Figure 4 shows the foods and you can download the data from there as well for your own analysis.
Your question is still a good one, but hoping the above context makes the "so tea as a blanket category just... works?" less absurd.
Turns out the “fermenting” of tea is mostly self contained. Autolysis, I think might be the word?
If you recall that caffeine is an insecticide this makes sense. The caffeine is stored as a time bomb waiting for some insect to chew. Mastication mixes the caffeine crystals and the enzymes already present in the leaf, which then render it soluble and bang, dead insect. To process tea you just need to activate the enzymes the right amount at the right temperatures, and then dry the leaves before they can rot.
If you get a proper oolong loose leaf, and let it steep long enough, you will find what looks like whole leaves in your cup. Not unlike those little dinosaur sponges they sell to kids. Just add water.
Even one in Sweden -
It takes about 3-5 years to first harvest though
The newest diet fad has not been around nearly long enough to even begin to determine its effect on longevity.
This figure literally talks to me: "You should drink more tea!"
I know the pharma industry has been trying to destroy his reputation regarding his vitamin C (l-ascorbic acid) L-lysine protocol as a way to prevent and revers heart disease. But so far it seem that everything Dr. Pauling proposed has been panning out. Frankly I'd blindly trust Dr. Pauling over basically anyone else, especial if the anyone else has a financial stake in their position, which is everyone, except Dr. Pauling.
It's too bad he was prevented from traveling due to his protesting the Vietnam War, because if he hadn't be prevented from traveling he would have stayed ahead of Watson and Crick and Dr. Pauling would have "discovered" the double-helix, and won his 3rd solo Nobel Prize.
With respect to his mega vit-C protocols - they have been shown to have some beneficial effect, especially with respect to cold and the flu, but not his general claims AFAIK despite various attempts by people with favorable attitudes.
He was not a god; He was a smart, successful, but also imperfect human being.
That alone seems like a good reason to administer high-dose Vitamin D!
The original article  mentions the "exclude early years" analysis was post hoc. This wasn't a formal result, but it is a good idea for a new experiment. Same with the first study mentioned. It would be cool if the hazard decrease showed up in a larger study, but a confidence interval of 0% to 90% isn't much to rely on.
This article indicates that specifically _supplements_ do not significantly reduce cancer rates: https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2018...
"Over the follow-up period, there were 341 deaths from cancer: 154 among participants who took vitamin D (1.1%) and 187 among those who took the placebo (1.4%). Although this difference was not statistically significant, the difference in cancer deaths between the groups started to widen over time, the researchers reported.
The researchers plan to follow the participants for another 2 to 5 years, to see if a statistically significant difference in cancer deaths emerges. Laboratory studies have suggested that high blood levels of vitamin D may decrease the aggressiveness of cancer cells and the likelihood of metastasis, explained Dr. Manson. If so, longer follow-up will be needed to assess its effects on the risk of death from cancer, she added. Other studies have suggested that regular use of vitamin D supplements may reduce the risk of dying from cancer, she said."
So they're still continuing to follow that up long term to see if it has a longer term effect.
But I do not have cancer.
The studies do not explain the effects of high doses of vitamin D on an otherwise healthy person, let alone one that gets enough UVB exposure to produce sufficient vitamin D (essentially anyone near the equator) and already "[reduces their] risk for cancer by not smoking and by avoiding alcohol, maintaining a healthy weight, exercising regularly, and eating an excellent diet with fruits, vegetables, whole grains".
From my limited understanding, cancer comes from an unlucky combination of particular kinds of cell damages. Based on that, I'd say we all have some level of cancer-inclination that is non-zero and increasing in susceptibility. I wouldn't consider cancer a boolean.
But that's a great point. What impact does this have on those factors that lead to cancer?
> I wouldn't consider cancer a boolean.
I consider having cancer a boolean and the propensity to develop cancer a probability. The studies linked in the article don't suggest a high dose of Vitamin D reduces that probability at all. They only tested whether it helps those for which has_cancer is set to True
I have been super-dosing vit D, K2-MK7 and magnesium chelate to reverse calcification of the arteries. It is slowly working. My BP is slowly coming down.
There is also a strong correlation with height, but I don't advise losing height :-)
 - https://ohblog.org/Metabolic-Syndrome-Hypertension-My-Journe...
A bit of both would probably be okay, though.
Care to visit their list of "orthomolecular" doctors? http://orthomolecular.org/resources/pract.shtml
This is one step away from homeopathy. Get this shit off HN please.
> Orthomolecular medicine, a form of alternative medicine, aims to maintain human health through nutritional supplementation.
Seconded. If this is what HN becomes, I want no part of it.
Not that it undermines the findings, or makes it less true just something to keep in mind.
Fun fact, vitamin D was a treatment for tuberculosis before antibiotics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29804293
How to Starve Cancer by Jane McLelland
This woman claims to have reversed her cancer by using a combination of off label drugs and supplements to starve the cancer.