Vitamin supplements do not reduce the risk of cancer

my grandad took them when he had it but sadly passed away two day before my brithday R I P grandada matt
:( xxxxx

Are these studies meant for the public or are they just meant to gradually alter the scientific control over such supplements? What I’m asking is why are these studies so readily available to the public when there always seems to be a conflicting study just around the corner. Surely, as the general public, we just wait for a government policy and not react to each and every confusing study. Surely the stress that they cause outweighs any value that they contain ;-)

No, it hasn’t. I’ve followed most studies since this article and I’ve seen both positive and negative results.
While the vitamin D hypothesis, especially relating to *overall* mortality is incredibly promising it remains unproven. We need RCTs before public policy may change.

However, based on the sum of the evidence it’d be foolish to go vitamin D deficient on an individual level… IMHO

Given the research published on vitamin d and cancer since this was written would it not be better to amend this in the light of new evidence. Or put a notice at the top pointing to new work.

Vitamin d supplementation DOES reduce cancer risk. All the evidence points that way. It is also finally been accepted as important to MS, heart problems and blood pressure. It is also important in the function of the innate immune system

“even for vitamin D, it is premature to advise that the wider population should start taking supplements.”
Why so? All the experts on Vitamin D (William B. Grant is only one of them), actually, disagree with this statement (as far as I know).
It may be premature to advise it for overall cancer prevention (e.g. NHANES III results), but not for the dozens other benefits vitamin D exerts.

Your analysis of vitamin D effects seems highly biased. In your other post you mentioned “vitamin D as a marker of general health”, most studies actually adjust for BMI, activity, etc and the association of vitamin D with health was actually stronger not weaker in already healthy people in the NHANES III cohort. The most impressive data definitely does not come from ecological studies either.

I’m not sure if your dismissal of the heavily criticised paper by Lappe, et al was completely fair. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the cancer incidence higher in both groups and not just the placebo group?

Well, now that I think about it, you actually (unintentionally?) advised almost world-wide vitamin D supplementation saying “people who are likely to become vitamin D deficient” should supplemet. You do know how wide-spread vitamin D deficiency (insufficiency) is?

Sorry, I believe your blog post was not in the best interest of your readers (and their health).

US researchers studying the effect of beta carotene, vitamin C and vitamin E, either singly or in combination, on over 7,000 women found the supplements did not reduce their risk of getting cancer compared to women who did not take the supplements. However an expert who reviewed the study said that while the overall message was there was no link, it uncovered some interesting evidence that should not be overlooked. And other supplements such as creatine;

What is key with many minerals and vitamins is the form in which they are presented. Mineral taken in an inorganic for are adsorbed into the body at a far greater rate than minerals that are contained in an organic form.

Because of this the majority of products on the market are ineffective.

There is also research that natural anti-tumour drugs might become available:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TFD-49C5FF8-3&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8922a5ef1996173fd66079a2dd77d764

There are supplements with these ingredients on the market now. Maybe the authors might investigate these too.

Is it possible that this study merely reflects that most vitamin supplements are ineffective because they are inferior products or perhaps the vitamin ratios are incorrect? Maybe the conclusions to be drawn are that we should ensure we are taking effective vitamin supplements.
It seems obvious that you need vitamins, otherwise a ‘healthy’ diet would be equivalent to a non-healthy diet. If your diet is not providing certain vitamins, then getting them through a pill seems like a decent idea. However, if the vitamins you’re using are not absorbable or in less than optimal ratios, then perhaps you would not see benefits.
Is there any way to find out which vitamins are used in these studies?

If you are going to test a substance as a cancer preventative you might first do some pharmacokinetic studies to determine the dose and frequency needed to maintain plasma levels. Giving subjects stat doses of vitamins ie 500mg vitamin C is hardly likely to do anything-and then conducting meta analysis of these studies will yield even less. You forgot to mention all the studies on vitamin D including the propective placebo controlled trial conducted by Lappe showing 60-77% reduction in cancer depending on how you analyze the data-also that the Canadian Cancer Society now recommend everyone takes vitamin D to prevent cancer.