Vitamin D in cancer interview

Link to summary of the VITAL study concluding little impact of vitamin D on Cancer:

https://www.vitalstudy.org/findings.html

The study is flawed. The test subjects were given too little vitamin D and maintained too low a blood plasma level to have an effect.

The so-called "normal" blood level range  of 20-50 ng/ml is way too low for cancer patients. Ideal level is around 70 ng/ml. (where I maintain my level).

Vitamin D is more properly named a hormone. Just about every body system (especially bone marrow blood) has vitamin D receptors. Vitamin D 'activates' our immune system.

Below is an interesting video on vitamin D and cancer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA5YOcZWDeY

The discussion presented in the video linked above by Dr. Garland is instructive.

A better constructed "vital" study would have had varying doses of vitamin D up to blood levels of 100 ng/ml and track the results. They did not do that. As a result, they are leading the public to believe that vitamin D supplementation has no impact on cancer and so is not necessary. This is very unfortunate. The dose given to the study participants was just too low (in my opinion).

In my personal experience as a CML patient who had accelerated blasts and generally unwell around diagnosis, I can tell you that once I raised my blood plasma level of vitamin D up to around 70 ng/ml and kept it there, my blast count went to ZERO. I never had zero blasts until I raised my vitamin D level. Also - once I raised my vitamin D level up to 70 ng/ml, I never  - never - had a cold or flu again. Not once. Maybe a scratchy throat a year ago that lasted a day while my friends and neighbors were sick as dogs - and I was around them all and did not get sick.

No doubt in my mind the importance of vitamin D on immune health. AND cancer is a failure of our immune system.

I love scientists - I really do. I am one. But the vital study is yet again an example of what happens when statistically based studies do not look at the entire system - just one variable is changed and the rest is kept fixed. They miss the forest through the trees. They can not conclude that vitamin D has no impact. They can only conclude that based on the design of their study at the doses used, vitamin D has no "apparent" impact. More study is needed. I agree that more study is needed. Get the dose up and do it again. And vitamin D does not work alone. We know that vitamin D works with vitamin K2 in cardiovascular health (K2 moves calcium out of soft tissue using vitamin D to place in bone). So no surprise to me that the vital scientists found no link between vitamin D and heart disease. They need to look at vitamin K2 levels at the same time (which they did not do). It is vitamin K2 which is cardio protective - but K2 needs D to work. So if a person is deficient in D - it prevents K2 from doing its job.

I,  for one - will never - stop taking vitamin D (as D3) (unless in the sun on a Bahama beach) (or K2 for that matter). The VITAL study has done a disservice to the public.