Gyroscopic Investing

Do Vitamin D or curcumin reduce the risk of colon or prostate cancer by over 40%?

Reub wrote: Do Vitamin D or curcumin reduce the risk of colon or prostate cancer by over 40%?

I'm guessing that's "relative" risk, not "absolute" risk. You need to determine the trade off in absolute terms. For instance, your chance of getting the flu is typically 4 out of 100 and getting a flu shot reduces your chances of getting the flu to 2 out if 100, so researchers and the media will tell you that the flu shot reduces your chances of getting the flu by 50%. What they don't tell you is that the "absolute" risk reduction is only 2%. Never mind that people who get the flu shot are more likely to wash their hands or take Vitamin C (known as the "healthy user effect").

Now, if 1 out of 10 people got internal bleeding or macular degeneration from a flu shot, it wouldn't be very a very desirable trade off since the absolute risk reduction is only 2% (from 4% risk to 2% risk). So, you need to look at your absolute risk to determine if the trade off is really worth it or not.

"Relative" risk is always used to sell a particular narrative to the public, often through the media or your doctor (i.e. wonder drugs, product labeling).

Gumby raises a superb point.

I've posted it in its own thread but this ancient Taubes piece is worth reading:

Epidemiology faces its limits.


http://geography.ssc.uwo.ca/faculty/bax ... e_1995.pdf

I'm sure there have been discussions about this clarifying or adding to it, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.

Additionally, a 41% reduction in liver cancer:

"The researchers found people taking aspirin were 41 percent less likely to develop liver cancer, also called hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and were 45 percent less likely to die from chronic liver disease (CLD). People who took non-aspirin NSAIDs were 26 percent less likely to die from liver disease, but had no significant protection against liver cancer.

"Aspirin, in particular, when used exclusively or with other non-aspirin NSAIDs showed a consistent protective effect related to both HCC incidence and CLD mortality, regardless of the frequency or exclusivity of use," the researchers wrote."

Liver cancer strikes 29,000 people a year and kills more than 20,000 of them

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-575 ... r-disease/

MachineGhost wrote:

Reub wrote: That sure seems significant! Cancer and heart disease prevention is much more beneficial, at least to me, than slightly increasing a risk of hearing loss or vision or even GI bleeding.

To me, a 15% probability of getting macular degeneration or 10% for GI bleeding at the 10 year mark is not "slight".  I already have significant amounts of hearing loss and would hardly want to speed it up even more!

I would rather use safer and direct anti-cancer bioagents, i.e. Vitamin D, curcumin, iodine, etc..

  MG, the increased risk of MCD is one in a hundred. The reduction of risk for many of the major cancers borders on 50%. To me that is an easy decision.

Reub, you keep citing relative risk and it's a very naïve way to assess the trade off. Your chances of getting complications from aspirin are almost equal to the chances of it helping you (less than 5% chance either way). For higher doses of aspirin (>100 mg), the chances of complications jumps to 10% or greater, but it's chances of helping you remain below 5%.

Reub wrote: Do Vitamin D or curcumin reduce the risk of colon or prostate cancer by over 40%?

For Vitamin D, all cancers in general are 50% or more lowered, including breast, prostate, colon, esophagus, pancreas, ovary, rectum, bladder, kidney, lung, uterus, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma.  And a 60% reduction in just four years, or a 77% reduction excluding those that already had cancer during the first year.  In other words, just popping a pill reduces your cancer by 75% with no side effects!  Isn't that the "miracle drug" you are looking for?

Some specifics: Coronary heart attack by 142% (absolute), colon by 50%, breast cancer by 30%-50%, prostate cancer by 49%-52%, ovary by 36%.

Since curcumin intake is harder to measure observationally in humans than Vitamin D, there's an abundance of published studies using animals.  Some samples: 62% lower liver cancer incidence and tumors 81% lower, inhibits metastasis by 70%, reduces pro-carcinogenic estrogen growth by 98%, reduces pro-carcinogenic DDT growth by 75%, reduces two pro-carcinogenic estrogen mimickers growth by 90%.  Also, see: http://examine.com/supplements/Curcumin/#summary12

I take Vitamin D and curcumin. But are there double-blind scientific studies that back up your numbers, as there are with aspirin? Also, aren't there risks associated with intake of these supplements as well?

