The start of an influenza epidemic has made the headlines and it appears it will be worse then recent years. News reports indicate that at least 25% of people getting the flu had this year’s influenza vaccination prior to the outbreak. Complicating the issue is that many reports focus on “flu like illnesses and assume that this is the flu. The only way a definite diagnosis can be made is a special throat or nasal culture which tends to be expensive, and is usually reserved for those who are sick
enough to be hospitalized. A clinical diagnosis is suggested by high fevers over 101 degrees, severe musle aches, and sore throat. Many people use the term flu very loosely in describing gastroenteritis symptoms only – nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Influenza is a serious issue. There have been deaths confirmed by cultures in the past month.
On September 12, 2010, I posted #14, Prevention of Influenza With Vitamin D. There was a very well performed study published in the May, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. This study is still on the web and free for anyone to read. Simply google the name of the Journal. The test was very rigorous, and used nose/throat cultures to confirm the diagnosis of influenza A. The dose of the vitamin D given for 4 months before the winter was only 1200 Units. The study was double lind so there is no way any bias of the researchers would have changed the results.
The full details of the study can be read by going to #14 on this health letter. But in summary, there was a 41.9% reduction in the incidence of the flu. An unexpected result was that there was an 83% reduction of asthma attacks in those children who had a history of asthma. This makes sense since asthma is clearly a disease caused by antibodies and vitamin D has clearly been shown in studies to reduce the production of abnormal antibodies that cause disease.
So whereas just about everyone is scared of the flu and the serious illness and even sometimes death it can cause, but are you scared enough to have your doctor obtain a 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood test (covered by most health insurance), and spend $2 a month for 5000 units a day of Vitamin D3 which most people need with an occasional exception?
The news of the flu epidemic has been very well publicized through international newspapers, but there has been no mention of this study from October, 2010. I wrote in the column October, 2010, “Unfortunately we CANNOT rely on the press to keep us informed of critically important medical studies.”
1/1/13
#30) UPDATE ON VITAMIN D 2013
As you probably know by now, vitamin D primarily comes from the action of the sun on the skin. Just about everyone agrees that human life began near the equator. So vitamin D levels of early humans were very high. Modern studies show that 50 to 100 nanogram (ng) levels were common, and have been shown to have substantial benefit on human health. It is impossible to get enough vitamin D from diet. 4 glasses of cow’s milk contain 400 units, and most of it was added by the milk manufacturer. A
human being going with insufficient vitamin D is like an automobile being driven without oil. This comparison helps explain why vitamin D has a beneficial effect on so many conditions found in humans.
What has been known for over a century is the connection between vitamin D and bone strength. Vitamin D greatly increases the absorption of calcium from our diet, and that calcium helps maintain bone strength. Osteoporosis has been a household word for over 25 years, but the emphasis was put on calcium supplements, and vitamin D levels were not obtained. It was not appreciated that vitamin D insufficiency in Americans is widespread (80% are insufficient). Once the vitamin D level reaches at least 40 ng., calcium absorption from simple foods such as fruits and vegetables increases up to 90%. Studies have shown at this level the parathyroid glands in the neck stop producing excess parathyroid hormone. This hormone is the basic cause of the osteoporosis that is so prevalent and is the primary cause of broken bones as we age. The big medical mistake of 1985 to 2005 was the recommendation that humans need only 600 units of vitamin D daily, an amount far too little, and an amount that will not raise blood levels of vitamin D more than 4 ng. The effect on bones is by far the easiest beneficial effect to demonstrate. I have seen a number of people who have improved their DEXA scan by 15% within 2 years with 5000 units of vitamin D alone. Numerous studies show the same thing.
My update of 2011 lists 4 broad categories of diseases that benefit
from vitamin D. For each category, hundreds of studies prove the benefit. In the year 2012, each month has seen at least 5 major studies published in medical publications proving a beneficial effect on various illnesses. I have not seen even one newspaper article reporting these many studies. There was however one study that made the news. Someone studied the effect of 600 units of vitamin D on various illnesses and found no effect. The bizarre conclusion was that it’s not worth it to take vitamin D. The truth is that many studies had already shown the lack of beneficial effect from such a small dose.
