-
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008)
Vitamin D Deficiency Study Raises New Questions About Disease And Supplements
Low blood levels of vitamin D have long been associated with disease, and the assumption has been that vitamin D supplements may protect against disease. However, this new research demonstrates that ingested vitamin D is immunosuppressive and that low blood levels of vitamin D may be actually a result of the disease process. Supplementation may make the disease worse.
In a new report Trevor Marshall, Ph.D., professor at Australia’s Murdoch University School of Biological Medicine and Biotechnology, explains how increased vitamin D intake affects much more than just nutrition or bone health. The paper explains how the Vitamin D Nuclear Receptor (VDR) acts in the repression or transcription of hundreds of genes, including genes associated with diseases ranging from cancers to multiple sclerosis.
"The VDR is at the heart of innate immunity, being responsible for expression of most of the antimicrobial peptides, which are the body’s ultimate response to infection," Marshall said.
"Molecular biology is now forcing us to re-think the idea that a low measured value of vitamin D means we simply must add more to our diet. Supplemental vitamin D has been used for decades, and yet the epidemics of chronic disease, such as heart disease and obesity, are just getting worse."
The comprehensive studies are just not showing that supplementary vitamin D makes people healthier."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125223302.htm
[Journal reference: Marshall TG. Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision making. Bioessays. 2008 Jan 15;30(2):173-182 [Epub ahead of print] Online ISSN: 1521-1878 Print ISSN: 0265-9247 PMID: 18200565
Adapted from materials provided by Autoimmunity Research Foundation, via AlphaGalileo.
This study comes a few months later after I wrote that vitamin C deficiency doesn’t cause scurvy but the scurvy cause deficiency of vitamin C.
I wrote on 31/07/2007
My point is that low level of vitamin C and (some another adverse biochemical change in the body) is caused by scurvy and not that scurvy is caused by absence of intake of vitamin C.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8659.0
Luka Tunjic
Biomechanics and Health (http://http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/)
-
Obesity is not a disease, it is a social classification. There is much debate as to whether obesity may cause disease, but cannot reasonably be defined as a disease in itself (any more that cigarette smoking is a disease, even if it does cause disease).
As for there being an epidemic of heart disease - I have yet to be convinced that this actually exists. Yes, lots of people are dying of heart disease, and most of them in the past would not have lived long enough to die of heart disease. Is there any evidence that people who do not die of infectious diseases (i.e. those diseases that now are curable which were commonly fatal in the past) are any more likely to die of heart disease than they ever were. True, in the past, many more people died of other diseases so they never got around to dying of heart disease; but what is also established is that people are not generally dying younger, so the increase in heart disease is not generally the case of people dying of heart disease before they would have in past times they would died of something else, but rather that they are not dying of the things they used to die of, and so are living long enough to die of a heart attack.
Certainly, overdosing on any vitamin is bad for you, just as underdosing is. In modern terms, there is evidence that statins (which are increasingly being given almost as freely as vitamins) has an effect contrary to vitamin D, thus implying that for people with high blood pressure, excess vitamin D may be a problem. On the other hand, statins are not generally being prescribed to young children, and thus the inference still remains that the risk of underdosing on vitamin D exceeds the risk of overdosing on vitamin D for young children.
-
Obesity is not a disease,
Is it obesity disease, illness or other negative or positive health condition depend of severity of obesity but before any discussion we have to agree what cause obesity. If you take look in my previous posts you can see that I disagree with present "scientific" explanation about cause of obesity.
As for there being an epidemic of heart disease - I have yet to be convinced that this actually exists. Yes, lots of people are dying of heart disease, and most of them in the past would not have lived long enough to die of heart disease. Is there any evidence that people who do not die of infectious diseases (i.e. those diseases that now are curable which were commonly fatal in the past) are any more likely to die of heart disease than they ever were. True, in the past, many more people died of other diseases so they never got around to dying of heart disease; but what is also established is that people are not generally dying younger, so the increase in heart disease is not generally the case of people dying of heart disease before they would have in past times they would died of something else, but rather that they are not dying of the things they used to die of, and so are living long enough to die of a heart attack.
A few decades ago the human population start to bee affected with heart diseases that was unknown to any previous generation.
