It has been two years since my first update on Vitamin D. Research on vitamin D has continued to explode in this time. I see about 3 major articles a week that have been published on vitamin D. Rarely do the important studies make the newspapers.
One of vitamin D’s most basic properties is increasing calcium absorption, bone density, and muscle strength. Studies have shown that it’s never too late to be beneficial; in double blind studies elderly nursing home patients decrease their falls and fractures within 6 months of being given a significant dose of vitamin D. Studies show that bone density at 40 ng is better than at lower levels. I have collected several case histories in which people have increased their bone density by 15% on vitamin D alone over a few years. In 6 years of my ordering vitamin D levels, only 4 out of 700 (1 out of 175) had osteoporosis or osteopenia with an initial level of vitamin D over 32 ng (and all 4 were just barely over 32). Other physicians I have spoken to have seen the same results. Conclusion: want to have almost complete protection against osteoporosis? Keep your vitamin D level over 32 ng. (although 40 ng or higher would be better). (see #17 on osteoporosis).
My 2010 update listed information about vitamin D preventing hyper-proliferation of cells, and therefore cancer. A landmark study has been published specifically on breast cancer and the results were nothing short of incredible. Women diagnosed with breast cancer with vitamin D levels over 30 ng. were 73% less likely to die and 94% less likely to have their cancer recur compared to those with levels less than 20 ng. during the 10 year length of the study. The evidence in other studies indicate that if the vitamin D level is raised with supplements after the diagnosis of breast cancer is made, the prognosis will improve substantially. (see #15 on breast cancer for details of the study.
It has been shown that vitamin D prevents autoimmune disease by interfering with the production of abnormal antibodies that attack the body. Extensive studies have shown that the incidence of type I diabetes (juvenile), and multiple sclerosis can be greatly decreased by giving infants vitamin D. Many research articles on MS have shown improvements in the progress of the disease with vitamin D. My MS patients are few since I’m not a neurologist, but I’ve seen improvement in my several patients with MS who have their low level treated. (see #9 and #12 on multiple sclerosis).
Vitamin D allows the body to make a class of natural antibotics. In the May,2010
issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a rigorously designed randomized, double blind, controlled study gave children either vitamin D or placebo during the flu season. The diagnosis of influenza A was made only when it was confirmed by culture. The vitamin D children had 42% less influenza A than the placebo children. An unexpected result was that the vitamin D children had an 83% reduction in asthma attacks. Previous studies have shown that 70% of children have vitamin D levels of less than 32 ng., and that the average vitamin D level is 20% lower in this decade than when we were children. (see #14 on influenza).
The findings on vitamin D sound “too good to be true” In the past several decades there has been wild claims about vitamin C and E that were known by some to be inaccurate shortly after they were published. There was always a great deal of skepticism by experts and there was never a consensus. In contrast. the vitamin D studies are extensive and accurate. An international consortium of vitamin D experts in a worldwide vitamin D call to action on March 31, 2011.
Should it be a surprise that vitamin D has such a profound effect on humans? The human body has about 2000 genes. A study in the August, 2010, Genome Research explained that vitamin D has been identified as having a significant effect on the activity of 229 genes (about 10%) by binding to 2776 sites on these genes. Humans have gone through periods of time of food shortages, but for a very long time humans had a very much higher level of vitamin D, as there was never a shortage of this near the equator.
4/5/11
#17) MARKED IMPROVEMENT OF OSTEOPENIA AND OSTEOPOROSIS ON DEXA SCANS WITH VITAMIN D ALONE OVER 5 YEARS 4 MONTHS
Dory is a lady who in May, 2005, at the age of 50, received her first DEXA scan as a screening test for osteoporosis. After her initial test she was told by her physician there were areas of osteoporosis and osteopenia in the scan. No treatment was recommended at that time. Her physician’s plan was to repeat the DEXA scan in 2 years. The DEXA scan and the 2 subsequent scans were obtained at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Dory and her husband are acquaintances of mine. So they called me to get another opinion on the scan. I recommended to Dory that she obtain a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. Her first level was in the low 20’s. I initially recommended she take 5000 units of vitamin D and repeat the level in 6 months.
2 years and 2 months later Dory got her second DEXA. It showed improvement in most of the bone densities tested. Her Massachusetts General Hospital physician was surprised that the bone strength had improved without taking any prescription anti-osteoporosis drugs. By then Dory was noticing that she felt so much better since taking the vitamin D, and noticed the increased strength and growth in her fingernails. I discussed with her the ideal level of vitamin D, told her about the high levels that lifeguards and fishermen and women have in the summers. She has adjusted her dose in the last few years and she has reached what many vitamin D experts consider an ideal level of 70 to 90 ng, and she has kept her level at that number.
Almost 3 years later, in September, 2010, she received her third DEXA scan. All areas tested were very much improved.
Dory’s Dexa Results -
Improvement in Bone Density
May, 2005 to September, 2010 (5 years, 4 month interval)
(L refers to lumbar vertebrae).
Hip-----Femur----L1------L2-------L3--------L4-----Ave.Increase
7.5%-----13.5%----33.6%--13.3%--22.2%--8.13%----17%
Dory’s documented results are quite remarkable. The public (and many doctors) feel it’s inevitable that bone density decrease with age.
Are these results unique? Studies haven’t studied serial bone density in subjects taking vitamin D alone in the absence of anti-osteoporosis prescription drugs. I have seen 2 additional patients in the past 5 years and both had improvements of 15% taking vitamin D alone in DEXAs taken two years apart.
History of Vitamin D and osteoporosis
Sunlight (which produces vitamin D in the skin) was discovered in 1850 to prevent rickets, and cod liver oil (which contains vitamin D) was recognized as preventing rickets in 1877. Rickets is a severe malformation of the bones occurring in young children. Vitamin D itself wasn’t discovered until 1922. Rickets continued to be common well until the 20th century.
