Ontario cancels vitamin D testing for all

[SidDithers]

Ontario is bucking the vitamin D trend and will no longer pay for testing to determine whether patients are lacking in the supplement that is hailed by some as a powerful cancer fighter.

From fighting high blood pressure to protecting against colorectal cancer and boosting the body’s immune system, vitamin D has become the latest cure-all.

But that claim is currently more fiction than fact, said Dr. Les Levin, an oncologist at Princess Margaret Hospital and a member of the Ontario government’s medical advisory secretariat - the group responsible for informing the health ministry on latest technologies. “There is a lot of misinterpretation out there concerning the link between vitamin D and non-bone related diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease,” Levin said in an interview.

The popular press, word of mouth and a proliferation of unscientific evidence on the internet are largely to blame for the claim the vitamin can do many things, he said. “Requests for these tests are escalating rather deeply.” Levin said. “The medical evidence isn’t there to justify it.”

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/article/847806--ontario-cancels-vitamin-d-testing-for-all?bn=1

I found the statement about "proliferation of unscientific evidence on the internet" particularly interesting.

Sid

[hlthe2b]

1. Interesting but definitely bucking the scientific consensus...

Certainly some conclusions of vitamin D benefits have been exaggerated by the media, but that does not negate the general consensus that current vitamin D intake is grossly inadequate and that the benefits of higher doses suggest a need to increase the RDA. Thus, I'm tempted to ask what else may be behind this decision and assessment of the validity of Vitamin D research findings. Certainly vitamin D testing is not inexpensive--especially where benefits are part of national health care.

[LaurenG]

2. I do think the minimum recommendations for vitamin D will be raised

There is something going on in the population here that is showing up in lab reports. The majority of our patient population are testing at 20 ng/ml or lower. We are scratching our heads over it.

edit to correct error

[gblady]

3. I'm curious.....

as to what you are considering as possible causes for the low Vit D levels...

after my initial treatment for low D, mine went even lower...
I was very perplexed.

[LaurenG]

5. We don't know

we are waiting to see what the next step is. Of course anyone with low levels is being treated but it's weird to have a bunch of people all come in in the same time period with levels like that.

[aquart]

4. Okay...what do those numbers mean? And why are they odd?

[LaurenG]

6. I'm definitely not an expert or MD

but it's my understanding that vitamin D deficiency should be defined as less than 80 nmol/L (32 ng/ml) circulating 25(OH)D.

edit spelling

[aquart]

7. People staying inside on the internet?

[wild4life]

8. Vitamin D

2 types of “Vit D” test
25-D (from supplement and fortified foods)
125 D (mainly from the sun}

Even in northern climate 15 min a day of direct sun will do you, the sun is very powerful that’s why plants can grow indoors with access to sunlight.

Breast milk and cows milk has the same amount of “vitamin D” but cows mild is fortified with “Vitamin D”

[MorningGlow]

9. Not true for all--sorry

Some of us have vitamin D absorbency resistance. We need supplements to raise our very low D levels.

And welcome to DU :toast:

[wild4life]

vitimin d

The sun is the best source if you are concerned I would look at your 125 vit d levels, {calcium, phosphorus and magnesium} these are the components of bones.

[wild4life]

10. vitimin d

The sun is the best source if you are concerned I would look at your 125 vit d levels, {calcium, phosphorus and magnesium} these are the components of bones.

[MorningGlow]

11. Please read my post again

Some of us have difficulty absorbing enough vitamin D from the sun. Therefore, we need to supplement with D-3.

[wild4life]

12. vitamin D

You are not reading why so hostile I said nothing about absorption thats your issue. I was stating the facts that 25 vit d is not an accurate measure of the majority of vit d which is the sun. It basically measures supplementation not absorption. Before you argue with my posting do some research and if you have concerns about your health in this area look at 125 vit d and the other mineral in your body vit D is not a vitamin so what are you really supplementing.

[MorningGlow]

13. I was responding to this in your first post:

"Even in northern climate 15 min a day of direct sun will do you, the sun is very powerful that’s why plants can grow indoors with access to sunlight."

And this in your follow-up post: "The sun is the best source..."

I have done research. Quite a bit, in fact. My D levels have been found to be quite low according to both my ob/gyn and my m.d., so I will be continuing to follow their advice and taking the supplement prescribed by my doctor. It has already done me a world of good, so I'm pretty sure I'm on the right track.

