Vitamin D Deficiency Study

That is the opposite side of what Soan Kettering and Scientific American just reported.  There are several studies stating that lack of Vitamin D may be causing cancers and other diseases.  Google Sloan Kettering and vitamin d or just vitamin d medical information.  to learn more.

This is very confusing who do we believe????????????

i just started all my kids and husband on vitamin d back in September after hearing the reports from Sloan.  I believe them, then the magazine Scientific American comes out with similar information supporting the supplements of vitamin d.

Now what???

I hate the back and forth.  One day coffee, alcohol is bad for you then the next they have health benefits! UGHHHHHHH!

I feel everything in moderation is the best way to go!

But I was really excited about the benefits of vitamin d now I don't know!

Hi,

I was told at U of Mich to take D3 1200-1600 units during neo- Femara and during chemo and now post chemo-with Aromasin. I was not to take it during rads, but a multivitamin- like Centrum was suggested during chemo-did not take it.. Dr. Norton, an expert on this site, said 2,000 units of D3 are what he suggests and NO MULTI- since he believes it feeds cancer cells. I hope Tender weighs in here!! Beth  I did copy the abstract and send it to my onc nurse. Beth 

Dani, thanks for the tip about Sloan-Kettering.  I Googled and found this abstract:

BACKGROUND: Numerous observational studies have found supplemental calcium and vitamin D to be associated with reduced risk of common cancers. However, interventional studies to test this effect are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy of calcium alone and calcium plus vitamin D in reducing incident cancer risk of all types. DESIGN: This was a 4-y[year], population-based, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was fracture incidence, and the principal secondary outcome was cancer incidence. The subjects were 1179 community-dwelling women randomly selected from the population of healthy postmenopausal women aged >55 y in a 9-county rural area of Nebraska centered at latitude 41.4 degrees N. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 1400-1500 mg supplemental calcium/d alone (Ca-only), supplemental calcium plus 1100 IU vitamin D3/d (Ca + D), or placebo. RESULTS: When analyzed by intention to treat, cancer incidence was lower in the Ca + D women than in the placebo control subjects (P < 0.03). With the use of logistic regression, the unadjusted relative risks (RR) of incident cancer in the Ca + D and Ca-only groups were 0.402 (P = 0.01) and 0.532 (P = 0.06), respectively. When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005) but did not change significantly for the Ca-only group. In multiple logistic regression models, both treatment and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations were significant, independent predictors of cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352170.

No doubt there are certain diseases and conditions that are harmed by too much Vitamin D, but there's been plenty of research to support the notion that Vitamin D and calcium are specifically beneficial for many breast cancer patients.  Maybe the question really is whether supplements (as opposed to sunshine and food) are the best way to get the Vitamin D, not whether increased Vitamin D in general is good for us.   

My onc nurse who had supported Vit D3," hard to get too much" said that today's article had led to many emails- now says to do D levels.I then sent her the Sloan abstract. Beth

Rosemary,

More worriesome is that he is talking about immune suppresion. There have been studies linking obesity to gut bacteria- not sure of particulars. Beth 

Hi All,



Calico, thanks for eyeing this! Quite some revelation! I didn't know either about Vitamin D and any immunosuppression, nor of it's role in nuclear transcription.



So...I currently take 1000 iu daily when I remember, but may go back to 400 iu while I look around some on this point-counterpoint.Great commentary Blundin.



Here is Dr.Marshall's abstract on this topic. It's easy to read. I've asked him for a pdf file of the full article.



" Challenges :Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision making

Trevor G. Marshall *

School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Murdoch University, Western Australia.



ABSTRACT

The US FDA currently encourages the addition of vitamin D to milk and cereals, with the aim of reducing rickets in children and osteoporosis in adults. However, vitamin D not only regulates the expression of genes associated with calcium homeostasis, but also genes associated with cancers, autoimmune disease, and infection. It does this by controlling the activation of the vitamin D receptor (VDR), a type 1 nuclear receptor and DNA transcription factor. Molecular biology is rapidly coming to an understanding of the multiplicity of roles played by the VDR, but clinical medicine is having difficulty keeping up with the pace of change. For example, the FDA recently proposed a rule change that will encourage high levels of vitamin D to be added to even more foods, so that the manufacturers can claim those foods reduce the risk of osteoporosis. The FDA docket does not review one single paper detailing the transcriptional activity of vitamin D, even though, on average, one new paper a day is being published on that topic. Nor do they review whether widespread supplementation with vitamin D, an immunomodulatory secosteroid, might predispose the population to immune dysfunction. This BioEssay explores how lifelong supplementation of the food chain with vitamin D might well be contributing to the current epidemics of obesity and chronic disease. BioEssays 30:173-182, 2008. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.



Wonder what Saluki, Pharmmom and BBS, MOTC and others have to say about this.



