10/30/2007 8:13:47 PM #

Perhaps you could explain what residual confounding is?  If so, your readers might feel you fully understand the study.

What was the relative risk of breast cancer?  I know the sample size was too small for signifigance but you might want to say what it was?  Is it true that the relative risk of breast cancer was almost four times higher in the group with the lower levels?

The participants with the lowest vitamin D levels had four times more colon cancer than those with the highest.  Again, would you tell me why that is unimportant?

What you are actually doing is defending the American Cancer Society's decision not to follow the Canadian Cancer Society's recommendation of 1000 IU per day of vitamin D.  Say you are wrong and Canada is right?  On whose hands will that blood be?

John Cannell, MD

10/30/2007 10:15:22 PM #

It is my understanding over the six years of the study only one blood test was taken for each individual. What were these serum levels and were they even high  enough to elicit a response or did they mimic the deficits shown by the general population.

b arnold

10/30/2007 10:33:32 PM #

According to their records, two months ago the NIH   sponsored four studies on Vitamin D..that is out of a total of over 11,000 studies, public and private...three on bone growth and Vitamin D...This last month in an embarrassing flurry The NIH sponsored another 200 studies involving vitamin D many have not yet begun...its finally about time...This last study I think will prove to be highly suspect like the few previous studies on low dose vitamin D. Comparing cancer rates by latitude, even in the US it's obvious the studies conclusions are in error.

b arnold

10/30/2007 10:59:22 PM #

archinte.ama-assn.org/.../1159
the mean serum level was a paltry 30ng/ml and lower in women and the elderly over 60.How could any conclusions be made with that starting deficit of data and now its every headline in the world..very poor science.

b arnold

11/1/2007 12:02:01 AM #

THANK-YOU Dr Cannell! For more accurate information on vitamin d3 and disease please visit his website www.vitamindcouncil.com where you will find copies of studies that support its use in prevention and treatment. Even the American Cancer Society knows of the association. When you get to his site click on "research" and then "cancer," scroll down to March 15,2002. The article begins with "An estimate in premature cancer deaths." Amazing...and yet they still do not encourage its use. Until we have that "massive clinical study," we will just sit on it....and continue to die. The NIH (on their site under "vitamin d facts") states that anyone over the ae of 12 MONTHS can safely take 2000 iu's. Why not encourage that? With the ACS hundreds of millions of dollars that we have ENTRUSTED to them, why haven't they taken out a few ads? Shame on you. YOU are blood guilty!

Colleen

11/3/2007 11:46:41 PM #

Your point is eerily coincidental with an opinion I published last week in the Miami Herald. In this piece I tell the tale of prostate cancer prevention with selenium and, at the end, touch on vitamin D. Have a look: http://www.laprp.com/article.php?aid=341

AK

11/7/2007 2:11:46 PM #

Dear Editor,

Regarding the article wrongly titled, "No sign vitamin D lowers cancer risk" (11/5/2007), this study from my colleagues at the U.S. National Cancer Institute actually found a dramatic and statistically significant reduction in deaths from both breast and colon cancer associated with a circulating blood level of more than 62.5 nmol/L of serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D.  

The relative risk reported in the study by Michal Freedman and others published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute was 0.28 for breast cancer when women with the higher versus lower levels of vitamin D were compared.  This suggests that 72 per cent of breast cancer deaths in women might be prevented by adequate vitamin D nutrition; a very strong finding indeed and one consistent with previous literature including results of a clinical trial.

There is no other preventive measure for breast cancer that comes close to this remarkable result.  To achieve this level of circulating vitamin D, a woman needs at least 1,000 International Units (IU) or 25 micrograms of vitamin D3 each day.  A dose of 2,000 IU or 50 mcg is considered entirely safe and would be prudent given vitamin D's other health benefits.  Fifteen minutes of sunshine between ten in the morning and two in the afternoon would also help assure vitamin D adequacy.  