At the moment I can’t say much more about heart diseases but today we witnessing the epidemic proportion incidence of diabetes type one, osteoporosis, asthma etc. Most of the negative health condition that nowadays effect human population in extent unknown to any previous generation can’t be attributed to increased longevity. (By the way, the relative increase in life span in recent decade can be mostly attributed to decreased infants mortality and a few other factors that have nothing to do with medical science.)
Certainly, overdosing on any vitamin is bad for you, just as underdosing is. ..... and thus the inference still remains that the risk of underdosing on vitamin D exceeds the risk of overdosing on vitamin D for young children.
This study pointing out that any quantity of the supplement of vitamin D doesn’t make people healthier but may make disease worse.
Luka Tunjic
Biomechanics and Health (http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/)
-
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008)
Vitamin D Deficiency Study Raises New Questions About Disease And Supplements
Low blood levels of vitamin D have long been associated with disease, and the assumption has been that vitamin D supplements may protect against disease. However, this new research demonstrates that ingested vitamin D is immunosuppressive and that low blood levels of vitamin D may be actually a result of the disease process. Supplementation may make the disease worse.
In a new report Trevor Marshall, Ph.D., professor at Australia’s Murdoch University School of Biological Medicine and Biotechnology, explains how increased vitamin D intake affects much more than just nutrition or bone health. The paper explains how the Vitamin D Nuclear Receptor (VDR) acts in the repression or transcription of hundreds of genes, including genes associated with diseases ranging from cancers to multiple sclerosis.
"The VDR is at the heart of innate immunity, being responsible for expression of most of the antimicrobial peptides, which are the body’s ultimate response to infection," Marshall said.
"Molecular biology is now forcing us to re-think the idea that a low measured value of vitamin D means we simply must add more to our diet. Supplemental vitamin D has been used for decades, and yet the epidemics of chronic disease, such as heart disease and obesity, are just getting worse."
The comprehensive studies are just not showing that supplementary vitamin D makes people healthier."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125223302.htm
[Journal reference: Marshall TG. Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision making. Bioessays. 2008 Jan 15;30(2):173-182 [Epub ahead of print] Online ISSN: 1521-1878 Print ISSN: 0265-9247 PMID: 18200565
Adapted from materials provided by Autoimmunity Research Foundation, via AlphaGalileo.
This study comes a few months later after I wrote that vitamin C deficiency doesn’t cause scurvy but the scurvy cause deficiency of vitamin C.
I wrote on 31/07/2007
My point is that low level of vitamin C and (some another adverse biochemical change in the body) is caused by scurvy and not that scurvy is caused by absence of intake of vitamin C.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8659.0
Luka Tunjic
Biomechanics and Health (http://http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/)
"Supplemental vitamin D has been used for decades, and yet the epidemics of chronic disease, such as heart disease and obesity, are just getting worse."
That is a very stupid statement by the professor.Talk about dumb.
Does he really think only vitamin d is the ONLY factor in heart disease and obesity?
Does he really think only vitamin d is the ONLY factor in heart disease and obesity?
The study is wrong or flawed or corrupt.
If it is corrupt then simply follow the money trail and the reasons will become clear.
It is universally agreed exposure to the full summer sun for between 15 to 30 minutes will generate 10000 to 15000 iu of vitamin d in the human body.Further exposure causes vitamin d to degrade and thus reach a production plateau.
The question arises why are the people in the equatorial regions who often wear little clothing and exposed all day/most days to the sun not dead from immuno suppression?
Why are those near naked tribal in Africa folk not dead from all that vitamin D immuno suppression.
Let us go to Spain or Italy or Greece which are fairly sunny and wear people wear minimal clothing.Why are they not dead from vitamin d immuno suppression?
Why are they not dying from diseases by the millions?
After all 10000 iu daily is a lot more then the paltry 400 iu in vitamin supplements and a huge amount more then in food.
After all they are getting at least 10000 iu daily from the sun.
The supplements in food are pathetic and very low at levels ranging from 10 to 50 iu per serving.
Vitamin supplements usually have about 200 to 400 iu.
In other words he is talking rubbish
In my opinion he is a rented expert working for drug companies to counteract and spread disinformation on all the recent research done in which 90% reductions occurred in cancers due to vitamin d megadosing.
That is the real reason in my opinion.
Rented experts twist research to satisfy their paymasters.
-
That is a very stupid statement by the professor.Talk about dumb.
Does he really think only vitamin d is the ONLY factor in heart disease and obesity?
Does he really think only vitamin d is the ONLY factor in heart disease and obesity?