Tender

This just in from Dr.Marshall, who kindly sent the entire (complicated) article of the abstract above which I will have to study. But conclusions are generally a recap and do justice:



Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision making

by Trevor G. Marshal



"Conclusions

This BioEssay has examined a number of ways in which, while the widespread use of vitamin D as a food supplement may be providing short-term benefits to a subset of the population, epidemic expansion of obesity and chronic disease are quite possibly the legacies to be bestowed upon future generations. The concept that ‘‘The Sunshine Vitamin’’ really is just a vitamin, with the consequent implication of a linear ‘vitamin in, benefit out’ model, is clearly no longer tenable. At any level of

molecular analysis, the vitamin D metabolites are part of the delicate homeostasis that allows our bodies to express genes, and to express them when the need arises. The conviction that one can, with impunity, continue to add higher and higher concentrations of this secosteroid to the food chain is still firmly held by many of our clinical colleagues.



This is a recipe which could easily lead to a public health disaster. Yet the ‘vitamin’ model has a seductive simplicity, a simplicity that of fers a welcome escape from the complex

world of modern molecular medicine. Biologists have a duty to share their new-found genomic

knowledge with their clinical colleagues. They need to help them understand the steroidal nature of vitamin D. To help them understand that this substance is intimately involved in the transcription of hundreds, probably thousands, of genes that deter mine the course of immune disease and cancers. In

particular, we must ensure that every researcher understands the importance of measuring the concentration of the actual transcriptional activator, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin-D.



Biologists need to raise their voices and help Federal regulators understand what is being discovered about the wonderful genetic tapestry that has historically allowed Homo sapiens to thrive and to control its environment. 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3."



Hmmm,

Tender

All I can say is, LORD HELP US! 

Shirley

Yes, this article is certainly disturbing but I still feel Vitamin D has more benefits to offer than negative effects. I guess you can reference me as an experiment as I've been taking 3000 iu daily for the past year along with my Calcium supplements.  When I had  bloodwork done last July where Vitamin D level was measured it was within normal range.  Recent WBC count was normal as well 7.8 which I thought was a miracle.  Dexa scan was disappointed with 1% bone loss in spine and 2% rt hip but still all in normal range.  These results are after 9 months on Femara.  I have my body aches but IMO tolerate very well and remain active.  I wonder what my status would be if I hadn't been taking these supplements - - - I believe I would be in a worse shape.  Your lab rat - Joann

Buon giorno!  So nice to wake up to the "lab rat" chatter.

Beth--Based on your question, probably I was not clear.  I don't see this research as negative...frustrating definitely until my grey matter can get wrap around it all, but not negative.  Here is what I posted in my chat to Rosemary in the other thread...

Taken from.... http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminD/

Did you read this?  I'm intrigued...and hopeful.

Cell Differentiation

Cells that are dividing rapidly are said to be proliferating. Differentiation results in the specialization of cells for specific functions. In general, differentiation of cells leads to a decrease in proliferation. While cellular proliferation is essential for growth and wound healing, uncontrolled proliferation of cells with certain mutations may lead to diseases like cancer. The active form of vitamin D, 1,25(OH)₂D, inhibits proliferation and stimulates the differentiation of cells (1).

Cancer

Two characteristics of cancer cells are lack of differentiation (specialization) and rapid growth or proliferation. Many malignant tumors have been found to contain vitamin D receptors (VDR), including breast, lung, skin (melanoma), colon, and bone. Biologically active forms of vitamin D, such as 1,25(OH)₂D and its analogs, have been found to induce cell differentiation and/or inhibit proliferation of a number of cancerous and noncancerous cell types maintained in cell culture (58). Results of some, but not all, human epidemiological studies suggest that vitamin D may protect against various cancers. However, it is important to note that epidemiological studies cannot prove such associations.

Gotta love that balance issue .... I think this is at the core of the pain issue for some of us...and others who have no SE probably have a better distribution of these vitamins as well as healthy parathyroid activity...god bless them all. 

It was the information about cancer that caught my eye ... no surprise there...that Many malignant tumors have been found to contain vitamin D receptors (VDR), including breast, lung, skin (melanoma), colon, and bone. 

Sometimes, and forgive me if I repeat myself, I think that "they" took their eye off of the prize when they put more emphasis on pharmaceuticals.  Now everyone is racing to catch up.  In a highly competitive environment, that will mean many "announcements" coming out  from their marketing departments that say "look mom what I did!" 

Maybe it's too fast for our threshold of comprehension and faith in their interests...but the good news is at least they are looking.  

Tender -- Thanks for your comment and for posting this information.  I don't always know who is who on the totem poll, but I know who I like to read and this researcher seems one of them.

