Posted on 05/12/2011 10:41:03 AM PDT by dangerdoc
The study does not make me concerned that elevated Vitamin D level causes cancer. That is probably just a fluke of doing too many subanalysis tests. If you do 10 tests with a p=.05 you will have a 50% false positive rate even higher if you are looking for both a positive and negative change.
The interesting thing is that in the whole test and looking at all sub groups, it does not look like low Vitamin D levels is a statistically significant risk factor for cancer, even considering the seasonal factor in measurement.
Interesting. Thanks.
How is this for a confounder. Since the effect of high Vitamin D was seen in men, as a population which men would have the highest Vitamin D levels?
Out of all the common trades, I’m thinking construction. Construction worker’s have much higher smoking rates that the general population. Smoking is related to both lung and non-colon GI cancer. This is a significant confounder.
As I mention to Decimon, I don’t think this study shows that elevated Vitamin D levels are a cancer risk. If they were, you would expect to see it across race and gender. The interesting thing is that low Vitamin D levels was not found to be a significant cancer risk in any subgroup or in the study as a whole.
Not sure, it would have been my wife that signed it.
Can’t find any more info on this study. They have a lock on it though it’s not a new publish.
I have the same problem. Seems like I take a lot and struggle to keep my D level above 50. One of my docs says that he thinks the level should be around 100-110. That’s what a life guards level would be. Can you get in the sun at all? 10-15 minutes a day without sun tan lotion. As long as you get no burn or tan. The darker your skin, the longer it takes in the sun to get vit. D. Also weight can have an affect too. The heavier you are the longer it takes to get vit. D from the sun. Also the farther north you are the less D you get from the sun. Where I live you could stay out in the sun all day long in the winter and get none.
Your welcome!!! Just don’t stay in the sun 30 mintues :) You’ll get a tan or burn. The usually recommendation is 10-15 minutes a day without sun tan lotion, in mid-day sun. Avoid any kind of burn or tan, both will inhibit your absorption of vitamin D.
I am about as white as a person could be and do burn easily.I’m fairy far north,SE Ohio, too so the sun does little most of the year. I don’t think they have ever got my level higher than 60.Most likely I have alway been deficient thus the problem with type 1 diabetes at 9yo?
Correlation is not causation. Repeat over and over in your mind every time you read a medical study. Researchers and journalists are always forgetting this.
You can get to much D and if you do, that's not a good thing. But, it takes a lot and is pretty hard to do. The other thing I found out is don't take your D with vitamin A. The D won't get absorbed as well.
“by the idiots who are now giving us this bogus study information”
They looked at Vitamin D levels and then followed the group for years to see what happened, then published the results. What exactly do you think is bogus?
This is what the author had to say about the paper.
“The large NHANES III database provides a unique opportunity to evaluate in detail the relation between vitamin D and diseases in the U.S. Study limitations include the measurement of vitamin D levels only at baseline. The findings suggest that we don’t yet have the final word on the relationship between vitamin D and human health and that claims that vitamin D protects against specific cancers are not necessarily supported by the facts. Dermatologists can use this information to counter people’s presumption that sun exposure or tanning bed use will protect against cancer mortality; in fact, such exposure may actually increase deaths from some cancers.”
This is what is bogus:
Suppose a guy was in the sun all the time, yet he was using Sun block. Now, he never really got burned but was in the sun a hell of lot and the sun block he was using (and we were all using it) was blocking the production of Vitamin D yet allowing the UV types through that caused cancer. Imagine how long he would have to be in the sun to have high levels of Vitamin D, and then imagine all those cancer causing UV rays that were unblocked until a few years ago by sunblocks.
In essence, Sun block was a terrible thing, it was blocking Vitamin D production while letting through the truly harmful rays.
So, in reality, we won’t know anything about this until 20 years from now. The truth is, cancer rates are in large part really bad because we were told to use sun block, if we had no sunblock we would have truly protected ourselves, gotten a color slowly until we could stay in the sun all day without burning, which is what I do.
And, in central america and so on where they are in the intense sunlight all day long without any sunblock the forms of cancer we get are nearly unheard of. And don’t claim it’s thier skin color, unless you mean getting a good tan on your skin is really healthy.
I honestly can’t follow what you are saying. Do you think that UV light is causing increased lung and GI cancer?
If you look a few posts up, you can see my theory on the association.
That goes to UV exposure and not vitamin D oral supplement. Can't tell if the study made any distinction.
I think the point is that there was some thought that the higher risk of skin cancer was balanced by a lower risk of other cancers but if there is no trade off then the dermatologists win the argument.
Personally I don’t care if I have wrinkles or a few skin cancers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.