You have also probably heard of the November 2010 study published by the impressive sounding Institute of Medicine that concluded we should take 600 units of vitamin D. They ignored most of the vitamin D studies that had been done over the past few decades and then claimed insufficient proof. They didn’t fool the scientists and physicians at the Harvard School of Public Health, who quickly published a complete refutation of their report. The original report made the front page of virtually every major newspaper; the response didn’t make any newspapers.
9/30/12
#29) LEARNING ABOUT VITAMIN D
Many people who access this web site do so in order to find out about vitamin D. They may have a specific illness that they have heard is connected to vitamin D deficiency, or they may have been told by their doctor that their vitamin D level is low. It takes time to scroll through all these entries, so this is a guide on how to find out about vitamin D in the most efficient way.
Entry #7: Update on Vitamin D – 2010.
This is a very concise summary of some of the major actions of vitamin D. This would be the FIRST thing to read. In fact, if you read only this, you will know quite a bit about vitamin D. In the last year there have been similar articles published in medical journals with documentation of dozens of references.
#15 and #23 : both give details regarding breast cancer.
#17 and #25: osteoporosis and documentation of improvement in bone strength with vitamin D.:
#9, #12, and #21: multiple sclerosis, including the details of a total remission. One of the best web sites on the subject is available at www.VitaminDMSCure.com. Anyone who is interested in MS should the several pages on this this web site.
#14: influenza
#24: rheumatoid arthritis
#19: myasthenia gravis
#28: scleroderma
Entry #2 and #18 give further updates with a list of some vitamin D related conditions.
5/7/12
#28) CASE HISTORY: MARKED IMPROVEMENT IN SCLERODERMA WITH TREATMENT OF VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY
Kathy is a lady who was diagnosed with scleroderma in January, 2005 at the age of 45. Her initial illness was very serious; she was in acute renal failure as a result of it, and was on hemodialysis for months. She has been under the care of a rheumatologist and is on multiple medications including prednisone from early on. The first several years, in addition to her acute renal failure, she lost several fingers of her right hand, a characteristic manifestation of scleroderma. She also suffered from severe chronic fatigue.
Scleroderma is a rare disease and I have seen only a small number of patients with the condition during my career. However I know it is thought to be a disease caused by the production of abnormal antibodies. I also knew that studies had been done previously that showed that scleroderma is associated with very low vitamin D levels. This was not a surprise when I learned this, since scleroderma is a connective tissue diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus, and Sjogren’s syndrome also shown to be associated with very low vitamin D levels, lower than the general healthy population; and in some cases medical research studies showed an improvement of symptoms with these illnesses with the treatment of vitamin D deficiencies.
I first saw her as a patient in January, 2010. I told her it may be important to get a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. The results showed a level of 15 monogram (ng.). I started her on 50,000 units of vitamin D2 a week, (an average of 7143 units a day.
She continued to see her rheumatologist and primary care doctor. I saw her again on May 2, 2012. She told me that within a few months of starting the vitamin D, her years of fatigue improved and then resolved. Her kidney function before the vitamin D showed a creatinine of 1.4 mg.; a recent one was now 1.2 mg. (Serum creatinine is a very important measure of kidney function, and total renal failure is a not uncommon manifestation of scleroderma. The creatinine levels showed an improvement of 15%) Immediately prior to the vitamin D, her prednisone dose as adjusted by the rheumatologist, was 40 mg. a day. Once the vitamin D was started, because of an improvement in her overall symptoms, her doctor was able to slowly the dose to 5 mg. a day. (40 mg. of Prednisone a day for an extended period of time almost always causes major serious side effects; in comparison 5 mg. causes rarely causes major side effects.