Reub wrote: I take Vitamin D and curcumin. Also, aren't there risks associated with intake of these supplements as well

Vitamin D is a vitamin.  Your body has to have it.  Unless you get whopping blood levels low risk.
Curcumin is in curry and has been eaten forever. Yes, there are probably some select people (given phase I and phase II issues) who it might cause problems, but this is far fewer than the number of people it is likely to help.

Reub wrote: But are there double-blind scientific studies that back up your numbers, as there are with aspirin?

Benko wrote: NB more research data existing on asprin obviously says nothing about whether asprin is more effective or safe.

I really can't add anything to what I've already written.

Such an interesting discussion from such a dull-sounding thread title.

It just seems to me that I would accept an increase in the risk of developing MCD up to 1 in a hundred from 1 in 200 and an elevated risk of slight bleeding if I could reduce my risk of developing many common cancers, heart attacks, strokes caused by blood clots, Alzheimers and dementia, deep vein thrombosis, and Parkinson's by up to 50%.

Reub wrote: It just seems to me that I would accept an increase in the risk of developing MCD up to 1 in a hundred from 1 in 200 and an elevated risk of slight bleeding if I could reduce my risk of developing many common cancers, heart attacks, strokes caused by blood clots, Alzheimers and dementia, deep vein thrombosis, and Parkinson's by up to 50%.

Reub,

Please read this...

Telegraph: Healthy people 'should not take aspirin to prevent heart attack'

Not only are you overstating Aspirin's ability to help you, but you are also understating aspirin's risks. You say "an elevated risk of slight bleeding." But that's false. The risk is far more serious than that...

The Telegraph wrote:“When you talk about stomach bleeding it can sound trivial but it is a killer if it is severe enough and as deadly as having a heart attack or stroke.

“The risks should not be dismissed.”?

“In people who have never had a heart attack or stroke, the evidence does not support them being on [aspirin]."
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... ttack.html

Stomach bleeding and hemorrhage are not slight issues. You go to the hospital, and it can kill you.

Consider the following...

The Telegraph wrote:But what of the recent study on bowel cancer, the third most common cancer in Britain and which kills 600,000 people worldwide annually? Some doctors point out that while the study shows thousands of lives might indeed be saved by aspirin, the reduction in absolute risk of bowel cancer is about 1.5% (from 4% to 2.5%) .

Dr Ike Iheanacho, the DTB’s editor, says that the reduction in risk is a 'sizeable benefit’ from society’s point of view.

'But one problem with this kind of data is that it’s often reported as if the benefit to the individual is huge,’ he says.

'In effect, around 60 people would have to take the aspirin continuously for around 5 years to prevent one death from bowel cancer during a 20-year period,’ he says. 'While that remains a considerable benefit, it could clearly put a very different perspective on things for an individual deciding whether to take aspirin for this purpose.

'And this particular research didn’t report adverse events related to aspirin. Let’s not forget that the drug can cause major internal bleeding and this can kill. If you’re going to advise people to take aspirin, you have to factor in potential harms to give them a balanced view of the potential effects of treatment.’
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/81627 ... -drug.html

Reub, once again, unless you are a high-risk individual, the chances of aspirin helping you are very, very tiny — less than 5% chance. The chances of complications from aspirin are nearly equal to the chances of it helping you. The chances of complications increases as you age. So, why on Earth would you take those chances? For healthy low-risk individuals, those are pretty bad odds.

If you stop reading the Bayer-sponsored press releases, and take the time to look at the evidence for healthy people, you will see that the benefits do not outweigh the risks for healthy low-risk individuals:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/bleeding-r ... d=16501311

and also...

Harvard Heart Letter wrote:Men are twice as likely as women to have gastrointestinal bleeding [from aspirin]... Taking aspirin to prevent a heart attack or stroke isn't for everyone. It makes the most sense if your chance of having a heart attack or stroke (calculated online or with your doctor) is greater than the odds of it causing a problem. For example, a 65-year-old woman with a 20% chance of having a stroke over the next 10 years is a good candidate for aspirin, since her potential for having a problem with aspirin is low (about 8%).
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newslette ... escription

You need to weigh the benefit for your absolute risk vs risk of complications. You aren't doing that properly.