It wasn’t until 1970 that Vitamin D’s role in calcium regulation was recognized. For several decades vitamin D was considered to be just one of many minor risk factors in osteoporosis. The medical profession repeated its error that had been made with cholesterol (in 1978 cholesterol of 250 mg. was considered normal). Similarly a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level was considered normal from 20 to 30 ng/ml. This led, erroneously, to minimizing of the importance of vitamin D as a cause of osteoporosis. Ordering 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, stimulated by the release of research reports, didn’t become common until about 2005. It has only been since about 2005 that laboratories no longer report a normal level starting at 20 ng. Even today, many people even with osteoporotic fractures don’t get a level ordered. I know of many extreme cases; including a case in which a woman with a hip fracture at 75 stayed in a nursing home for a year without a level being obtained, suffering increasing weakness and falls, and then being discovered to have an level of 8 ng once she was out of the nursing home.
A most remarkable and very sad case of osteoporosis was a 70 year old woman who I saw in 2005, only a few months after I started ordering levels. She walked totally bent over at the waist with her upper body at a 90% angle to the floor. This type of thing has shown to be caused by microscopic fractures that occur over decades that start at a young age. I ordered a vitamin D level, her first ever. Out of the over 3000 levels I have ordered before and since, it is the only one in which the result was “no detectable vitamin D.” Unfortunately the vitamin D she now takes, although it has relieved some of her pain, can not completely rebuild and straighten her broken spine.
Many studies until recently showed that osteoporosis was common with what was called normal levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D 20 to 30 ng/mg. Even to this day, studies are published and reported to the public in newspapers falsely claiming that vitamin D doesn’t prevent fractures because of the fractures that occur with levels in the 20’s.. For example, it has been shown repeatedly in studies that 400 units a day of vitamin D raises the level only an average of 5 ng,, and doesn’t significantly reduced the fracture rate. The truth is that in the last decade virtually EVERY study done comparing fracture rate above and below 32 ng has shown a significant reduction in fracture rates.
A landmark study in elderly patients from age 70 to 90 showed that in less than six months the number of falls and fractured decreased very significantly with very significant doses of vitamin D that raised the level, often over 40 ng. (Vitamin D was compared to placebo). Hundreds of well designed studies have demonstrated an extreme benefit of significant doses of vitamin D in terms of preventing osteoporosis).
Studies have shown that the parathyroid glands can have a detrimental effect on bone density up to a level of vitamin D of 40 ng. (The parathyroid glands produce their hormone to dissolve microscopic areas of bone in order to maintain a normal calcium level. A further beneficial effect with higher levels has not been studied, simply because not enough people have these higher levels. Many vitamin D experts consider an ideal level as 70 to 90 ng. Levels of vitamin D with sun exposure alone will not go up greater than 150 ng. At that level, there is a feedback mechanism which breaks down the chemicals in the skin that synthesize vitamin D.
No side effects occur with vitamin D at levels below 150 ng. There is a very specific situation in the rare disease of saroidosis and a few other illnesses in which the disease causes of disorder of vitamin D metabolism, so there is sometimes a hypersensitivity to vitamin D in these few rare cases that can be easily managed by monitoring blood chemistries.
Many studies have shown that taking calcium supplements increase the rate of kidney stones. Because these supplements are given with Vitamin D, some studies have erroneously concluded that vitamin D also raises the incidence of kidney stones. The truth is that all studies using vitamin D alone have NEVER shown an increase in kidney stones. In fact, with low vitamin D levels leading to an increase in calcium released from the bone, it is likely that treating vitamin D insufficiency leads to a DECREASE, not an INCREASE, in the rate of kidney stones.
Conclusions from my Clinical Practice:
I have obtained 3,500 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels on patients since 2005. About 700 of these patients had the diagnosis of osteoporosis or osteopenia on DEXA scan or examination. 697 out of 700 (99.57%) of these people had initial levels of less than 32 ng. Out the 3 with levels above 32 ng., one female had an oophorectomy in her 40’s, and all 3 had levels below 36 ng. Rheumatologists at a major medical center in NJ have had similar results testing everyone with osteopenia or osteoporosis.
Osteoporosis is a multi-billion dollar public health problem that is largely and inexpensively preventable.
DEFNITIONS:
All references to vitamin D levels refer to 25-hydroxyvitamin D.
All vitamin D measurements above are ng/ml. Some medical research uses the measurement nmol/L.
Conversion:
25-hydroxyvitamin D in ng/ml multiplied by 2.5 = nmol/L.
25-hydroxyvitamin D in nmol/L multiplied by 0.4 = ng/ml.
example: 25-hydroxyvitamin D: 40 ng/ml = 100 nmol/L.
DEXA scan is an x-ray test for bone density used to diagnose osteoporosis or osteopenia. It has become popular only in the past 10 years.
Dory and her husband are acquaintances of mine. So they called me to get another opinion on the scan. I recommended to Dory that she obtain a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. Her first level was in the low 20’s. I initially recommended she take 5000 units of vitamin D and repeat the level in 6 months.
2 years and 2 months later Dory got her second DEXA. It showed improvement in most of the bone densities tested. Her Massachusetts General Hospital physician was surprised that the bone strength had improved without taking any prescription anti-osteoporosis drugs. By then Dory was noticing that she felt so much better since taking the vitamin D, and noticed the increased strength and growth in her fingernails. I discussed with her the ideal level of vitamin D, told her about the high levels that lifeguards and fishermen and women have in the summers. She has adjusted her dose in the last few years and she has reached what many vitamin D experts consider an ideal level of 70 to 90 ng, and she has kept her level at that number.
Almost 3 years later, in September, 2010, she received her third DEXA scan. All areas tested were very much improved.
Dory’s Dexa Results -
Improvement in Bone Density
May, 2005 to September, 2010 (5 years, 4 month interval)
(L refers to lumbar vertebrae).
Hip-----Femur----L1------L2-------L3--------L4-----Ave.Increase
7.5%-----13.5%----33.6%--13.3%--22.2%--8.13%----17%
Dory’s documented results are quite remarkable. The public (and many doctors) feel it’s inevitable that bone density decrease with age.
Are these results unique? Studies haven’t studied serial bone density in subjects taking vitamin D alone in the absence of anti-osteoporosis prescription drugs. I have seen 2 additional patients in the past 5 years and both had improvements of 15% taking vitamin D alone in DEXAs taken two years apart.
History of Vitamin D and osteoporosis
Sunlight (which produces vitamin D in the skin) was discovered in 1850 to prevent rickets, and cod liver oil (which contains vitamin D) was recognized as preventing rickets in 1877. Rickets is a severe malformation of the bones occurring in young children. Vitamin D itself wasn’t discovered until 1922. Rickets continued to be common well until the 20th century.
