In those with lung cancer, a significant lung cancer association could only be found in those with non-small cell lung cancer. In this group, those using less than 215 IU of vitamin E daily experienced a significant 12-16% reduction in risk. Those using greater than 215 IU per day experienced a significant 29% increase in risk. No significant association was found in participants with small cell lung cancers or other lung cancers. This data implies only that smokers should not consume greater than 215 IU of vitamin E per day. It does not imply that they should avoid vitamin E altogether.

90% of the vitamin E used in this analysis was synthetic dl-alpha tocopherol. Not enough users of natural d-alpha tocopherol were studied to determine a significant association one way or the other. If any association is to be made from the data above, it should only be noted for synthetic vitamin E supplementation. This data does not in any way provide adequate information on supplemental use of natural d-alpha tocopherol and it’s relation to lung cancer.

That data used for this study was collected using dietary surveys. This was not a controlled clinical trial. These results cannot be considered absolute or as the final word.

Health Man:  Question on your comment.  Most often I see reference to people who have ceased smoking for 10 years and comments related to their risk.  What about those of us who quit 25 years ago or longer?  My position has been that I smoked and quit, prior to the tobacco industry "fooling" around with "real tobacco" in order to make it more addictive.  I have always thought the difficulty in people quiting in this day and the higher incidences of lung cancer now, might well be a result of whatever "ethyl methyl bad shi_" they put into cigarettes to increase their sales.   ????????

mrose:  I can't say that I am able to definitely answer your question, but the data that I have personally seen suggests that if you quit 25 years ago you would basically fall into the "never smoked" category as far as risk goes.

Technically, smoking can result in permanant genetic mutations that might increase a persons risk of cancer.  However, gene's can be turned on and off with proper diet.  The study of this concept is called epigenetics in case you wish to look into it.

Thanks Health Man - I will look up Epigenics.

What?? Baking Soda and Maple Syrup??

**************************

Remember Dr. Tullio Simoncini and his treatment of cancer as a fungus? If not, you can

reread an article called "Cancer Is A Fungus" in my August 2, 2007 newsletter.

It's at:

www.Beating-Cancer-Gently.com/nl108.html

If you recall, I quoted several holistic physicians in that article including Dr. Mark

Sircus. I interviewed Dr. Sircus for my web talk radio show a couple of weeks ago. We got

to comparing notes. It seems we had both received a copy of the same magazine article

from one of my readers. The article was entitled "Country Doctor Cures Cancer --

With Baking Soda & Maple Syrup!" There was no date on the article, but it was a

syndicated article from Weekly World News written by George Sanford. The location (of all

places) was Asheville, North Carolina, where I live.

The story told of Jim Kelmun, a 75-year old former truck driver and his success in

helping people heal cancer using -- you guessed it -- baking soda and maple syrup. Seein'

as how I'm a 76-year old former airplane driver who has helped a couple thousand people

recover from cancer, I figured ol' Jim from Asheville and I had a lot in common and I

better pass on his story (and Dr. Mark's reaction to it) to you, my loyal readers, and

see what you think.

First, here's a short quote from the story, so you get the drift.

"'There's not a tumor on God's green Earth that can't be licked with a little baking

soda and maple syrup!'

That's the astonishing claim of controversial folk healer Jim Kelmun -- who says his

simple home remedy can stop and reverse the growth of deadly cancers.

[Kelmun]...has no medical degree and authorities are demanding that he stop dispensing

his 'wonder drug' -- or face a prison sentence.

But his loyal patients swear by the man they fondly call 'Dr. Jim' -- and say he's a

miracle worker.

'Dr Jim cured me of lung cancer,' declares farmer Ian Rodhouse, 64. 'Those other doctors

told me I was a

smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer...frying free radicals ie hydrogenated grease will cause it too..just in case you ask those who havent smoked...then there are also other causes...radon gas etc...so bottom line is not you have lung cancer the you smoke(d)...

Just as I was about to order some vitamin E from Carlson's and I read this?

Yes, we all agree that getting the full spectrum of vitamins should come from food we eat. Although ideal, it is not always possible for many people. So at times we feel we don't have our basics covered-we should consider taking a good quality supplement.

Dr. Merola used to recommend taking vitamin E with fish oil to prevent oxidization in the body. Is this no longer a good idea?  

Mega amounts of "natural" vit. E, is not natural either, because it is not found in nature like this.  The best source is from food, with complete spectrum and all the parts both known and unknown.  We need real food, not isolated nutrients whether natural or not.  The best supplement is a whole food supplement.

To Curlilox:

I agree synthetic vitamin E is highly toxic.

But natural vitamin E and especially the non-oily form d-alpha tocopheryl succinate is a wonderful supplement. It has been shown to have no toxicity up to 180 gm/day. It boosts immunity, improves quality of sleep, REVERSES skin cancer and powerfully protects the liver against the toxicity of drugs. I have used this form of vitamin E for years at high dose with only benefits and not a single side-effect and I'm somebody extremely sensitive to side-effects.

