemotherapy pushers want women to believe cancer is inevitable -- a genetic defect they have no control over. What they refuse to admit (publicly, at least) is that the expression of so-called "cancer genes" is almost entirely controlled by lifestyle choices. Thus, even a woman whose mother and grandmother had breast cancer can reduce her risk of breast cancer to near zero by simply changing her lifestyle choices, starting with dietary choices and healthy sunlight exposure (for vitamin D).
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Avoid Flu Shots With the One Vitamin That Will Stop Flu In Its Tracks
source: Avoid Flu Shots With the One Vitamin That Will Stop Flu In Its Tracks
Another influenza season is beginning, and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will strongly urge Americans to get a flu shot. In fact, the CDC mounts a well-orchestrated campaign each season to generate interest and demand for flu shots.
But a recent study published in the October issue of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu appeared to have no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons.
At first glance, the data did suggest that children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years derived some protection from vaccination in these years. But after adjusting for potentially relevant variables, the researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined.
Additionally, a Group Health study found that flu shots do not protect elderly people against developing pneumonia -- the primary cause of death resulting as a complication of the flu. Others have questioned whether there is any mortality benefit with influenza vaccination. Vaccination coverage among the elderly increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now, but there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza or pneumonia.
There is some evidence that flu shots cause Alzheimer’s disease, most likely as a result of combining mercury with aluminum and formaldehyde. Mercury in vaccines has also been implicated as a cause of autism.
Three other serious adverse reactions to the flu vaccine are joint inflammation and arthritis, anaphylactic shock (and other life-threatening allergic reactions), and Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralytic autoimmune disease.
One credible hypothesis that explains the seasonal nature of flu is that influenza is a vitamin D deficiency disease.
Vitamin D levels in your blood fall to their lowest point during flu seasons. Unable to be protected by the body’s own antibiotics (antimicrobial peptides) that are released by vitamin D, a person with a low vitamin D blood level is more vulnerable to contracting colds, influenza, and other respiratory infections.
Studies show that children with rickets, a vitamin D-deficient skeletal disorder, suffer from frequent respiratory infections, and children exposed to sunlight are less likely to get a cold. The increased number of deaths that occur in winter, largely from pneumonia and cardiovascular diseases, are most likely due to vitamin D deficiency.
Unfortunately, now, for the first time, flu vaccination is also being pushed for virtually all children -- not just those under 5.
This is a huge change. Previously, flu vaccine was recommended only for youngsters under 5, who can become dangerously ill from influenza. This year, the government is recommending that children from age 6 months to 18 years be vaccinated, expanding inoculations to 30 million more school-age children.
The government argues that while older children seldom get as sick as the younger ones, it's a bigger population that catches flu at higher rates, so the change should cut missed school, and parents' missed work when they catch the illness from their children.
Of course, this policy ignores the fact that a systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
