Reinhold Vieth Response to IoM

Professor Reinhold Vieth, a University of Toronto scientist that has been studying vitamin D since 1974, had this to say:  “I get a ton of email from the vitamin D community where people are flipping. But it’s no surprise. I’ve kind of thrown in the towel years ago. I’m watching it more bemused than anything else,” says Vieth.  Here is the full article from the Winnipeg Free Press by Shamona Harnett, Confusing With a Capital D

I plead with you Professor Vieth.  It was your works that help to lead me to the understanding of the safety of vitamin D.  It was this understanding that allowed me take enough to heal my diseased body.  You are a Champion of the Vitamin D Revolution.  We all hope you continue the good fight for the health of millions and as those you have helped to heal.  We applaud you as a man of good character and moral fiber.   Coach Jim Valvano, NC State University, died with bone cancer without the vitamin D understanding said these words, “Don’t give up…Don’t ever give up!”  Sometimes when I get discouraged, I go watch his ESPY Awards speech ; delivered with the knowledge that death from cancer was soon.  We continue to need your expertise.  – Pandemic Survivor

Response by Expert’s to IoM’s Vitamin D Standards

Grass Roots Health Maintains serum 25(OH)D levels should be maintained between 40 – 60 ng/ml.

Comments from Grass Roots Health Scientist:

Bone Health not Maintained:

Vitamin D Council Statement:

Statement by Dr. William Grant of

Here we have a number of vitamin D experts that are upset with the statements of the Food and Nutrition Board on vitamin D and calcium for two primary reasons:  First – Millions are suffering from being vitamin D deficiency from our normal relationship to the sun of a serum vitamin D level of 40 to 80 ng/ml because of staying inside more, sunscreens, and sun avoidance in general.  Second – It is really bad science and public health policy.

Vitamin D Ignorance, Incompetence, or Conflict of Interest

As vitamin D science has advanced during the last one hundred years, it has stumped many why we do not routinely treat and prevent disease.  Some have said it is because we ignore the science of vitamin D for the many other opportunities to treat and prevent disease.  Others have thought that it was just incompetence by medical professionals in understanding how the biological processes work with nutrients and especially vitamin D.  However, what is really happening is this huge conflict of interest for everyone that makes any income from the medical industry.

I would like to believe ignoring the science and lack of understanding is not possible because of the mountain of published information available to anyone that would like to read the twenty five thousand or so peer reviewed papers on vitamin D that have been published since 1960.  I would also like to think that our medical professionals and scientists are very bright people.  They have competent understanding of how biological processes work.  What is missing is the will to use the understandings to treat disease.  The intent of the medical profession is to treat and heal disease as long as it makes economic sense.  That is, you perform a task for payment and it sustains or increases the market size.  This is the very heart of capitalism.

So what principles drive the everyday operations of medical institutions, whether it is your local doctor, hospital, medical insurance company, pharmaceutical company, government agencies for health, and medical marketing (think insurance ads and pharmaceutical commercials)?  This could best be summed up by the principles that were stated by former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Michael O. Leavitt.  Of course HHS is the administrative department of government that all medical institutions and individual medical professionals either report directly to or responsible to for medical guidelines, rules, and laws for all the various functions of the medical industry.  These principles are:

1.      National standards, neighborhood solutions
2.      Collaborations, not polarization
3.      Solutions transcend political boundaries
4.      Markets before mandates
5.      Protect privacy
6.      Science for facts, processes for priorities
7.      Reward result, not programs
8.      Change a heart, change a nation
9.      Value life

These principles seem in reverse order for someone that is dying of a chronic disease or everyone.  To ‘value life’ when you are dying would seem to be a number one goal.  However, if you want to maintain a healthy medical economy, then a large sick market is needed.  To maintain this market then the first four principles are absolutely necessary.  The first three keep everyone in ‘locked step’ for moving toward the goal of a healthy economy.  However, number four, ‘markets before mandates’ brings confusions to persons wondering why a miracle medical solution is not implemented.

If you had to give up your job or source of income to save a life, would you do it? This seems almost too simple of a question that ultimately drives the medical industry.  It is a huge conundrum for persons in administrative positions including the president of the US.  It is a huge conundrum for the individual whether you work for the medical profession or have a number of friends and family whose income is derived from the medical industry.  Another way to ask this question: would you be worse off to have a chronic disease that takes 50 years to kill you or no income to sustain a nice life style.  As a society we have decided on the former.

So a miracle cure comes along for all chronic disease.  One that impacts more than ten percent of the genome and in particular the part of the genome that is responsible for disease – vitamin D.  You are the secretary of HHS and you meet with the president of the US to decide whether to implement the solution or try to cover it up to prevent a reduction of eight percent (represents fifty percent reduction of the medical economy or a true miracle cure) of an already failing economy- a reduction that could collapse the economy.  What would you do?

Yes everyone has a conflict of interest when it comes to reducing the medical economy by half.  If the science had been allowed to come forward as it was discovered and we grew the economy into it, then the decision to ‘value life’ would be number one on our priority.  Why didn’t this happen?

‘Markets before mandates’ is sad if you are dying.  If you derive your income from medical practice then million dollar houses on South Beach and million dollar yachts on the Chesapeake is the order of the day.   Ah character and a moral conscience are truly prized qualities to look for as you are trying to find a doctor to treat your illness with vitamin D.  The government, disguised as the IoM Food and Nutrition Board, implemented the principle of ‘markets before mandates’, and has put the responsibility for your health squarely on the character and competence of your doctor.  If the doctor cannot tell you his own level of serum vitamin D and how much he gets everyday to get there, and his level is not that of a sunny country or a serum 25(OH)D above 50 ng/ml find another doctor.    If your doctor starts to talk about the IoM rules on vitamin D and has a large house and a boat then run – run hard and fast.  – Pandemic Survivor

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.