On May 11, 2011, I posted: #19, a case history regarding myasthenia gravis (MG) and vitamin D. To this day I have not been able to find another case history reporting improvement in MG in spite of several searches of MEDLINE and searches with different search engines. On July 1, 2010, I posed a case history of a complete remission of progressive multiple sclerosis with Vitamin D. However in this case, there is a large volume of medical studies that have documented improvement of MS with Vitamin D. Many have been published AFTER my report of 2010, but many were published before.
So is this case report of scleroderma more similar to a new finding in the case of MG, or just a demonstration of a previously discovered connection, as in the case of MS? To find out, I had to search the internet.
Vitamin D levels in scleroderma have been found to be remarkably low. There is direct correlation between the severity of the disease and levels of vitamin D. Especially important is that lung manifestations of scleroderma are more common and severe the lower the level. Fibrosis (scar tissue) which can be widespread in advanced scleroderma has been show to be inversely related to vitamin D concentration. The abnormal deposition of calcium deposits in the tissues (called metastatic calcification), found in the most severe cases of scleroderma, is related to high parathyroid levels and very low vitamin D levels om patients without scleroderma, and a study that looked at parathyroid levels found in fact that parathyroid levels in scleroderma was very high. As far as case reports, there are some, but not the “perfect” prospective double blind study.
And finally, it is common sense that scleroderma is not an exception to the finding that vitamin D prevents the production of abnormal antibodies caused by a wide variety of illnesses,
Most people reading this do not know anyone with scleroderma because fortunately it is a rare disease. But everyone knows someone with an autoimmune disease. Help them out, send this link to them.
Scleroderma is a rare disease and I have seen only a small number of patients with the condition during my career. However I know it is thought to be a disease caused by the production of abnormal antibodies. I also knew that studies had been done previously that showed that scleroderma is associated with very low vitamin D levels. This was not a surprise when I learned this, since scleroderma is a connective tissue diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus, and Sjogren’s syndrome also shown to be associated with very low vitamin D levels, lower than the general healthy population; and in some cases medical research studies showed an improvement of symptoms with these illnesses with the treatment of vitamin D deficiencies.
I first saw her as a patient in January, 2010. I told her it may be important to get a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. The results showed a level of 15 monogram (ng.). I started her on 50,000 units of vitamin D2 a week, (an average of 7143 units a day.
She continued to see her rheumatologist and primary care doctor. I saw her again on May 2, 2012. She told me that within a few months of starting the vitamin D, her years of fatigue improved and then resolved. Her kidney function before the vitamin D showed a creatinine of 1.4 mg.; a recent one was now 1.2 mg. (Serum creatinine is a very important measure of kidney function, and total renal failure is a not uncommon manifestation of scleroderma. The creatinine levels showed an improvement of 15%) Immediately prior to the vitamin D, her prednisone dose as adjusted by the rheumatologist, was 40 mg. a day. Once the vitamin D was started, because of an improvement in her overall symptoms, her doctor was able to slowly the dose to 5 mg. a day. (40 mg. of Prednisone a day for an extended period of time almost always causes major serious side effects; in comparison 5 mg. causes rarely causes major side effects.
On May 11, 2011, I posted: #19, a case history regarding myasthenia gravis (MG) and vitamin D. To this day I have not been able to find another case history reporting improvement in MG in spite of several searches of MEDLINE and searches with different search engines. On July 1, 2010, I posed a case history of a complete remission of progressive multiple sclerosis with Vitamin D. However in this case, there is a large volume of medical studies that have documented improvement of MS with Vitamin D. Many have been published AFTER my report of 2010, but many were published before.
So is this case report of scleroderma more similar to a new finding in the case of MG, or just a demonstration of a previously discovered connection, as in the case of MS? To find out, I had to search the internet.
Vitamin D levels in scleroderma have been found to be remarkably low. There is direct correlation between the severity of the disease and levels of vitamin D. Especially important is that lung manifestations of scleroderma are more common and severe the lower the level. Fibrosis (scar tissue) which can be widespread in advanced scleroderma has been show to be inversely related to vitamin D concentration. The abnormal deposition of calcium deposits in the tissues (called metastatic calcification), found in the most severe cases of scleroderma, is related to high parathyroid levels and very low vitamin D levels om patients without scleroderma, and a study that looked at parathyroid levels found in fact that parathyroid levels in scleroderma was very high. As far as case reports, there are some, but not the “perfect” prospective double blind study.
