|
The Vitamin D Newsletter
November, 2007
Of all the vitamin D things that happened in
the last few months, the most dramatic occurred in Canada, and will spare Canadian mothers from seeing tragic diseases
develop in their children. Unfortunately, the same foresight didn't occur in Washington, D.C., where a much publicized
conference on 21st century vitamin D at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) turned out to be an "evidence based" cover-up
of 21st century vitamin D research and resulted in no mothers, or children, being spared.
The same week the NIH was conducting their cover-up at latitude 39 degrees North, the
Canadian Pediatric Society, at 43 degrees North, used evidence based medicine to recommend that pregnant women begin
taking 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day, which is 10 (ten) times more than the 200 IU/day the NIH recommended
for pregnant women four degrees further south. According to the Canadian press, the Canadian Pediatric Society acted "to protect babies
from a litany of illnesses later in life." How can two different mainstream medical organizations look at the same scientific
data and come up with recommendations that vary by an order of magnitude? Perhaps a latitudinal gradient exists
for evidence based medicine.
Some will point out that 2,000 IU (.05 mg) per day is often not enough to adequately
prevent or treat vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy. This is true.
Others will point out that even 4,000 IU/day (.1 mg) is not enough for breast-feeding mothers
to maintain adequate levels of vitamin D in their breast milk; that takes about 6,000 IU/ day (.15 mg). This is also true.
However, both criticisms miss the point. For a large mainstream professional organization like
the Canadian Pediatric Association to buck both the Canadian and U.S. established health authorities by a factor of ten
is unprecedented. It means the vitamin D message is getting through to some in organized medicine.
Health Canada,
the official Canadian governmental health agency, immediately took exception to its own pediatricians, using brilliant bureaucratic
thinking. They said, "The United States Institute of Medicine (IOM) establishes nutrient reference values, which are used
by Health Canada to set policies and standards. Until an update of the Dietary Reference Intakes for vitamin D is issued
by the IOM, Health Canada continues to recommend 200 IU of vitamin D per day for adults 19 to 50 years of age, including pregnant
and lactating women." They could have added, "regardless of the scientific
and medical evidence."
Apparently, Health Canada wants to continue the naturalistic Tuskegee experiment being conducted on developing babies over the last 20 years, especially on the brains of
African American babies. This vitamin D experiment began in the late 1980s when every relevant official organization began
telling us all, including pregnant women and children, to assiduously avoid sunlight. OK, who wants to get squamous cell
skin cancer or age their skin? But did those same organizations recommend compensatory vitamin D to make up
for what our skin stopped making with sun-avoidance? No. In fact, as you will see, several years after the American Pediatric
Association recommended strict sun avoidance for all children, they reduced - not increased - recommended vitamin D intakes
in childhood!
The story begins in the 1980s, when dermatologists, heavily funded by the cosmetics and sun screen industry,
began warning about the dangers of sunlight. In 1989, the American Medical Association's Council on Scientific
Affairs sided with the dermatologists and formally warned about the dangers of sun-exposure, advising mothers and children
to "stay out of the sun as much as possible." The dermatologists, or should I say cosmetologists, rejoiced.
But something else happened in the 1980s; the current triple childhood epidemics of
asthma, diabetes, and autism all quietly began.
Next, in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics went further, advising mothers to always keep
infants out of direct sunlight, use sun-protective clothes, sun block, and make sure children's activities in general minimize
sunlight exposure. Furthermore, quite inexplicably, they reported there was "no evidence" that rigorous sun protection would
affect vitamin D levels. The triple childhood epidemics exploded.
By 2002, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) gleefully reported
sun avoidance advice was successful: "protection from sun exposure is now reported for a high proportion of children."
Not a word of concern from the CDC about the vitamin D levels of these sun-deprived children, but plenty of wonder about
what was causing the childhood epidemics of asthma, diabetes, and autism.
In an act of nonfeasance that some mothers may eventually find unforgivable, these
same medical organizations made no effort to compensate for the vitamin D deficiency their sun-avoidance advice would
predictably induce. For example, when the AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs (cited above) warned about the dangers
of sunlight, they did not even mention that sunlight triggers the formation of vitamin D.
Furthermore, the Food and Nutrition Board's (FNB) recommendations for young women, pregnant
women, infants, and children did not increase during the decades of sun-avoidance advice, 200 units (which is a minuscule
.005 mg) per day for all infants, children, pregnant women, and young adults regardless of body weight. That is, the FNB did
and does recommend the same daily .005 mg for 5 pound infants as they do for 150 pound pregnant women! Let's see, five
pounds divided by .005 mg versus 150 pounds divided by .005 mg? Does a pregnant woman really need 30 times less
vitamin D than her baby per pound of body weight or are the folks at the FNB mathematically challenged?
Tragically, in 2001, the American Academy of Pediatrics cut their longstanding 400 IU (.01
mg) per day recommendation for children in half, to 200 IU (.005 mg) - apparently simply due to a bureaucratic need
to comply with FNB recommendations - despite their earlier advice that children should assiduously avoid sunlight. The
triple epidemics exploded.
Of course, the result of this "evidence based," but common senseless,
medical advice was that now almost no newborns have adequate levels and many black infants have virtually no vitamin
D in their blood stream. Certainly evidence based medicine started out as a great idea, but too often it has deteriorated
to mean, "Have the drug companies sponsored a relevant clinical trial?" Women mistakenly think evidence based medicine
was used to set the amount of vitamin D in prenatal vitamins and they think taking them prevents vitamin D deficiency during
pregnancy. But the 200 IU/day (.005 mg) recommendation for pregnant women by the FNB was afterthought based, not evidence
based, and the standard 400 IU (.01 mg) of vitamin D in most prenatal vitamins was set by the vitamin industry,
not the FNB. However, the 400 IU (.01 mg) in most prenatal vitamins is still such a tiny amount, it has almost
no effect on vitamin D levels.
What happened next? The triple childhood epidemics of asthma, diabetes, and autism blossomed.
And there is abundant evidence (but no proof) all three epidemics are a direct result, a tragic result, of sunlight deprivation.
Whenever you see a child with asthma, diabetes or autism, just think: American Medical Association, American Pediatric Association,
Institute of Medicine, Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, or Food and Nutrition Board.
Of course, children not only need vitamin D in the womb, they need it after they are born,
400 IU per day extra if they are on formula; breast fed infants need even more, around 600 IU per day. Around the age
of one, when they switch from vitamin D rich formula to the empty calories of juice, they need even more, about 1,000
IU per day. (By the way, it's no wonder parents of autistic children think vaccinations cause autism. Their
child deteriorated around the time they got their 12 -18 month vaccinations, which is, coincidentally, the same time
they started juice and stopped infant formula, thus depriving their child's brain of any meaningful sources of vitamin
D.)
What can pregnant women who follow the new Canadian Pediatric Society recommendation
for 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day expect to see in their children? It is more what they won't see than what they will see.
They won't see their child gasping for breath, giving themselves insulin injections, or repetitively banging their head on
the televison screen.
John Cannell, MD
|
