Action Alert: Vitamin D Report Panelist Has Ties to Big Pharma

December 7, 2010
Print This Post Print This Post

pharmaAs we reported last week, the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) new and absurdly low vitamin D recommendation flies in the face of scientific evidence. Now we need your help to get Congress to launch an investigation.

Some may ask, “Why are you treating this report as such a big deal? I’ll take however many vitamins I wish, and the government has no say in the matter.” But unless these findings are challenged, the public will accept it as true. Doctors, medical institutions, the media, and governmental agencies will all parrot these ultra-low recommendations on vitamin D dosage, pooh-poohing its important therapeutic benefits, and keeping the American public dangerously deficient in the vitamin. This will mean more colds, more flu, greater dependence on dangerous flu shots and antibiotics, more illness in general, more weak bones, more cancer, and many more deaths. Some experts calculate that proper vitamin D supplementation could save Americans $4.4 trillion over a decade—about $1,346 per person every year.

The IOM updated its official vitamin D recommendations for the first time since 1997. Despite raising the new vitamin levels by 300% for most Americans (suggesting that their previous vitamin D level recommendation was off by 300%), the IOM guidelines are still in contrast to overwhelming scientific evidence that confirms the significant medical benefits of higher vitamin D levels. A recent Harvard Medical School study and numerous other research institutes and doctors have found that vitamin D supplementation is safe and effective, and recommend significantly higher levels than the Institute of Medicine. The IOM now recommends 600 IU (international units) for people between the ages of 1 and 70—their previous recommendation was a mere 200 IU—whereas Harvard and the Vitamin D Council recommend anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 IU a day.

Studies also show that least one-third of Americans are wholly deficient in vitamin D (and a University of Tennessee Health Science Center study says 87% of patients are mildly to severely deficient). This is due to changing lifestyle and cultural trends in which many people in the US get less sun exposure and often inadequate dietary levels of the vitamin. A simple blood test will confirm whether one is deficient or not, although the IOM now appears to want to change the standard for optimum blood serum levels so that a lower level will still get a passing grade. (The IOM suggests the new standard should be changed to 20 ng/ml, whereas previously anything under 30 ng/ml was considered deficient. The Vitamin D Council recommends between 50 and 80 ng/ml.)

The IOM is supposed to be an independent voice. This “quasi-public” non-profit NGO (non-governmental organization) was founded in 1970 under the congressional charter of the National Academy of Sciences. Its purpose is to provide national advice on issues relating to biomedical science, medicine, and health, and its mission is to serve as advisor to the nation to improve health. It works outside the framework of the federal government to provide independent guidance and analysis, and it is supposed to operate under a rigorous, formal peer-review system.

The problem is, the study carried out by the IOM Food and Nutrition Board violated sound scientific process, and its report, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D, fails to meet the evidentiary standard. For one thing, the researchers refused to consider much of the evidence on vitamin D—their findings are based solely on the relationship between vitamin D and bone health, excluding all other health outcomes, citing a paucity of Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence. They stated that only RCTs can show a causal relationship between an intervention (like vitamin D) and an outcome (like cancer).

In other words, the IOM is holding a vitamin to the so-called pharmaceutical gold standard. There’s a reason there are few RCTs for vitamin D: it’s not a patentable substance, so no big pharmaceutical company stands to make a bundle of money from it, so no one will shell out the millions of dollars necessary for a decent randomized controlled trial. It’s the proverbial Catch-22.

We might also add that the so-called drug gold standard doesn’t even fit dietary supplements. Supplements, which are concentrated food, must always be evaluated in the context of the rest of the diet. In the case of bone health, for example, vitamin D should be taken with calcium, vitamin K (especially K2), and other elements. These are vital co-factors and need to be present together. Supplemental calcium should not be taken without supplemental magnesium (although magnesium may be taken without calcium). And so forth. None of these essential nutrients is a synthetic drug and none of them should be evaluated in the same way as dangerous, synthetic drugs.

On top of that, the types of studies the IOM considered were arbitrarily selected and all over the map. For example, in looking at cancer generally, only four studies were reviewed—and none used vitamin D in doses higher than 1000 IU per day, far below the therapeutic dose, so of course they found no relationship between vitamin D and cancer control. Further, because the IOM declared that vitamin D benefits only bone health (their new, ultra-low,  laboratory blood test level recommendations are the bare minimums for the prevention of bone disease), they never suggested optimum levels for overall health. Why didn’t they look at vitamin D levels in the healthiest of people before stating that vitamin D serves only one purpose?