The study is wrong or flawed or corrupt.
If it is corrupt then simply follow the money trail and the reasons will become clear.
It is universally agreed exposure to the full summer sun for between 15 to 30 minutes will generate 10000 to 15000 iu of vitamin d in the human body.Further exposure causes vitamin d to degrade and thus reach a production plateau.
The question arises why are the people in the equatorial regions who often wear little clothing and exposed all day/most days to the sun not dead from immuno suppression?
Why are those near naked tribal in Africa folk not dead from all that vitamin D immuno suppression.
Let us go to Spain or Italy or Greece which are fairly sunny and wear people wear minimal clothing.Why are they not dead from vitamin d immuno suppression?
Why are they not dying from diseases by the millions?
After all 10000 iu daily is a lot more then the paltry 400 iu in vitamin supplements and a huge amount more then in food.
After all they are getting at least 10000 iu daily from the sun.
The supplements in food are pathetic and very low at levels ranging from 10 to 50 iu per serving.
Vitamin supplements usually have about 200 to 400 iu.
In other words he is talking rubbish
This study doesn’t say that natural body production of vitamin D is harmful whether is due to sun exposure or because of food intake. People have long history of knowledge about positive effect from sun exposure and from importance of intake diversity kind of food.
It points that intake of vitamin D to treat disease or other negative health condition is useless in it may be contra productive.
It didn’t say that intake of Vitamin D is responsible for increase of chronic diseases like hearth disease and obesity but it point that despite huge increase of vitamin D in recent decades, the incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases are constantly on the rise
It shows that your comment is based on your own misinterpretation of this study.
In my opinion he is a rented expert working for drug companies to counteract and spread disinformation on all the recent research done ...
Pharmaceutical (drag) and vitamin supplements industry gong along with each other.
.... in which 90% reductions occurred in cancers due to vitamin d megadosing.
This claim is absolutely unfounded and is hard for me to think that anyone can take it seriously.
Rented experts twist research to satisfy their paymasters.
Trevor Marshall isn’t rented expert but scientist that exposing illusion about healing prosperity of vitamin D. No any industry can profit from this research but only people will be more protected from “snake oil” traders and in some case will save some people from further health deterioration.
He won’t gain many friends but will gain supplement industry for enemy plus many simple people that have religious proportion belief in miracle property of vitamin D will constantly attack them by misinterpreting his study and spreading misinformation about miracles affect of vitamin D mega dosing.
Luka Tunjic
Biomechanics and Health (http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/)
-
He won’t gain many friends but will gain supplement industry for enemy plus many simple people that have religious proportion belief in miracle property of vitamin D will constantly attack them by misinterpreting his study and spreading misinformation about miracles affect of vitamin D mega dosing.
Luka Tunjic
Biomechanics and Health (http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/)
Nobody is suggesting megadoses when revisiting RDA of vitamin D:
Vitamin D As Treatment
How much vitamin D should one take if they have cancer? We don't know as the research is far from complete. Although vitamin D may help, it should only be taken in addition to standard cancer treatment. It should not be considered a first, or only, treatment but used in addition to regular chemotherapy or surgery. Oncologists and surgeons work miracles every day.
Remember, vitamin D may be toxic in overdose, although one expert recently said, "worrying about vitamin D toxicity is like worrying about drowning when you are dying of thirst".
That said, many people think "if a little is good then a lot is better". This is definitely not true about vitamin D.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/cancerMain.shtml
...in the meantime, waiting for scientific confirmation, a little bit of 'cod' every day should work just fine.
Run on vitamin D after study
Dr. Michael Pollak, an oncologist and director of the cancer-prevention centre at Montreal's Jewish General Hospital and McGill University, interviewed by Andy Riga for the Montreal Gazette, CanWest News Service.
Monday, June 18, 2007
...
"No one is naive," he said. "Vitamin D optimization won't eliminate cancer by any stretch of the imagination, but if it has no downsides and it cuts cancer incidence, it could be worthwhile. Nobody wants to overlook a clue here. This is what everybody wants - a simple pill that reduces cancer risk."
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=ed68aefc-50e4-45f8-b84f-2bd434a6f3d6&k=91024&p=1
Hi Luka,
You may spend a few minutes of your time to watch Marshall&Warren's interview on nobelprize.org and meditate about their experience in the early eighties.