Sincerely yours,

Edward D. Gorham, M.P.H, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor,
Dept of Family and Preventive Medicine
UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
USA

Dr. Edward Gorham

11/10/2007 9:22:13 PM #

Dr. Cannell may not agree with me and others who do not consider the evidence sufficient to warrant a nationwide recommendation by voluntary health organizations in this country at this time for everyone to routinely increase vitamin D intake.  At this point, the decision on whether or not to follow advice such as that offered by Dr. Cannell is one to be made by individuals, not the American Cancer Society.  

We have requested an expedited review by the Institute of Medicine to examine the evidence and consider appropriate recommendations regarding vitamin D supplementation based on that analysis.  

What Dr. Cannell has not said is that similar circumstances in the past--with other vitamins that were thought to be harmless and able to reduce the risk of cancer--showed evidence of harm and/or lack of efficacy when subjected to appropriate study.

To say that my opinion is equivalent to having blood on my hands is an ad hominem attack not worthy of consideration.  His cause would be better served to advocate on behalf of people who need to be screened for colorectal cancer (which would save thousands of lives, based on solid evidence), and join us in encouraging appropriate review of the data and research to definitively answer the issue at hand.

When we succumb to making every medical decision solely on the basis of the strongest advocate's voice, we run the risk of moving medical practice back into an era similar to that from which we are trying to emerge.

If the review and research studies confirm Dr. Cannell's position, that will be welcome.  But we need to once and for all establish the science-based evidence that will conclusively answer the question one way or the other, rather than relying on advocacy to establish dietary and medical practice recommendations for the world.

Len Lichtenfeld

11/12/2007 12:03:46 AM #

Did you or a member of the American Cancer Society attend the vitamin d seminar in Bethesda on Sept. 5-6, 2007? What did you learn? Thanks

Sam

11/12/2007 11:41:35 AM #

I was very surprised to read Dr. Len’s statement that “many of the other studies have tried to infer vitamin D levels through a variety of means, such as asking about dietary habits or inferring a vitamin D level based on descriptions of outdoor activities.”  In the vitamin research world, is this considered good science?  Is there some reason the researchers in those studies wouldn’t have used the research subjects’ blood levels of vitamin D?  Even if one could assume that the self reports were highly accurate, don’t individuals have different rates of absorption of dietary vitamin D?  Many years ago, I learned in a college nutrition course that excess levels of fat-soluble vitamins like vitamin D are stored in the body and can be toxic.  Do we know with certainty that minor symptoms of vitamin D toxicity such as thirst or headache would occur in all individuals to serve as a warning sign before problems such as irreversible renal damage or damage to the blood vessels and lungs would occur?  Even if so, would people be likely to recognize these minor symptoms for what they were?  I suspect things might be easier if the only source of vitamin D was dietary.  However, vitamin D is not your typical fat-soluble vitamin which can only be obtained through food or dietary supplementation.  It is my understanding that the body stops producing vitamin D from the sun after it reaches a level the body requires.  The same is not true for dietary supplementation.  I currently take 600 IU of supplemental vitamin D daily between my multivitamin and calcium supplements.  I drink a fair amount of fortified nonfat milk and I regularly eat fish said to have relatively high levels of vitamin D, such as salmon and tuna.  Interestingly, I have even read that how much vitamin D one gets from fish depends on how much sunlight the fish got and thus how much of the vitamin was synthesized.  I have also read that certain medications can affect absorption.  Do other vitamins and dietary supplements such as fish oil or glucosamine and chondroitin contain vitamin D and/or have an effect on vitamin D levels?  Given the serious consequences of both vitamin D deficiency and toxicity, it seems to me that it would make sense for baseline and periodic blood tests of vitamin D levels to be performed.  As an 8 ½ year endometrial cancer survivor, I would like to take reasonable steps to prevent another cancer.  However, in doing so, I want be confident that I am not inadvertently putting myself at risk for other serious health problems.    

Maureen Kanc

Maureen Urban Kanc

11/14/2007 12:00:39 AM #

I looked at vitamin d council's website and under cancer found about 180 studies posted from pubmed. The vast majority of them seem very positive. Has Dr. Len seen these studies? What does he think? Thanks

Sam

11/27/2007 1:40:42 PM #

Hi Dr. Lichtenfeld,

I'm hosting the next edition of the Cancer Research Blog Carnival and was wondering if you'd like to submit a piece for inclusion. There's more information here: nosugrefneb.com/.../.