[wild4life]

14. vitamin D

I am happy for you that your health is great since taking Vit D
You are following "expert advice" and we know they are never wrong and it working for you. So no need to be defensive.

[Abq_Sarah]

20. As we age

Our ability to synthesize D from sunlight is reduced.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

38. Skin tone makes a difference as well. n/t

[Celebration]

15. the evidence is strong, but almost all

Epidemiological studies. But, they are diverse, and strong correlations of various types. They are of such a nature that actual causation seems likely to the epidemiologists. So the evidence is either strong or weak depending on your proclivity to accept epidemiology evidence. The best example I saw was the epidemiology evidence connecting Type 1 diabetes to lack of vitamin D, in an only lecture. It was pretty convincing.

[Tumbulu]

16. That's so funny- my doctor, when I asked about a vit D test rolled her eyes

Now perhaps this is because I am a farmer and am outside a lot- but I wear hats and shirts to protect myself from the sun. But I got the idea that she thinks this is all a bit overwrought, this obsession with vit D. I have taken 1000 id D3 a day as a supplement for a number of years now.

[wild4life]

17. vitamin d

seems the scientific community have varying opinion on "vit D"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125223302.htm

[MorningGlow]

18. My son's pediatrician did the same

She rolled her eyes as well and said the whole fascination with vitamin D was "just a fad". I got the impression that her view was just a backlash to what she saw as "bandwagon jumping". However, I think we really have discovered something here, and we should start to examine and test, in earnest, the benefits of a decent dose of D supplements on a variety of ailments and conditions.

Full disclosure: I really despise my son's pediatrician and am trying desperately to find him another doctor. As it is, I just avoid her like the plague and make appointments with the other doctors in the group whenever MG Jr. needs to see a doctor.

[tiptoe]

21. Same as pediatrician of a baby (16mo old) delivered to a mother bedridden 3 months pre-natal(!),

unsupplemented with sufficient Vitamin D, and, therefore, most likely, vitamin D deficient.

Experts recommend pregnant women take at least 5000 IU per day during pregnancy.

This unsupplemented pregnant woman got virtually ZERO for three months (notwithstanding pre-natal multivitamin and dietary vitamin D minimal doses)!

The bedridden mother's anticipated very low vitamin D status would have been transferred to the baby. Dr. John Cannell theorizes vitamin D deficiency as the underlying cause of an epidemic of autism. The father and three-month pre-natal bedridden mother of a 16-month old baby have cause to be concerned.

The pediatrician denying any basis for family concern over their vitamin D status is ethically out of line: He is either uninformed and ignorant, deliberately repressive of possible iatrogenic complicity in an ongoing epidemic, or a complete idiot, willing to risk serious medical damage to an infant, at very low expense to investigate.

Dr. John Cannell's Vitamin D Theory of Autism can explain the key factors suspected in "autism spectrum disorder" -- a fancy medical euphemism for "We don't know what causes autism, and Cannell's theory -- which, although unfalsified and "accepted" by five Harvard researchers for its "parsimony" and, if correct, potentially DAMNING of AMA and AAP BAD "anti-sun" MEDICAL ADVICE doled out beginning 1989 and compounded by MORE BAD MEDICAL ADVICE, POST-NATAL in 1999 and postulated directly responsible for the 14-fold-increase EPIDEMIC of autism in California children -- is, still, just a theory. So, we'll continue dicking around with prescribing all sorts of 'Jenny McCarthy' possible solutions -- including 3500 daily does of active Vitamin A, RETINOL, to autistic children"...about which Cannell points to research studies indicating active vitamin A at levels as low as 3000 IU retinol totally negate vitamin D's anti-cancer protective effect (and presumably other protective effects, including anti-autism).

The very temperament that makes doctors and lawyers very good at respective "bounded/limited specializations" can also leave them inaccessible and "blindered" to novel information and research. Thus, many excellent, applied practitioners can be unopen to novel information and ignorant of even current accepted -- not quackish -- theory.