I remember quite clearly -being a young doc at that time- those days of bleeding, deaths, surgery and the miracle of cimetidine.
I see a similar neglecting attitude referred to the "Vitamin D deficiency epidemics" reported by Michael Holick, John Cannell and others, in the last few months.
As Barry Marshall said: "It was a matter of faith more than Science".
They had to wait for some 'thinkers' and opinion makers to retire and fresh brains to come in.
Sometimes is not even a matter of money, but just a problem of brainless authority.
Scientific evidence was right there, ready to be used.
It took more than ten years to be in standard treatment protocols.
More than twenty years to get a Nobel Prize in 2005.
Talking about impressively fast achievements in Medicine!
P.S. There was no "huge increase of vitamin D in recent decades"; if you read carefully, it's just the opposite. Plus migration, sunburn protection, no supplement to breastfed babies, obesity...and so on.
Read and meditate first.
-
Read and meditate first.
It is just one of a few similar sentences that you addressed to me in other topics and I didn’t replay before and I don’t intend to replay on such comment in future. If you cant’ face the facts, than is wrong way to tray insult me and flood topic with picture-post that have little or nothing to do with original topic.
-
That is a very stupid statement by the professor.Talk about dumb.
Does he really think only vitamin d is the ONLY factor in heart disease and obesity?
Does he really think only vitamin d is the ONLY factor in heart disease and obesity?
The study is wrong or flawed or corrupt.
If it is corrupt then simply follow the money trail and the reasons will become clear.
It is universally agreed exposure to the full summer sun for between 15 to 30 minutes will generate 10000 to 15000 iu of vitamin d in the human body.Further exposure causes vitamin d to degrade and thus reach a production plateau.
The question arises why are the people in the equatorial regions who often wear little clothing and exposed all day/most days to the sun not dead from immuno suppression?
Why are those near naked tribal in Africa folk not dead from all that vitamin D immuno suppression.
Let us go to Spain or Italy or Greece which are fairly sunny and wear people wear minimal clothing.Why are they not dead from vitamin d immuno suppression?
Why are they not dying from diseases by the millions?
After all 10000 iu daily is a lot more then the paltry 400 iu in vitamin supplements and a huge amount more then in food.
After all they are getting at least 10000 iu daily from the sun.
The supplements in food are pathetic and very low at levels ranging from 10 to 50 iu per serving.
Vitamin supplements usually have about 200 to 400 iu.
In other words he is talking rubbish
This study doesn’t say that natural body production of vitamin D is harmful whether is due to sun exposure or because of food intake. People have long history of knowledge about positive effect from sun exposure and from importance of intake diversity kind of food.
It points that intake of vitamin D to treat disease or other negative health condition is useless in it may be contra productive.
It didn’t say that intake of Vitamin D is responsible for increase of chronic diseases like hearth disease and obesity but it point that despite huge increase of vitamin D in recent decades, the incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases are constantly on the rise
It shows that your comment is based on your own misinterpretation of this study.
In my opinion he is a rented expert working for drug companies to counteract and spread disinformation on all the recent research done ...
Pharmaceutical (drag) and vitamin supplements industry gong along with each other.
.... in which 90% reductions occurred in cancers due to vitamin d megadosing.
This claim is absolutely unfounded and is hard for me to think that anyone can take it seriously.
NOBODY HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION AS TO WHY TROPICAL PEOPLE ARE NOT ALL DEAD FROM IMMUNO SUPPRESSION.
You are clearly ignorant of very low dose levels in food.Hence the deficiency.Your attempt to label it as snake oil points to ulterior motives.
Not much of a mark up on vitamin d.
For people with open minds here is the research:-
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/researchCancer.shtml
ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial1,2
Joan M Lappe, Dianne Travers-Gustafson, K Michael Davies, Robert R Recker and Robert P Heaney
1 From the Osteoporosis Research Center, Creighton University, Omaha, NE
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, 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°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.
Key Words: Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D • cancer • women • calcium and vitamin D3 supplementation
Translation:-
Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer. This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer drug known to modern science.
The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily) while.....
-
Read and meditate first.
It is just one of a few similar sentences that you addressed to me in other topics and I didn’t replay before and I don’t intend to replay on such comment in future. If you cant’ face the facts, than is wrong way to tray insult me and flood topic with picture-post that have little or nothing to do with original topic.
English is not my first language as you probably know.
