Is IoM’s Food and Nutrition Board Wrong?

As doctors scruple over the amount of vitamin D that we need as humans, the best approach is common sense.  I started to write this blog because my back healed after 25 years of pain.  It turns out that by following the standards that were just set by the IoM; my spine failed.  I had two surgeries and was looking at the possibility of many more.  I started to take 5,000 IU of vitamin D3 in the summer and 10,000 IU in the winter.  This kept my serum level of 25(OH)D at 50 to 80 ng/ml.  It turns out that people who live between the latitude of +/- 30 degrees have this value of vitamin D as normal as long as they do not intentionally avoid the sun (54 to 90 ng/ml reported by Dr’s Grant and Holick).  At this level of supplementation my spine healed.  I just had another MRI done after five years and the discs in my lumbar region are twice as thick now as they were five years ago.  Let me repeat that in case you missed it.  They are TWICE AS THICK now as they were five years ago.  Yes and I did grow three inches taller in my mid-fifties as my spine healed.  If I had followed the advice of the IoM’s recent report I would definitely be in a wheel chair or most likely dead either from a heart attack or sleep apnea.

I reasoned that the degenerative disc disease or arthritis of the spine was similar to rickets and should be treated with vitamin D.  How is it that doctors do not routinely treat patients with DDD in this manner?  Because of institutions like the IoM that are nothing but puppets ‘working for the man.’  No reasonable scientist could read the large body of literature on vitamin D and come to the conclusion that was achieved except for intent to manipulate the population to maintain the HHS’s ‘markets before mandates’.  What I found in the literature is that at the higher levels of vitamin D3, 24,25 di-hydroxyvitaminD3 one of the many metabolites and not the 1,25, moves the cartilage stem cells to maturity.   MY SPINE HEALED!  Yes, there it was in the literature for the scientist to read.  Thank God that I read it!

How could this board say that they considered bone health only and yet we are a country that has an epidemic of osteoporosis?  If the present population has an adequate amount of vitamin D how could this be?  Take another look at my post on osteoporosis.  Bone Fractures Suspected with Osteoporosis Drug Would you rather take a safe supplement that causes your bone density to improve by more than 20 percent in one year or a pharmaceutical, that gives you  cancer, causes your bones to become brittle, and necrosis of the jaw while only increasing your bone density about 3 percent per year.  On yeah this normal substance that we get from the sun, vitamin D3, also prevents cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and most chronic disease.  And yes it will keep you from getting infectious disease like colds, the flu, and tuberculosis.

My heart aches for the masses as I am living easy in the sun!  You doctors with a moral conscience that have been given the responsibility for patient health, take heed – ‘the man does not have your back.’   A. Catherine Ross, I am sorry for the many nights of restless sleep that you will have over these decisions – how much vitamin D do you get each day?  You really looked ashen during the video presentation.  Have back pain?   Get some sun!  – Pandemic Survivor

Millions have been failed, says Vitamin D Council

The Vitamin D Council is not satisfied with the Food and Nutrition Board on vitamin D.  Here is their press release: Today, the Food and Nutrition Board has failed Millions

I am still stunned at the release by the IOM’s Food and Nutrition Board on the amount of vitamin D suggested.  To consider bone health only and ignore the rest of what vitamin D does for the body is outrageous.  The expert reviewer reports, fourteen in all, were suppressed by the FNB.  If the FNB had got it right there would have been no reason to suppress these reviews.  The Vitamin D Council has requested these reports under the freedom of information act.  It will be interesting to see what they contain.

As I viewed the report presentation on Tuesday, I was amazed at the double standards of the committee.  First a question was raised about the amount of vitamin D that pregnant women should have. The response was that the body was so conservative with vitamin D during pregnancy that additional supplementation was not required.  There is no science to support this statement or just a ‘shot from the hip.’  There was concern by one of the panel members as a few minutes later the statement was made that breast feeding mothers should take 6,400 IU’s of vitamin D3 per day so that the infant would get 400 IU per day.  The risk to the mother was less than the significant need for the infant to get at least 400 IU per day stated the panel member.  What is interesting is that the same research that said that lactating mothers should get 6,400 IU per day also stated that the needs of the mother during pregnancy was more than 4,000 IU per day.  If the risk to mother and child at 6,400 IU per day is less than the needs, then I suspect their fear mongering about vitamin D risk was just that.  In other words, the panel member does not mind that you get chronic disease from vitamin D deficiency as you age, but was filled with guilt at the thought of damaging a baby.

It is definitely clear from the science that one size does not fit all.  It is totally amazing that 400 IU is the requirement for a baby but a 300 pound person needs only 600 IU.  There is only one explanation for getting it so wrong, fear that a healthy population would decimate the medical economy.  Next we will continue to explore the government policy first stated by Michael Leavitt, former Secretary HHS, ‘markets before mandates’.  The economy is more important to your well being than your physical health?

IOM Reports on Vitamin D and Calcium

The Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Science has presented their report on vitamin D and calcium.  They choose to not ‘rock the boat’.  They made it perfectly clear in the report summary and at the report presentation at 10 AM EST this morning that they considered bone health only.  I viewed the presentation online and noticed that attendance at the meeting was sparse.  I suspect this was because of their news release on Monday stating that they were considering bone health only and that the DRI’s were not changed significantly.

Highlights of the report included:

  • Bone health only was considered for setting the DRI’s
  • The ‘one size fits all’ remains in place because they considered bone health only
  • The amounts of vitamin D is from all sources with the idea that sun exposure is limited
  • Serum 25(OH)D was considered as adequate at a level of 20 ng/ml
  • Vitamin D from all sources at 600 IU per day should achieve this level
  • Suggested range for 25(OH)D was from 20 to 50 ng/ml
  • No improvement to bone could be found above 50 ng/ml
  • They felt that regular serum testing was not necessary
  • The upper limit of daily intake was doubled to 4,000 IU of D3 per day
  • They were excited about the new research on vitamin D but decided there was too much uncertainty to increase levels
  • They encouraged continue research
  • There was emphasis of damage that could occur from an excess of vitamin D with fear about kidney damage and increased pancreatic cancer at higher levels among smokers
  • The amount of calcium intake was left about the same at approximately 1000 mg per day
  • They only considered 1000 papers (this seems odd as there will  be more than 2500 published this year – I would suppose this is because they considered bone health only)
  • Treatment and prevention of disease with vitamin D was left firmly in the domain of health care providers

The only really good thing that happened was that the upper limit of daily intake from all sources was increased to 4000 IU per day from 2000 IU per day.

After further digestion of their statements, I will give you my thoughts on Thursday.