It wasn’t until 1970 that Vitamin D’s role in calcium regulation was recognized. For several decades vitamin D was considered to be just one of many minor risk factors in osteoporosis. The medical profession repeated its error that had been made with cholesterol (in 1978 cholesterol of 250 mg. was considered normal). Similarly a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level was considered normal from 20 to 30 ng/ml. This led, erroneously, to minimizing of the importance of vitamin D as a cause of osteoporosis. Ordering 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, stimulated by the release of research reports, didn’t become common until about 2005. It has only been since about 2005 that laboratories no longer report a normal level starting at 20 ng. Even today, many people even with osteoporotic fractures don’t get a level ordered. I know of many extreme cases; including a case in which a woman with a hip fracture at 75 stayed in a nursing home for a year without a level being obtained, suffering increasing weakness and falls, and then being discovered to have an level of 8 ng once she was out of the nursing home.
A most remarkable and very sad case of osteoporosis was a 70 year old woman who I saw in 2005, only a few months after I started ordering levels. She walked totally bent over at the waist with her upper body at a 90% angle to the floor. This type of thing has shown to be caused by microscopic fractures that occur over decades that start at a young age. I ordered a vitamin D level, her first ever. Out of the over 3000 levels I have ordered before and since, it is the only one in which the result was “no detectable vitamin D.” Unfortunately the vitamin D she now takes, although it has relieved some of her pain, can not completely rebuild and straighten her broken spine.
Many studies until recently showed that osteoporosis was common with what was called normal levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D 20 to 30 ng/mg. Even to this day, studies are published and reported to the public in newspapers falsely claiming that vitamin D doesn’t prevent fractures because of the fractures that occur with levels in the 20’s.. For example, it has been shown repeatedly in studies that 400 units a day of vitamin D raises the level only an average of 5 ng,, and doesn’t significantly reduced the fracture rate. The truth is that in the last decade virtually EVERY study done comparing fracture rate above and below 32 ng has shown a significant reduction in fracture rates.
A landmark study in elderly patients from age 70 to 90 showed that in less than six months the number of falls and fractured decreased very significantly with very significant doses of vitamin D that raised the level, often over 40 ng. (Vitamin D was compared to placebo). Hundreds of well designed studies have demonstrated an extreme benefit of significant doses of vitamin D in terms of preventing osteoporosis).
Studies have shown that the parathyroid glands can have a detrimental effect on bone density up to a level of vitamin D of 40 ng. (The parathyroid glands produce their hormone to dissolve microscopic areas of bone in order to maintain a normal calcium level. A further beneficial effect with higher levels has not been studied, simply because not enough people have these higher levels. Many vitamin D experts consider an ideal level as 70 to 90 ng. Levels of vitamin D with sun exposure alone will not go up greater than 150 ng. At that level, there is a feedback mechanism which breaks down the chemicals in the skin that synthesize vitamin D.
No side effects occur with vitamin D at levels below 150 ng. There is a very specific situation in the rare disease of saroidosis and a few other illnesses in which the disease causes of disorder of vitamin D metabolism, so there is sometimes a hypersensitivity to vitamin D in these few rare cases that can be easily managed by monitoring blood chemistries.
Many studies have shown that taking calcium supplements increase the rate of kidney stones. Because these supplements are given with Vitamin D, some studies have erroneously concluded that vitamin D also raises the incidence of kidney stones. The truth is that all studies using vitamin D alone have NEVER shown an increase in kidney stones. In fact, with low vitamin D levels leading to an increase in calcium released from the bone, it is likely that treating vitamin D insufficiency leads to a DECREASE, not an INCREASE, in the rate of kidney stones.
Conclusions from my Clinical Practice:
I have obtained 3,500 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels on patients since 2005. About 700 of these patients had the diagnosis of osteoporosis or osteopenia on DEXA scan or examination. 697 out of 700 (99.57%) of these people had initial levels of less than 32 ng. Out the 3 with levels above 32 ng., one female had an oophorectomy in her 40’s, and all 3 had levels below 36 ng. Rheumatologists at a major medical center in NJ have had similar results testing everyone with osteopenia or osteoporosis.
Osteoporosis is a multi-billion dollar public health problem that is largely and inexpensively preventable.
DEFNITIONS:
All references to vitamin D levels refer to 25-hydroxyvitamin D.
All vitamin D measurements above are ng/ml. Some medical research uses the measurement nmol/L.
Conversion:
25-hydroxyvitamin D in ng/ml multiplied by 2.5 = nmol/L.
25-hydroxyvitamin D in nmol/L multiplied by 0.4 = ng/ml.
example: 25-hydroxyvitamin D: 40 ng/ml = 100 nmol/L.
DEXA scan is an x-ray test for bone density used to diagnose osteoporosis or osteopenia. It has become popular only in the past 10 years.
10/2/10
#16) DIVERTICULOSIS
Diverticulosis is the condition of having outpouchings (diverticulae) of the colon develop as a result of chronic excess pressure on the colon wall. Three decades ago, it was virtually unheard of before age 40 or 50. Now although it is still more common with age, it’s seen occasionally in the 30’s. Symptoms include abdominal pain due to spasm (more common in the left lower abdomen), bloating, and changes in movements (both diarrhea and constipation can result). Any such symptoms would prompt a gastrointestinal work up to rule out more serious conditions. Occasionally bleeding can occur, and if the diverticulae become infected then diverticulitis results, which can lead to perforations and abscesses.
Risk factors for diverticulosis include increased age, chronic constipation, and a low fiber diet over decades. Fiber was first recognized in 1974 as being the most important factor in diverticulosis. Denis Burkitt was a general surgeon who practiced medicine in developing countries in Africa as part of missionary work. As a young doctor he expected to do a lot of abdominal surgery in these areas that didn’t have medical care prior to his arriving. For his entire career he operated on just a few people with appendicitis and diverticulitis, and those were Western workers who had only been in Africa for a brief time. In 1979 he published a book called “Don’t Forget Fiber in Your Diet,” and the rest is history; the major cause of diverticulosis was identified.
Definite diagnosis is relatively easy with the use of a CT scan or MRI, followed by a colonoscopy.
