New York Times is reporting on Vitamin D and Calcium...
Committee says there is no evidence that levels over 30 of Vitamin D is healthy. And, for most people, levels between 20-30 is fine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/30vitamin.html?_r=1&hp
Furthermore, based on the 30 being optimal, 80% of Americans would fall below that number!
Comments
-
Here's the entire article:
Extra Vitamin D and Calcium Aren't Needed, Report Says
By GINA KOLATA
The very high levels of vitamin D that are often recommended by doctors and testing laboratories - and can be achieved only by taking supplements - are unnecessary and could be harmful, an expert committee says. It also concludes that calcium supplements are not needed.
The group said most people have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their blood supplied by their diets and natural sources like sunshine, the committee says in a report that is to be released on Tuesday.
"For most people, taking extra calcium and vitamin D supplements is not indicated," said Dr. Clifford J. Rosen, a member of the panel and an osteoporosis expert at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute.
Dr. J. Christopher Gallagher, director of the bone metabolism unit at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb., agreed, adding, "The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people."
Over the past few years, the idea that nearly everyone needs extra calcium and vitamin D - especially vitamin D - has swept the nation.
With calcium, adolescent girls may be the only group that is getting too little, the panel found. Older women, on the other hand, may take too much, putting themselves at risk for kidney stones. And there is evidence that excess calcium can increase the risk of heart disease, the group wrote.
As for vitamin D, some prominent doctors have said that most people need supplements or they will be at increased risk for a wide variety of illnesses, including heart disease, cancer and autoimmune diseases.
And these days more and more people know their vitamin D levels because they are being tested for it as part of routine physical exams.
"The number of vitamin D tests has exploded," said Dennis Black, a reviewer of the report who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.
At the same time, vitamin D sales have soared, growing faster than those of any supplement, according to The Nutrition Business Journal. Sales rose 82 percent from 2008 to 2009, reaching $430 million. "Everyone was hoping vitamin D would be kind of a panacea," Dr. Black said. The report, he added, might quell the craze.
"I think this will have an impact on a lot of primary care providers," he said.
The 14-member expert committee was convened by the Institute of Medicine, an independent nonprofit scientific body, at the request of the United States and Canadian governments. It was asked to examine the available data - nearly 1,000 publications - to determine how much vitamin D and calcium people were getting, how much was needed for optimal health and how much was too much.
The two nutrients work together for bone health.
Bone health, though, is only one of the benefits that have been attributed to vitamin D, and there is not enough good evidence to support most other claims, the committee said.
Some labs have started reporting levels of less than 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood as a deficiency. With that as a standard, 80 percent of the population would be deemed deficient of vitamin D, Dr. Rosen said. Most people need to take supplements to reach levels above 30 nanograms per milliliter, he added.
But, the committee concluded, a level of 20 to 30 nanograms is all that is needed for bone health, and nearly everyone is in that range.
Vitamin D is being added to more and more foods, said Paul R. Thomas of the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health. Not only is it in orange juice and milk, but more is being added to breakfast cereals, and it now can be found in very high doses in supplement pills. Most vitamin D pills, he said, used to contain no more than 1,000 international units of it. Now it is easy to find pills, even in places like Wal-Mart, with 5,000 international units. The committee, though, said people need only 600 international units a day.
To assess the amounts of vitamin D and calcium people are getting, the panel looked at national data on diets. Most people, they concluded, get enough calcium from the foods they eat, about 1,000 milligrams a day for most adults (1,200 for women ages 51 to 70).
Vitamin D is more complicated, the group said. In general, most people are not getting enough vitamin D from their diets, but they have enough of the vitamin in their blood, probably because they are also making it naturally after being out in the sun and storing it in their bodies.
The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and other groups applauded the report. It is "a very balanced set of recommendations," said Dr. Sundeep Khosla, a Mayo Clinic endocrinologist and the society's president.
But Andrew Shao, an executive vice president at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group, said the panel was being overly cautious, especially in its recommendations about vitamin D. He said there was no convincing evidence that people were being harmed by taking supplements, and he said higher levels of vitamin D, in particular, could be beneficial.
Such claims "are not supported by the available evidence," the committee wrote. They were based on studies that observed populations and concluded that people with lower levels of the vitamin had more of various diseases. Such studies have been misleading and most scientists agree that they cannot determine cause and effect.