Best,
Ben

Ben

12/1/2007 12:55:49 PM #

Dr. Lichtenfeld, you say the American Cancer Society’s hands are free of blood?  You say the Canadian Cancer Society has acted precipitously in recommending that all Canadians take 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily to prevent cancer.  From what I infer of your position, Americans should placidly wait until more randomized controlled trials (RCT), such as Lappe JM, et al. (Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91), accumulate before the American Cancer Society acts.  That is, nothing should be done until more RCT prove vitamin D prevents cancer, one RCT is not enough; epidemiological and animal studies are not enough?  If that is your position, I ask you to point to one human RCT that proves smoking is dangerous?  If you cannot do so, then you must admit that the American Cancer Society's position on smoking is derived from epidemiological studies, animal studies, and a demonstrable mechanism of action, not on RCT?  Vitamin D not only has hundreds of epidemiological studies, thousand of animal studies, and at least four anticancer mechanisms of action, it has something smoking does not have, a RCT.  If future RCT fail to show vitamin D prevents cancer - and you’d better hope they do - you can have the satisfaction of saying “I told you so.”  If future RCT confirm Lappe et al, then look at your hands, the red is the blood of needless cancer deaths.

John Cannell, MD

12/2/2007 1:04:52 AM #

Thank you Dr. Cannell, Dr. Lichtenfield and Dr. Gorham for having this discussion in ACS public space.  Reading it here feels like the beginning of a new era and gives me a small sense of hope.

Dr. Lichtenfield, I'm not sure we're talking about the same era when I say the era from which I believe we need to emerge is the era in which only substances that make someone a lot of money are the ones given the lion's share of scientific attention and ACS marketing....the era in which a study showing very good results on at least one cancer is titled in such a misleading way by our most powerful cancer organization.

The phrase "War on Cancer" has been in use since as early as 1913 (search the New York Times and you'll find at least 20 articles using the term before it was supposedly coined by Richard Nixon in 1971).  Perhaps there were forces at work even back then who knew that cancer was going to be such big business that finding a cheap simple cure would be in conflict with their interests.

Let's hope there's an end in sight to one very very LONG era.

cori h

12/2/2007 7:24:27 PM #

Thank you Dr. Cannell, Dr. Lichtenfeld and Dr. Gorham for having this discussion in ACS public space.  Reading it here feels like the

beginning of a new era and gives me a small sense of hope.

Dr. Lichtenfeld, I'm not sure we're talking about the same era when I say the era from which I believe we need to emerge is the era in

which only substances that make someone a lot of money are the ones given the lions share of scientific attention and ACS

marketing....the era in which a study showing very good results on at least one cancer is titled in such a misleading way by our most

powerful cancer organization.

The phrase "War on Cancer" has been in use since as early as 1913 (search the New York Times and you'll find at least 20 articles

using the term before it was supposedly coined by Richard Nixon in 1971).  Perhaps there were forces at work even back then who

knew that cancer was going to be such big business that finding a cheap simple cure would be in conflict with their interests.

Let's hope there's an end in sight to one very very LONG era.

Thank you Dr. Cannell, Dr. Lichtenfeld and Dr. Gorham for having this discussion in ACS public space.  Reading it here feels like the

beginning of a new era and gives me a small sense of hope.

Dr. Lichtenfeld, I'm not sure we're talking about the same era when I say the era from which I believe we need to emerge is the era in

which only substances that make someone a lot of money are the ones given the lion's share of scientific attention and ACS

marketing....the era in which a study showing very good results on at least one cancer is titled in such a misleading way by our most

powerful cancer organization.

The phrase "War on Cancer" has been in use since as early as 1913 (search the New York Times and you'll find at least 20 articles

using the term before it was supposedly coined by Richard Nixon in 1971).  Perhaps there were forces at work even back then who

knew that cancer was going to be such big business that finding a cheap simple cure would be in conflict with their interests.