The recommended treatment depends on the symptoms. Many cases have minimal symptoms and require nothing more than a high-fiber diet. Fiber has been shown to reduce pressure in the colon. For decades the advice to avoid seeds in many vegetables and fruits was given; this was based on the theory that the seeds could get caught in the diverticula. This advice was never based on legitimate studies and now has been proven to be definitely erroneous; in fact these vegetables and fruits contain fiber that improves the condition. Recommended fiber sources include both insoluble fiber as in whole wheat products and vegetables, and soluble fiber as in fruits and oats. Don’t’ get tricked, many containers of food products mention fiber, but actually have an insignificant amount.
For acute flare-ups of abdominal pain, prescription anti-spasmotics and the old fashioned remedy of peppermint oil can be prescribed.
When infected, diverticulitis is treated with antibiotics and a low fiber diet (which puts the colon at rest). A liquid diet and antibiotics are used in outpatients. More serious cases require hospitalization, nothing by mouth, and intravenous antibiotics. In either case, two antibiotics are necessary to treat aerobic (requiring oxygen to multiply) and anaerobic (multiply without oxygen) bacteria. Augmentin and Cleocin are antibiotics commonly used in outpatients.
Absesses not cured by antibiotics, and uncontrolled bleeding are two indications requiring surgery to remove the affected area of the colon or drain the abscess. With stronger antibiotics available, surgery is required much less often than several decades ago.
Risk factors for diverticulosis include increased age, chronic constipation, and a low fiber diet over decades. Fiber was first recognized in 1974 as being the most important factor in diverticulosis. Denis Burkitt was a general surgeon who practiced medicine in developing countries in Africa as part of missionary work. As a young doctor he expected to do a lot of abdominal surgery in these areas that didn’t have medical care prior to his arriving. For his entire career he operated on just a few people with appendicitis and diverticulitis, and those were Western workers who had only been in Africa for a brief time. In 1979 he published a book called “Don’t Forget Fiber in Your Diet,” and the rest is history; the major cause of diverticulosis was identified.
Definite diagnosis is relatively easy with the use of a CT scan or MRI, followed by a colonoscopy.
The recommended treatment depends on the symptoms. Many cases have minimal symptoms and require nothing more than a high-fiber diet. Fiber has been shown to reduce pressure in the colon. For decades the advice to avoid seeds in many vegetables and fruits was given; this was based on the theory that the seeds could get caught in the diverticula. This advice was never based on legitimate studies and now has been proven to be definitely erroneous; in fact these vegetables and fruits contain fiber that improves the condition. Recommended fiber sources include both insoluble fiber as in whole wheat products and vegetables, and soluble fiber as in fruits and oats. Don’t’ get tricked, many containers of food products mention fiber, but actually have an insignificant amount.
For acute flare-ups of abdominal pain, prescription anti-spasmotics and the old fashioned remedy of peppermint oil can be prescribed.
When infected, diverticulitis is treated with antibiotics and a low fiber diet (which puts the colon at rest). A liquid diet and antibiotics are used in outpatients. More serious cases require hospitalization, nothing by mouth, and intravenous antibiotics. In either case, two antibiotics are necessary to treat aerobic (requiring oxygen to multiply) and anaerobic (multiply without oxygen) bacteria. Augmentin and Cleocin are antibiotics commonly used in outpatients.
Absesses not cured by antibiotics, and uncontrolled bleeding are two indications requiring surgery to remove the affected area of the colon or drain the abscess. With stronger antibiotics available, surgery is required much less often than several decades ago.
9/20/10
#15) BREAST CANCER AND VITAMIN D
revised December 18, 2010:
Breast cancer is the most common female cancer in the United States. There are many known risk factors contributing to breast cancer that have emerged from decades of debate and research. Heredity (including the BrCa1 and BrCa2 genes), certain types of diets (high fat and dairy), excess weight, alcohol, and hormone use are well-known proven risk factors. This will address specifically not those issues but the connection between vitamin D insufficiency and breast cancer.
In 2008 the results of a large prospective study were published and did receive a fair amount of publicity. Blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were obtained over six years from 1989 to 1995 from women at the time of the diagnosis of breast cancer. The follow-up on the outcome of the breast cancer occurred over an additional thirteen years. Participants were treated with standard drugs for their breast cancers, but were not treated for their vitamin D insufficiency. This was the first study that looked at how vitamin D levels affected the prognosis of breast cancer.
The results were striking. 24% of women with levels over 30 ng/dl were compared to the 38.5% with levels less than 20 ng/ml. Those with levels over 30 ng/ml were 73% less likely to die and 94% less likely to have their cancer recur during the 10 year period. This study gives us an idea of the potent anti-tumor effect of vitamin D on breast cancer.
It was not an accident that this research started in 1989. In that year the medical journal Lancet published a study showing that activated vitamin D (calcitriol) reduced the growth of breast cancer and killed breast cancer cells in animal research. It was found that women with vitamin D receptor-positive tumors had better prognoses than those with no vitamin D receptors. (Absence of vitamin D receptors in a tumor is an indication of prolonged vitamin D insufficiency). Vitamin D has since been found to have several other beneficial effects in fighting breast cancer cells. An inverse correlation with distance from the equator and breast cancer has also been documented (more sunlight, higher vitamin D levels, less breast cancer). In 2004 a study concluded that vitamin D reduced the number of abnormal mammograms;(many of those abnormalities were premalignant conditions).
Calcitriol is activated vitamin D and a very potent drug that is used in patients on dialysis and in patients who have had their parathyroid glands removed. It can be lifesaving in these conditions, but its major side effect is an elevated calcium level,(hypercalcemia), which can have serious consequences. In the 1990’s pharmaceutical companies tried to find analogues of vitamin D that would retain its ability to fight breast cancer, but at the same time not have the side effect of raising serum calcium levels found in calcitriol. I know this for a fact for three reasons. First, inside sources have reported it; second a close friend of a physician I know took a full-time job as a pharmaceutical researcher around this time for the purpose of discovering vitamin D analogues, and third, at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in the mid-1990s I was an observer to a conversation of a very prominent nationally known breast cancer researcher who mentioned that pharmaceutical companies were working on finding vitamin D analogues for cancer prevention and treatment. (Unfortunately I did not understand the significance of this at the time.) The substance with the properties that the pharmaceutical companies were looking for already existed, Vitamin D3. However it is not patentable, therefore potential revenues from Vitamin D3 don’t justify private industry spending money on research and advertising.
