Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

dkfz.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 249 posts

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#161

Post by lez »

For the overcautious theoretic thinkers here, I recommend reading about Coimbra protocol, where 50,000 IU daily is not rare. It can go up to 300,000 IU per day.

At levels above 10,000 IU per day you should take precautions to prevent calcification of the soft tissues: Take Vitamin K (100-200ug), Boron (10-20mg) to prevent calcification. Vitamin A should be dosaged at a ration 1:1 - 1:4 compared to Vit D (same amount or 4 times more of vitamin A) because A and D are anthagonists.

Below 10,000 IU there's only benefits of better health and no risk or precautions needed.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#162

Post by agumonkey »

psychlops wrote: post #143
lynx23 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a high risk cancer patient who is blind, i.e. doesn't necessarily get a lot of sun exposure due to disability + occupation. Given the discussion in this thread regarding correlation with lattitude and cancer risk, me being around 47 deg, and my personal history, I would have expected a caring medical system to suggest vitamin D to me roughly 30 years ago already. But alas, it turns out you have to do your own st…

I don't usually defend the western system, but there are plenty of other systems out there that will caringly prescribe you snake oil. Simply understand that the western system is science based within a limited range. It is usually excellent if the cause of an illness is defined on a black and white test. If not, time for the patient to do the research.

This is the issue raised by comments like the one above. We understand that evidence based medicine handles statistical averages very well. But if you fall out of that, all you're left with is snake oil salesmen. There's a need for an intermediate layer of evidence yet "taylored" (and not kidney-costing if possible).

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#163

Post by ufo »

lez wrote: post #161

For the overcautious theoretic thinkers here, I recommend reading about Coimbra protocol, where 50,000 IU daily is not rare. It can go up to 300,000 IU per day. At levels above 10,000 IU per day you should take precautions to prevent calcification of the soft tissues: Take Vitamin K (100-200ug), Boron (10-20mg) to prevent calcification. Vitamin A should be dosaged at a ration 1:1 - 1:4 compared to Vit D (same amount…

I'm not sure if a quack doctor's miracle cure "protocol" is a good point of comparison...

https://veja.abril.com.br/saude/medicos-questionam-tratament...

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#164

Post by pvaldes »

nicenewtemp84 wrote: post #145
jewayne wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so much worse than you think. Almost ALL doctors want to help. It's system (in this case, the reimbursement system) that makes it impossible to help, even though they want to. The doctors themselves have far less agency than you think.

I actually dated a med student all through medical school and thus made a huge social circle of doctors I've kept in touch with for over a decade as they all became doctors and now have almost a decade of experience too. I'd say about half want to help, but can not due to the system. The other half enjoy maximizing their income through the system and don't care either. So that leaves very very few that are actually a…

Shoulder surgery should not be delayed. The probable retraction of some damaged parts is not a joke. Your friend could have been the lucky one in the pool, but there is also a possibility that in a few years the problem will grow and the surgery required will be much heavier and expensive.

> and without surgery are back competing on the bike.

My bet is that they are on painkillers for life

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#165

Post by reducesuffering »

bregma wrote: post #132
reducesuffering wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that both of these are called "Vitamins" because they are essential to human health? You will have increased risk of many health problems with deficiencies.

Not enough is bad so more than enough must be better?

TFA starts with "Vitamin D deficiency is widespread worldwide and is particularly common among cancer patients."

and concludes "in the summary of the ten studies with daily dosing, the researchers determined a statistically significant twelve percent reduction in cancer mortality."

So yes, not enough is bad, and many require supplementation to get to an ideal level. Nowhere was anyone proposing overdosing.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#166

Post by throw_pm23 »

kpw94 wrote: post #90
atwebb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would especially sunny areas not produce people with more cancer (or certain types)?

https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kuow/files/styles/x_... Sunnier areas have less skin cancers, if that's what you were wondering. Now is it because of the Vitamin D, or because of a more systemic application of sunscreen?

..or something else entirely

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#167

Post by KSS42 »

basisword wrote: post #158
panax wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20,000 is way too high even though you are doing only once/week. 2000 or less daily is more appropriate. Doses that are too high can also cause blood calcium to spike and can pull it out of bones and deposit into soft tissue.

Curious on what basis you're making this recommendation. It's the kind of thing I would normally read and recall at a later stage as good info, but my doctor prescribed me 20k IU a week recently for a period of a couple of months.

The only way to tell is to do a blood test. It took me taking 10k IU a day to get to the mid point recommended range. On the plus side, daily 10K IU is covered by my drug plan. I get my levels tested every 3 months.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#168

Post by Arete314159 »

lynx23 wrote: post #85

It took me a long time, and virtually no help from outside, to discover that vitamin D effectively cures my winter depression. I was never really feeling good around that time of the year, but it wasn't problematic enough to actually do something about it. But when my gut started to revolt around that time too, I started to feel distinctly unwell. So I went to my doctor, who gave me an approintment with a nutrition s…

Me too, I went to doctors when I was in Seattle, they recommended complicated stuff...no Vitamin D though.

I also had a B12 deficiency that contributed to depression, and it was a decade before that was figured out too. But doc's are super eager to prescribe SSRI's.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#169

Post by Arete314159 »

Arete314159 wrote: post #168
lynx23 wrote: post #85

It took me a long time, and virtually no help from outside, to discover that vitamin D effectively cures my winter depression. I was never really feeling good around that time of the year, but it wasn't problematic enough to actually do something about it. But when my gut started to revolt around that time too, I started to feel distinctly unwell. So I went to my doctor, who gave me an approintment with a nutrition s…

Me too, I went to doctors when I was in Seattle, they recommended complicated stuff...no Vitamin D though. I also had a B12 deficiency that contributed to depression, and it was a decade before that was figured out too. But doc's are super eager to prescribe SSRI's.

SSRI's make money, B12 shots and Vitamin D don't. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#170

Post by InitialLastName »

pvaldes wrote: post #164
nicenewtemp84 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually dated a med student all through medical school and thus made a huge social circle of doctors I've kept in touch with for over a decade as they all became doctors and now have almost a decade of experience too. I'd say about half want to help, but can not due to the system. The other half enjoy maximizing their income through the system and don't care either. So that leaves very very few that are actually a…

Shoulder surgery should not be delayed. The probable retraction of some damaged parts is not a joke. Your friend could have been the lucky one in the pool, but there is also a possibility that in a few years the problem will grow and the surgery required will be much heavier and expensive. > and without surgery are back competing on the bike. My bet is that they are on painkillers for life

> My bet is that they are on painkillers for life

Also, they are professional athletes at the peak of their bodies' physical fitness capacity with teams of doctors, physical therapists, and trainers looking after their health with a focus that few of us can imagine, and an overriding ethos of sacrificing their future health on the altar of present performance.

In general, professional athletes' healthcare decisions should probably not be used as a gauge for healthcare decisions by people with priorities other than "maximal physical performance right this moment".

Post reply on HN