It is not clear how or why the claims for high vitamin D levels started, medical experts say. First there were two studies, which turned out to be incorrect, that said people needed 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, the upper end of what the committee says is a normal range. They were followed by articles and claims and books saying much higher levels - 40 to 50 nanograms or even higher - were needed.
After reviewing the data, the committee concluded that the evidence for the benefits of high levels of vitamin D was "inconsistent and/or conflicting and did not demonstrate causality."
Evidence also suggests that high levels of vitamin D can increase the risks for fractures and the overall death rate and can raise the risk for other diseases. While those studies are not conclusive, any risk looms large when there is no demonstrable benefit. Those hints of risk are "challenging the concept that ‘more is better,' " the committee wrote.
That is what surprised Dr. Black. "We thought that probably higher is better," he said.
He has changed his mind, and expects others will too: "I think this report will make people more cautious."
-
This is a bit disappointing. Thanks for the link. The article does not address what happens to people who get almost no sun without protection, and it doesn't say what happens when a person is ill with bone related conditions. It's more of a story for the general healthy population that for us, although it is undeniable that the evidence of Vit. D and breast cancer isn't exactly conclusive.
I will stay with my megadoses. I have noticed less bone pain after exercise (which I was too young to have) so I believe it is helping me.
-
Voraciousreader - this is interesting - The Washington Post has a somewhat different angle on the story and says that the panel was asked to recommend daily intakes, and that it put the new guidelines at just 600 IUs/day for people younger than 70. I didn't get that clearly from Gina Kolata's piece. Here is the link:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/11/new_vitamin_d_recommendations.html
I still think this piece of news leaves many unanswered questions for us bc-ers.
-
From what I'm reading all over the net, is that this panel convened looked at the evidence of taking WHAT amount of Vitamin D and calcium in regard to bone health. The conclusion was that most people are in the "normal" range and do not need supplimentation of Vitamin D or calcium.
Regarding, non-skelatal disease, the panel concluded there aren't enough clinical trials to suggest higher levels of Vitamin D are needed at this time to avoid cancer, heart disease, etc.
-
In a sense, I suppose that wouldn't be much different from what we have now, because in the bc world, Vit. D is touted as good complementary therapy, but it was never officially sanctioned as such.
I would love to see the full report.
It would also be interesting to see the reaction from the vitamind3council.org web site.
-
I've spoken with several of my doctors who believe that there isn't a lot of science behind the current focus on vitamin D and that its a fad. I do have my vitamin D tested and it is in the normal range (if it wasn't I'm sure I'd supplement) but I do think that women who are not deficient should be cautious about supplements.
-
-
Hooo Boy would I love to stop taking Calcium! It is sooo binding and it upsets my stomach. After reading the article, I think I will ask my onc about stopping it.
-
Athena,
I second your opinion.... most definitely looking forward to Vit D council's response to this. I do have to say, anecdotally, that I feel SO MUCH BETTER since I've gotten my levels up to 80 ngl. I just took my normal 2000 IU dose this morning.....
-
Marianna - I really don't fell that the report addresses US on BCO. It talks about "most" and the recommendations are for the general population.
-
Yeah, but then, see this other discussion on .... Gina Kolata:
http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/79/topic/744511?page=1#post_1614206
-
Kolata is a good reporter and tells uncomfortable truths, but I share your outrage, Yasmin, about the article essentially suggesting that women with no history of breast cancer were idiots not to take Tamoxifen (as if there were no such thing as triple neg. bc - or uterine cancer or blood clots, for that matter). That was the one piece in the cancer series published last year that I truly objected to.
-
A response from Life Extension on the article posted above, and "reported all over the media" yesterday also. I am curious as to what the vitamin D council will say.
-
Interesting view:
(NaturalNews) Earlier this week, the Institute of Medicine finally got around to reluctantly admitting that people need more vitamin D. Raising the daily intake recommendation from 200 IUs to 600 IUs still leaves most people pitifully vitamin D deficient, and a flood of scientific research that has emerged over the last four years reveals that vitamin D deficiency causes cancer, osteoporosis, depression, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disorders and depression.
And so today, even as it reluctantly adjusted the daily recommended intake to the 600 IU level (800 for the elderly), the Institute of Medicine issued a ridiculous warning against "megadosing" on vitamin D. (It considers a "mega dose" anything over 4000 IUs.)
In other words, vitamin D deficiency is the cornerstone of the pharmaceutical industry's profit machine. Most of the really big money now being shoveled into the cancer industry and the drug companies comes from patients who are woefully deficient in vitamin D.
