Is the breast cancer awareness effort overdone?

Dr. Garland's research group is investigating the issue of the loss of tight junctions as the initial cause of cancer. Once intercellular communications are weakened by the loss of tight junctions, mutated cells are allowed to proliferate. Vitamin D is probably better classified as a hormone than a vitamin, and its hormonal effects regulate the junctions. He describes the theory at about 24 minutes into the video referenced above.

An important aspect of the tight junction theory is that it doesn't depend on the source of genetic damage. Regardless of the insult, be it ionizing radiation, toxic chemicals, or whatever, it is the body's response to the sick cells that determines the growth of cancer. Vitamin D doesn't control the insults, it is required for effective response to those insults.

As a personal note, I am directly familiar with at least 8 cases of cancer in people close to me. Of the 8, 3 are still alive and doing well. None of the people who received only surgery/chemo/radiation treatment are alive today. Two women on vitamin D supplementation in addition to chemo/radiation are doing well after about 5 years. One woman had tumor removal only (no chemo/radiation), and has followed a plant based whole foods diet since her cancer was detected over a decade ago. I could go into the horror stories about what chemo/radiation does, but such reports are generally available. It is the success with vitamin D and plant based diets that is newsworthy.

Oh, and don't blame Dr. Garland for my extrapolation of his data. He is very careful to identify the difference between what is known, how well it is known, and what is theory. Researchers spend their careers studying things and always want to do further study. My approach is a survival tactic based on my best estimates of what is probably true and its cost/benefit. I don't want to die of a knowledge gap between what researchers know and what bureaucrats have recognized.

 

Getting back to the original topic, the reason breast cancer gets more press is that it has better PR people. The whole campaign was well conceived, and continues to be well presented. It's naive to think that press attention comes from importance.

Add to this what Galaxy said: boobs are important in our western culture. If you don't think so, try to explain the large number of mammoplasty augmentations.

Tom

 

a linear relationship between thing A and thing B does not imply that thing A causes thing B, or vice versa. it especially does not mean that adding a whole ton of thing A to the mix will prevent thing B from happening.

relationship between "getting it" and promoting it vigorously: inverse. linear.

 

Heart disease is hardly any different. Even without counting the smoking-derived heart disease, which kills about the same number as smoking-derived lung cancer.

Yet heart disease is not sneered at the way lung cancer often is.