Let's hope there's an end in sight to one very very LONG era.

cori h

12/3/2007 1:08:27 AM #

I do apologize for the multiple postings.  It was not intended.

cori h

12/11/2007 1:43:12 PM #

It is a bummer that one month ago I asked if anyone from ACS had attended the vitamin d conference in Sept, and if anyone from ACS has read the studies on vitamin d councils site. Dude, we donate lots of money to your organization. Why no comment?

Sam

12/14/2007 11:18:17 AM #

Recognizing a sign of colon cancer can be life saving. Notify your physician if any of the above symptoms exist. Even if you are wrong, it is better to be safe then sorry. You might also notice bright red blood in your stool. You might not notice a lot of blood, but you will notice some because tumors are known to bleed. http://www.signofcoloncancer.info/

colon cancer

1/3/2008 4:32:54 PM #

I am curious that people can feel so confident in making recommendations for vitamin D based on the kinds of studies that are available. A link between deaths and low Vitamin D levels will likely always be found. Why? For starters, sick people don't go out walking and play outdoor sports like well people; people with poor health habits often don't get out and exercise or eat enough vitamin-rich foods; and old people don't absorb the vitamin as well or make it as efficiently in their skins. So in general, older, sicker, and less health-conscious people will always have lower vitamin D levels. It doesn't take a huge amount of evidence to prove that these people are more likely to die; it's really the question of what causes what.

Canada's situation actually is different, in that the country gets no UV light in winter--if I lived up there I'd be more concerned about vitamin D levels as well. The US has lots of land much closer to the equator, but in a country that sprawls this much, one size does not fit all. I am somewhat concerned when people generalize about 15 minutes a day sun exposure on the hands and face being enough. Of course, Dr. Gorham, who makes this statement, is in sunny San Diego. I'm sure he rarely visits, say, Boston in January, but I daresay that even if he risks frostbite by exposing his hands and face to that weak sunlight for 15 minutes, he won't raise his vitamin D level one iota.

I have lived long enough to have read the headlines touting the newest health fads, but a few years later when the good studies come out, there is disappointment...as with beta carotene, which only a few short years ago had no publicly-noted downside for anyone at any level of intake. These apparent reversals lead to confusion at best, and distrust or cynicism at worst, on the part of the general public. In the world of public health, that is an enormous price to pay.

Patricia95

1/10/2008 4:27:44 AM #

This is a good subject and it's hard to pick the side that's best, use sunscreen and avoid the rays and lose the vitamin D? here's an article from DailyCents.com that speaks of these questions:http://blogs.dailycents.com/?p=788

Mel

1/10/2008 5:14:53 PM #

The study you point to was based on looking at a nutrition study taken from 1988 to 1994. I quote..This study stands out because it was done prospectively.  That means the participants were followed looking forward, and there were actual blood tests which measured vitamin D in the blood."

Unfortunately they don't go on to say one blood test was taken over the entire six year period and never was  it taken in the winter in he northern states since is was taken from a van and it was too cold...One blood test..
Secondly, the test numbers were so low, the majority being a deficit of D..or less the 30ng/ml...many in the teens and lower...between the single blood test and the lower numbers..how can any possible conclusions be made..using that basis neither 5 mg or 50 mg of an antibiotic would treat an infection.

b arnold

1/31/2008 5:00:18 PM #

Why is it a negative when Presidential candidates receive donations from Big Pharma, at times thru the back door? What does Big Pharma get in return? Think about it. In a way they are all sleeping with each other. The American Cancer Society is sleeping with Big Pharma. Why would they endorse something that would hurt their lover financially? How much would Big Pharma lose if we were all vitamin d healthy? Studies suggest alot of money would be saved by consumers, but lost by Big Pharma! And don't forget the FDA is also a "friend with benefits." Nothing worse than a burned lover!