[wild4life]

23. vitamin D pregnancy and infants

many doctors advise pregnant women to supplement with higher than usual levels of vitamin D during pregnancy because the level of 25-D in pregnant women often drops. They fail to realize that the low 25-D observed in pregnant women is a natural part of the hormonal changes that occur during pregnancy. It has long been known that the level of the active vitamin D metabolite 1,25-D rises during pregnancy, meaning that levels of 25-D drop as the precursor form (25-D) is increasingly converted into its active form (1,25-D).<6><7> There are also feedback pathways in place that naturally cause elevated 1,25-D to downregulate the production of 25-D.<8> Yet, the vast majority of researchers fail to test the level of 1,25-D in their pregnant subjects and therefore misinterpret the low level of 25-D as an indicator of deficiency. Surely this explains why researchers at the University of Pittsburg found that “vitamin D deficiency” was still common in a group of pregnant women, 90% of whom were taking pre-natal vitamins containing vitamin D.<9>
A woman’s level of 25-D is naturally downregulated during pregnancy.

Based on this disastrous misunderstanding, the Canadian Pediatric Society has recently released a statement recommending that during pregnancy and while nursing their babies, women should consider taking 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily – an amount that is 10 times higher than the current Canadian recommendation for adults under 50. Meanwhile, in the United States, two government-sponsored studies are investigating the effects of giving 4,000 IU of “D” daily to pregnant women and 6,000 IU to nursing mothers. These high levels of vitamin D are meant to “stave off” the chronic diseases caused by what doctors misinterpret as vitamin D “deficiency.” In reality, not only do these ridiculously high levels of vitamin D suppress the innate immune systems of newborn children, they also greatly lower the innate immunity of the mother, allowing her to acquire substantially more pathogens which she will subsequently pass to her child.<10>
Source
http://www.autoimmunityresearch.org/


T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University, culminated a lifetime of research with The China Study, one of the most comprehensive nutritional studies ever undertaken. Campbell agrees there is little evidence to show that increasing calcium intake will prevent fractures. In fact, research is moving in the opposite direction, showing that the more dairy and animal protein that is consumed, the higher the incidence of osteoporosis.

Lactose intolerance varies widely between different ethnic groups:
95 per cent of Asian people
75 per cent of Afro-Caribbean people
50 per cent of Mediterranean people
10 per cent of northern European people

Ultimately the body is a system functioning in harmony useless something is off balance, the body does not function by isolation. This is why cultures with health systems older than Allopathic medicine treat the whole rather than the part, or use medicine or remedies that will balance the whole. People will have better health when they stop living off balance and looking for the magic pill to fix all.

[tiptoe]

24. "..about Dr Marshall's theories. No one in the vitamin D field takes him seriously." --Dr JJ Cannell

Professor Marshall's Recent "Discovery"

Dr. Cannell:
I understand Dr. Marshall conducted a study and found vitamin D is bad for you. What kind of study did he do?
Mary
Minneapolis, MN

I have been inundated with letters asking about Professor Marshall's recent "discovery." Some have written that to say they have stopped their vitamin D and are going to avoid the sun in order to begin the "Marshall protocol." The immediate cause of this angst is two publications, a press article in Science Daily about Professor Marshall's "study" (which is no study but simply an opinion) in BioEssays. Dr. Trevor Marshall has two degrees, both in electrical engineering. Before I begin, I want to again remind you that I am a psychiatrist who works at a state mental hospital. In my duty to full disclosure, I must say that I have known a lot of psychiatrists in my life and a few electrical engineers. If I knew nothing else of a disagreement between two people but their professions, I would believe the electrical engineer, not the psychiatrist.

In reading his two articles, Dr. Marshall's main hypotheses are simple:

1. Vitamin D from sunlight is different than vitamin D from supplements.
   
2. Vitamin D is immunosuppressive and the low blood levels of vitamin D found in many chronic diseases are the result of the disease and not the cause.
   
3. Taking vitamin D will harm you, that is, vitamin D will make many diseases worse, not better.

If you read his blog, you discover that the essence of the Marshall protocol is: "An angiotensin II receptor blocker medication, Benicar, is taken, and sunlight, bright lights and foods and supplements with vitamin D are diligently avoided. This enables the body's immune system, with the help of small doses of antibiotics, to destroy the intracellular bacteria. It can take approximately one to three years to destroy all the bacteria." That is, Dr. Marshall has his "patients" become very vitamin D deficient.

Again, Dr. Marshall conducted no experiment and published no study. He wrote an essay. He presented no evidence for his first hypothesis (sunlight's vitamin D is different than supplements). From all that we know, cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol, regardless if it is made in the skin or put in the mouth. His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. Take patients with severe dementia bedridden in a nursing home. At least some of their low 25(OH)D levels are likely the result of confinement and lack of outdoor activity. However, did dementia cause the low vitamin D levels or did low 25 (OH)D contribute to the dementia? One way to look at that question is to look at early dementia, before the patient is placed in a nursing home. On the first day an older patient walks into a neurology clinic, before being confined to a nursing home, what is the relationship between vitamin D levels and dementia? The answer is clear, the lower your 25(OH)D levels the worse your cognition.