The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), the dietary supplement industry's trade association, called the new vitamin D recommendations "a modest step in the right direction that fell short of truly capturing the extensive and positive research that has consistently supported the need for people to significantly raise their vitamin D levels." (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/crn-reacts-to-institute-of-medicine-dri-recommendations-for-vitamin-d-111035964.html)
According to scientific studies, right now 70 percent of whites are deficient in vitamin D, and 97 percent of African Americans are deficient, resulting in outrageously higher rates of cancer among blacks compared to whites (http://www.naturalnews.com/030392_cancer_skin_color.html). The Institute of Medicine curiously claims such deficiencies do not exist, however.
Nutritionally-aware health professionals had hoped the Institute of Medicine might suggest raising the daily intake of vitamin D to a level that would actually help prevent cancer: 2000 IUs a day, or even as much as 4000 IUs a day. Most informed nutritionists right now recommend anywhere from 2000 IUs to 4000 IUs per day for adults, and the research on the connection between cancer and vitamin D is clear: Vitamin D prevents 77 percent of all cancers (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html).
But this is precisely why the Institute of Medicine absolutely cannot allow more vitamin D to be taken by the American people -- it would destroy the pharmaceutical industry's primary business model by making people well!
Government warns people not to take too much Vitamin D (seriously...)
The mainstream media even jumped on the bandwagon, reporting that anything over 10,000 IU can "cause kidney damage." And yet, doctors who know about vitamin D deficiency routinely prescribe 50,000 IUs a day for their patients to help them recover and restore their vitamin D back to healthy levels. (That amount is only safe for people who are severely deficient, by the way. NaturalNews agrees this is not a safe dose for a person who already has sufficient levels of vitamin D in their body.)
Dr Michael Holick, the vitamin D expert who has been routinely attacked by conventional medicine for educating people about vitamin D, takes 3,000 IUs a day himself. He's featured in a NaturalNews special report called The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D which can be downloaded for free at: http://www.naturalnews.com/rr-sunlight.html
The 600 IU level is a pitiful amount of vitamin D that's guaranteed to continue the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency in America. "This is a stunning disappointment," said Dr. Cedric Garland, one of the top researchers who has studied the ability of vitamin D to prevent cancer.A massive vitamin D deficiency conspiracy among Big Pharma, Big Government and the mainstream media?
The real story in all this, by the way, is that there is a massive conspiracy to keep the American people vitamin D deficient for as long as possible. This conspiracy is achieved through the use of outright lies such as this whopper published by CBS News a few days ago: "While some people truly are deficient in vitamin D, the average person already has enough circulating in his or her blood. That's because we also make vitamin D from sun exposure, and because many people already take multivitamins or other D-containing dietary supplements."
This is, of course, a blatant lie. Most people don't take vitamin D supplements, and few people get any sunshine at all. The worst deficiency is, of course, among those with darker skin such as African Americans and, to some extent, Latinos and Asians, all of which are now suffering skyrocketing rates of cancer, diabetes and other diseases.
That the mainstream media (and the entire medical community) would lie to black people about vitamin D deficiency is no surprise: It was traditionally blacks who were chosen for Big Pharma's medical experiments throughout its nefarious history (http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html).
And now, the American people are the experiment! The Institute of Medicine, Big Pharma and the FDA are all running a grand experiment entitled, "What happens if we keep all Americans -- but especially the blacks -- deficient in vitamin D?"
If you doubt the accuracy of that statement, consider the historical fact that the U.S. government conspired with the National Institute of Health to use Guatemalans as human guinea pigs in secret medical experiments for which President Obama was recently forced to apologize! (http://www.naturalnews.com/029924_medical_experiments_Guatemala.html)
Just as an explanation here, those with dark skin are far more likely to be vitamin D deficiency because dark skin pigmentation blocks the ultraviolet light that generates vitamin D in your skin. Watch my video here for a full explanation: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5A62FC73922FD51A88E62E42C5A0AD5E
The Institute of Medicine brazenly lied about vitamin D's effects on preventing cancer, stating on its website, "The IOM finds that the evidence supports a role for vitamin D and calcium in bone health but not in other health conditions. Further, emerging evidence indicates that too much of these nutrients may be harmful, challenging the concept that 'more is better.'"
