DWQA Questions › Tag: breast cancer
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
A viewer asks: “Being aware of Creator’s previous answers on Vitamin D3 supplementation I was shocked to discover a paper from 2014 “A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D”. The paper claims that the Recommended Daily Allowance advocated by the Institute of Medicine for Vitamin D was incorrectly calculated! In fact, analyzing the data correctly, nearly 9000 IUs per day are required to achieve target levels (600 IU per day is the USA recommended level). I was struck by how closely the 9000 IU figure matched Creator’s “daily doses of 5,000 to 10,000 IU vitamin D3 will rarely be harmful.” What is Creator’s perspective on this “miscalculation” coming to light?”
ClosedNicola asked 4 weeks ago • 
67 views0 answers0 votes
A British group reported recently that administration of vitamin D2, which is converted to vitamin D3 by the body, may be disadvantageous. A review of random controlled trials showed that taking vitamin D2 can lead to a decrease in vitamin D3 levels, the more active form generated by sunlight exposure. The research indicates that D2 supplementation may not only be less effective, but can also lead to lower concentrations of D3 in the circulation. [Emily I G Brown, et al. Effect of Vitamin D2 Supplementation on 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutr Rev, 2025 Sep 18:nuaf166.doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuaf166]. Is this an accurate and meaningful assessment? What is most important for us to know?
ClosedNicola asked 4 weeks ago • 
66 views0 answers0 votes
A systematic review of 416 medical journal articles affirmed a strong association between higher serum vitamin D levels and a lower risk of bladder, breast, colon, endometrial, esophageal, gallbladder, kidney, ovarian, pancreatic, rectal, stomach, and vulvar cancers, as well as Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. The review also uncovered lower risks of metastasis and mortality from cancer in patients with higher levels of vitamin D. While vitamin D levels of 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/L) were adequate for bone and muscle health, reduction of cancer risk and mortality required levels greater than 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L) and fell further with levels above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L). The review cautioned that studies showing no benefit for those taking less than 5,000 IU per day might be misleading. [Wimalawansa SJ. Vitamin D’s impact on cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review. Nutrients. 2025 Jul 16;17(14):2333. Doi: 10.3390/nu17142333.] Is this a fair summary of vitamin D benefits for limiting incidence and severity of cancer?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
73 views0 answers0 votes
You have told us that 5000 IU of vitamin D3 taken twice a day would be safe and helpful for many, many people. Is that enough to get serum levels in a useful range for cancer prevention?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
70 views0 answers0 votes
Studies have shown that vitamin D levels have an inverted U-shaped curve, where low levels (<29.7 nmol/L) result in shortened telomeres on DNA, a sign of aging, but so do high levels of vitamin D (>95.9 nmol/L). Population-based studies and randomized clinical trials have shown a U- or J-shaped curve and suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes in those with the highest serum Vitamin D levels, including falls, fractures, and frailty. Most studies have reported a higher risk in those participants with serum levels above 100 nmol/L. Are the deleterious effects noted in these studies caused by elevated vitamin D? If so, your support for taking 5,000 to 10,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily seems risky. What is most important for us to know?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
65 views0 answers0 votes
Given that 85% of cancers are caused by viruses, is this the reason chemotherapy often fails to cure cancer, because the usual cytotoxic drugs and radiation treatment fail to eliminate chronic viruses that cause a return and spread of malignant cells?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
327 views0 answers0 votes
Given the fact you have stated that 85% of cancers are caused by viruses, and that there are few good antivirals, especially ones safe and inexpensive enough to be taken for prolonged periods, would ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine be useful as anticancer treatments?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
354 views0 answers0 votes
Will some virus strains causing cancer respond better to one drug more than the other (ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine)?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
285 views0 answers0 votes
Is there an advantage in taking both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine together for cancer treatment and would that be safe? Or would it be better to try one for a period of time and then switch to the other if there is no apparent symptomatic relief?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
308 views0 answers0 votes
A news report states: “A study by researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital reveals that the incidence of early onset cancers—including breast, colon, esophagus, kidney, liver, and pancreas—has dramatically increased around the world, with the rise beginning around 1990. In an effort to understand why many more people under 50 are being diagnosed with cancer, scientists conducted extensive analyses of available data, including information on early life exposures that might have contributed to the trend. Results are published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. They observed something called the birth cohort effect. This effect shows that each successive group of people born at a later time—e.g., a decade later—have a higher risk of developing cancer later in life, likely due to risk factors they were exposed to at a young age.” Has this steady increase in cancer among people born in each passing decade been caused by exposing these generations to cancer-causing viruses more systematically, or is there another explanation?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
397 views0 answers0 votes
To what extent is the reoccurrence of cancerous tumors after aggressive treatment due to latent cancer-causing viruses restarting malignant transformation to form a new tumor, rather than failure of the chemotherapy, often in conjunction with surgery and/or radiation, to eliminate all malignant cells from the first bout of illness?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
306 views0 answers0 votes
Is it safe and helpful to tell my client how she acquired her breast cancer? She is saying God gave it to her.
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
354 views0 answers0 votes
Does the superiority of Advanced Mitochondrial Formula over Ultra Accel II for curing cancer apply to a majority of other people as well?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
323 views0 answers0 votes
A practitioner asks: “Is cancer caused by a virus, as claimed by Royal Rife? Did Dr. Rife actually discover and isolate the cancer virus?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
464 views0 answers0 votes
Which supplement, Ultra Accel 2 or Advanced Mitochondrial Formula, would best help my client with breast cancer to achieve a cancer-free state, and is that worth recommending to her?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
279 views0 answers0 votes
12Next »
Ask Question