There have been several studies since 1989 linking breast cancer incidence with low vitamin D levels. There has been much research showing that breast cancer cells are killed by activated vitamin D (and activated vitamin D increases when the level of vitamin D is sufficient.)
In 2009 there was a study that did receive some initial publicity. A study published in the Journal of the National Institutes of Health gave women only 400 units of vitamin D over many years. 400 units of vitamin D daily is a miniscule dose for an adult and has been shown to raise 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels by only about 5 ng/ml. Previous studies have shown that such a small increase doesn't prevent a significant number of fractures or breast cancer, and this was confirmed in the 2009 study. (Taking 400 units of vitamin D is like throwing a pebble in the ocean). A press release resulted in newspapers reporting the erroneous and dangerously misleading conclusion that “Vitamin D doesn’t prevent breast cancer.” The study showed nothing of the kind; the authors of the study didn’t claim it showed this, and unfortunately an opportunity was lost to spread this vital information about the importance of vitamin D. When an umpire makes a mistake a no-hitter may be lost. But when erroneous misleading press reports about a critical way to prevent breast cancer are published, lives are lost.
VITAMIN D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANY FEMALE FOR PREVENTING BREAST CANCER:
1. Have your doctor obtain a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. Insurance that pays for lab tests should pay for this test just like any other blood test (if the correct diagnosis code is indicated).
2. Obtain a copy of the test results to verify the correct test has been done. (I have seen several instances of 1-25-dihydroxyvitamin D being done instead. This is a different test and is worthless in determining vitamin D sufficiency).
3. Take a vitamin D supplement to obtain vitamin D sufficiency within a few months. The lowest normal level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D is considered 32 ng/ml. 40 ng/ml has been shown to be more beneficial for bone strength and osteoporosis prevention. 52 ng/ml has been shown in a study to have additional benefit for breast cancer prevention. For perspective, it should be noted that male lifeguards in August not taking any vitamin D supplements nor using sun screen have levels of about 100 ng/ml. From sunlight alone, humans cannot attain a level over 150 ng/dl; chemicals in the skin break down at this level so no more vitamin D is produced. It has been documented that no side effects occur from 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels unless the levels are above 150 ng/ml.
4. Vitamin D3 is extremely inexpensive (5000 units daily cost $2 to $4 a month.) (Vegetarian prescription vitamin D2 can be prescribed by a physician for those who prefer). Vitamin D3 is the identical molecule that the human produces in the skin and absorbs in response to sunlight.
5. Levels of 32 ng/ml will lower the incidence of breast cancer. 52 ng/ml has been proven to be better. The evidence indicates that ideal levels are at least 60 to 80 ng/ml and perhaps "lifeguard levels" is what nature intended.
6. Most people are taking far too little vitamin D. Once vitamin D insufficiency is diagnosed, I recommend 5000 units a day with a repeat blood level in six months. In some cases, a higher dose is needed for temporary periods, but this should only be taken with the guidance of blood levels.
VITAMIN D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANY FEMALE WHO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH BREAST CANCER
1. Follow the above recommendations for preventing breast cancer.
2. Because the situation is more urgent, a repeat blood level should be obtained in 3 months to determine if the dose is high enough.
3. 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in females who have breast cancer are much lower than the general population. 80% of breast cancer patients have been shown to have low vitamin D levels in a number of studies. (I have tested about 150 breast cancer patients; 100% have had low levels). Levels less than 20/ng/dl are very common in women with breast cancer.
A substantial body of evidence and research dating back to 1989 indicates that vitamin D3 can prevent and treat breast cancer. Oncologists would be quick to point out that there isn’t the perfect long term double-blind control study, Some studies like that may be going on now. However, would you want to be the one that takes a placebo instead of a $2 a month pill that has no side effects and unquestionable lowers the dose of osteoporosis and fractures?
FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH ADDED DECEMBER 18, 2010:
However, does this mean that advanced breast cancer can be simply cured by vitamin D. NO, noone is claiming that. In order for vitamin D to become activated, the cells of the human body converts it to "activated vitamin D."
It has been known for decades that early cancer is more sensitive to chemotherapy agents than advanced cells, presumably because there are more DNA mutations with each multiplication of the cancer cells.
In the same way, there are studies that suggest that advanced cancer produces substances that make it more difficult for 25-hydroxyvitamin D to be converted into activated vitamin D. This would stress even more the importance of health people obtaining an ideal vitamin D level BEFORE cancer deelops. In the future, studies may quantify more exactly the degree of resistance cancer cells have. It would not be surprising if this resistance is not all or none, but gradually increases as the cancer becomes more advanced.
I have seen another issue regarding treatment of breast cancer sometimes causing confusion. Vitamin D is not an antioxidant. Many oncologists advise their chemotherapy patients to refrain from antioxidants such as vitamin C and several of the B vitamins based on some research findings. This has NOTHING to do with Vitamin D.
Common sense may raise the question, “why doesn’t someone just treat breast cancer patients for their low levels of vitamin D to improve bone health?" Some women are already doing this. However it is rare.
Based on projections from studies, some vitamin D research physicians have predicted that if every female in America achieved a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of even 40 ng./ml, the incidence of breast cancer would plummet 50% within five years.
Twenty-one years have elapsed since the first study linking vitamin D with breast cancer prevention and treatment. The time to take action is long overdue.
It should be noted that the most significant victory to date against breast cancer did not result from a chemotherapy agent, surgery, or radiation. It resulted from the dissemination of knowledge. As soon as it became widely known and publicized in the 1990’s that routine use of hormone replacement was a major risk factor in causing breast cancer, (and most of the reports of the benefits were simply untrue), women simply stopped taking hormone replacement and the incidence of breast cancer dropped 33% within a small number of years. In a similar way, the next significant victory in breast cancer could result in women becoming more proactive and following recommendations regarding achieving an ideal 25-hydroxyvitamin D level.
Breast cancer is the most common female cancer in the United States. There are many known risk factors contributing to breast cancer that have emerged from decades of debate and research. Heredity (including the BrCa1 and BrCa2 genes), certain types of diets (high fat and dairy), excess weight, alcohol, and hormone use are well-known proven risk factors. This will address specifically not those issues but the connection between vitamin D insufficiency and breast cancer.