Dan

2/21/2008 2:51:38 PM #

Well, it's about time that someone is standing up to say that Vitamin D is not a cure all. Kudos to Dr L. By reading most of these comments about this finding, it seems most are being dismissive or sarcastic when addressing Dr L for looking for more answers.  I think Dr L is heroic in reporting these findings!  For example, Dr Trevor Marshall has been studying the VDR and innate immunity now for years and has many a scientific explanation as to why some folks that are very ill appear to test for an extremely low 25D.  The conclusions are WRONG to assume one is low in "vitamin D" because of a low 25D level.  This hormone precursor is rapidly converted to 1,25D which is not being measured.  The population is being told to take in more Vitamin D (this hormone precursor) which is like pouring gasoline onto a fire!  Please take a look at Dr Marshall's papers and his study site.  More (D) is not better.  Btw, 25D is a seco steroid and by supplementing our diets and food with this, we are making America sicker!  Just look at the health statistics of our nation. We need more information like this from Dr L and Dr Marshall to heal chronic illness and to save our kids. Let's stop the madness of recommending enormous amounts of such an unnecessary and toxic so called "vitamin" into our food supply!  Thank you.
www.marshallprotocol.com

Reenie G

2/21/2008 5:56:09 PM #

I commend Dr. Lichenfield for not rushing to conclusions about vitamin D and there is another side to the vitamin D debate.

As was brought up in the previous email, biomedical researcher Trevor Marshall’s molecular modeling research - which was published last month in BioEssays - has finally clarified, at the molecular level, the actions of the two vitamin D metabolites 25-D and 1,25-D.  The paper’s conclusion – extra vitamin D is NOT helping the population, nor is the reason it lowers inflammation in patients with cancer correctly understood.

The Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) is a fundamental receptor of the body – it controls the expression hundreds (possibly thousands) of genes, as well as the activity of the innate immune system and the antimicrobial peptides.  One of Marshall’s most critical discoveries is that 25-D (which is a corticosteroid) INACTIVATES the VDR.  This is in contrast to the active form of vitamin D, 1,25-D that activates the receptor.  

It is commonly believed among vitamin D researchers is that if people supplement with extra vitamin D, it will be converted into 1,25-D and activate the VDR. Unfortunately, Marshall's work has revealed that the type of vitamin D derived from supplements and sun remains, for the most part, in its precursor form 25-D. This means that the extra vitamin D we get from fortified food products and supplements is turning the VDR off, not on. That causes a decrease in immune function and gene transcription.

The following article discusses this research in greater detail:

“The truth about vitamin D: 14 reasons why misunderstanding endures”

http://bacteriality.com/2007/09/15/vitamind/

In the same vein, we are often told that vitamin D deficiency is a risk factor for chronic disease. Again, misunderstanding reigns supreme – namely mainstream medicine fails to realize that the low levels of 25-D seen in patients with chronic disease are not CAUSING the disease, but are simply a RESULT of the disease process. As patients accumulate L-form bacteria, the level of the active vitamin D metabolite 1,25-D rises as a result of bacteria-induced blockage of the VDR. As described by Marshall in his newly published paper "Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision making," blockage of the VDR affects numerous feedback pathways – resulting in a downregulation of the body's level of 25-D. This means that what is commonly interpreted as a deficiency is nothing more than a marker of inflammation.

Speaking of Dr. Marshall's newly published paper, here's a link to the article:

TrevorMarshall.com/...-Feb08-Marshall-Preprint.pdf

Dr. Marshall will also be chairing a session "The Vitamin D Receptor, Vitamin D, and Immune Disease." at the upcoming International Conference on Autoimmunity. As you can see his views are being increasingly considered by the mainstream medicine and he is certainly onto something. I know what he has put forth is controversial, but something about the consensus view on vitamin D is clearly wrong. As we continue to take more vitamin D supplements and to fortify more products the rate of chronic disease is only going up.  Take a look at this article which shows that heart disease is one the rise despite the fact that people are consuming more vitamin D then ever.

http://bacteriality.com/news/#supp

Yet, as discussed in this thread, there are many studies which state that that vitamin D is beneficial, particularly in cancer.  What is actually going on is that most diseases of "unknown cause" are actually caused by mutated bacterial forms called L-form bacteria. You can read more about these pathogens here:

“Understanding L-form bacteria”

http://bacteriality.com/2007/08/15/l-forms/

The immune system secretes inflammatory molecules in response to the presence of these bacteria. When patients take extra vitamin D, it remains as 25-D, the corticosteroid that temporarily lowers the patient's inflammation. This may seem like good thing but

Amy Proal

2/21/2008 5:59:30 PM #

Sorry, had to continue my discussion in another post………This may seem like good thing but the problem is that because the immune system is being suppressed, L-form bacteria and other pathogens can spread with much greater ease, making people much sicker in the long run.