When I say that you should read something better I do not intend to insult you.
I just mean that you have probably missed some basic information.
Is sense of humour a vitamin D dependent function? (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi143.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr133%2Flindsayjemerson%2Fitchy.gif&hash=b1a67cd03c604f8b86a92e1e27ab24d2)
-
Just a thought, but since vitamin D is used as a rat poison I can't see why there's a problem with the idea that in excess it may be harmful.
On the other hand, the dosage in suplements is comparable with that in some foodstuffs.
(indeed some things that might be used as foods are toxic because of their vitamin D levels).
Given the variability of intake from food it's not unreasonable to wonder how, when this intake is "suplemented" by UV derived vitamin D the effetcs due to oral suplements are not observed.
-
Given the variability of intake from food it's not unreasonable to wonder how, when this intake is "supplemented" by UV derived vitamin D the effetcs due to oral suplements are not observed.
Hi BC,
according to Michael Holick(http://www.uvadvantage.org/portals/0/pres/ (ftp://http://www.uvadvantage.org/portals/0/pres/)), any excess vitamin D synthesized by UVB in dermal tissue is destroyed by UVB themselves over a certain concentration or stored in body fat and gradually released later.
Halflife of vitamin D in circulating blood should be about 40-60days I remember.
Most of the molecular mechanisms of action of this 'secosteroid' have been investigated only in the last few years.
Surprisingly enough, the anti-infectious power of vitamin D, bound to switched intracellular production of cathelicidin (an antimicrobial peptide), has been reported not more than five years ago.
ikoD
-
New study: Vitamins 'may shorten your life'
This study doesn’t mentioning the vitamin D but pointing that some other vitamins supplement, not only that don’t have any positive impact on health but increasing the risk of dying
Research has suggested certain vitamin supplements do not extend life and could even lead to a premature death.
Scientists at Copenhagen University said vitamins A and E could interfere with the body's natural defences.
The trials involved 233,000 people who were either sick or were healthy and taking supplements for disease prevention.
After various factors were taken into account and a further 20 studies excluded, the researchers linked vitamin A supplements to a 16% increased risk of dying, beta-carotene to a 7% increased risk and vitamin E to a 4% increased risk.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7349980.stm
This study shows that: it is obvious that Vitamins 'may shorten your life' and in some case will shorten a life.
It is to expect that the people that have made career, reputation and lucrative income promoting and selling vitamin supplements will tray to marginalise this study.
Luka Tunjic
-
I would tend to agree with people who vote for a measure of caution with any vitamin supplements. Popping pills because you read something that sounded good for one person doesn't mean that its good for everyone. I do agree that more research needs to be done on Vitamin D, specifically, but I don't think that vitamin D alone is harmful. In some individuals it could be, but in others it has provided great benefits. Look at the work with high dose vitamin D and MS patients. Quite astounding.
Although I like research into vitamins and acknowledge the role that they play in the body, I usually stress to people that natural forms of these vitamins are better than any supplement you could take. Excess vitamins are only necessary in certain conditions, and are only recommended with great caution. Do not take them if you don't know what you're doing!
-
Although I like research into vitamins and acknowledge the role that they play in the body, I usually stress to people that natural forms of these vitamins are better than any supplement you could take. Excess vitamins are only necessary in certain conditions, and are only recommended with great caution. Do not take them if you don't know what you're doing!
...Not to mention all the 'eccipients', preservatives and other chemicals that go together with 'supplements'!
Hi VitaminC [^]
-
I was amused the other day when one of the daily newspapers caught on to this idea. They listed food that would supply the vitamins without taking suplements. A fine idea, but for some of the B group they sugested eating fortified cereals.
-
I was amused the other day when one of the daily newspapers caught on to this idea. They listed food that would supply the vitamins without taking supplements. A fine idea, but for some of the B group they suggested eating fortified cereals.
Cod liver oil comes with at least 3 major nutrients:
Vitamin A and D3 plus omega-3...and no additives! [;)]
-
Vitamin D Deficiency Study Raises New Questions About Disease And Supplements
A subsequent paper from Autoimmunity Research Foundation (from Dr Trevor Marshall) was covered in "Skeptic's Guide To The Universe" podcast - #194 (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=194). They repeated Dr Marshall's claims - that vitamin D is bad for you - but have since apologised for promoting bad science. Here's their analysis of his alternative approach - The Marshall Protocol (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=563).