In other words, the IOM wants you to believe that "more is NOT better" when it comes to vitamin D, even though most people are woefully deficient. This is a subtle way of telling people to avoid taking more vitamin D and thereby remain vitamin D deficient, which would of course keep people trapped in sickness and disease which generates huge profits for the pharmaceutical industry.
The vitamin D conspiracy is real. Government, Big Pharma and even some elements of the media are all scheming together to trap the American population in a state of lifelong vitamin D deficiency. But this conspiracy will ultimately fail because the nutritional science about vitamin D cannot be suppressed for much longer. Especially not if people inform themselves with nutritional knowledge by reading websites like this one.
Vitamin D is the nutrient that could collapse the cancer industry and destroy Big Pharma. That's why you need to keep learning about it and keep taking it to make sure your levels of vitamin D are high enough to prevent degenerative disease.
For the record, I do not sell vitamin D supplements of any kind, nor do I earn any kickbacks or commissions of any kind from vitamin D supplement companies.http://www.naturalnews.com/030598_vitamin_D_Institute_of_Medicine.html
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030598_vitamin_D_Institute_of_Medicine.html#ixzz175qhtyxV -
LauraGTO - I most humbly are respectfully disagree with the position of the group that you posted.
This week's news regarding the Institute of Medicine said that they looked at all of the evidence based trials concerning Vitamin D and said there wasn't enough evidence to support taking high amounts to reduce cancer and heart disease AT THIS TIME. Most of the studies concerned Calcium and Vitamin D for bone health. They concluded that more studies are needed.
Honestly, after the debacle with Hormone Replacement Therapy, haven't we learned by now that we must use caution and truly look for more evidence based medicine before making recommendations? I think that is exactly the takeaway message from this week's announcement. I welcome more studies.
-
Here's the problem. If we don't take enough D3 then calcium doesn't get absorbed well. One study said it builds up to clog our arteries. I read a few years back not to take too much calcium if we're on D therapy, and I reduced the calcium in half to 500 mgs daily. We still eat calcium in our foods which really is the best way to get it in, but it also needs D and K2 to get the job done of protecting our bones. Supposedly, in any form, calcium just doesn't go directly to our bones without a little help from other ingredients. K2 supposedly helps to keep it from attaching to our arteries.
Whenever I read calcium advice, I try to find the actual research. Did the researchers use people to test their theory on? On what are they basing their advice? All I know is this, if I don't take enough D3 my hip will begin to hurt. I take 3000 I.U.'s a day to keep the pain away.
So for myself, I find fault with the latest advice because I'm a good test case. An actual person, not a theory.
-
I agree Rosemary44 (hi btw).
http://grassrootshealth.net/iomquotes
I take 1800 iu of vit D3 per day with calcium, magnesium and zinc. I remember the pain well that I had before I began to take this and I do not want it to return. And Rosemary is so right to remind that, like the rest of our body system, D3 needs other elements to be effective such as calcium and magnesium.
I like the advice that I read in the link above. Get tested. The burden of proof is on the nay sayers to show that increased dose of D3 does not improve health and fight disease...they haven't done that yet.
Do you remember how many doctors told us that our pain was "only menopause and we were complaining for nothing". I will never forget them.
Best wishes to all as always,
Marilyn
-
Very late to this discussion, but I'm on the pro-Vitamin D supplementation side. And the New York Times headline is a mistaken interpretation even of the IOM report (and in the opinion of a lot of people, Gina Kolata has a long history of misinterpreting things...).
Also, voraciousreader, neither the IOM nor Gina Kolata said "there is no evidence that taking over 30 iu of Vitamin D is healthy." They didn't say that at all -- what they did say was that IN A BLOOD TEST, 30 nanograms of Vitamin D per milliliter of blood was a healthy level, and there was insufficient evidence that higher blood levels were more beneficial. The IOM report actually raised the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of Vitamin D supplements "for young adults from 200 to 600 IU/day and for older adults from 400 to 600 IU/day. For those over age 71 the RDA was raised to 800 IU/day."
The quote in italics is from an article by Leo Galland, MD, on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-galland-md/vitamin-d-beware-the-hype-_b_791976.html?ref=tw -
AnneNYC -- My understanding of the study, which was a meta analysis of existing studies, mentioned that people need to be cautious about how much to take because of the increased risk of kidney stones. The takeaway message from the study was that there needs to be MORE clinical studies to determine a "healthy AND beneficial" level.