Rosemary -- Last September when I learned about magnesium and read similar information about receptors...it made me think then that our rouge cells might be gorging themselves on this otherwise good nutrition that we are feeding.  Thus the caution from my docs here two years ago not to supplement with B12 but take it only in my foods.  It was not my onc who prescribed cal/Vit D3 but the rheum when I asked for help to manage that god awful joint pain.  And, remember that none of the recommendations helped (Gladio NSAID, cal/Vit D3, exercise, PT) and from the endo (increased thyroid meds) until I took the magnesium supplement.  

My question to my breast surgeon about the magnesium supplement was...."If this is helping me not to feel pain, is it killing me?"  She didn't think so .....but I'll see my onc at the end of the month...I'll see what he has to say.  

My cocktail these days is to continue magnesium because my cognitive abilities returned as well as significant pain reduction...these two things alone were my reason to CONTINUE to take Arimidex....assuming of course that taking Arimidex is a good thing to do...who knows!

It's very comforting to me to know all of you here....just wanted to add that. 

Best wishes to all....as always 

The empirical evidence is how do we feel when we take a vitamin?  Is it actually doing something for me?  Try to stop it and see what happens if your not sure it's actually working, or if your afraid of it for some reason.  I know I cannot stop taking D.  I'm positive it was the reason why my hip stopped hurting and I don't want to go back there to find out.  I don't want my bones to crumble while a researcher raises his voice to the FDA.  I'll need a lot more evidence then his say so.

If our immune system is being compromised by taking D, then I'm sure we'd be feeling that.  I just had family over, one had the flu, the other caught a cold, the baby had the sniffles, and there sat I thinking I'm doomed.  I didn't get any of it. 

Morning gals,

I graciously recieved this from Constantine--a copy of a response he gave to another BCO member.  

He kindly gave me permission to use it in any way I saw fit.

I hope this will put the matter to rest.  What a wonderful man!

Re: Marshall TG. Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision making. Bioessays. 2008 Feb;30(2):173-82.
 

    I reviewed the full version of this rambling discursive "bioessay" and it not only changes nothing, but is immune to true evidence-based critical appraisal, as it is not a study but a polemical stream of speculation unsullied by any actual facts or data. What is critical to appreciate is that the overwhelming preponderance and weight of the evidence, including hundreds of cohort, observational, epidemiological as well as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies, in addition to several meta-analyses and systematic reviews, unambiguously supports both the safety and the positive benefit of high-dose D3 supplementation, in multiple cancers and dozens of non-malignancy disease states, and the author (Dr. Trevor Marshall at Murdoch University (AU)) does not engage this supportive literature in any way or account for the inconsistency of his speculations against the vast and methodologically robust evidence base to the contrary.

    The speculations are furthermore disingenuous and unprofessional in suggesting suspicion of harm where none has in fact been found: ". . . Vitamin D activates the VDR to transcribe (or repress) 913 genes, and the possibility that it might affect expression of as many as 27,091(5) . . . "

, and later again "27,091 genes which might be transcribed or and "repressed by the VDR(5). Several of these genes, and the resulting proteins, are known to be active in cancer." This is pure sophistry, intended to suggest the gravity and magnitude of potential interactions mediated through or influenced by the Vitamin D Receptor (VDR), and to hence suggest the recklessness of dietary and supplemental Vitamin D interventions considering this vast and subtle network of interrelationships. This is silly: pineal melatonin, the most pervasive hormone in all life forms down to the amoeba and paramecium as well as primitive plant life, affects ten of thousands more genes and underlying molecular pathways than Vitamin D or the VDR, and affects virtually every system and organ of the human body, but has been indisputably shown without harm, indeed to the contrary, with almost unparalleled benefit across hundreds of conditions, and with a breathtaking level of safety - schedules of 2000 mg have been given to neonates without harm or concern. We are scientists, we can deal with complexity without blanching or freezing in fear - we deal with outcomes at the phenotype level regardless of the genotypic phenomena involved.

Dr. Marshall takes these wild speculations further, suggesting that untold dangers lurk in terms of adverse influence on obesity and the metabolic syndrome consequent to high dose Vitamin D3 supplementation, strongly implying and predicting - without an iota of supporting evidence - "an epidemic expansion of obesity and chronic disease", and this wholly against the evidence : as for example, against the findings of Elina Hyppönen's UK cross-sectional study, which demonstrated that serum 25(OH)D is actually inversely associated with metabolic syndrome, so that higher levels would be associated with a lower, not higher, prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Indeed, how to account for the high-quality robust methodology findings of the recent population-based, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial of postmenopausal women conducted by Joan Lappe's team at Creighton University, which demonstrated that improving vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduced all-cancer risk, and the dozens of other confirming studies?

Poor science and vague speculation do not ever add positively to professional scientific discourse.
Beware the bioessay. Constantine Kaniklidis