[Coleus]

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
The news and other items in this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice.

[Does so]

If I understand your objection, it boils down to that the original study is valid, but the MSM “misleads by omission” in subsequent news?

[aruanan]

The reaction of the media to the study revealed in a stark way their deeply ingrained prejudice against nutritional solutions to cancer.

Strictly speaking, this is not a nutritional solution since adequate levels of vitamin D can be made by the body with enough exposure to sunlight (and in the summer time, it's only about 10 min per day). And it's no wonder that vitamin D could be protective against one type of cancer and not others because there are many different diseases that are all called cancer.

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!

[Popocatapetl]

Important also to remember that correlation does not equal causation. That is, vitamin D may not stave off their cancer as much as an aggressive cancer might reduce patient vitamin D level faster. (I also note that there are different *kinds* of vitamin D, which may behave very differently. For example, “D3” is unique in having several medicinal properties that other versions of vitamin D do not. Fortunately on supplement bottles, they usually note what form of vitamin D it is.)

Cancer is almost an intelligent enemy, that it, it *adapts* when attacked, to protect itself. Truly an eerie phenomenon.

For this reason, it is now being recommended that when they attack a cancer, they do so with three different techniques at the same time, overwhelming its ability to adjust.

So be wary of a “magic bullet”. You can’t just kill Dracula with a stake through the heart. You also have to behead him and bury him at a crossroads, as it were.