And finally, it is common sense that scleroderma is not an exception to the finding that vitamin D prevents the production of abnormal antibodies caused by a wide variety of illnesses,
Most people reading this do not know anyone with scleroderma because fortunately it is a rare disease. But everyone knows someone with an autoimmune disease. Help them out, send this link to them.
1/15/12
27) MYASTHENIA GRAVIS ASSOCIATION AND VITAMIN D
The Myasthenia Gravis association has a web site and a discussion blog online. It can easily be accessed by goggle: Myasthenia Gravis Association.
My entry on this Health Letter #19 is titled: Case History: Subjective and Objective Improvement in Myasthenia Gravis following aggressive treatment of Vitamin D insufficiency. It tells the story about Debbie, a woman with myasthenia gravis.
This entry was different than when I wrote about other illnesses, such as osteoporosis and multiple sclerosis, which have a significant amount of medical research supporting their connection with vitamin D. I was unable to find any medical study that investigated myasthenia gravis(MG) and vitamin D. However myasthenia gravis is known to be an autoimmune illness felt to be caused by abnormal antibodies, and there has been much research done on vitamin D having a beneficial effect against such antibodies.
I precipitated a discussion of Vitamin D and myasthenia. Many members of the forum with MG were aware that they had very low levels of vitamin D, and were aware of the problems that can arise with osteoporosis, made worse because prednisone frequently used to treat MG often accelerates osteoporosis. One member in particular felt there was a possibility that an improvement in the MG that coincided with taking significant doses of vitamin D were related. Some members of the forum indicated they were going to get a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level done for the first time.
One member of the forum summarized the discussion on the Myasthenia Gravis Forum:
"I think Dr Baker has been given a good hearing on this Forum and his argument has been well made. Maybe it’s time to let it sink in. And .. I have taken what he says about vitamin D deficiency very seriously. I think there may well be something in it and think it worthy of further investigation. The MS (Multiple Sclerosis) Trust and MS Society have taken on board the possible link with vitamin D deficiency and autoimmune diseases and I think we should too."
Best wishes to the members of the forum who suffer from MG and I hope as a result of the discussion, more people with MG have an experience with vitamin D that is similar to that of Debbie's positive experience.
My entry on this Health Letter #19 is titled: Case History: Subjective and Objective Improvement in Myasthenia Gravis following aggressive treatment of Vitamin D insufficiency. It tells the story about Debbie, a woman with myasthenia gravis.
This entry was different than when I wrote about other illnesses, such as osteoporosis and multiple sclerosis, which have a significant amount of medical research supporting their connection with vitamin D. I was unable to find any medical study that investigated myasthenia gravis(MG) and vitamin D. However myasthenia gravis is known to be an autoimmune illness felt to be caused by abnormal antibodies, and there has been much research done on vitamin D having a beneficial effect against such antibodies.
I precipitated a discussion of Vitamin D and myasthenia. Many members of the forum with MG were aware that they had very low levels of vitamin D, and were aware of the problems that can arise with osteoporosis, made worse because prednisone frequently used to treat MG often accelerates osteoporosis. One member in particular felt there was a possibility that an improvement in the MG that coincided with taking significant doses of vitamin D were related. Some members of the forum indicated they were going to get a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level done for the first time.
One member of the forum summarized the discussion on the Myasthenia Gravis Forum:
"I think Dr Baker has been given a good hearing on this Forum and his argument has been well made. Maybe it’s time to let it sink in. And .. I have taken what he says about vitamin D deficiency very seriously. I think there may well be something in it and think it worthy of further investigation. The MS (Multiple Sclerosis) Trust and MS Society have taken on board the possible link with vitamin D deficiency and autoimmune diseases and I think we should too."
Best wishes to the members of the forum who suffer from MG and I hope as a result of the discussion, more people with MG have an experience with vitamin D that is similar to that of Debbie's positive experience.
