Eric Weinstein is Right and It Relates to Cancer Treatment as Well.

Holes in the illusion should alert us.

In a recent conversation with Chris Williamson, Eric Weinstein explained that gaps or inconsistencies in structures or narratives can indicate that things aren't as they seem, and these inconsistencies can help us recognise falsehoods.

This can be observed in society, where media and narratives often create misleading perceptions. Occasionally, "holes" in the narrative reveal that there's more happening than we're being told. While these gaps may not give us the full picture, they should prompt us to question the reality we're presented with.

This idea can be applied to science and medicine. For instance, the World Economic Forum is excited about recent innovations in cancer treatments, such as personalised mRNA vaccines and the use of AI.

For those of us who have been following the COVID wars closely, seeing the WEF, mRNA and AI mentioned in same sentence will overload our Spider-Sense. We instinctively know it’s going to be very bad news. However, for those still deep in the matrix, the narrative sounds very compelling. The BBC reports that a new study is underway that will use mRNA vaccines that are “a type of immunotherapy treatment that boosts the body’s own immune system to help it find and destroy cancer”. That sounds very compelling and they also show a photograph of the new ultra-modern research center where these studies are taking place.

The Southampton Clinical Trials Unit in the UK.

This all looks amazing. The finest medical minds developing futuristic treatments to fight the ever increasing number of cancers. It is not easy for the general public to assess the validity and safety of these studies and the personalised vaccines. There’s no published data on them anyway. However, we can alert people to problems associated with this by looking through more obvious holes in the illusion.

If the medical establishment is genuinely set on reducing cancer incidence and death rates, then why is there no public health message about vitamin D?

The US government and the NHS in the UK are heavily involved in this research into mRNA technology (using taxpayer’s money). Meanwhile, there is no public messaging or campaign to improve vitamin D levels within the population. Even though the evidence clearly shows that this would be hugely beneficial. In fact, the opposite is true, government health authorities are using various techniques to try and downplay the importance of vitamin D.

We should ask ourselves, why?

The NIH has noted that vitamin D might play a role in cancer prevention, particularly in colorectal cancer, but they emphasise that more research is needed to confirm these benefits.

The USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force) does not recommend routine screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults but suggests that individuals with risk factors—like limited sun exposure or certain medical conditions—should be evaluated.

The NHS in the UK acknowledges ongoing research into the relationship between vitamin D and cancer, but states that current evidence remains inconclusive, and while vitamin D plays a role in immune function and overall well-being, its impact on cancer remains a complex area needing further investigation.

Cancer research UK states “due to the lack of firm evidence, health professionals don’t recommend people take vitamin D supplements to reduce their risk of cancer coming back”.

The Actual Published Data about Vitamin D and Cancer

The statements from our health authorities are in contrast to the published data and observational studies.

Observational studies have shown that people with higher levels of vitamin D, especially in the form of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D, tend to have a lower risk of developing certain cancers, particularly colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers.

Epidemiological data suggest that populations living at higher latitudes, where exposure to sunlight is lower, have higher rates of cancers. This suggests that low vitamin D levels due to reduced sun exposure may increase cancer risk.

VITAL was a nationwide, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol, 2000 IU/day) and marine omega-3 fatty acids (1 g/day) for the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. The health authorities quote this study as an example of inconclusive evidence for any benefit of vitamin D. However, the dose of the two nutrients in the study was incredibly low. We might conclude that the study was designed to fail. The results were not statistically significant.

The DO-HEALTH trial also used ridiculously low doses of vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids. However, when combined with exercise, there was a cumulative significant reduction in cancer risk in elderly people.

Professor Paul Marik has conducted an extensive review of vitamin D studies in his book Cancer Care. Dr. Marik lists a number of studies showing the majority of patients with cancer are vitamin D deficient.

Dr. Marik then goes on to list numerous studies that support the use of vitamin D in cancer and these studies have been ignored by our health authorities. I highly recommend that everyone obtains Dr. Marik’s book, which is available as a free download.

In addition, there are a number of important mechanisms of action suggesting that vitamin D is beneficial.

• Vitamin D plays a role in regulating the cell cycle, inhibiting cancer cell proliferation, and promoting apoptosis (programmed cell death). It also has anti-inflammatory effects (chronic inflammation is linked to cancer development).

• Vitamin D has been shown to enhance the immune system's ability to fight cancer by activating T-cells and other immune responses that target abnormal cells.

In a recent discussion with Dr. John Campbell, Professor Angus Dalgleish discussed studies showing that people with adequate vitamin D levels are the only people who benefit from conventional cancer treatments.

This is only one of many instances whereby genuine treatments for cancer are being ignored or downplayed, while expensive high profit-generating and often dangerous treatments are promoted. If we are going to avoid the further decline into totalitarian medicine the alternative viewpoints of doctors needs to be circulated widely.