This is why researchers at Duke University recently released the results of a study which found that elderly men and women who consumed higher levels of calcium and, in particular, vitamin D are significantly more likely to have greater volumes of brain lesions, indicating regions of damage that can increase risk of cognitive impairment, dementia, depression and death. The team found that vitamin D intake, (mean 341 IU and maximum intake 1014 IU), was the only variable that retained a significant correlation with the brain lesions when analyzed by a multivariate analysis.  Read more about the study here:

“Duke University Researchers connect vitamin D to brain lesions”

http://bacteriality.com/2007/10/24/brain_lesions/

As you can see, there is an entire different side to the vitamin D issue.  In fact, there are now thousands of patients on a treatment called the Marshall Protocol who use low-dose antibiotics and a medication that activates the VDR to slowly wear away at the pleiomorphic bacteria behind most chronic inflammatory diseases.  These patients find that their immune systems only have the strength to target L-form and biofilm bacteria when their level of 25-D is UNDER 20 mg.  The address for the study site, where patient data and more information on the treatment is available, is www.marshallprotocol.com.

I urge Dr. Lichenfield to take a better look at Dr. Marshall’s research.  These concerns about vitamin D MUST be put on the table and addressed before we add any more vitamin D to our diets.  The amount of vitamin D in the food chain already is already causing much of the population to experience immunosuppression, which is greatly contributing to the current epidemic of chronic disease.

In the meantime, Dr. Lichenfield’s decision to wait until all the evidence is in on vitamin D can only be commended.

Amy Proal

3/25/2008 7:35:10 AM #

Amy, D3 is converted to 1,25D locally and D3 is more effective in being converted to the active form than D2.
Vitamin D deficiency is pandemic, you'll find that even relatively healthy people in the developed world are deficient, meaning that though not ill their chances of illness are more apparent down the line
Also bare in mind that despite D advocacy, not enough people are taking useful doses, that's why diseases like heart disease haven't changed.
Reduced vitamin D also leads to higher PTH which is a definite marker for bone loss. The Marshall Protocol seems nothing more than a poor replacement for vitamin D. There is clearly no overwhelming patient satisfaction and Marshall's report is incorrect as the articles he cites are misread, with those researchers themselves advocating more D.

DM

5/3/2008 10:21:26 AM #

http://tinyurl.com/3udeyj
See "Use Restrictions"
So, it doesn't kill one fast with only a little bitty-bit.
Neither will arsenic, or lead, or mercury... but it is recognized that these will make you feel bad after a while and eventually kill you.
Hmmmmmmmm! Remember the movie, "Arsenic and Old Lace"?????

G. Howell

5/3/2008 10:36:08 AM #

For how the product mentioned above at http://tinyurl.com/3udeyj works, see http://tinyurl.com/4oqk7f

G.Howell

8/22/2008 7:18:31 AM #

I always see your blog.
I am looking forward to renewal of your blog.
Please take a look my site, if it's possible.

???????

10/2/2008 5:08:47 PM #

If one works through the literature it becomes clear that the vit. D metabolism consists of more than 8 variables.

Letting people swallow loads of D3 (cholecalciferol), next only measure the levels of 25D (calcidiol) and then have the audacity to call it "science" baffles me.

To reach sound scientfic conclusions, one should measure as many of the variables involved, like the levels, or transcriptional activity of PKA, PTH receptor, TGF beta, Interferon Gamma, CYP27A1, CYP2R1, p300/CBP, CYP24A1, CYP3A4 and, last but not least, 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D, the only transcriptionally active form of vitamin D.

Doing less, especially concerning diseases as serious as cancer, has absolutely NOTHING to do with science, is a disgrace to the medical profession, and is downright criminal IMO.

