with Dr. Cedric Garland of UCSD Moores Cancer Center
Topic: Vitamin D Research Controversy
By: Dr. Cedric Garland
Event date: 02/04/14
Here is a short text by Dr. Cedric Garland about the Autier paper, Vitamin D status and ill health: a systematic review.
"This meta-analysis is nothing new and is already obsolete, since it is mainly based on old papers that used too little vitamin D to expect any effect. A New Zealand study saying we should only supplement people with vitamin D deficiency and evidence of bone loss is equally wrong. Virtually everyone in New Zealand, and most adults in the US, are vitamin D deficient by modern criteria, being below 32 ng/ml. The reality is that we now know that they are deficient with regard to extraskeletal effects of 25(OH)D if their serum level is below 40 ng/ml.
These papers should be disregarded as obsolete work. We are moving into a new era of using vitamin D3 in doses no less that 4,000 IU/day for people aged 9 years and older (The NAS-IOM total upper level intakes [TULI's] that are safe for daily use per NAS-IOM monograph, 2011). Studies using less than 4000 IU/day are on the verge of obsolescence.
It does not matter much that giving 400 IU/d in the meta-analysis being cited did not achieve very much -- the amount given to the subjects was less than a tenth the effective dose. The authors of this review did not use any epidemiological research and they appear to have paid no attention in their conclusions to the only RCT that was relevant, that of Lappe et al. in 2007.
Lapper et al. used 1100 IU/day of vitamin D3 and 1500 mg/day of calcium. They achieved a serum level of approximately 40 ng/ml. It reported a 77% reduction in incidence of all invasive cancer combined, after a 1-year run-in period. The benefit was 60% less cancer without a run-in period. These cancers included breast, colon, lung and others. The women in the Lappe et al. RCT were very compliant. The result was statistically significant.
The Lappe et al, study and the many supportive epidemiological studies that preceded and followed it should prove to even the most ill-informed skeptic that vitamin D prevents most cancer. It is incredible that the authors of this review virtually disregarded all of the relevant epidemiology this randomized controlled clinical trial.
Several scientists have informed the editors of the journal, that published the review, presenting their objections to the conclusions this study reached, they were based on obsolete low-dose vitamin D studies, and that they virtually totally neglected the work of the entire science of epidemiology.
Doctors and their patients should not be discouraged by this obsolete review. Patients aged 9 years and older can take 4,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 safely according to the National Academy of Sciences-Institute of Medicine (2011 monograph). The benefits of such a dose will be substantial. The scientific data already accumulated is easily strong enough to support this. Serum 25(OH)D should be monitored regularly in any event, and serum calcium in older adults or anyone where there is a concern about hypercalcemia. It is true that the current NAS-IOM RDA is 600-800 IU/day of vitamin D3, but higher doses seem far more logical and safer now for most people based on studies and the Lappe et al RCT of 1100 IU/day of vitamin D3. Sale and intake of vitamin D2 should end, as there is no solid support for its efficacy against non-skeletal diseases, unlike vitamin D3.
Another supporting clinical trial would be good, but we have a great one in Lappe et al. If we ever decide to do another RCT we should use no less than 4000 IU/d of vitamin D3 and 1000-1250 mg/day of calcium. Such a trial may be impossible, though, because members of the placebo group may eventually take supplements on their own, or human subjects protection committees may not allow depriving anyone of vitamin D at these doses in this emerging era of knowledge about their powerful benefits at appropriate, monitored doses in preventing very serious diseases that we have never before been able to effectively prevent, including breast cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, type 1 diabetes, and much of multiple sclerosis and type 2 diabetes. It is an exciting time for using vitamin D at no less than 4000 IU/day with regular serum 25(OH)D monitoring to prevent these fatal diseases. "
More about this Controversy here: http://www.grassrootshealth.net/webinars
You and your brother started this vitamin d3 tar paper. I was put on vit d3 20,000 for a month, then 5000 ui for 12 years. Vitamin d3 is rat poison. It is a by product of the wool industry. I have broken my back 9 times in this time period. The cholecalciferol has pulled the calcium from my bones. This is a silent reaction. You don't know it's happening until you fracture or do bone density test. This guy made a mint on vitamin d3. It is deadly and people do not suspect that it is the vit d3 that is causing it all. He does not know what hes talking about.
It is cholecalciferol. That is rat poison. So you are taking rat poison at any dose that you take. I believe this is a population control, NWO maneuver and it is having the exact effect that they want. There is no difference between the vitamin makers and the pharmaceutical industry. It's all the same. So if you want to eat poison, be my guest, however the consequences are murder.
321jeanne well. Cornmeal kills ants... if you drink too much water over a short time, that can kill you. I think there has been so much research on D3 showing benefits. I think you were given the rat poison dose.
I usually don't take any allopathic drugs or vitamins. It is the only vitamin I took because my doctor put me on that dose. I was ignorant to follow her advice. I had no idea I was poisoning myself. Vitamin D3 is a hormone and it is a rodenticide.
I'm taking 35K IU per day right now and feel like junk if i don't. Also taking 200 mg MK7 and 400 mg K2. Still concerned about calcifying my tissues, but having no nausea, vomiting, or other tox symptoms. Suggestions welcomed.
Only months after failing to make Vit D a prescription medication so the drug companies could make zillions off of it (the courts actually shot them down, thank God) suddenly this "study" comes out claiming Vit D-3 "doesn't do anything" for your health -- and then the study actually states that future studies will only verify those finding or will be in error if they do not... Wow!. In other words: they know how good Vitiamn D-3 really is for you -- and if they can't control it (and the profits from it) they want to trick you into not taking it at all.