In 2008 the results of a large prospective study were published and did receive a fair amount of publicity. Blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were obtained over six years from 1989 to 1995 from women at the time of the diagnosis of breast cancer. The follow-up on the outcome of the breast cancer occurred over an additional thirteen years. Participants were treated with standard drugs for their breast cancers, but were not treated for their vitamin D insufficiency. This was the first study that looked at how vitamin D levels affected the prognosis of breast cancer.
The results were striking. 24% of women with levels over 30 ng/dl were compared to the 38.5% with levels less than 20 ng/ml. Those with levels over 30 ng/ml were 73% less likely to die and 94% less likely to have their cancer recur during the 10 year period. This study gives us an idea of the potent anti-tumor effect of vitamin D on breast cancer.
It was not an accident that this research started in 1989. In that year the medical journal Lancet published a study showing that activated vitamin D (calcitriol) reduced the growth of breast cancer and killed breast cancer cells in animal research. It was found that women with vitamin D receptor-positive tumors had better prognoses than those with no vitamin D receptors. (Absence of vitamin D receptors in a tumor is an indication of prolonged vitamin D insufficiency). Vitamin D has since been found to have several other beneficial effects in fighting breast cancer cells. An inverse correlation with distance from the equator and breast cancer has also been documented (more sunlight, higher vitamin D levels, less breast cancer). In 2004 a study concluded that vitamin D reduced the number of abnormal mammograms;(many of those abnormalities were premalignant conditions).
Calcitriol is activated vitamin D and a very potent drug that is used in patients on dialysis and in patients who have had their parathyroid glands removed. It can be lifesaving in these conditions, but its major side effect is an elevated calcium level,(hypercalcemia), which can have serious consequences. In the 1990’s pharmaceutical companies tried to find analogues of vitamin D that would retain its ability to fight breast cancer, but at the same time not have the side effect of raising serum calcium levels found in calcitriol. I know this for a fact for three reasons. First, inside sources have reported it; second a close friend of a physician I know took a full-time job as a pharmaceutical researcher around this time for the purpose of discovering vitamin D analogues, and third, at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in the mid-1990s I was an observer to a conversation of a very prominent nationally known breast cancer researcher who mentioned that pharmaceutical companies were working on finding vitamin D analogues for cancer prevention and treatment. (Unfortunately I did not understand the significance of this at the time.) The substance with the properties that the pharmaceutical companies were looking for already existed, Vitamin D3. However it is not patentable, therefore potential revenues from Vitamin D3 don’t justify private industry spending money on research and advertising.
There have been several studies since 1989 linking breast cancer incidence with low vitamin D levels. There has been much research showing that breast cancer cells are killed by activated vitamin D (and activated vitamin D increases when the level of vitamin D is sufficient.)
In 2009 there was a study that did receive some initial publicity. A study published in the Journal of the National Institutes of Health gave women only 400 units of vitamin D over many years. 400 units of vitamin D daily is a miniscule dose for an adult and has been shown to raise 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels by only about 5 ng/ml. Previous studies have shown that such a small increase doesn't prevent a significant number of fractures or breast cancer, and this was confirmed in the 2009 study. (Taking 400 units of vitamin D is like throwing a pebble in the ocean). A press release resulted in newspapers reporting the erroneous and dangerously misleading conclusion that “Vitamin D doesn’t prevent breast cancer.” The study showed nothing of the kind; the authors of the study didn’t claim it showed this, and unfortunately an opportunity was lost to spread this vital information about the importance of vitamin D. When an umpire makes a mistake a no-hitter may be lost. But when erroneous misleading press reports about a critical way to prevent breast cancer are published, lives are lost.
VITAMIN D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANY FEMALE FOR PREVENTING BREAST CANCER:
1. Have your doctor obtain a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. Insurance that pays for lab tests should pay for this test just like any other blood test (if the correct diagnosis code is indicated).
2. Obtain a copy of the test results to verify the correct test has been done. (I have seen several instances of 1-25-dihydroxyvitamin D being done instead. This is a different test and is worthless in determining vitamin D sufficiency).
3. Take a vitamin D supplement to obtain vitamin D sufficiency within a few months. The lowest normal level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D is considered 32 ng/ml. 40 ng/ml has been shown to be more beneficial for bone strength and osteoporosis prevention. 52 ng/ml has been shown in a study to have additional benefit for breast cancer prevention. For perspective, it should be noted that male lifeguards in August not taking any vitamin D supplements nor using sun screen have levels of about 100 ng/ml. From sunlight alone, humans cannot attain a level over 150 ng/dl; chemicals in the skin break down at this level so no more vitamin D is produced. It has been documented that no side effects occur from 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels unless the levels are above 150 ng/ml.
4. Vitamin D3 is extremely inexpensive (5000 units daily cost $2 to $4 a month.) (Vegetarian prescription vitamin D2 can be prescribed by a physician for those who prefer). Vitamin D3 is the identical molecule that the human produces in the skin and absorbs in response to sunlight.
5. Levels of 32 ng/ml will lower the incidence of breast cancer. 52 ng/ml has been proven to be better. The evidence indicates that ideal levels are at least 60 to 80 ng/ml and perhaps "lifeguard levels" is what nature intended.
6. Most people are taking far too little vitamin D. Once vitamin D insufficiency is diagnosed, I recommend 5000 units a day with a repeat blood level in six months. In some cases, a higher dose is needed for temporary periods, but this should only be taken with the guidance of blood levels.
VITAMIN D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANY FEMALE WHO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH BREAST CANCER
1. Follow the above recommendations for preventing breast cancer.
2. Because the situation is more urgent, a repeat blood level should be obtained in 3 months to determine if the dose is high enough.
3. 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in females who have breast cancer are much lower than the general population. 80% of breast cancer patients have been shown to have low vitamin D levels in a number of studies. (I have tested about 150 breast cancer patients; 100% have had low levels). Levels less than 20/ng/dl are very common in women with breast cancer.
A substantial body of evidence and research dating back to 1989 indicates that vitamin D3 can prevent and treat breast cancer. Oncologists would be quick to point out that there isn’t the perfect long term double-blind control study, Some studies like that may be going on now. However, would you want to be the one that takes a placebo instead of a $2 a month pill that has no side effects and unquestionable lowers the dose of osteoporosis and fractures?
FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH ADDED DECEMBER 18, 2010:
However, does this mean that advanced breast cancer can be simply cured by vitamin D. NO, noone is claiming that. In order for vitamin D to become activated, the cells of the human body converts it to "activated vitamin D."
It has been known for decades that early cancer is more sensitive to chemotherapy agents than advanced cells, presumably because there are more DNA mutations with each multiplication of the cancer cells.
In the same way, there are studies that suggest that advanced cancer produces substances that make it more difficult for 25-hydroxyvitamin D to be converted into activated vitamin D. This would stress even more the importance of health people obtaining an ideal vitamin D level BEFORE cancer deelops. In the future, studies may quantify more exactly the degree of resistance cancer cells have. It would not be surprising if this resistance is not all or none, but gradually increases as the cancer becomes more advanced.
I have seen another issue regarding treatment of breast cancer sometimes causing confusion. Vitamin D is not an antioxidant. Many oncologists advise their chemotherapy patients to refrain from antioxidants such as vitamin C and several of the B vitamins based on some research findings. This has NOTHING to do with Vitamin D.
Common sense may raise the question, “why doesn’t someone just treat breast cancer patients for their low levels of vitamin D to improve bone health?" Some women are already doing this. However it is rare.
Based on projections from studies, some vitamin D research physicians have predicted that if every female in America achieved a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of even 40 ng./ml, the incidence of breast cancer would plummet 50% within five years.
Twenty-one years have elapsed since the first study linking vitamin D with breast cancer prevention and treatment. The time to take action is long overdue.
It should be noted that the most significant victory to date against breast cancer did not result from a chemotherapy agent, surgery, or radiation. It resulted from the dissemination of knowledge. As soon as it became widely known and publicized in the 1990’s that routine use of hormone replacement was a major risk factor in causing breast cancer, (and most of the reports of the benefits were simply untrue), women simply stopped taking hormone replacement and the incidence of breast cancer dropped 33% within a small number of years. In a similar way, the next significant victory in breast cancer could result in women becoming more proactive and following recommendations regarding achieving an ideal 25-hydroxyvitamin D level.
9/12/10
14) PREVENTION OF INFLUENZA WITH VITAMIN D
Vitamin D stimulates the production of antimicrobial peptides, a class of natural antibiotics. The antibacterial effect has been known for over a century. The best known example of this is the treatment of tuberculosis prior to the discovery of antibiotics. Patients were sent to sanitariums where they stayed outside on sunny porches during the day. The explanation of the beneficial effect wasn’t fully understood at the time. We now know that the increased sunlight led to increased production of vitamin D and led to some arrest or even cures of the tuberculosis because of the production of these anti-microbial peptides.
There have been reports in the past few years on the effect of vitamin D and influenza. 7) UPDATE ON VITAMIN D–2010 (from this web site) noted that the terrible pandemic of swine flu that lasted over a 2 year period “took the summer off” (when vitamin D levels were higher) before restarting. There is a well known story of an English long term care facility in which one ward of the entire facility had no cases of influenza during a flu epidemic. The physician in charge of that ward had given all his patients a significant dose of vitamin D daily.
For the first time, as published in the May, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a rigorously designed randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial evaluated the effect of vitamin D on seasonal influenza A. Over 4 months children were given either 1200 units of vitamin D or placebo. Each case of influenza A was confirmed with influenza antigen testing with a nose/throat swab. 18 of 167 children given vitamin D compared to 31 of 167 children given placebo were diagnosed with the flu. This represents a reduction of 41.9%. The reduction was even more prominent in those children that previously weren’t taking any vitamin D supplements (most American children aren’t). It should be stressed that this study was double blind, so that the medical personnel diagnosing the flu and doing the laboratory flu studies did not know which children took the placebo and which children took the vitamin D.
A second result of the vitamin D supplements was an 83% reduction of asthma attacks in children with a diagnosis of asthma. Positive effects of vitamin D and asthma have been widely reported in research studies over the past 5 years.
It should be noted that 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels weren’t obtained. Previous studies have reported that 70% of American children have low levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (less than 32 ng.) Many of the 167 children were probably so low that the 1200 units of vitamin D didn’t give them ideal or even normal levels of vitamin D. So the 41.9% reduction is a very conservative figure of the percentage of influenza that could be prevented by achieving ideal 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.
And finally, it should be also emhasized that you probably didn't hear about this study until today. I found out about it by chance on the day I am writing this. This emphasizes that unfortunately we can NOT rely on the press to keep us informed of critically important medical studies.
There have been reports in the past few years on the effect of vitamin D and influenza. 7) UPDATE ON VITAMIN D–2010 (from this web site) noted that the terrible pandemic of swine flu that lasted over a 2 year period “took the summer off” (when vitamin D levels were higher) before restarting. There is a well known story of an English long term care facility in which one ward of the entire facility had no cases of influenza during a flu epidemic. The physician in charge of that ward had given all his patients a significant dose of vitamin D daily.
For the first time, as published in the May, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a rigorously designed randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial evaluated the effect of vitamin D on seasonal influenza A. Over 4 months children were given either 1200 units of vitamin D or placebo. Each case of influenza A was confirmed with influenza antigen testing with a nose/throat swab. 18 of 167 children given vitamin D compared to 31 of 167 children given placebo were diagnosed with the flu. This represents a reduction of 41.9%. The reduction was even more prominent in those children that previously weren’t taking any vitamin D supplements (most American children aren’t). It should be stressed that this study was double blind, so that the medical personnel diagnosing the flu and doing the laboratory flu studies did not know which children took the placebo and which children took the vitamin D.
A second result of the vitamin D supplements was an 83% reduction of asthma attacks in children with a diagnosis of asthma. Positive effects of vitamin D and asthma have been widely reported in research studies over the past 5 years.
It should be noted that 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels weren’t obtained. Previous studies have reported that 70% of American children have low levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (less than 32 ng.) Many of the 167 children were probably so low that the 1200 units of vitamin D didn’t give them ideal or even normal levels of vitamin D. So the 41.9% reduction is a very conservative figure of the percentage of influenza that could be prevented by achieving ideal 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.