See: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newslette ... escription

If you are a healthy low-risk individual, there's no possible way you could come to the conclusion that aspirin is right for you — unless you were brainwashed by Bayer-sponsored advertorials.

Reub wrote: I take Vitamin D and curcumin. But are there double-blind scientific studies that back up your numbers, as there are with aspirin? Also, aren't there risks associated with intake of these supplements as well?

I don't know if there are any double blind studies, because there's way too many studies for me to care enough to go through and find out if there are.  Aspirin just simply doesn't impress me on a summary benefit/cost ratio based on the evidence, double-blind or not.  I side with nature and evolution over a drug.

Whatever risks (I'm unaware of any) there are from optimal curcumin and vitamin D doses is laughable in the face of the clear risks from even baby aspirin.  If they haven't yet checked more than 10 years out for negative effects, imagine what it would be after 20, 30, 40, etc. 

If you still insist on going down this road, then may I suggest taking white willow bark?

I am reconsidering.

MangoMan wrote: Just curious: Is the incidence of these cancers lower in the South where there is more sunshine, and thus presumably a lower incidence of Vit D deficiency?

Have to question that presumption a bit. My wife and I live in Florida and she is from the Philippines where she grew up and lived for most of her life. She was just diagnosed with a vitamin D deficiency. How can that be? Because people who grow up in sunny climates sometimes tend to go greater measures to stay out of the sun than their northern counterparts. With my wife, it has been a lifelong habit.

notsheigetz wrote:

MangoMan wrote: Just curious: Is the incidence of these cancers lower in the South where there is more sunshine, and thus presumably a lower incidence of Vit D deficiency?

Have to question that presumption a bit. My wife and I live in Florida and she is from the Philippines where she grew up and lived for most of her life. She was just diagnosed with a vitamin D deficiency. How can that be? Because people who grow up in sunny climates sometimes tend to go greater measures to stay out of the sun than their northern counterparts. With my wife, it has been a lifelong habit.

I imagine your wife probably has darker skin, too. I've heard that dark-skinned folks who move to cloudy northern climates often get diagnosed with Vitamin D deficiency.

Pointedstick wrote: I imagine your wife probably has darker skin, too. I've heard that dark-skinned folks who move to cloudy northern climates often get diagnosed with Vitamin D deficiency.

My wife has beautiful dark skin as do all Filipinas. When she was growing up in the Philippines her grandmother used to smack her with a stick and even tie her to a table to keep her from going outside and playing in the sun. To her credit she went out any way but now, at age 47, she is learning that her grandmother may have been right because she keeps going to dermatologists to cure some dark blemishes on her face that don't want to go away. No luck so far although it doesn't matter to me.

With that kind of history the diagnosis of Vitamin D deficiency didn't surprise me at all.

BTW, aspirin reduces the risk of skin cancer considerably.

Pointedstick wrote:I imagine your wife probably has darker skin, too. I've heard that dark-skinned folks who move to cloudy northern climates often get diagnosed with Vitamin D deficiency.

So... it turns out that skin pigments are nature's way of regulating your Vitamin D creation — particularly for your ancestral region (i.e. dark-skinned ancestors, who lived near the equator, didn't get too much Vitamin D from being in the sun all day).

And here's where it gets really interesting. If your Vitamin D status is in good shape, you won't sunburn easily. In fact, fair-skinned individuals who say they sunburn easily are often just Vitamin D deficient. One interesting theory is that a sunburn is a Vitamin D deficient person's way of quickly making Vitamin D in the skin — when there body is desperate for Vitamin D.

See: Vitamin D Council: High vitamin D levels protect against sunburn

I recently raised my Vitamin D status over the past few months and took a trip to Florida. To experiment, I didn't use any sunscreen (as normally I would burn). Sure enough, I didn't burn despite being in the bright sun all day... I just got tan. So, it seems that a nice healthy tan is actually a sign that your body is storing extra Vitamin D!

And to think that doctors and dermatologists are recommending people use sunscreen and stay out of the sun. Turns out, the scientific proof that sunscreen prevents skin cancer is mixed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunburn#Co ... _sunscreen

It seems some of the chemicals in sunscreen may cause cancer when baked in the sun. And, if anything, the advice to avoid the sun and use sunscreen seems to just make people Vitamin D deficient, which can also lead to skin cancer! (Of course, I am oversimplifying the problem since a good sunscreen can be useful for preventing severe sunburns in Vitamin D deficient people).