These studies suggest that the low 25(OH)D levels are contributing to the dementia but do not prove it. Only a randomized controlled trial will definitively answer the question, a trial that has not been done. So you will have to decide if vitamin D is good for your brain or not. Dr. Marshall seems to be saying demented patients should lower their 25(OH)D levels. Keep in mind, an entire chapter in Feldman's textbook is devoted to the ill effects low vitamin D levels have on brain function.

It is true that in some diseases, high doses of vitamin D may be harmful. For example, in the early part of last century, the AMA specifically excluded pulmonary TB from the list of TB infections that ultraviolet light helps. They did so because many of the early pioneers of solariums reported that acutely high doses of sunlight caused some patients with severe pulmonary TB to bleed to death. Thus, these pioneers developed very conservative sun exposure regimes for pulmonary TB patients in which small areas of the skin were progressively exposed to longer and longer periods of sunlight. Using this method, sunlight helped pulmonary TB, often to the point of a cure. Furthermore, it is well known that sunlight can cause high blood calcium in patients with sarcoidosis. In fact, sarcoidosis is one of several granulomatous diseases with vitamin D hypersensitivity where the body loses its ability to regulate activated vitamin D production, causing hypercalcemia.

Furthermore, although medical science is not yet convinced, some common autoimmune diseases may have an infectious etiology. I recently spoke at length with a rheumatologist who suffers from swollen and painful joints whenever he sunbathes or takes high doses of vitamin D. As long as he limits his vitamin D input his joints are better. To the extent vitamin D upregulates naturally occurring antibiotics of innate immunity, sunlight or vitamin D supplements may cause the battlefield (the joints) to become hot spots. I know of no evidence this is the case but it is certainly possible.

However, if Dr. Marshall's principal hypothesis is correct, that low vitamin D levels are the result of disease, then he is saying that cancer causes low vitamin D levels, not the other way around. The problem is that Professor Joanne Lappe directly disproved that theory in a randomized controlled trial when she found that baseline vitamin D levels were strong and independent predictors of who would get cancer in the future. The lower your levels, the higher the risk. Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml (77.5 to 95 nmol/L) reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period. Therefore, advising patients to become vitamin D deficient, as the Marshall protocol clearly does, will cause some patients to die from cancer.

I will not write again about Dr. Marshall's theories. No one in the vitamin D field takes him seriously. Personally, I admire anyone willing to swim against the tide and raise alternative theories. I have done the same with influenza and autism. However, I agree with the New York Times and Jane Brody's conclusion: "In the end, you will have to decide for yourself how much of this vital nutrient to consume each and every day and how to obtain it." I agree. You will have to decide for yourself.

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council
-------------------------

Brachet P, et al. Vitamin D, a neuroactive hormone: from brain development to pathological disorders. In Feldman D., Pike JW, Glorieux FH, eds. Vitamin D. San Diego : Elsevier, 2005.

[wild4life]

25. vitamin D and Dr Marshall

I advocate no ones treatment than to sight research that rarely get mention in media if at all and one can have both sides of the equation to make a more balanced decision. But "Vitamin D" is free go out side in day light.

Two extraction below from your article has left me confused is vitamin D a nutrient or a hormone??????

"Brachet P, et al. Vitamin D, a neuroactive hormone: from brain development to pathological disorders.

"In the end, you will have to decide for yourself how much of this vital nutrient to consume each and every day and how to obtain it." I agree. You will have to decide for yourself.

How about Colin Campbell research,professor emeritus of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University is he not credible in the scientific field.????