-
I think the "kicker" in the report was the "most people" should take the lower dose of Vit D3. I don't think those of us on Arimidex etc. can be considered "most people". All I know is since I have stuck with the 1200 units of D3 daily and my one Citracal pill (every other day since it gives me certain problems), my bone density tests are doing fine! My DD has a chronic disease since childhood (not bc thank God!) and she gobbles Vit supplements and takes 5000 units Vit D3 daily. She says she has more energy and fights off regular illnesses since taking all her supplements. Vit D3 and Vit 3 are her stalewarts. I need to increase my Vit 3. I never eat fruits unless it is included in fruit juices like V-Fusion which I love so I probably need more of the C.
Was it the Vit D that they think can cause "Kidney Stones"? I am confused about that. Thanks!
-
I have to say that, though the report that Laura GTO posted is quite alarmist and a bit paranoid-ish, I actually believe that what was written has a kernel of truth to it. Pharma companies stand to lose a large revenue stream if a substantial portion of the population staves off cancer, thus, we have no cures in sight, unless it's developed by an individual apart from the pharma research community.
Medigal- the reason it can increase kidney stones is that your body will absorb more calcium, thereby you might stand a chance at kidney stones. I think you'd have to be not drinking a lot of water, taking large amounts of calcium carbonate supplements and Vitamin D in order to achieve a kidney stone.
And, as for medical studies, won't be happening, unless one of the big P companies is planning on developing a neutraceuticals line in the near future.
-
An interesting TV show with a panel of physicians attempting to diagnose illnesses.This is a short clip of the show. The entire program was much more informative.
http://secondopinion-tv.org/episode/vitamin-d
A lecture on the findings of Moores Cancer Study at UC San Diego:
-
voraciousreader, the main thing I wanted to point out was that even in the Gina Kolata article and the meta-analysis, the "30" referred to a blood test level (insufficient evidence of benefit with levels above 30 nanograms of Vitamin D per milliliter of blood) -- you said "taking more than 30 iu per day is not healthy" -- but even the meta-analysis recommended that healthy "older adults" take 400 to 600 IU per day to achieve the blood level of 30 ng/ml. And, as Medigal points out, those of us taking AIs are likely in a different category!
-
AnnNYC - The meta-analysis is saying that until further studies are performed, they cannot advise levels above 30.
I agree with you and others that we, as breast cancer survivors on a cocktail of meds, may NOT be among "most people." However, there are no studies indicating what our levels should be beyond what is published. The current studies also indicate that higher levels are equated with the increased risk of kidney stones.
I am EXTREMELY interested in this topic because my family has a history of kidney stones. When I was initially diagnosed with breast cancer, my medical oncologist checked my Vit D levels and they were found to be "insufficient." I took D3 for several months until I reached 30. I had read numerous articles advocating higher levels. My medical oncologist and internist, both advised, especially with my family history, not to go higher. As my medical oncologist said, "The studies on Vit D for heart disease and cancer are still in their infancy. Until we see me more studies, we must still use caution." So, when the latest meta-analysis was released, it confirmed what my physicians were telling me.
Perhaps you recall when Vitamin E was all the rage for heart disease? That is, until studies indicated that people who were taking higher amounts had higher mortalities? My husband, who has heart issues and numerous relatives and friends of ours, all decreased their intake afterwards. Ditto for Folic Acid. It was also touted to reduce heart risk.
Basically, when I'm reading clinical studies at pubmed.org, what I'm looking for is what kind of research was done to come up with the finding. If it is meta-analysis, that's okay, because most important decisions are based on meta-analysis. However, the gold standard study is one where there is a proposed medicine being compared to a placebo or a medication that is in use for some time.
Then, I look for the following:
Is it therapeutic?
Or, is it beneficial?
And, finally, I look at the risks VS the benefits.
What do I mean by "therapeudic?" Therapeudic is when there is something wrong with you and you take something and the problem will go away.
"Beneficial" is when you take something that will reduce your chances of getting something.
"Risk Vs Benefit" is how dangerous are the side effects if you take the treatment that is supposed to improve your health.
Last, when I read studies, I want to know if I fit the "profile" of individuals who benefited from taking the medication. I know physicians will often prescribe something even when a person doesn't fit a "profile." That's where it becomes more of an art and where the experience of the physician counts big time.
So, regarding your interpretation of the data, I agree with you that we might not be "most people." However, the studies that have been done are no closer to helping us decide what level is good for us. The studies though, do provide evidence at this time, that levels above 30 provide an elevated risk of kidney stones.
