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

Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#51

Post by sacnoradhq »

lowmagnet wrote: post #34
experimenting wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time, the Mayo Clinic claimed vitamin D supplementation to combat SARS infections had no scientific proof and was possibly dangerous. If such an authoritative source claims pseudo science and danger, your annecdote could very well be true.

Low vitamin D reduces correct responses by the immune system, and contributes to autoimmune disorders and results in higher possibility of infection.

It's not a surprise that fundamental health improves outcomes against novel infections. Public health should be encouraging significant evidence-based habits routinely.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#52

Post by rayrey »

nemo44x wrote: post #21
docflabby wrote: post #3

People who avoid the sun more likely to take vitamin D supplements?

Yeah my immediate thought too. Give 2500 rabid tanners vitamin D and let’s look at skin cancer rates in 10 years vs the population of rabid tanners.

I assume the rabies will get them first

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#53

Post by mandmandam »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #37
mandmandam wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's absolutely bonkers - it really blows me away - that we have such debate on the effects of single molecules, studied for untold millions of human hours. And yet many people think we can improve on nature; tinkering and toying with vastly more complex machinery and life, that we barely understand. We are still discovering entire structures in the human body, ffs, yet are seemingly happy to allow vast monoc…

> we have such debate on the effects of single molecules Most complex systems have simple limiters, almost by definition of the latter. You don’t need to solve fluid dynamics and combustion physics to understand that more air through a carburettor causes an internal combustion engine to run faster.

But we don't understand the effect of Vitamin C, or D. Your analogy is deeply flawed. We understand engines well enough, but we don't truly understand the machinery of even a single cell of our body.

We have broad strokes - take C for a cold. Take D in winter. But there are trained scientists who disagree with even these statements! We have people making a mockery of Nobel Prize winners over it! Where have you ever seen such debate about combustion engines.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#54

Post by kixiQu »

jmckib wrote: post #16
docflabby wrote: post #3

People who avoid the sun more likely to take vitamin D supplements?

I don’t have access to the full paper, but I would expect that they at least tried to control for sun exposure. In general, if you can think of an obvious confounding factor in about five seconds, then it’s a safe assumption that professional researchers thought of it too.

Or, at least, a safer assumption: it's worth checking to see what they said about it before publicly speculating.

And indeed, it seems they did survey for sun exposure and include it in their analysis, and they caveat a lot of their references to other work in their introduction noting where other studies didn't.

https://www.naturalhealthresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/202...

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#55

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mandmandam wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we have such debate on the effects of single molecules Most complex systems have simple limiters, almost by definition of the latter. You don’t need to solve fluid dynamics and combustion physics to understand that more air through a carburettor causes an internal combustion engine to run faster.

But we don't understand the effect of Vitamin C, or D. Your analogy is deeply flawed. We understand engines well enough, but we don't truly understand the machinery of even a single cell of our body. We have broad strokes - take C for a cold. Take D in winter. But there are trained scientists who disagree with even these statements! We have people making a mockery of Nobel Prize winners over it! Where have you ever s…

> we don't understand the effect of Vitamin C, or D

Sure. But we know they are important. Despite being “single molecules.”

> We have broad strokes - take C for a cold. Take D in winter. But there are trained scientists who disagree with even these statements!

Because they appear unsubstantiated. You’re describing treatments. That’s a different ball game.

> We have people making a mockery of Nobel Prize winners over it

Pauling did not win his Nobel for vitamin C.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#56

Post by thenerdhead »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #44
thenerdhead wrote: post #33

I see research on essential vitamins all the time on HN. It really makes you think. There's cohorts who will debunk the studies based on methodology or glaring flaws. There's cohorts who will provide anecdotal evidence in support. There's even cohorts who will bring up a history lesson/"conspiracy" we all forgot about. It really makes you wonder about essential vitamins though. There's so many of these types of studi…

Two points: > experts continue to weigh in that we don't get enough essential vitamins and minerals through our diets First, would be better to list some specifics rather than "experts say". But even if so, saying that people don't get enough of some micronutrient X from food, it doesn't necessarily follow that supplementation with pills will lead to better health (except in some specific and extreme circumstances th…

1. No, because the specifics change every week. One week you're deficient in fiber, the next Vitamin D. Look to the mainstream news or online articles for this ridiculousness.

2. Maybe consider looking at modern research. https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-cent...

> Nevermind that Pauling's vitamin C theories have been thoroughly disproven.

Nothing in science is proven. Only re-evaluated.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#57

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mistrial9 wrote: post #46
mistrial9 wrote: post #6

I was told recently that US Doctors have lost their license over this topic; no idea if that is true.

source: recently retired US Registered Nurse

A retired nurse passed you a rumour about a license revocal, a publicly-documented process. Instead of asking for evidence, you repeated the rumour and then tossed in a CYA disclaimer.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#59

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

thenerdhead wrote: post #56
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points: > experts continue to weigh in that we don't get enough essential vitamins and minerals through our diets First, would be better to list some specifics rather than "experts say". But even if so, saying that people don't get enough of some micronutrient X from food, it doesn't necessarily follow that supplementation with pills will lead to better health (except in some specific and extreme circumstances th…

1. No, because the specifics change every week. One week you're deficient in fiber, the next Vitamin D. Look to the mainstream news or online articles for this ridiculousness. 2. Maybe consider looking at modern research. https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-cent... > Nevermind that Pauling's vitamin C theories have been thoroughly disproven. Nothing in science is proven. Only re-evaluated.

The funny thing about the link that you give is that the hypothesis around intravenous Vitamin C is literally the exact opposite around Pauling's beliefs of oral vitamin C.

That is, taken intravenously, Vitamin C generates free radicals like hydrogen peroxide that are particularly dangerous to cancer cells. This is the exact opposite of oral administration of Vitamin V where it acts as an antioxidant.

Re: Regular use of Vitamin D supplement is associated with fewer melanoma cases

#60

Post by OJFord »

globular-toast wrote: post #26
cheald wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people in the first world are heavily deficient in vitamin D, and deficiency is linked to a whole host of health issues and vulnerabilities. It's dirt cheap and essentially completely safe below toxicity levels (which are quite difficult to hit - I take 10,000 IU daily, and even with that my bloodwork shows me in the lower quartile of the normal range). Its metabolite is a steroidal hormone, so it's pretty o…

That seems like far too much, especially if you ever go outside. In the UK doctors recommend no more than 1,000 IU/day during the winter months. Any more than that is only if you are actually deficient. It seems really hard to get clear answers on it, though. People taking 10x the recommended dose of something seems strange. It makes me think it's being stored somewhere that isn't your blood. It's fat-soluble after a…

> In the UK doctors recommend no more than 1,000 IU/day during the winter months.

You're mixing two pieces of advice:

1) everyone 'should consider' taking 400IU daily over winter (under-4s year-round);

2) infants should not take more than 1,000IU daily (adults: 4,000IU)

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-...

Of course, 4,000 daily is still only 28,000 weekly, not 50k, but GP is doing it on the basis of blood work & physician review; the NHS website certainly isn't intended to contradict that, it's generic advice in lieu of it.

Post reply on HN