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Trevor G. Marshall"
Trevor G. Marshall
Born 1948
Adelaide, South Australia
Residence California
Citizenship Australian
Nationality Australian
Fields Electrical engineering; sarcoidosis research
Institutions Autoimmunity Research Foundation
Alma mater University of Adelaide; University of Western Australia
Known for Alternative theory of sarcoidosis etiology and treatment


Trevor G. Marshall (b. 1948, Adelaide, South Australia), is an electrical engineer who, after being diagnosed with sarcoidosis, began investigating an alternative biomedical treatment for this, and several other conditions. Marshall has hypothesized both a pathogenesis of and treatment for many chronic inflammatory autoimmune diseases and many cancers. Marshall believes these diseases are caused by a variety of bacterial forms including biofilm and L-form bacteria, which persist and grow in number by interfering with the proper functioning of the innate immune response and can be treated through avoiding vitamin D and taking antibiotics at low doses for several years.<1>

The protocol is only supported by anecdotal evidence, has not been tested in a randomized clinical trial and is not recommended as a treatment for sarcoidosis.<2>Contents
1 Background and work in electronics
2 Work with sarcoidosis

Background and work in electronics

Marshall was born in 1948 in Adelaide, Australia. After receiving his undergraduate degree Marshall completed a master's degree at the University of Adelaide in 1978,<3> and PhD in 1984 at the University of Western Australia, all in electrical engineering.<4> His master's research involved the design of portable, battery operated programmable hormone-delivery pumps for the treatment of cryptorchidism and infertility.<5><6> Marshall continued his PhD thesis research while at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, which led to his thesis Modelling and simulation in diabetes care and a paper on insulin infuser technologies.<7>

In 1963 at the age of 15, Marshall became the youngest person in Australia to be issued with an amateur's radio operator's license,<8> set an Australian UHF long distance communications record in 1965,<9> and in 1973 designed a kit version of the Moog synthesizer.<10> In 1988 Marshall founded the California-based graphics and printing company YARC Systems.<11> In 1986 Marshall was hired as a contributing editor for Byte, transitioning to writing web columns for byte.com from 1999 to 2003.<12>

Marshall has a daughter, Karen Marshall.

Work with sarcoidosis

The rest can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Marshal

[tiptoe]

26. terminology abuse amongst professionals re "vitamin D":

You're not alone in being confused by abuse of Vitamin D terminology: Researchers compound the problem and medical practitioners make mistakes, thereby.

The terms "Vitamin A" and "Vitamin D" usually refer to the "active" forms when professional researchers (like Brachet) use them indiscriminately.
However, without specificity the terms can also be causes of confusion, even amongst academics. Dr. Rheinhold Vieth devoted an entire article to Vitamin D terminology (emphasis mine):

Abstract
Official nutrition committee reports in both North America and Europe now state that Vitamin D is more of a hormone than a nutrient. These statements are wrong, and do not reflect the definitions of either vitamin or hormone. Researchers often compound the problem by referring to calcitriol or other deltanoids as “Vitamin D”. These things have serious consequences: (1) The literature is burdened by an ongoing confusion that presumes that the reader will somehow “know” what the writer refers to by “Vitamin D”. (2) Medical practitioners not familiar with the ambiguities administer Vitamin D inappropriately when calcitriol or a deltanoid analog would be correct, or vice versa. (3) Attempts to promote VitaminD nutrition are hindered by alarmist responses justifiably associated with the widespread administration of any hormone. VitaminD is a vitamin in the truest sense of the word, because “insufficient amounts in the diet may cause deficiency diseases”. The term, prohormone, is not relevant to the VitaminD system, but 25-hydroxy-VitaminD (calcidiol) is appropriately described as a prehormone, i.e. a glandular secretory product, having little or no inherent biologic potency, that is converted peripherally to an active hormone.

"No one in the vitamin D field takes him seriously."

Dr. Cannell would, at least, be referring to these scientists he lists on his website:

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/scientists.shtml

Those "world-class" scientists would presumably respect the science of Dr. Joan Lappe et al Heaney researchers that "directly disproved" (Dr. Marshall's) theory (that 'cancer causes low vitamin D levels, not the other way around') "in a randomized controlled trial when she found that baseline vitamin D levels were strong and independent predictors of who would get cancer in the future. The lower your levels, the higher the risk. Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml (77.5 to 95 nmol/L) reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period. Therefore, advising patients to become vitamin D deficient, as the Marshall protocol clearly does, will cause some patients to die from cancer."

Among the scientists listed by Cannell is Dr. Cedric Garland, who speaks (see link) about the Lappe results: "This is the randomized controlled clinical trial...a watershed point in the history of Vitamin D and cancer...We regard this study as the definitive study of the experiment of the relationship between Vitamin D, calcium and cancer." (...i.e., not Dr. Marshall's apparently-untested "theory")

Good luck to anyone "following" the Marshall protocol.

Presumably, Cannell's statement reflects the views of the other scientists he lists.

