The NaturalNews has this story about a USA Today article titled “Panel to postmenopausal women: Don’t take vitamin D, calcium”.
The United States government has just crossed the threshold of nutritional insanity with an announcement that postmenopausal women should avoid taking vitamin D. This announcement, made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, is tantamount to declaring war on nutrition. In a nation where 90+ percent of the population is chronically deficient in vitamin D, any government edict that encourages people to avoid this lifesaving vitamin will only result in more cancer, more Alzheimer’s disease, more bone fractures, more diabetes and more kidney disease…. which is, of course, exactly what the medical establishment wants. After all, how are the drug companies supposed to make money treating patients with cancer if they prevent cancer themselves by using dirt-cheap vitamin D?
The mainstream media, predictably, has dutifully followed the government’s anti-nutrition advice by distorting the conclusions of the study and running headlines like this one in USA Today, the corporate-run disinfo outlet:Panel to postmenopausal women: Don’t take vitamin D, calcium ….
The authors of this article, Janice Lloyd, Liz Szabo and Nanci Hellmich, should be renamed the Three Stooges of Mainstream Journalism for their absurdly inaccurate headline. For starters, the study covered in the article only mentions that postmenopausal women shouldn’t take low-doses of vitamin D combined with calcium. According to the U.S. government a “low dose” is something around 200 IUs daily — a virtually useless quantity of vitamin D. Most nutritionists recommend 4,000 IUs daily or even more.So what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force really determined is that taking a ridiculously low dose of vitamin D isn’t very helpful to your health. The logical conclusion from this is that people should take HIGHER doses of vitamin D which have, through hundreds of studies, been shows to help prevent cancer, increase bone mineral density, prevent kidney disease and so on. …
So the accurate headline in USA Today, if the paper actually were interested in educating and informing readers about nutrition, would be, “Postmenopausal women need higher doses of vitamin D.” But instead, the headline read, “Don’t take vitamin D, calcium.”
It’s yet another example of not just inaccurate reporting, but irresponsible reporting that puts people’s lives at risk. If Vitamin D had a lawyer, it would sue USA Today for defamation. With this kind of reporting from one of the nation’s most widely-circulated papers, it’s no wonder the population remains nutritionally illiterate and suffering from runaway degenerative disease.
The real agenda: Criminalize nutrition
The real agenda in all this, however, is not just an assault on nutrition and a push to keep the American people malnourished and riddled with cancer. The real purpose of this so-called “task force” announcement is to set the stage for BANNING vitamin D.
Is someone addressing our population problem by increasing cancer rates with nutritional disinformation?
What I find interesting is that the study seemingly used to write the USA today article is only a draft at this point. It was in draft form when I checked on 6.27.2012 and the site said the draft was Current as of June 2012.
Perhaps they released it elsewhere, but the web site says,
“This draft Recommendation Statement is not the final recommendation of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. This draft is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-release review. It has not been disseminated otherwise by AHRQ. It does not represent and should not be interpreted to represent an AHRQ determination or policy.“
There are some other interesting bits in the draft:
… Biological Understanding …
There are two main sources of vitamin D within the human body. Ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2, is consumed in the diet, mainly in the form of plants and fish. Cholecalciferol, or vitamin D3, is synthesized within the skin by ultraviolet B rays from the sun. Vitamin D3 is converted to its active form via enzymatic processes in the liver and kidney. Most cells contain specific receptors for the active form of vitamin D. Stimulation of skeletal muscle receptors promotes protein synthesis, and vitamin D has a beneficial effect on muscle strength and balance. Laboratory studies have suggested that vitamin D may reduce the risk for cancer via regulation of cellular proliferation, differentiation, and inhibition of angiogenesis. Vitamin D controls calcium absorption in the small intestines and interacts with parathyroid hormone to help maintain calcium homeostasis between the blood and bones.
Data from observational studies of vitamin D and cancer suggest that if an effect of vitamin D on cancer exists, it might only be achieved with a vitamin D intake greater than those given in randomized trials to date (13).
According to mercola:
… Vitamin D is a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, and is easily one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in nearly every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain….
… Researchers have found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 4000-8000 IU are needed to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half the risk of breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis, and type 1 diabetes. …
While an Institute of Medicine committee has stated that 4000 IU/day is a safe dosage, their recommended minimum daily intake is only 600 IU/day. According to the study in the journal Anticancer Research:
“The supplemental dose ensuring that 97.5 percent of this population achieved a serum 25(OH)D of at least 40 ng/ml was 9,600 IU/d … Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity.”
My last Vitamin D test showed that I had 36 ng/ml. Both of my nutritionists say I should be in the high 70’s.
Component Your result Standard range Units VITAMIN D, 25-HYDROXY 36 25 – 79 ng/mL