12/17/11
#26) ANTICANCER RESEARCH ARTICLE FINALLY GETS SOME PUBLICITY
I have made several references to the fact that there has been no publicity in newspapers about the recent landmark crucial study that proved that a blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D of 47 ng. will slash the incidence of breast cancer in women 50%.
Earlier this week I was emailed by a friend of mine in Lowell, Massachusetts, about an article in the Lowell Sun newspaper. (I grew up in Lowell).The article interviewed a non-physician non-researcher who quoted the thoroughly discredited Institute of Medicine report of about a year ago. I wrote a letter to the editor setting the record straight, and it was published today. I mentioned in the letter the Anticancer Research article. The letter is below.
The circulation of the Lowell Sun is over 100,000. So finally there has been some publicity about this study.
You don't have to read the Lowell Sun to know about the study. You know about it now.
Vitamin D has benefit
The Lowell Sun
Updated: 12/17/2011
The conclusions of "Popping vitamin D? Not so fast" seem to be based on the Institute of Medicine's report of late 2010, which has been criticized by many vitamin D experts, including the Harvard School of Public Health.
The ability of adequate vitamin D levels to prevent osteoporotic fractures has long been proven with medical studies. Symptoms of many illnesses are lessened by ideal vitamin D levels. Recently, the September 2011 issue of the medical research journal Anticancer Research demonstrated beyond any doubt that a serum level of 47 mg. of 25-hydroxyvitamin D resulted in a 50 percent lower risk of breast cancer. This study got practically no publicity in newspapers.
I have ordered more than 6,000 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in seven years, and treated more than 4,000 individuals with insufficiency. The benefits I have seen are too numerous to list in this letter.
ROBERT BAKER, M.D.
(Lowell High School graduate)
Cherry Hill, N.J.
Although I still can't find any other newspaper that makes reference to the 47 ng. level vitamin D study, I have found other publications that write about the details of the study. Just a few of them are:
1) Foodforbreastcancer.com
2. People Beating Cancer
3. MND (Men's News Daily)
Earlier this week I was emailed by a friend of mine in Lowell, Massachusetts, about an article in the Lowell Sun newspaper. (I grew up in Lowell).The article interviewed a non-physician non-researcher who quoted the thoroughly discredited Institute of Medicine report of about a year ago. I wrote a letter to the editor setting the record straight, and it was published today. I mentioned in the letter the Anticancer Research article. The letter is below.
The circulation of the Lowell Sun is over 100,000. So finally there has been some publicity about this study.
You don't have to read the Lowell Sun to know about the study. You know about it now.
Vitamin D has benefit
The Lowell Sun
Updated: 12/17/2011
The conclusions of "Popping vitamin D? Not so fast" seem to be based on the Institute of Medicine's report of late 2010, which has been criticized by many vitamin D experts, including the Harvard School of Public Health.
The ability of adequate vitamin D levels to prevent osteoporotic fractures has long been proven with medical studies. Symptoms of many illnesses are lessened by ideal vitamin D levels. Recently, the September 2011 issue of the medical research journal Anticancer Research demonstrated beyond any doubt that a serum level of 47 mg. of 25-hydroxyvitamin D resulted in a 50 percent lower risk of breast cancer. This study got practically no publicity in newspapers.
I have ordered more than 6,000 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in seven years, and treated more than 4,000 individuals with insufficiency. The benefits I have seen are too numerous to list in this letter.
ROBERT BAKER, M.D.
(Lowell High School graduate)
Cherry Hill, N.J.
Although I still can't find any other newspaper that makes reference to the 47 ng. level vitamin D study, I have found other publications that write about the details of the study. Just a few of them are:
1) Foodforbreastcancer.com
2. People Beating Cancer
3. MND (Men's News Daily)
10/27/11
#25) MORE VITAMIN D: (WHO WANTS TO GET OSTEOPOROSIS?)
Vitamin D remains underused and not fully understood by many people. This column will review news and information regarding vitamin D.
