DWQA Questions › Tag: cancer
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
We would like to streamline our proposed Antiviral Regimen eBook. We initially focused on CannaComplete and asked many questions about its benefits. We eventually found Cannabitol 5000, and see it as more cost-effective and simpler for many to take provided they don’t mind the taste, and list it as our number one choice. Was that appropriate?
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
39 views0 answers0 votes
To save time, as you have said Cannabitol 5000 and CannaComplete are comparable in benefits, can we edit some of our CannaComplete questions by substituting the brand Cannabitol 5000? For example, in the following: “Will CannaComplete help prevent, stabilize, or reverse heart failure? If so, through what mechanisms will that happen?” “CannaComplete can both stabilize and reverse heart failure due to its benefits on cardiac tissue as well as removal of causal virus particles through its antiviral activity. So it has multiple benefits given the mix of constituents, with varied pharmacological properties among them individually, and together they have synergistic benefit.” Can we just change the product name in that question to Cannabitol 5000?
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
32 views0 answers0 votes
Can we make a summary statement that, “Our database has a number of questions about CannaComplete benefiting cancer, and the same benefits can be assumed for Cannabitol 5000 and other wide-spectrum hemp extracts?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
38 views0 answers0 votes
Given the barriers to use of scientifically proven antivirals like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as prophylactic agents, without a medical diagnosis and visible symptoms, is it advisable for adults to begin life-long use of a wide-spectrum hemp extract like Cannabitol 5000 or CannaComplete, which are rich in phytocannabinoids, like cannabidiol? Will they provide meaningful prevention of both malignant tumors and dementia if Creator’s Recommended Daily Prayers are also used?
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
44 views0 answers0 votes
Can you give us a percentage of how many people will be protected from either cancer or dementia who follow this regimen using Cannabitol 5000 or CannaComplete along with daily prayer?
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
43 views0 answers0 votes
There has been growing interest in studying the more than 400 unique substances found in Cannabis extracts, including not only cannabinoids but terpenes, which have been found to have therapeutic benefits, including antiviral and anticancer activity, and are devoid of psychoactive properties like the delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana. [Cannabis as antivirals. Yi Lin Sea 1, et al. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2023 Jan 23;134(1)] As Cannabidiol is the most prominent non-psychoactive cannabinoid, it has been promoted by some who are following the usual mindset that it is best to purify a single, and hopefully the most potent, substance from a given plant extract. Is a wide-spectrum hemp extract preferable to purified cannabidiol both as an antiviral as well as anticancer agent?
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
28 views0 answers0 votes
Cannabis has been highly controversial for a long time, due to its abuse potential, and medical marijuana continues to be attacked and discredited as lacking medical benefits. Having sought and asked about many plant extracts as having useful anticancer and especially antiviral activity, knowing now that viruses cause the majority of cancers, it was surprising to see that wide-spectrum hemp extracts containing cannabinoids have so far come out on top when we have asked you to rank various nutraceuticals. Have we missed something greatly superior?
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
35 views0 answers0 votes
A recent paper describes health data from 8,407,849 citizens of South Korea, comparing those within one year of receiving shots for Covid-19 with a group never receiving shots. There were statistically significant increases in overall cancer risk and for six types of cancer: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate. Risk of cancer was greater with both mRNA vaccines (thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancer) and cDNA vaccines (thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers). Administration of booster shots was associated with increased risk of three cancers (gastric, pancreatic, and leukemia). [Kim et al. Biomarker Research 13:114, 2025.] Are these data accurately reflecting a real risk from receiving such shots? Is the increased risk of cancer despite the type of vaccine, pointing to something sinister which is not the vaccine technology itself being dangerous?
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
36 views0 answers0 votes
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 2 months ago • 
82 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 2 months ago • 
92 views0 answers0 votes
To help probe the issue of viral involvement in cancer, a study was reported in 2018 of a library of gene sequence data on file for a repository of normal and malignant human tissue samples from 3,052 participants across 22 different cancer types. Results showed that five viral families are prevalent in human cancer. These include the Papillomaviridae, Polyomoviridae, Hepadnaviridae, Flaviviridae, and Herpesviridae. Viruses were detected in 7.5 – 98.8% of patients of seven cancers: bladder carcinoma, cervical squamous cell carcinoma, colon adenocarcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, liver hepatocellular carcinoma, rectum adenocarcinoma, and stomach adenocarcinoma. [Cantalupo PG, Katz JP, Pipas JM. Viral sequences in human cancer. Virology. 2018 Jan 1;513:208-216.] Having found that viral sequences were present in most of the files they analyzed from human tumor databases, the authors pointed out there are two possible explanations: first, a given virus may be present in human tissue because it infects humans, perhaps even contributing to tumorigenesis; and second, the viral detection may be due to an artifact. This seems to ignore additional uncertainties. Such studies showing evidence of a viral presence assume it to be an aggravating factor, a “driver” of malignancy and not necessarily a cause. However, if a low-level, smoldering, virus causes malignant transformation, once that is triggered, it need not continue growing in order for tumors to form and spread, so a low number of virus particles might end up being deadly but disregarded as having an important role if only present in low numbers or below level of detection. Also, there is the limitation that only known viral sequences were searched for, so no novel viruses could even be discovered by this survey. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
76 views0 answers0 votes
A review article shows little or no benefit of supplementing patients with vitamin D3 for bone fractures (T. Gatt, A. Grech, and H. Arshad. The effect of Vitamin D supplementation for bone healing in fracture patients: a systematic review. Adv. Orthopedics Volume 2023, Article ID 6236045). However, the supplement doses of vitamin D3 were either low, 800-2000 IU daily, or quite high loading doses orally or systemically of 100,000 to 300,000 IU. Was their negative assessment justified or were the studies flawed? Would taking a 5000 to 10,000 IU dose of vitamin D3 daily, give significant benefit for healing bone fractures?
ClosedNicola asked 4 months ago • 
168 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 4 months ago • 
92 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 4 months ago • 
88 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 4 months ago • 
76 views0 answers0 votes
123…15Next »
Ask Question