Perhaps more clinical trials will provide a more definitive answer.
-
Voraciousreader,
I also have a propensity for kidney stones, and I have found that by getting up my Vitamin D levels, I am not passing as much calcium through my digestive tract, thus disabling the manufacture of kidney stones. My endocrinologist --who doesn't believe much in "alternative" medicine , BTW, suggested that my elevated PTH levels would go down and my susceptibility to kidney stones would be diminished with a higher level of Vitamin D in my system. He suggested 60-70. I've reached 71 and am feeling healthier than ever, and can now digest my food properly--no more IBS. So, I guess by your definition of "therapeutic", it was extremely therapeutic for me. It is also beneficial in that I am now able to absorb my other necessary vitamins and minerals, as I am not suffering from IBS-D anymore.
I won't hold my breath for more clinical trials, as I think the pharma industry has a vested interest in *not* trialing Vitamin D any more than it already has been. If you'll look back on the history of Vitamin D, it was discovered in the 1930s to be of great benefit and therapeutic in patients, but this information has been pushed under the rug. Like other "natural remedies", as a society, we've forgotten the healing power of nature in our quest for better drugs.
If you're interested in the history of Vitamin D, its discovery as a "steroid/vitamin" and the research that has been conducted in the past, read Dr. Michael Holick's book
Dr. Holick provides ample research on the effects of Vitamin D, and the studies which have been in process since the early part of the 1920s. It's a very interesting read.
-
MariannaHB --
Thanks for posting the link on Vitamin D. I'm sure many sisters would be interested in reading it!
Just want my friends here to know that many years before I was diagnosed with a "rare" breast cancer, the DH was diagnosed with an extremely rare "orphan" illness. His disorder is caused by a genetic defect that causes an enzyme to not properly fuel his metabolism. Carnitine Palmitoyl Transferase Deficiency Type II.
Since his diagnosis, newborns can now be tested for this potentially catastrophic metabolic disorder. Most states now require newborn screening and thankfully, here in New York, my husband's disorder is among those that newborns get tested for.
So what does that have to do with Vitamin D? Well, my husband is under the care of some of the most extraordinary endocrinology and genetic physicians in the country. There are only a handful of these physicians and we have been learning from the best over the years. They are a small fraternity of dedicated physicians and researchers. These clinicians are the ones who are mavericks in the field of inborn errors of metabolism. They are the ones who manipulate the body's various vitamins and nutrients in people like my husband who have these catastrophic deficiencies. Since my husband's diagnosis in 1996, I have immersed myself in learning as much as I can about bio chemistry. Likewise, having taken Statistics in college, it has prepared me to understand the research studies that influence our care.
I hope what I explained in my previous comment to Ann can offer some sisters enlightenment on how to approach understanding studies and their limitations.
Marianna --Regarding the pharma industry...I have to say you are singing to the choir. Most new drugs are created for the masses. Exactly how many erectile dysfunction medications do we need on the market? Could any of that money been dedicated to helping find a therapy for an "orphan" illness. Please don't get me started on this subject!!! Presently, my husband and about a dozen other people are taking an oil, similar to Lorenzo's Oil that is prescribed by our physicians and is being shipped from a pharmaceutical plant in Germany. The pharmaceutical company is producing the oil on a compassionate basis. My husband and I get it about the pharma industry. Why conduct a clinical trial to find a new med for a small group of people?? And heaven forbid conduct a trial on a vitamin or nutrient that is on the market already and costs pennies??!!! Don't get me started about the FDA or the NIH either! And this whole Avistan debacle doesn't surprise me, at all.
Okay. Now that I've ranted, I feel much better.
-
VoraciousReader, I have no disagreement about blood levels of 30 ng/ml. I was just concerned that others would take to heart your first sentence stating that "taking more than 30 IU per day is unhealthy" when the report you quote (and approve of) recommends taking 400 to 600 IU per day to achieve levels of 30 ng/ml.
-
Thank you, Ann. I see my error.
-
LOL, glad the rant helped. It always helps me! Anyway, took a guess from your name that you read a lot of books!
I really liked that one. I have checked out about every Vitamin D publication available from our local library. I guess it just takes a diagnosis to "turn on" our inner researchers. I always knew that I liked statistics, research, et al, but I've now taken it to an entirely new level.
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team