Guest guest Posted April 27, 2010 Report Share Posted April 27, 2010 http://www.newhopeforcancer.org/cancer-treatment.html This site gives a brief explanation of what we are basically trying to do with natural therapies. It's in a very easy to read form and for me, provides a nice guideline, kinda, fill in the blanks template to put each supplement/therapy. When I list what I'm taking on a piece of paper, it's difficult for me to tell what each item does: angiogenesis, aromatase inhibitor, increase T-Cells etc. and there may be " holes " in my therapy that I may miss. I learned from this site as well that Vit D2 works just as effectively as D3 in inhibiting cancer without the high dose danger of increasing calcium levels. Louisestage 4 BC ,_._,___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2010 Report Share Posted April 27, 2010 I opened up my mail box this morning to find two perfectly-conflicting opinions. Both are below: At 07:02 AM 4/27/2010, Louise wrote: > ><http://www.newhopeforcancer.org/cancer-treatment.html>http://www.newhopeforcan\ cer.org/cancer-treatment.html > >I learned from this site that Vit D2 works just as effectively as D3 >in inhibiting cancer without the high dose danger of increasing calcium levels. >Louisestage 4 BC ------------------------------------------ [and this one was apparently clipped from a newsletter:] There are two forms of vitamin D that the human body can synthesize and use... One is the anti-aging miracle making waves in medical journals around the world...The other is cheap, ineffective and was deemed nearly worthless by the esteemed Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. The dirty secret is that the useless form is sometimes used by supplements and often used by pricey prescription pills! Is YOUR vitamin D MIGHTY or as worthless as sawdust...? Vitamin D2 is often crammed into supplements and prescription pills because...it's dirt cheap. Vitamin D3, however, is as premium as it gets. In fact, scientists at Creighton University and Medical University of South Carolina proved with a controlled, double-blind study that revealed vitamin D3 is 300% more effective than D2. [in my seminars I emphasize how medical/marketing newsletters expand their circulations/sales by always having something exciting to say or alarming to say. It is getting a bit tiresome to read about the hackneyed " dirty secret. " Perhaps someone on this list can provide a fresher phrase. ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2010 Report Share Posted April 27, 2010 , thank you for that post. I respect your opinion. What do you recommend? Stick with D3? Add some D2? Or switch to D2? Also, grassrootshealth.org does lots of studies on Vit D and for $40 will test your vit D levels. Louise From: VGammill <vgammill> Subject: Re: [ ] Website on Therapies I opened up my mail box this morning to find two perfectly-conflicting opinions. Both are below: At 07:02 AM 4/27/2010, Louise wrote: > ><http://www.newhopeforcancer.org/cancer-treatment.html>http://www.newhopeforcan\ cer.org/cancer-treatment.html > >I learned from this site that Vit D2 works just as effectively as D3 >in inhibiting cancer without the high dose danger of increasing calcium levels. >Louisestage 4 BC ------------------------------------------ [and this one was apparently clipped from a newsletter:] There are two forms of vitamin D that the human body can synthesize and use... One is the anti-aging miracle making waves in medical journals around the world...The other is cheap, ineffective and was deemed nearly worthless by the esteemed Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. The dirty secret is that the useless form is sometimes used by supplements and often used by pricey prescription pills! Is YOUR vitamin D MIGHTY or as worthless as sawdust...? Vitamin D2 is often crammed into supplements and prescription pills because...it's dirt cheap. Vitamin D3, however, is as premium as it gets. In fact, scientists at Creighton University and Medical University of South Carolina proved with a controlled, double-blind study that revealed vitamin D3 is 300% more effective than D2. [in my seminars I emphasize how medical/marketing newsletters expand their circulations/sales by always having something exciting to say or alarming to say. It is getting a bit tiresome to read about the hackneyed " dirty secret. " Perhaps someone on this list can provide a fresher phrase. ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2010 Report Share Posted April 27, 2010 Most people are low on Vit D. I routinely recommend sun (California has the best) and calcitriol (non-prescription in Mexico) to do a little catch up, but I don't go to high doses or use vitamin D, calcitriol, or analogs as a therapy unless the intention is differentiation such as after chemo or with low grade cancers. I don't have a lot of confidence in the vitamin D tests, although some might be quite good. At 11:57 AM 4/27/2010, you wrote: > >, thank you for that post. I respect your opinion. What do >you recommend? Stick with D3? Add some D2? Or switch to D2? Also, >grassrootshealth.org does lots of studies on Vit D and for $40 will >test your vit D levels. > >Louise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 I have been taking d for a while and I did a test with grassroots and it came back high 133 d3 <4 d2 normal 32-100. What do you think of this, or anyone else? Thanks, Robyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.