OK, I've got some time to kill.
http://www.knowledgeofhealth.com/report.as...n%20C,%20Cancer"MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH REPORT
INTRAVENOUS VITAMIN C KILLS CANCER CELLS
Recall how hydrogen peroxide is poured on wounds to kill germs. Well now researchers clearly show high-dose vitamin C, when administered intravenously, can increase hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) levels within cancer cells and kills them. I.V. vitamin C was also demonstrated to kill germs and may be an effective therapy for infectious disease.
With a growing body of evidence mounting, National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers conceded today that intravenous vitamin C may be an effective treatment for cancer. Last year the same researchers reported a similar study but the news media failed to publish it.
The latest study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confirms the work of Nobel-Prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling who conducted cancer research in the 1970s with vitamin C. Dr. Pauling's studies were discredited at the time by poorly conducted research studies at the Mayo Clinic.
Unlike cancer drugs, I.V. vitamin C selectively killed cancer cells, but not healthy cells, and showed no toxicity. The ability of intravenous vitamin C to kill lymphoma cells was remarkable – almost 100% at easily achievable blood serum concentrations."
Vitamin D and cancer risk:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPrevent...=3256349&page=1"...new research published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that vitamin D supplements may have another benefit: a 60 percent to 77 percent lower risk of cancer.
"Our study shows that with adequate vitamin D, cancer can be prevented -- or a high incidence of it can," said Joan Lappe, a professor of nursing and medicine at Creighton University and the lead author of the study.
"This is the first study that shows, in a clinical trial, that adequate levels of vitamin D can reduce the risk of cancer."
The research may already be impacting public health policy in at least one country. According to a release posted on its Web site, the Canadian Cancer Society is planning an announcement Friday that all adults should start taking vitamin D supplements. It's the first-ever move by a major public health organization to endorse daily use of the vitamin as a cancer-prevention therapy for an entire population. "
and
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/23042.php"Animal studies have shown that treatment of cancer with vitamin D demonstrates both anti-proliferative and anti-invasive properties...
When the joint effects of surgery season and vitamin D intake were considered, the researchers found:
-- Patients with the highest vitamin D intake who had surgery in the summer had statistically significantly better outcomes - a three-fold better disease-free survival and a four-fold better overall survival - than patients who had surgery during winter with the lowest vitamin D intake. The five-year disease-free survival was 83 percent versus 46 percent, respectively, and the five-year overall survival rate was 72 percent compared to 30 percent, respectively.
and:
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/Path/fac/yi_fen_lee.htm1. Anti-tumor effects of Vitamin D. Using prostate cancer as a experimental model to study the mechanisms how vitamin D exerts its chemopreventive, anti-proliferative, anti-invasive, and anti-angiogenesis effects.
and:
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/post-2324689.htmlNew data continue to emerge regarding the health benefits of vitamin D beyond
its role in bone. The intakes associated with those benefits suggest a
need for levels of supplementation, food fortification, or both that
are higher than current levels.
...and:
We present a risk assessment based on relevant, well-designed human
clinical trials of vitamin D. Collectively, the absence of toxicity in
trials conducted in healthy adults that used vitamin D dose > or = 250
microg/d (10,000 IU vitamin D3) supports the confident selection of
this value as the UL. "
and:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041016/bob9.aspVieth and Holick are among the scientists who advocate increasing "sensible" outdoor activity so people can boost their sun exposure and thus vitamin D supply.
The amount of sun required would pose virtually no increased cancer risk, Holick says. "We evolved in sunlight, and so our whole system is dependent on some exposure to sunlight," he says. In fact, "our health depends on it," he adds.
Most researchers recommend that people get much of their vitamin D intake from supplements and recommend that they boost daily vitamin D intakes to around 1,000 IU.
Holick says that physicians could measure 25-D in blood and prescribe increasing doses of the vitamin until 80 nmol/l is reached. Such personalized prescriptions could take into account lifestyle and pigmentation. For instance, Heaney's research in Omaha indicates that elderly, dark-skinned women could require up to 2,000 IU of vitamin D to keep 25-D concentrations around 80 nmol/l.
Linda D. Meyers, director of the Food and Nutrition Board, which sets the government's recommended daily intake values for all vitamins and some minerals, agrees that "it really is time to look at those [intake standards] again for vitamin D." The standard probably needs to be higher, she acknowledges.
That took me about fifteen minutes Googling the points I made.
What'd I miss?
Got a link?