Colin Campbell: Does he offer an alternative, "Marshall interpretation" of the 2007-published Lappe study findings as well as experimental hypothesis to test that interpretation?

[wild4life]

35. terminology abuse amongst professionals re "vitamin D":

"The term, prohormone, is not relevant to the VitaminD system, but 25-hydroxy-VitaminD (calcidiol) is appropriately described as a prehormone, i.e. a glandular secretory product, having little or no inherent biologic potency, that is converted peripherally to an active hormone."

So simply put you are saying 25 vitimin D is a Hormone, The 25 vitamin D test is showing what in the blood? State the difference between nutrient, hormone and steroid

[tiptoe]

36. "..what you are saying.." No, that's what YOU are saying, despite quoting Dr. Veith to the contrary!

Sun-to-skin, supplement and diet:

Cholecalciferol -- biologically inactive substrate, pre-hormonal == the one-and-only natural "vitamin D" (vitamin D3)

Liver metabolises cholecalciferol:

Calcidiol -- biologically inactive metabolite of vitamin D, stored in blood, pre-hormonal == "25-hydroxycholecalciferol", 25(OH)D

Kidney metabolises calcidiol (& in situ as needed):

Calcitriol -- biologically active metabolite of vitamin D, a secosteroid hormone == "1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol", 1,25(OH)₂D₃

The measure of "true" vitamin D status is the concentration of the pre-hormone metabolite, Calcidiol, i.e. 25(OH)D3, "on reserve", "on call" in the bloodstream, convertible by the kidney or in situ -- immediately as needed -- to the powerful, oldest-known mammalian hormone, Calcitriol:

If you get an infection, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the infection?
If you have cancer, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the cancer?
If you have heart disease, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the heart disease?
If you are a child with autism, how much vitamin D does your brain need to turn on the genes that autism has turned off?
If you are an athlete, how much vitamin D does your body use to make you stronger and quicker?

("Is Vitamin D an antibiotic?" Technically, no; vitamin D, per se, is inactive. But its active metabolite, calcitriol, demonstrates antibiotic-like actions == another example, like the above, of a professional taking liberty with the term 'vitamin D'.)

Cholecalciferol is a prehormone

Although vitamin D is said to be a vitamin, significant amounts of vitamin D are not found in the foods humans naturally consume. A hundred years ago, after we were steadily migrating out of the sun and into buildings, cars, and layers of sun block, Northern Europeans realized that adding a teaspoon of fish oil to infants' diets helped them thrive. How did we decide how much to add? We guessed based on animal models of rickets. Correctly, it turned out, to prevent rickets in children. But the same dose was applied to adults, and therefore the adult dose was off by a factor of 10. This mistake continues to this day.

Cholecalciferol, the naturally occurring form of vitamin D, is a prehormone made in the skin by the action of sunlight on 7-dehydrocholesterol (also known as provitamin D3). As this is meant to be a clinical paper, we will not detail the physiology and biochemistry of vitamin D. For excellent clinical reviews that give more details of vitamin D physiology, see Holick , Zittermann , and Vieth.

For our purposes, suffice it to say that nature designed a system in which humans go in the sun, make thousands of units of cholecalciferol which the liver then hydroxylates into 25-hydroxyvitamin D, or 25(OH)D. Our organs then make a steroid hormone, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, which has both endocrine and paracrine functions. Although the endocrine function of 1,25(OH)2D3 made in the kidney is well known, the paracrine function is a relatively new discovery and appears to occur in every organ in the body.
hello
1,25(OH)2D3 helps regulate gene expression in more than 30 tissues and the list keeps growing. More succinctly, humans have a vitamin D system which makes thousands of units of the prehormone 25(OH)D within hours of sun exposure so various organs can then make the steroid hormone 1,25(OH)2D3 to help regulate genes in apparently every organ in the body. We assume nature created this system for a good reason.
...
Vitamin D and Brain Function

In 2002 Garcion, et al, reviewed clues about vitamin D function in the brain. They concluded 1,25(OH)2D3 is involved in brain function with nuclear receptors for vitamin D localized in neurons and glial cells. Genes encoding the enzymes involved in the metabolism of this hormone (1,25(OH)2D3) are also expressed in brain cells. The reported biological effects of 1,25(OH)2D3 in the nervous system include the biosynthesis of neurotrophic factors and at least one enzyme involved in neurotransmitter synthesis. 1,25(OH)2D3 can also inhibit the synthesis of inducible nitric oxide synthase and increase glutathione levels, suggesting a role for the hormone in brain detoxification pathways. Neuroprotective and immunomodulatory effects of this hormone have been described in several experimental models, indicating the potential value of pharmacological analogs in neurodegenerative and neuroimmune diseases. In addition, 1,25(OH)2D3 induces glioma cell death, making the hormone of potential interest in the management of brain tumors.