Osteoporosis remains a multi-billion dollar health problem. For 15 years calcium and a small dose of vitamin D were recommended, but studies have shown this is insufficient. It is now known that levels of Vitamin D over 32 ng (and preferably over 50 ng)) will prevent most osteoporosis. At the same time, amounts of 400 units of vitamin D have been shown repeatedly to have practically no benefit. 800 Units a day is only slightly better. Obtaining several thousand vitamin D levels from people in the last 7 years have given me the opportunity to compare this experience with the research studies. About 400 levels had osteoporosis or osteopenia on a DEXA scan. Of these 400, only 3 people have had levels less than 32 ng. (less than 1%). So want to prevent osteoporosis? (who doesn’t?). Get your doctor to order a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level (it’s still not done routinely), and get the level up to over 32 ng.-preferably over 40 ng, 50 ng. if even better. With these levels, most of the calcium you eat in your diet will now be absorbed (80% instead of 15%). The few populations that do have levels this high (and don’t take calcium supplements) have a very low level of osteoporosis. How important is this? How many people do you know over 70 that have broken a hip? Mostly it’s not a case of falling and breaking a hip. It’s been shown that often the hip breaks spontaneously and the person falls, and everything happens so quickly the person doesn’t realize the pain came a split second before the fall.
Cedrick and Frank Garland are two scientists/doctors who went to a lecture in the 1980’s as students where they learned that the amount of sunlight is strongly related to the incidence of a number of cancers. They devoted several years to research the subject, and they changed history. They published their data in the 1990’s, and this is the reason you have heard so much about vitamin D in the newspapers the past 7 years; a great deal of further research was stimulated by this. Breast, prostate, and colon cancer have been most studied and the proof is substantial that the incidence of these cancers can be greatly decreased with higher vitamin D levels. A critical “earth shattering” study was just published a few months ago. The only 12 studies on vitamin D levels and breast cancer were combined and it was determined that if a woman maintains a level of over 47 ng. of vitamin D, her chance of breast cancer is reduced by 50%. This is the type of information that we should have read on front pages of newspapers, but unfortunately in medical research, sometimes the most important discoveries get the least publicity. It is estimated that this 50% reduction in breast cancer could occur within 5 years.
Late last year the important sounding Institute of Medicine came out with a report on Vitamin D in which they admitted they were disregarding every major study Vitamin D study done in the past 15 years. They tried to make the case that vitamin D was “no big deal.” Since then this has become the most repudiated document I have seen in my career. Every true vitamin D expert in the country has specifically pointed out why it is invalid. The Harvard School of Public Health proved point by point that the study was a collection of wrong conclusions based on no evidence or incorrect evidence. The Endocrine Society disagrees with the report. Many other prominent organizations have repudiated it. As far as the motivation of the committee members, that’s a very long story, but suffice it to say that most of the members had financial interests in industries who stand to be hurt if the population increases their vitamin D level. For instance, a pharmaceutical company has been working over a decade on new Vitamin D ”look-alike” drugs that can be patented. If they ever succeed, it would only be a financial success if the general population doesn’t take vitamin D on their own. Some people who authored the report had financial interests in this company. (I don’t make this stuff up, I only tell you about it). One person has told me she heard that Vitamin D is “controversial.” There is no honest controversy involved with vitamin D. It should be noted that Vitamin D has absolutely nothing to do with Vitamin E, which has recently again been publicized as having a negative effect on good health. Vitamin E NEVER had any valid studies backing up its use as a supplement.
I’ve written about many other benefits of vitamin D in the previous updates. From the research that’s been published, and reinforced by follow up levels in the people I have on vitamin D, in order to reach a level of 47 ng. of higher, it is often necessary to take 5000 Units of Vitamin D daily. (available for $2 a month over the counter). I often am told that some people are still taking a dose far lower than this. The often talked about dose of 2000 units a day is something that some organizations have recommended for people who never have had a blood test.I recommend blood levels for everyone. I only occasionally see someone who attains an adequate level at the lower 2000 unit dose.
So my final question is this: What are you waiting for?
