This video from Dr. John Campbell discusses a (in his opinion good) meta-analysis of Vitamin D and prostate cancer mortality. According to his assessment of the analysis, Vitamin D reduces all-cause mortality in those with prostate cancer.
The study: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/303...
The video: youtube.com/watch?v=YjtROU1...
You are the second one to post this nonsense. Why do you think a youtube video is better info than 3 huge randomized clinical trials:
prostatecancer.news/2018/07...
It's all about "levels of evidence." I doubt this nurse teacher has even heard of the concept. You are better off following science than the pseudoscience espoused by such quacks.
The rapidly increasing numbers of people who believe something solely because is on a video and projects hope, regardless of real evidence, is alarming…
💯 Correcting all the misinformation posted by well-meaning people on this site would be a full-time job for someone.
Youtube is seductive and caters to the cognitive error called the "availability heuristic." I've thought of doing prostatecancer.news as videos and have even done a couple with Darryl, but I've since thought better of it. I'd rather provide info in writing where I can give links to the highest level-of-evidence, peer-reviewed trials that have been done. Having been trained as a scientist myself, I'd rather foster respect for science.
So true. So much of the information that is not backed by enough of real research science. If it was as easy as some of these videos and information put forth.....well then prevention and treatment would be a snap.
The benefits of certain supplements and such should be directed by a doctor and for reason. There is such a thing as Vitamin D3 toxicity. As well as upsetting balances with in the system can interfere with treatment and medications.
It seems there are conflicting results in these studies. I see no greater evidence on one side or the other. As I have stated on the other Vitamin D3 tread, my doctor recommended I increase my D level, I was tested and it was below the standard level as it is with most cancer patients.
No one is saying that Vitamin D3 is a cure for prostate cancer, in the long run it may improve your odds for survival. I have been taking a D3 supplement for 25 years and have had a good quality of life. Everyone responds differently to drugs and supplements. Over the course of decades, bone loss is a concern. Vitamin D3 and calcium is important for prostate cancer patients.
I stand by this statement
Magnus
"I see no greater evidence on one side or the other." You resemble most people in that you do not understand how to evaluate evidence. A lot of patients look at seemingly conflicting evidence and don't know how to resolve the conflict. That has been part of the project of science since the 17th century. Scientists have learned how to evaluate evidence with the goal of getting to the truth. They have learned over the centuries how to arrive at reproducible conclusions.
If you want to understand why one study provides better evidence than another, you can learn from these:
cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/lev...
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
If you want to "stand by your statement" and continue to only provide your anecdotes, that is certainly your prerogative,
This raises the question......do most Docs actually use a scientific approach when deciding on advice and treatments....or mostly rely on some "board's" evidence review? Even one of the articles states upfront that evidence analysis is a difficult task...and room for disagreement?
Your question makes no sense to me. Evidence review is a scientific approach.
yet stated that experts can and will disagree...not as easy as 1+1=2.
I respect you Tall_Allen, but what harm can come from adding Vitamin D to ones daily diet? I have been taking 200 mcg daily, for years, of D3. It is a very safe supplement.
That is incorrect that that dose is very safe. 200 mcg=8000 IU. Vitamin D accumulates in the liver and body fat. At the dose you think is safe, it pulls calcium out of bone.
• BMD in the radius bone of the arm decreased in all groups in a dose-dependent manner:
-1.2% in the 400 IU/day group
-2.4% in the 4,000 IU/day group
-3.5% in the 10,000 IU/day group
• Hypercalcemia (too much calcium in the blood) and hypercalciuria (too much calcium in the urine) increased with increased Vitamin D dose
jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...
Isn't the correct/reasonable amount that which will put and maintain a person in the target range ?
From my extremely limited (case number of 1), several doctors (MD's and MO's) seemingly don't have time to do any better reading and self-analysis of all the trial papers that are peer reviewed much less all the sources that are not peer reviewed. I have tried to pin down my own MO a few times on specific "information" he has given me his opinion on and I have found that he could not point to any specific published studies and results. There are more people on here, like Tall_Allen who have far more time and often a same level of expertise as most doctors who are overworked and stress or just would rather not do the work (and it is work and time) to dig in to it. Researchers do seem to do the work if it is in their area of expertise.
My MO has said as much. And, like Tall_Allen pointed out, I wouldn't trust anything on YouTube unless I could personally do the "work". I have been a skeptic of taking supplements for improving mortality due to prostate cancer but despite that, and having been trained in science many moons ago, I am open to accepting well qualified results.
One of my pet peeves (I am opinionated in my own right) is those who say I have been taking XYZ for the last 30 years and I am still alive from taking it so it must be the reason PCa has not killed me yet. I've been breathing air for 72 years and I am still alive too.
Don't forget the old song that went, "I've been smoking all my life and I ain't dead yet."
This guy is a quack. He is a PhD (in Nursing) doctor not a medical doctor.
Recommended Vitamin D Level?