Mainstream medicine has a flawed view of vitamins which invalidates a lot of mainstream research. The belief is that the same methods of evaluation that are applied to drugs, should be applied to vitamins, this is false.
1. Vitamins are nutrients, they participate in many metabolic processes.
2. Drugs are toxins, they interfere with metabolic processes
3. When drugs are used they impact on a few metabolic processes and then the surplus has to be removed by the eliminative organs.
4. When vitamins are administered, they may be taken up by many metabolic processes.
These facts explain why the doses of drugs must be kept low and within tight ranges. If too little of a drug is used, it has no effect. If too much is used it overwhelms the metabolic process it targets. It may also overwhelm the liver and kidney's resulting in the drug disrupting other metabolic processes. We call this adverse reactions, overdose, side effects and death.
When one tries to administer a vitamin to achieve a therapeutic effect, the following facts should be noted.
1. It is necessary to test each subject to find out what their requirement for that vitamin is. If the subject is deficient, then higher doses are needed. This is very different from the standard dose model used in drug trials.
2. The body may have several 'pools' of vitamin d that will need to be filled before there is any surplus to produce a particular therapeutic effect. To achieve this larger doses may be required initially.
3. Vitamins invariably require one or more co-factors to work, together with associated nutrients. If the requirement for these is not taken into account, bad science will result.
By contrast drugs are designed to be used standalone.
All told the French study published in the Lancet is bunk. Outdated clapped out obsolete bunk at that.
if you take to much after a while does it make you urinate a lot and thirsty like crazy? I have metabolic syndrome and hypertension, I am wondering if vitad3 makes you go like that after taking it a while because it is bringing the bp down? how can you tell if the frequrent urination is due to high calcium nad not some other factor (I suffere diabetes insipidus could vitad3 be reducing my medicines affects?) does it also make you restless and hard to sleep? I had been taking about 30,000 iu because I am obese read you need more if your deficient nad obese.
Excellent info. When are these people going to quit! Probably not until the whole entire planet is dependent on pharmaceuticals. It just never ends. I take nothing but D3 and 5000IU a day in the Winter give or take.
Sometimes I double that if I'm not getting proper sleep or everybody around me is getting colds and flu.
If the pharma co's had there way all vitamins would be by prescription only! They want control (money)! If that should happen, I am sure they would advise that everyone should be taking calcium and vitamin D3. It always comes down to the same thing (their financial gain.) If this prevents cancer and people take these supplements on their own, what would all the specialist Dr's in cancer do to make the big bucks? It all goes hand in hand why they don't want a cure to be known! Let us help our selves and show them we will beat cancer! Thank You for all the free information given here, and hope you continue with these videos!
Great information - common sense would tell you that taking such a safe, inexpensive and easily attainable vitamin to help prevent many diseases and conditions. I take between 4000 and 7000 daily and have less aches and pains, no colds or flu for the past 2 years and a better clarity of mind! :) Big pharma will suffer when we all wake up and take this important supplement EVERY DAY!
thank you for the continued efforts to understand vit d better, and have this information available for free, on the net, for everyone. where it should be if things are going to change, it will be from the outside in....
Vitamin D prevents most cancer. This is a huge problem for the drugs industry and parts of the medical profession: Profits would plummet. Just saying.
I'm just grateful there are doctors and scientists, like the two in this video, who put health above profits.
Wipe out cancer?! Holy smokes they'll wanna kill anything that threatens to do that.
In it's current state, education and proper dosing of Vitamin D can only hurt the pharmaceutical industry's bottom line.
Thank you Carol B and Dr. Garland!
It is of course no coincidence that the researchers trying to downplay the importance of vitamin D for cancer prevention also are trying to prove the dangers of using sunbeds.
Take IPRI (The International Prevention Research Institute) as an example. They are the same people who populated IARC at the time (2006-2009) when IARC made the decision to classify sunbeds as carcinogens in group 1.
The meta-study used as a base for that decision had serious flaws and did not show any statistically significant increased risk from using sunbeds in commercial tanning salons.
In 2013, they used the same method for a new meta analysis, with the same flaws built in. In that new report, none of the recent really large studies showing no risk-increase from using sunbeds, were included in the analysis.
Looking at the partner page of IPRI, it is easy to see who are paying them for their work of keeping us away from the healing sun. And still they claim they have no affiliations when they get their reports published.
For sure, regular but moderate exposure to UV-light is the best way to get high levels of vitamin D and other health benefits (like Nitric Oxide for cardiovascular health). Therefore, regular and moderate UV-exposure all year around is also the largest competitive threat to the big pharmaceutical companies profiting from the existing "illness-maintenance" type of health policies in "developed" countries.
On today’s market there are many products with such orientation, but most popular is advertised brand Viagra tablets.
Appropriate tests show a positive result, which is about thirty per cent of all subjects. But here it is necessary to take into account the psychological aspect, since a positive result will not be at the unwillingness of sexual intimacy.
Cialis is yet another pill for impotence. Cialis and Viagra can be called brothers. Effectiveness of tablet lasts for about 30 hours. Cialis action when compared to Viagra, is faster. Cialis acts on the walls of blood vessels, preventing them from relaxing, thanks to the influence of substances that trigger it.
Cialis is admissible to the use of alcoholic beverages. The drug takes effect quickly, and the action is very long. What is best Cialis Viagra or Levitra