This morning when I woke up I remembered hearing a blurb last week on my local news channel about Vitamin D use not being as positive as many had proclaimed. I missed the news that night, so I Googled it to see if I could find an article online. As I read the article, I realized THIS is why I have a blog to mention these things; for the mainstream people who will believe it without a second thought. Read the article. Just in case they decided to remove comments, I have posted the comments that are there as of this morning. There may be more when you read the article, but here are the first ones...
wbgrant at 8:12 AM December 4, 2010
What is overlooked in this story is that the federal agencies that sponsored the study, the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, etc., severely limited the types of studies that could be considered by the panel. They permitted randomized controlled trials and prospective studies where a single value of blood level vitamin D was made and disease outcomes determined for up to 15 years of follow up. They did not permit case-control studies with blood level vitamin D measured at time of disease diagnosis or ecological studies that use solar ultraviolet B doses as the index of vitamin D production. The permitted studies are generally quite weak while the denied studies are generally strong. Thus, by setting the conditions of the study, the sponsors determined the findings. Many other reviews have found beneficial effects for vitamin D. The interested reader can find such reviews on the Web. There are about 100 diseases for which beneficial effects of vitamin have been identified.
What is overlooked in this story is that the federal agencies that sponsored the study, the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, etc., severely limited the types of studies that could be considered by the panel. They permitted randomized controlled trials and prospective studies where a single value of blood level vitamin D was made and disease outcomes determined for up to 15 years of follow up. They did not permit case-control studies with blood level vitamin D measured at time of disease diagnosis or ecological studies that use solar ultraviolet B doses as the index of vitamin D production. The permitted studies are generally quite weak while the denied studies are generally strong. Thus, by setting the conditions of the study, the sponsors determined the findings. Many other reviews have found beneficial effects for vitamin D. The interested reader can find such reviews on the Web. There are about 100 diseases for which beneficial effects of vitamin have been identified.
Sunlight Caller at 8:23 AM December 4, 2010
"Vitamin" D is a steroid hormone when metabolized. Because it is a steroid hormone it is orders of magnitude more complex and essential in human function. The most difficult, troublesome medical conditions are often treated with such steroids as either a last resort, or lack of any other medication or procedure which will provide therapeutic benefit.
All other significant steroid hormone medications are available by prescription only. Thus vitamin D, essentially free, presents a problem to the general medical community because it is beyond their control.
Pharmaceutical companies clearly recognize mountains of compelling evidence that confirm vitamin D's obvious benefit in those suffering from a nearly endless list of chronic and acute diseases. This fact makes their profit projections unstable at best. The possibility of widespread use of a low cost alternative to expensive and marginally effective prescription medications is a threat unequaled on their collective radar.
Ultimately the Board has ignored evolution in a comical fashion. It is well know that the human body produces 10-20,000 i.u. in barely 15 minutes of high angle sun exposure. 10-20,000 i.u. naturally, daily, and yet the board cautions that "too much" vitamin D is harmful?
Profits and control are the real issues here.
"Vitamin" D is a steroid hormone when metabolized. Because it is a steroid hormone it is orders of magnitude more complex and essential in human function. The most difficult, troublesome medical conditions are often treated with such steroids as either a last resort, or lack of any other medication or procedure which will provide therapeutic benefit.
All other significant steroid hormone medications are available by prescription only. Thus vitamin D, essentially free, presents a problem to the general medical community because it is beyond their control.
Pharmaceutical companies clearly recognize mountains of compelling evidence that confirm vitamin D's obvious benefit in those suffering from a nearly endless list of chronic and acute diseases. This fact makes their profit projections unstable at best. The possibility of widespread use of a low cost alternative to expensive and marginally effective prescription medications is a threat unequaled on their collective radar.
Ultimately the Board has ignored evolution in a comical fashion. It is well know that the human body produces 10-20,000 i.u. in barely 15 minutes of high angle sun exposure. 10-20,000 i.u. naturally, daily, and yet the board cautions that "too much" vitamin D is harmful?
Profits and control are the real issues here.
Ed in Socal at 9:25 AM December 4, 2010
What hasn't been stated is that the "Institute of Medicine" is a Washington DC-based lobbying firm. Members of its board include the CEO of Merck, etc. The so-called study was sponsored and its data provided by onlt major pharmaceutical companies. The report itself was written by employees at Pfizer. The report is clearly a blatant lie designed solely to dissuade the citizenry from taking preventative steps to avoid the very diseases big pharma makes its money by 'treating' with the drugs it manufacturers. The activity by the "Institute of Medicine" is despicable and possibly criminal. The report should be considered worthless, except as evidence against big pharma. That the press reports this as important new guidelines from a quasi-government agency illustrates that the press, as usual, isn't vetting the press releases it prints as news.
AJ2011 at 10:44 AM December 4, 2010
Melissa - it's ironic that you present such a pre-concluded position on vitamin D BEFORE any of the very studies you mention are completed! Your argument is essentially reduced to name-calling as you arbitrarily label certain vitamin D doses as "mega doses" while making NO MENTION of actual 25(OH) vitamin D blood serum levels. It is nonsensical to establish dose recommendations or "limits" without looking at blood levels and the associated epidemiology. See www.uctv.tv/vitamind/ and watch actual scientists from recognized medical schools show the correlation of chronic diseases. They repeatedly show a drastic reduction of cancer incidence & mortality for those with a 25(OH) D level of 40-60 ng/ml, which is (post unfinished)
Melissa - it's ironic that you present such a pre-concluded position on vitamin D BEFORE any of the very studies you mention are completed! Your argument is essentially reduced to name-calling as you arbitrarily label certain vitamin D doses as "mega doses" while making NO MENTION of actual 25(OH) vitamin D blood serum levels. It is nonsensical to establish dose recommendations or "limits" without looking at blood levels and the associated epidemiology. See www.uctv.tv/vitamind/ and watch actual scientists from recognized medical schools show the correlation of chronic diseases. They repeatedly show a drastic reduction of cancer incidence & mortality for those with a 25(OH) D level of 40-60 ng/ml, which is (post unfinished)
No comments:
Post a Comment