Re: Negative aspects of breast screening

No Ted I'm afraid I didn't it was too lomg and boring so oodbyeeee

Re: Negative aspects of breast screening

At risk of feeding the troll...I have to say that I am flabbergasted that someone has the audacity to post very selective "evidence" as proven fact on here. It takes little time to find information on the internet re the lack of evidence confirming the benefits suggested and indeed there is significant evidence of harm from Vitamin D toxicity.
Treatment or prevention of any condition should be holistic and suggesting Vitamin D for everything without knowing details of a person's state of health, lifestyle, medication, diet etc is potentially dangerous.
Rant over.

Re: Negative aspects of breast screening

Well said Ania darlin'

Re: Negative aspects of breast screening

Awww, thanks UJ

Re: Negative aspects of breast screening

I stand by the evidence I've provided.
If you can show I'm wrong then please do so.

With the internet it is possible to find a great deal of information that is out of date or totally ridiculous.
I am only suggesting that the Vitamin D levels that work best to resolve inflammation are likely to be those that will best help prevent Breast Cancer or Breast cancer recurrence.
Now we know Vitamin D is most effective as an anti inflammatory agent at 125nmol/l and that is the level humans naturally attain and maintain living as hunter gatherer's it's simply common sense to apply that knowledge.

If you want to get optimum performance from your car you start by making sure it's set according to the makers original specifications. If none of the settings are anything like those for which the vehicle was designed to function optimally then you will always get sub-optimal performance.

The same with your body except we didn't come with an owner's manual. But we can, using our common sense, surmise that one of the reasons people with paler skins survived better away from the Equator was that living naked with paler skins creates 6 times more vitamin D than people with dark skins. Pale skinned HUNTER GATHERER humans therefore stored vitamin D during the summer for use in winter. We don't live outdoor naked lives so if we want to benefit from the evolutionary advantage pale skins provide we have to substitute EFFECTIVE amount of Vitamin D.

Perhaps you can explain the science showing how it could be that using a lower or equal amount of vitamin D3, biologically identical to the form and amount naturally made in human skin, could be harmful?

Is your skin trying to kill you when you lay naked in the midday sun and it creates 10,000iu of cholecalciferol?

Do we all die when we sunbathe?
No sane person rings up their doctor to ask permission to sunbathe when it's warm and sunny so why should anyone consult their doctor before using an equivalent amount of sunshine.
If we are going to reduce the incidence and mortality from Breast Cancer we need to understand the role of Chronic Inflammation in Breast Cancer
You then need to try to understand

Vitamin D mechanisms in Inflammation

When you've done that you should be better able to appreciate why I am so confident that we can and should work harder to prevent Breast cancer incidence and why continuing with a failed strategy such as the current screening program serves only the best interests of the drug companies and does nothing to reduce the number of people with Breast Cancer.

Re: Negative aspects of breast screening

I notice that he has posted again..though I've no idea what he said, but I lay odds it's about vitamin D again..again.
Overdosing on vitamin D can be dangerous and the symptoms are :-
•nausea
•vomiting
•poor appetite
•constipation (possibly alternating with diarrhea)
•weakness
•weight loss
•tingling sensations in the mouth
•confusion
•heart rhythm abnormalities

The immediate symptoms of vitamin D overdose are:
•abdominal cramps
•nausea
•vomiting
Copied and pasted from a British site, not American

Re: Negative aspects of breast screening

Blimey, it's a wonder we all made it out of the cave isn't it?

Re: Negative aspects of breast screening

Indeed which is why we should disregard any information that isn't credible.
As I pointed out in my previous post human DNA is set to produce 10,000iu as SOON AS you take your clothes off and lay naked in the midday sun.
Given sunlight exposure human DNA is also programmed to produce ENDORPHINS that stimulate the pleasure centres in the brain to reward us for doing activities that promote health and fertility and are likely to increase survival of the species.

So the amount & type of Vitamin D3 = to that produced in human skin is inherently safe for human DNA otherwise humanity would not have survived the evolutionary process.

Those wanting to dig deeper into the safety of Vitamin D3 may want to study the WIKI Overview Toxicity of vitamin D

It takes many weeks for a really large DAILY dose of vitamin D to become toxic. You would have to take in the region of 50,000iu/daily for several months.

GRASSROOTSHEALTH
If you look at what happens in practice you see no evidence of Vitamin D toxicity in people taking up to 10,000iu/daily.

Re: Negative aspects of breast screening

Ania its good to have some input from a medical professional who knows what they are talking about.

TedHutchinson what really disturbs me us you crass attitute.

I don't think for one moment you stopped to consider that this thread contains many posts from people who have just had or about to have breast screening .

I don't think your insensitive posts are at all appropriate.

Re: Negative aspects of breast screening

Is it consistent with common sense to assume the amounts of cholecalciferol produced in human skin are inherently harmful and potentially toxic?

Perhaps you can produce examples of people suffering vitamin D toxicity from sun exposure?

In order to understand the potential dangers of vitamin D we first have to understand what human DNA evolved to work best with.
The only crass attitudes displayed here are from people who don't read or take the time to understand the information in my posts.
Which is why it's so important for them to understand the importance of what I am saying.

We surely ALL want to see fewer breast cancer deaths and fewer people being diagnosed with breast cancer particularly those who are overtreated for tumors that would, given a rise in Vitamin D status, disappear naturally.

Until people make an effort to understand the science they will continue to be deceived.

None of us should be afraid to tell the truth even when it may conflict with deeply held beliefs.