Frans

1/7/2010 12:27:41 AM #

Choices, treatments, prognosis, fearfully is what every cancer patient and family experience.  What they do not know, might state “a living will“.  Once diagnose with mesothelioma cancer there are many decisions to make.  There are options beyond chemo, radiation, and surgery.  A few simple tips and guidelines can help you live more comfortable with mesothelioma.  Patient and families can consider and evaluate other treatment choices and more natural options instead of using the common medical approach that causes many complications.  With this in mind, I hope and pray for an outcome of greater wellness by restoring a person‘s health that is diagnosed with mesothelioma, by choosing a method toward recovery to remission that will give the best quality of life, states my passion. Regardless, there will be tough decisions making, but with the power of prayer, you will gain strength and wisdom.  A victim of this terminal cancer chooses to take control of his own treatment after doctors tell the family to plan to take their last vacation together.
  An inspiring man by the name of, “James Rhio O’Connor,” proves that by implementing other methods than your standard medical treatments will result in a better prognosis and longer life span. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer that attacks the protective sacs that covers most of the body’s internal organs.  The location of the sac, determines what its name.  The two most common types of these is the sac coving the lungs called the pleural cavity and the sac coving the abdomen, called the peritoneal.  It will affect people differently.  When the cancer spreads, they call this metastasis.  That is why it is important to start a treatment as soon as possible. Unfortunately, symptoms do not appear until 30 to 50 years later.  Some of these symptoms are shortness of breath, weight loss, abdominal pain cause by an increase of abnormal body fluid, anemia, fever, and pain on the face and neck including trouble swallowing.   The cause of mesothelioma is from an exposure to asbestos.  This chemical is present in many products and many people have had exposure without knowing.  Statistically there are over 2000 new cases reported in the United States each year.   More men get mesothelioma than women do to their working environment.  This would include those that work among shipyards, mines, mills, and construction sites.   There are higher cases of white people than black that develops this cancer. The amount of asbestos absorbed that causes mesothelioma is undetermined because people have this cancer with both unknown and known exposure.    A diagnosis is determined and confirmed by a biopsy after other preliminary test are preformed.  Mr. O’Connor had an inspiration to change his given prognosis and I hope that his choices will reflect others.’   The proceeding paragraph states what I would do if a love one or I had this condition.    
    I would look in another direction for treatment options with an open mind.  I would research other cancer survivors that are very similar to mesothelioma and see what they did that was helpful for them.   A place to start and to get more information is on the website www.survivingmesothelioma.com  including the story of the inspiring James “Rhio” O’Connor.  One of many choices of treatment is taking vitamin supplements carefully instructed by a reputable nutritionist.  In addition to vitamins, eating healthier is important.  You feel better when you eat right.   Another option to manage your cancer is to exercise everything that is inside and outside of who you are.  I mean this by, using your inner spirit and your outer body’s energy.  So start praying and exercising.  If we do not nourish our inner and outer self, than we will not gain wisdom and become stronger.  We desire our entire self to feel wonderful! I believe that if we use these natural approaches including those made “James O’Connor” and how he outlived the doctor’s prognosis, it is worth it.  Althoug

Tricia Midleton

6/10/2010 9:37:01 AM #

Cool Waters Holistic Center, Colonics by Alba
Colon hydrotherapy treatments are a way that people can have their colon or large intestine cleansed of toxins and impurities that may harm your body. The treatment consists of cleansing the colon by spraying warm purified water into the colon. Regular tap water is not used because it has chemicals and impurities so sterilized water is used.

People want to have their colons cleansed because it works much better after a colon hydrotherapy treatment. Patients have lost as much as 10 pounds of waste back up that was in their colon as a result of years of undigested food. The treatment dislodges the food as a result of the water and a gentle massage. If you are looking for a colon hydrotherapy clinic then you must already know the health benefits of the treatments.

Of course, you can't that do that yourself at home. Don't even think about it. Call our center and ask for an appointment to tour their facility and to meet with Alba. She is a trained professional and understands what a personal experience the treatment will be and is sensitive to your needs. She will take the time to explain exactly how the therapy is done and what will happen along the way.

Cool Waters Holistic Center, Colonics by Alba