And finally, it should be also emhasized that you probably didn't hear about this study until today. I found out about it by chance on the day I am writing this. This emphasizes that unfortunately we can NOT rely on the press to keep us informed of critically important medical studies.
9/1/10
WELCOME TO NEW READERS
Several months ago I posted a link to this newsletter on the NY Times online. Since then, the blog for this newsletter has been accessed by people from 40 states and 9 countries. Specifically entry #9, the report on complete remission of MS with vitamin D alone, has been accessed by a large number of people who have MS or know someone with MS.
Welcome to the members of the Fantastic Fifties of South Jersey, the Taproom Luncheon Club of Haddon Township, NJ, the Henry Raich Senior Group of Cherry Hill, NJ, the St. Mary's Breast Cancer Support Group of San Francisco, and members of other groups that visit this site. Tips of the hat go to my cousin in San Francisco and friends in Florida, Massachusetts,and South Jersey who are spreading the word about Vitamin D, As a result many more people who never would have heard the message have gotten tested and discovered they were Vitamin D insufficient.
Welcome to some of the 400 followers of http://www.twitter.com/robertbakermd
and http://www.twitter.com/VitaminDWebSite
who have clicked onto this blog.
This Health Newsletter is about a variety of subjects, but I want to stress Vitamin D here. The evidence continues to mount that the realization of the pandemic of Vitamin D insufficiency is the most important medical discovery in preventive medicine in at least 40 years..
Since I first said this in 2008 I have come to learn that I understated the benefit. Easily treated Vitamin D insufficiency is the most important medical discovery in preventive medicine in at least a century
Welcome to the members of the Fantastic Fifties of South Jersey, the Taproom Luncheon Club of Haddon Township, NJ, the Henry Raich Senior Group of Cherry Hill, NJ, the St. Mary's Breast Cancer Support Group of San Francisco, and members of other groups that visit this site. Tips of the hat go to my cousin in San Francisco and friends in Florida, Massachusetts,and South Jersey who are spreading the word about Vitamin D, As a result many more people who never would have heard the message have gotten tested and discovered they were Vitamin D insufficient.
Welcome to some of the 400 followers of http://www.twitter.com/robertbakermd
and http://www.twitter.com/VitaminDWebSite
who have clicked onto this blog.
This Health Newsletter is about a variety of subjects, but I want to stress Vitamin D here. The evidence continues to mount that the realization of the pandemic of Vitamin D insufficiency is the most important medical discovery in preventive medicine in at least 40 years..
Since I first said this in 2008 I have come to learn that I understated the benefit. Easily treated Vitamin D insufficiency is the most important medical discovery in preventive medicine in at least a century
13) GENES AND VITAMIN D; HOW VITAMIN D HAS SUCH A WIDESPREAD EFFECT ON HUMANS
Positive effects that vitamin D has on bones has been known for a long time. The connection with rickets (the ultimate bone weakening disease caused by profound vitamin D deficiencies in childhood) was discovered a century ago. The connection with osteoporosis wasn’t begun to be appreciated until late in the 20th century. It has only been in the last ten years that the strength of the connection has been appreciated. During this time the other non-bone effects of vitamin D have begun to be realized based on facts discovered by vitamin D research. (For a summary, see #7, Update of Vitamin D -2010.) A study published August 24, 2010, in the online version of Genome Research helps explain how one simple compound produced by the sun can have such a widespread effect.
The study used DNA technology to create a map of where Vitamin D receptors are in our genes. They found 2,776 binding sites for the vitamin D receptor. These sites were concentrated near genes associated with many autoimmune conditions such as MS, Crohn’s disease, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, type I diabetes, and also various cancers. In all, this study showed that vitamin D had a significant effect on the activity of 229 genes. Compared to what is known about all other vitamins and other chemicals in the human body, these findings are profound. The importance of these findings is magnified by the appreciation that there is a pandemic of vitamin D deficiency worldwide due to insufficient exposure of humans to the sun. Studies have also shown that vitamin D levels in Americans are actually decreasing over the past 3 decades.
One of the authors of the study, Dr. Sreeram Ramagopalan, from the University of Oxford in Great Britain, has made critical observations about the meaning of this study. Vitamin D supplements during pregnancy and during infancy could have widespread beneficial effects on a child’s health later in life. (A study in Finland several decades ago showed correcting low levels with vitamin D supplements resulted in an incredible 85% reduction in the incidence of type I diabetes during childhood.)
Unfortunately the United States is behind in making full use of the last decade’s vitamin D discoveries. Dr. Ramagopalan makes the point that some countries such as France have taken steps to institute this as a routine public health measure.
What can you do? The recommendation that everyone should obtain a routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and correct any insufficiency is at least five years old, (and is still widely ignored). Spread the word to your friends and relatives, especially pregnant females,that they need to obtain a level and correct any insufficiency.
The study used DNA technology to create a map of where Vitamin D receptors are in our genes. They found 2,776 binding sites for the vitamin D receptor. These sites were concentrated near genes associated with many autoimmune conditions such as MS, Crohn’s disease, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, type I diabetes, and also various cancers. In all, this study showed that vitamin D had a significant effect on the activity of 229 genes. Compared to what is known about all other vitamins and other chemicals in the human body, these findings are profound. The importance of these findings is magnified by the appreciation that there is a pandemic of vitamin D deficiency worldwide due to insufficient exposure of humans to the sun. Studies have also shown that vitamin D levels in Americans are actually decreasing over the past 3 decades.
One of the authors of the study, Dr. Sreeram Ramagopalan, from the University of Oxford in Great Britain, has made critical observations about the meaning of this study. Vitamin D supplements during pregnancy and during infancy could have widespread beneficial effects on a child’s health later in life. (A study in Finland several decades ago showed correcting low levels with vitamin D supplements resulted in an incredible 85% reduction in the incidence of type I diabetes during childhood.)
Unfortunately the United States is behind in making full use of the last decade’s vitamin D discoveries. Dr. Ramagopalan makes the point that some countries such as France have taken steps to institute this as a routine public health measure.
What can you do? The recommendation that everyone should obtain a routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and correct any insufficiency is at least five years old, (and is still widely ignored). Spread the word to your friends and relatives, especially pregnant females,that they need to obtain a level and correct any insufficiency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
