I found a similar study that goes into more detail.
http://www.webmd.com...ase-cancer-riskDuring treatment, blood folate levels among patients who took 0.8 milligrams a day of folic acid plus 0.4 milligrams a day of vitamin B12 increased more than sixfold.
The patients were followed for an average of three years after supplementation ended, during which time 341 patients who took folic acid and B12 (10%) and 288 patients who did not (8.4%) were diagnosed with cancer.
Okay so 3 years following the study, 8% of the people were diagnosed with cancer.Folic acid and B12 supplementation was associated with a 21% increased risk for cancer, a 38% increased risk for dying from the disease, and an 18% increase in deaths from all causes.
18% increase in death from all causes? All causes? Lol?This finding was mainly driven by an increase in lung cancer incidence among the folic acid and B12-treated patients.
Seventy-five (32%) of the 236 cancer-related deaths among the study participants were due to lung cancer, and the cancer incidence among the study group was 25% higher than in the population of Norway as a whole.
Roughly 70% of all the patients in the study were either current or former smokers, including more than 90% of those who developed lung cancer.
Lol. Funny how the whole most of them being smokers bit wasn't mentioned till the end, long after the whole "B12 increases risk of cancer" thing was pushed. Doesn't hurt to actually read these studies.
I don't doubt that any substance can exacerbate cancer to some extent. The problem with a lot of these studies is they will test for something specific with a group that is already at risk. Draw a conclusion of some illness that develops, which would have developed had they been in the study or not, and then try to associate the product being tested with the illness. It isn't scientifically wrong at all, because based on the experiment, the data does
correlate. Is it deceiving based on how such particular studies are presented? Most of the time, yes.
What the above study, and similar such studies are saying, is that Vitamin B12 can enhance cancer, assuming it's already developing. I mean, I would hope so! This means the B12 is doing its job, in a way. B12 boosts cellular metabolism. Cancer Cells, while the body is trying to destroy them, thrive by the same mechanisms any other cell thrives. If B12 is enhancing regular cell function, then it would also enhance the function of new cancer cells, which could inevitably cause the cancer to survive past the bodies natural defenses and grow out of control. This doesn't mean the B12 caused the cancer, nor does it mean the cancer couldn't have survived without the B12. I think it's a fair assumption that the B12 has the possibility to enhance the strength of cancer cells. I also think it's a fair assumption that B12 has the possibility to answer the cellular apoptosis needed to destroy cancer cells.
I'll take my chances with B12
. Good thing I don't smoke.
It's also important to point out further how the study is flawed:
Seventy-five (32%) of the 236 cancer-related deaths among the study participants were due to lung cancer, and the cancer incidence among the study group was 25% higher than in the population of Norway as a whole.
They are comparing the cancer occurrence
of a group of (70%) smokers with the cancer occurrence
rate of an entire population. All I can say, is lol. Bad science is bad science. Then we have news sites that only skim over these reports, and publish them in such a way to sensationalize them just to get views.What's scary is there are numerous incidences like this in the science community, many of which leave out many details needed to see the legitimacy of the study.Some other views of the study(from the body of the page):The real headline of this study should be that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer -- the study found that a total of 94% of the subjects who developed lung cancer were either current or former smokers,
In the U.S., mandatory folic acid fortification of flour and grains has been in effect for just over a decade, and fortification has succeeded in dramatically lowering the incidence of neural tube birth defects.
Shao says the fact that lung cancer rates have also dropped during this time in both men and women suggest folic acid and B12 do not promote lung cancer.
Bettina F. Drake, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, says it is not likely that fortification has led to an increase in cancers in the U.S. In fact, several studies suggest just the opposite.
"We would expect to see an excess in cancers within a few years after folic acid fortification began, and we have not seen that," she tells WebMD.
Drake says it is possible that folic acid protects against cancer at certain points in life and promotes the growth of cancers at other times.
Edited by Siro, 23 November 2013 - 04:28 AM.