The Vitamin D Newsletter: National Academies

[Guest guest]

" John Cannell MD " <thevitamindcouncil

National Academies

Sun, 22 May 2005 13:10:27 -0700

 

 

 

 

The Vitamin D Newsletter

5/22/05

 

As you read the latest news report about the remarkable properties of

vitamin D, this one from the Associated Press, ask yourself: " what

does the Institute of Medicine (IOM) have to say about vitamin D? "

(The IOM is the medical branch of the prestigious National Academies,

which includes the National Academy of Sciences.) For example, say

you have a question about vitamin D and cancer or vitamin D and heart

disease? Does the IOM offer any current information on these topics?

According to their website, the Institute of Medicine " provides

unbiased, evidence-based, and authoritative information and advice

concerning health and science policy to policy-makers, professionals,

leaders in every sector of society, and the public at large. " What

I'd like to know is: where is that advice?

 

Americans taxpayers fund the IOM with millions of dollars every year

for timely, evidence-based, authoritative advice. We pay them because

we want the IOM physicians, scientists, and commissions to tell us

what we need to know, when we need to know it. We may want to know

more about one of the most potent steroid hormones in the human body,

activated vitamin D. We use that information to make informed

decisions about our health. In fact, tort law [Canterbury v. Spence,

464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972)] requires it of practicing physicians,

mandating doctors tell patients what any " reasonable person " would

want to know in order to make informed treatment decisions.

 

Would a reasonable person, with a family history of colon cancer, want

to know about a 1989 study that showed colon cancer was three times

more likely in those with low 25(OH) vitamin D blood levels? Lancet.

1989 Nov 18;2(8673):1176-8

 

Would a reasonable person, suffering from cardiovascular disease, want

to know about a 1990 study that showed heart attacks were twice as

common in patients with low 25(OH) vitamin D blood levels? Int J

Epidemiol. 1990 Sep;19(3):559-63

 

Would a reasonable person, whose child was suffering from frequent

infections, want to know about a 1994 study that showed vitamin D

entirely prevented such infections? J Trop Pediatr. 1994 Feb;40(1):58

 

Would a reasonable person, suffering from osteoarthritis, want to know

about a 1996 study that showed arthritis progressed more rapidly in

those with low vitamin D intakes? Ann Intern Med. 1996 Sep 1;125(5):353-9

 

Would a reasonable person, suffering from hypertension, want to know

about a 1988 study that showed an activated form of vitamin D reduced

blood pressure? Acta Med Scand. 1988;223(3):211-7

 

Would a reasonable person, suffering from multiple sclerosis, want to

know about a 1986 study that showed vitamin D significantly reduced

debilitating MS flare-ups? Med Hypotheses. 1986 Oct;21(2):193-200

 

Would a reasonable person, suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, want

to know about a 1993 study that showed 25(OH) vitamin D levels were

the lowest in patients with the highest disease activity? Scand J

Rheumatol. 1993;22(4):172-7

 

No, at least not according to the Institute of Medicine! Through its

Food and Nutrition Board, they issue periodic reports to the American

public, such as the report they issued on vitamin D in 1997. Although

it is eight-years-old, this report remains the IOM's official advice

to the American people on vitamin D. Inexplicably, their report

failed to tell Americans about any of the above studies, although all

those studies were published before 1997. They didn't discuss them or

even list them as references. Not only did the IOM forget to tell us

about dozens of clinically important vitamin D studies, they told us

some really harebrained things.

 

For example, they said that a six-pound infant needs the same amount

of vitamin D every day (200 units) as his 200-pound father! They said

that the daily Upper Limit was the same for a 13 month old child and

his 40-year-old father! They said blacks don't make as much vitamin D

as whites but then inexplicably failed to recommend that blacks do

anything about it! Finally, the Institute of Medicine has steadfastly

refused to update their eight-year-old report after it has become

clear even to the editors of Newsweek that Americans are dying of

numerous vitamin D deficiency diseases.

 

Not that any of the studies listed above definitively prove the

effectiveness of vitamin D. They don't. All of them have flaws. But

that could hardly be used as a rational to hide them from the American

public. In fact, the IOM chose to emphasize one very flawed study; no

single study received more discussion in their report than a 1984

study by Dr. Narang and colleagues who claimed they discovered 3800

units of vitamin D a day were toxic.

 

However, Dr. Narang forgot to measure how much vitamin D he actually

gave. He just relied on the label on the bottle to determine the dose

given instead of measuring it himself. Although no one will ever know

for sure, it looks like he gave about 100 times more than he thought

he did. In spite of this poor scientific methodology, the IOM relied

on Narang's study and ignored many other studies which indicated 3800

units a day were not toxic. This is vitally important because

subsequent studies showed healthy humans actually utilize about 3800

units a day (from all sources) to prevent death and disability from a

truly staggering array of chronic illnesses. So Dr. Narang's study was

not just flawed, you could say it was fatally flawed. J Assoc

Physicians India. 1984 Feb;32(2):185-8

 

In 1999, Dr. Reinhold Vieth, working on his own and without a grant,

reviewed the extant toxicology evidence much more carefully than the

IOM ever did. Vieth found numerous studies published before 1997 that

flatly contradicted Dr. Narang's findings, studies the IOM overlooked.

Dr. Vieth concluded that the scientific literature clearly shows the

toxic figure is closer to 20,000 units of vitamin D a day, and that

dose has to be ingested over many months or even years to cause

problems. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 May;69(5):842-56

 

The IOM also failed to discuss the single most important scientific

fact about vitamin D, although scientists knew the fact twenty years

ago. The fact is simple: most of us make about 10,000 to 20,000 units

after spending a few minutes in the sun. Dr. Vieth thought about that

fact and then did something the scientists at the IOM did not do.

Vieth asked why? Why would humans make so much vitamin D so very

quickly? Vieth's question heralded the beginning of what future

generations will call the vitamin D era in modern medicine.

 

All this leaves the Institute of Medicine in a difficult situation.

They failed in their duty to inform Americans of facts any reasonable

person would want to know. They overlooked numerous important vitamin

D studies that have a direct bearing on numerous diseases. They failed

to adequately protect Americans from vitamin D deficiency. They let

black Americans suffer more than whites. They based their toxicology

on the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Email the IOM and politely

ask them to update their report on vitamin D: iomwww.

 

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council, Inc.

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

www.cholecalciferol-council.com

 

Remember, we are just a non-profit trying to alert Americans to the

epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to hear from us,

hit reply and let us know.