[wild4life]

37. "..what you are saying.." No, that's what YOU are saying, despite quoting Dr. Veith to the contrary!

Hello,
I guess I shall clarify my question and can you give an answer in lay terms since the majority of the population does not speak the medical language. You wouldn’t speak Russian to a Spanish speaking person would you?

This is an excerpt from your answer
"Sun-to-skin, supplement and diet:
Cholecalciferol -- biologically inactive substrate, pre-hormonal == the one-and-only natural "vitamin D" (vitamin D3"
So I looked up the dictionary definition of Hormone and nutrient they are as follows:
Nutrient
1. nourishing; providing nutrition.

2. a food or other substance that provides energy or building material for the survival and growth of a living organism.

Hormone
a chemical substance produced in the body which has a specific regulatory effect on the activity of certain cells or a certain organ or organs.
My understanding from the definition nutrients are consumed (external source)and hormones are produced in the body (internal source)

So my question the substance that is called Vitamin D is it a Nutrient or a Hormone?
What is , 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 and its source? Simple lay term please?
What is 25-hydroxyvitamin D and it source?

[snagglepuss]

19. Pure BS. He is just trying to put a positive spin on delisting an important test

His opinion certainly not shared by researchers at Mount Sinai in Toronto nor by medical researchers worldwide.


http://www.mountsinai.on.ca/care/mkbc/resources-2/mount-sinais-dr-pam-goodwin-reveals-vitamin-d-deficiency-associated-with-breast-cancer

[wild4life]

22. vitamin D test

Question who has more expertise in how the body functions and interpreting blood work biologist or MD ?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. I've been taking 2000units of Vitamin D every day for two years

During that time, I have not had a serious illness, no flu, no severe colds. If I feel a cold coming on, I just take some zinc tablets, eat some spicy food, and nap.

The real test was when everyone in my section of the choir got a whopping bad cold two winters ago. I was the only person not to get sick beyond a few sniffles, pretty amazing when you consider that we sit shoulder to shoulder.

I've also heard anecdotal evidence of runny eye problems in both humans and animals being cured by sun exposure.

Supposedly it is hard for people living above 35° latitude to get sufficient sunlight in the winter.

[Orrex]

28. The phenomenon you describe has been studied very extensively

The technical name is "anecdote."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. You know, Orrex, sometimes things that haven't been established through

rigorous, controlled, double-blind studies actually do work.

Since 2000IU of Vitamin D is what you get from 10 minutes of summer sunlight, I figure it can't hurt.

[Orrex]

30. "It can't hurt" is the crowbar by which the "supplement" industry pries open people's wallets

Until those rigorous, controlled, double-blind studies are performed, then you can only say "this worked for me and some people I heard about."

It might work, and/or you might perceive that it works, but that's very different from being able to declare with any certainty that it works.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. And supplements actually cost less than prescription drugs, so

who is prying open whose wallet?

[Orrex]

32. That question is answered by understanding why the supplement industry fights efforts at regulation.

If the multi-billion dollar supplement industry were required to verify its claims or even to confirm, for instance, that it's not poisoning its customers with heavy metals, I think we'd see the true comparison laid bare.

Additionally, you surely must realize that you're dodging the question: rather than make a positive, verifiable claim about supplements, you choose instead to attack prescription medications. That's a fallacy.

Why not start another thread in which you can claim that prescription medicines are supported by nothing more than anecdote and a few inconclusive studies? Let's see how that goes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. I'm not a scientist. You evidently are.

Why don't you do a study?

[Orrex]

34. To study what? The claim that *you're" making?

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. It's not up to the skeptic to disprove the claim; it's up to the proponent to support it.


The supplement industry is awash with cash. If they had any interest in intellectual honesty, they'd have done the studies years ago. Instead, we see very few studies and a passionate lobbying effort against regulation. That's a one-two punch that speaks of an industry with plenty to hide and little to gain from transparency.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

39. ...

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/74/1/e2

[HuckleB]

40. More Flu Woo For You, Boo Boo (Addresses The Vitamin D Pushers)

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1455