Osteoporosis remains a multi-billion dollar health problem. For 15 years calcium and a small dose of vitamin D were recommended, but studies have shown this is insufficient. It is now known that levels of Vitamin D over 32 ng (and preferably over 50 ng)) will prevent most osteoporosis. At the same time, amounts of 400 units of vitamin D have been shown repeatedly to have practically no benefit. 800 Units a day is only slightly better. Obtaining several thousand vitamin D levels from people in the last 7 years have given me the opportunity to compare this experience with the research studies. About 400 levels had osteoporosis or osteopenia on a DEXA scan. Of these 400, only 3 people have had levels less than 32 ng. (less than 1%). So want to prevent osteoporosis? (who doesn’t?). Get your doctor to order a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level (it’s still not done routinely), and get the level up to over 32 ng.-preferably over 40 ng, 50 ng. if even better. With these levels, most of the calcium you eat in your diet will now be absorbed (80% instead of 15%). The few populations that do have levels this high (and don’t take calcium supplements) have a very low level of osteoporosis. How important is this? How many people do you know over 70 that have broken a hip? Mostly it’s not a case of falling and breaking a hip. It’s been shown that often the hip breaks spontaneously and the person falls, and everything happens so quickly the person doesn’t realize the pain came a split second before the fall.
Cedrick and Frank Garland are two scientists/doctors who went to a lecture in the 1980’s as students where they learned that the amount of sunlight is strongly related to the incidence of a number of cancers. They devoted several years to research the subject, and they changed history. They published their data in the 1990’s, and this is the reason you have heard so much about vitamin D in the newspapers the past 7 years; a great deal of further research was stimulated by this. Breast, prostate, and colon cancer have been most studied and the proof is substantial that the incidence of these cancers can be greatly decreased with higher vitamin D levels. A critical “earth shattering” study was just published a few months ago. The only 12 studies on vitamin D levels and breast cancer were combined and it was determined that if a woman maintains a level of over 47 ng. of vitamin D, her chance of breast cancer is reduced by 50%. This is the type of information that we should have read on front pages of newspapers, but unfortunately in medical research, sometimes the most important discoveries get the least publicity. It is estimated that this 50% reduction in breast cancer could occur within 5 years.
Late last year the important sounding Institute of Medicine came out with a report on Vitamin D in which they admitted they were disregarding every major study Vitamin D study done in the past 15 years. They tried to make the case that vitamin D was “no big deal.” Since then this has become the most repudiated document I have seen in my career. Every true vitamin D expert in the country has specifically pointed out why it is invalid. The Harvard School of Public Health proved point by point that the study was a collection of wrong conclusions based on no evidence or incorrect evidence. The Endocrine Society disagrees with the report. Many other prominent organizations have repudiated it. As far as the motivation of the committee members, that’s a very long story, but suffice it to say that most of the members had financial interests in industries who stand to be hurt if the population increases their vitamin D level. For instance, a pharmaceutical company has been working over a decade on new Vitamin D ”look-alike” drugs that can be patented. If they ever succeed, it would only be a financial success if the general population doesn’t take vitamin D on their own. Some people who authored the report had financial interests in this company. (I don’t make this stuff up, I only tell you about it). One person has told me she heard that Vitamin D is “controversial.” There is no honest controversy involved with vitamin D. It should be noted that Vitamin D has absolutely nothing to do with Vitamin E, which has recently again been publicized as having a negative effect on good health. Vitamin E NEVER had any valid studies backing up its use as a supplement.
I’ve written about many other benefits of vitamin D in the previous updates. From the research that’s been published, and reinforced by follow up levels in the people I have on vitamin D, in order to reach a level of 47 ng. of higher, it is often necessary to take 5000 Units of Vitamin D daily. (available for $2 a month over the counter). I often am told that some people are still taking a dose far lower than this. The often talked about dose of 2000 units a day is something that some organizations have recommended for people who never have had a blood test.I recommend blood levels for everyone. I only occasionally see someone who attains an adequate level at the lower 2000 unit dose.
So my final question is this: What are you waiting for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)