And I disagree with Dr Mercola on the point of reductive stress. The problem is ALWAYS oxidative stress and not the opposite. If synthetic vitamin E increases cancer risk this is due to its toxicity. Synthetic vitamin E will not cause reductive stress but strong oxidative stress because of its in vivo toxicity despite its in vitro antioxidant property.

This means there is something more important than taking vitamin E: this is to avoid the exposure of any oxidants. For example when I suffered from headaches natural vitamin E brought no relief. But suppressing the oxidants: copper, drugs, nitrates/nitrites (from processed meat), radiations of cordless phones alleviated them definitively.

I'd be curious, ladyclaire, if your E was synthetic, or otherwise compromised by contaminants. I think these are the key issues of this subject. I have been taking E since the 70's and have always been careful as to the source and that it was natural and not synthetic.

Thanks, everyone, for the great websites and recommendations. That marine phytoplankton video is especially fascinating. I was a fan of Klamath blue green bact to the seventies as well... am 53 and look (and feel) 33 ~ this is such an important and ideal whole food supplement for the future.

Many years ago my mother suffered multiple miscarriages (7) after the birth of my older sister. The doctor suggested she try wheat germ oil for the Vitamin E. She did and I was born! (She says that when I was laid on her tummy I gave her a big grin as if to say, "We made it, Mama!") She also had great success using the Vit E oil (poke the capsule and squeeze it out) to heal skin problems (I use a Vitamin C paste). I take 400 IU of Vit E daily, always the (more expensive) d-alpha, not the synthetic. Whole wheat ought to be a source of natural vitamin E.

You don't use those Standard Process vitamins, do you?  As far as I know, the company still tests on animals, and their vitamins also include animal by-products. Vegetarians would not use them, and I would not use them.  

I will put my neck on the chopping block by agreeing with your comments, JWRM42.  Standard Process supplements are excellent whole food additions to one's diet if one needs them.  I will be recommending them to my patients when I start my practice (Chiropractic).  They are not tested on animals; where ever did this idea come from?  If Carol M, who is a vegetarian, chooses not to use this brand of supplements, great.  I wish her well in getting all of the necessary nutrients from her diet.  Please don't disparage this company; they are doing a tremendous service for so many people.

Very interesting information at this site - But, I for one am very suspicious of a company that only allows you to buy products from a "healthcare professional" - based on a premise that those "healthcare professionals" know more than you do about supplementation.   When I have purchased such items through a chiropractor and/or a dentist office in the past, I am not getting any input from the "professional" selling the product, typically, it has been his/her "receptionist" - and they will sell to me anything I ask for.  Get my point?  But the bigger issue is, typically, those products sold by these professionals are much pricier than those sold in my local healthfood store - AND, I have no evidence that their wholefood supplements (the professionals) are any better - other than they say so....  

That's the thing, mrose - are these supplements any better than others just because your chiropractor or dentist sells them?  Or are they selling them just to make some extra money?  Of course it's fine to make money, but have they researched them for you?

For this brand that has been suggested, Standard Process, IF I were to take them, I would first do all kinds of research on how the animals were raised, what were they fed, are they full of antibiotics and other toxins, etc.  A lot of ingredients for supplements come from China - does this brand contain stuff from China?  Etc. Etc.

Yes I also find that some comments get deleted if considered (by whom?) too critical. It's a pity since I think Dr Mercola's website is one of the best around. But differing or critical opinions should not be censored.

Some may agree with you....I do.  Best Wishes!

Palacie - In a past post on cell phone usage, someone made a slur to the effect that Dr. Mercola just wanted to sell his headsets.  I defended him with a statement that I thought his head set sales made up for little of his costs in keeping this website current.   Loh and behold (AND AGAIN, I WAS DEFENDING HIM) I got MINUS 30 points.....go figure....

Personally, the biggst issue I have with this site is not what most have complained about, i.e. promoting his products with links (although that is true).  It is understood that it costs money to keep a site such as this up and running, and something has to fund it.  My issue is - this so called "inner-circle".  Not everyone can afford an on-going $24.95 per month to be in-the-in!!!  It implies that those of you out there who can, are somehow "special".  This is in no way intended to be a "slam" against those of you who have manifested such funds and choose to use them in this manner, but.....the image it presents is not good, in my opinion!!    So, bring on the MINUS points.  I can handle them.  I have big shoulders - teehee.    

Any time you take 400 units of Vitamin E, whether natural or synthetic, it is not natural.  It never comes in these amounts in food, and it doesn't come as an isolate.  There are thousands of other nutrients, factors, and co-factors that come with every single nutrient found in nature.  They never come alone, nor do they come in "mega" amounts.  Totally unnatural which cause imbalances and health problems.  It's no big surprise that the studies would show this.

Chemtrails really scare me... there's something so sinister about them. I hate waking up to a clear day and seeing the sky gradually fill up with 'clouds'. I really, really get the shivers just thinking about it.

Please do not even consider using palm oil or palm oil products. You will be directly contributing to the extinction of orang utans (and countless other species) as Indonesia is in the process of clearing its rainforests to make way for a monoculture of palm plantations.