Looks like this is yet another situation where conventional wisdom is misguided.

MangoMan wrote: Just curious: Is the incidence of these cancers lower in the South where there is more sunshine, and thus presumably a lower incidence of Vit D deficiency?

That does generally hold true.  But, the South also has the highest rates of obesity, so they just succumb to other diseases at a higher rate instead.



Vitamin D is a hormone.  It really needs to be renamed and re-filed under bioidentical hormone replacement.  Like all hormones, D transparently passes through through cell walls and interacts with DNA to activate genomic sequences.

New study of 60,000 women:

"Aspirin Linked to Lower Risk of Deadly Skin Cancer"

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aspirin-li ... d=18704991

"The study of nearly 60,000 post-menopausal women found those who used aspirin regularly were 21 percent less likely to be diagnosed with melanoma, while aspirin use for five years or more was tied to a 30 percent reduction in melanoma risk."

Reub wrote: New study of 60,000 women:

"Aspirin Linked to Lower Risk of Deadly Skin Cancer"

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aspirin-li ... d=18704991

"The study of nearly 60,000 post-menopausal women found those who used aspirin regularly were 21 percent less likely to be diagnosed with melanoma, while aspirin use for five years or more was tied to a 30 percent reduction in melanoma risk."

There are observed anti-metastatic effect of aspirin. I believe it inhibits the development of new blood vessels that would otherwise contribute to a tumor's growth and spread. However, just because something might have that effect doesn't mean you want to take it. All drugs have side effects.

Let's keep in mind that the reason this study showed up in every media outlet around the country on the exact same day is because someone in a PR department somewhere made sure of it. For instance, the media doesn't tell you about the study where Vitamin D from the sun is inversely associated with the risk of death from melanoma:

http://pmid.us/18406602

If you get your health advice from media outlets, just be aware that you are getting your health advice from public relations departments.

Your study doesn't mention Vitamin D, only sun exposure. And it only covers 260 people. I believe in taking Vitamin D and I have paused my usage of aspirin because I value the opinions of those on this site. But it sure seems to have so many benefits. Possibly there is a way to get the maximum benefit of aspirin with the least downside, like limiting intake to only 2X per week and using an enteric version? 

Reub wrote: Your study doesn't mention Vitamin D, only sun exposure. And it only covers 260 people. I believe in taking Vitamin D and I have paused my usage of aspirin because I value the opinions of those on this site. But it sure seems to have so many benefits. Possibly there is a way to get the maximum benefit of aspirin with the least downside, like limiting intake to only 2X per week and using an enteric version?

It is speculated that Vitamin D, from the sun, is what is protective of cancer. I'm not aware of any other benefits from the sun, are you? UVB — which is what our skin uses to make Vitamin D — is only available at high sun angles. UVA from the sun — which is always visible — is generally considered to be damaging to the skin. The trick is to get sun exposure when the sun is high enough in the sky when the benefits of UVB greatly outweigh the risks of UVA.

But, I find it interesting that the lead author of the Aspirin study, Jean Tang, is heavily researching the role of Vitamin D and sunlight in skin cancer:

See: http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/Jean_Tang/

Want to make a bet that her Vitamin D studies don't get the same kind of press that her aspirin studies do? The sun doesn't have a public relations team to promote its benefits. The only reason you are hearing about these aspirin studies in the media is because someone really wants you to buy aspirin.

Anyways, all of these studies are purely observational in that they tell you loose correlative benefits but not the risks. If aspirin takers were more likely to experience internal bleeding during the study, or developed macular degeneration, they didn't tell you about it in the media reports. You just hear the headline that the PR departments want you to hear. Again, it takes a massive coordinated effort to get a study like that to appear on every major media outlet on the same day.

And finally, the media isn't telling you that the melanoma incidence reduction is measured in relative risk — not absolute risk. The drug's side-effect tradeoff doesn't look so hot when you examine absolute risk.

Reub wrote:Possibly there is a way to get the maximum benefit of aspirin with the least downside, like limiting intake to only 2X per week and using an enteric version?

Benko and/or MG should know. Just curious, but do you consider yourself to be high risk for cancer?

No, but I would like not to get it!