In determining the upper limits of vitamin D dosage, the IOM reversed course completely. Here they used not random controlled trials but only observational studies and animal studies because of “ethical considerations”—though since they weren’t performing the studies themselves, one could hardly accuse them of overdosing their subjects. The upshot is that the evidentiary bar was substantially lowered in determining potential harm. They decided the upper limit should be 4,000 IU, even though many experts say 5,000 is a good daily dose, with higher amounts to correct imbalances—and even the majority of studies the IOM considered say that toxicity doesn’t occur until somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000 IU per day. But, as they put it, “In the absence of a benefit at higher levels [as shown by RCTs], the cautious approach was deemed justified.”

Please note that this conflates safety and efficacy in a typical example of circular reasoning. Even though the available evidence suggests that it is safe to take higher doses, it isn’t really safe because the benefits have not been demonstrated to the researchers’ satisfaction, using criteria that cannot possibly produce a positive result.

To put all this in context, 600 IU (the new recommended daily dose) is equal to just four minutes of mid-day full-body summer sun exposure. About thirty minutes of sunshine would produce approximately 4,000 to 5,000 IU of natural vitamin D in many American latitudes, which the new guidelines indicate may be an overdose. If this is true, nature seems to have goofed badly.

The Vitamin D Council reports that the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) consulted with fifteen vitamin D experts (whom they thank on page vii of their report) and, after reading these fifteen different reports, the FNB decided to suppress them. “Many of these consultants are either famous vitamin D researchers, like Prof. Robert Heaney at Creighton University or, as in the case of Prof. Walter Willett at Harvard, the single best-known nutritionist in the world. So why won’t the FNB tell us what Professors Heaney and Willett thought of their new report?” The Vitamin D Council has filed a federal Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the IOM’s FNB for the release of these fifteen reports.

The Vitamin D Council also points out out that the new recommendation says that an infant and a 300-pound pregnant woman should have the same daily intake, which shows how totally absurd this recommendation really is.

There is, unfortunately, a hidden agenda afoot. A pharmaceutical company is developing a patentable man-made vitamin D analog—yes, a synthetic drug version of vitamin D. And Glenville Jones, PhD, one of the committee members who determined the new vitamin D guidelines and who is quoted as saying that under these guidelines, most people “probably don’t have vitamin D deficiency” and “We think there has been an exaggeration of the public’s interest in vitamin D deficiency,” is an advisor for that same pharmaceutical company.

While the IOM presents itself as a private entity, eighty percent of its budget comes from federal grants. The General Accountability Office (GAO) has a statutory authority to improve the performance and ensure the accountability of groups using tax dollars for the benefit of the American people. The IOM report was sponsored by multiple government agencies and administrations, which means the report and the IOM itself can be subject to investigation by the GAO. In addition, the GAO has previously investigated the IOM and their public health reports.

So beginning today, ANH-USA is collecting signatures for a petition which we will send to Congress. We will be asking Congress to do two things:

  • Appoint a new scientific panel to look at all the vitamin D data, including the research from Harvard, the Vitamin D Council, and the fifteen reviewers whose research was suppressed by the FNB. The panel needs to look at all the studies, whether they were Randomized Controlled Trials or not, to see if there is a correlation between vitamin D and health benefits other than bone health, and specifically review whether it was appropriate to lower target serum levels based on limited evidence related to bone health alone. They also need to investigate how the IOM selected upper limits even while admitting there was a lack of evidence to support their findings.
  • Ask the GAO to investigate the IOM’s behavior in the creation of this report. The GAO needs to find out why the opinions of the fifteen vitamin D experts were suppressed, and examine the relationship between the scientist on the IOM panel and the pharmaceutical company for whom he is a consultant. They also need to investigate the IOM’s Office of News and Public Information and its role in the widely divergent and inaccurate media coverage of the IOM report, in which many news outlets seemed to think the report was warning us about the “dangers” of vitamin D when in fact the FNB had raised the recommended daily allowance by 300%.

Please sign our petition! We must get Congress to review this latest example of flawed science and crony capitalism. Please take action today!

TO SIGN THE PETITION TO CONGRESS

Click THIS LINK to go to the Action Alert page. Once there, fill out the form with your name and address, etc.

We’d also love to hear your comments about this article—just add your thoughts below—but remember that the messages below are only seen by our ANH-USA readers and not Congress, the FDA, etc.

87 Responses to “Action Alert: Vitamin D Report Panelist Has Ties to Big Pharma”

  1. Henry Lahore says:

    At least 5 of the panel members had conclifcts of interest – details at
    http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=1198

       0 likes

  2. Fran D,. says:

    We are tired of the lies!!!!!!!!!

    Stop the lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

       0 likes

  3. cynthia rady says:

    Harvard and the Vitamin D Council recommend anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 IU a day.

    Are you feeling smarter than Harvard doctors? You are acting as if you do. It is the reason that we don’t trust you to make healthy choices for us, the people. You have been bought by the drug companies. They have billions invested in lobbyist to convince you their right- and here’s a little gift for you…

       0 likes

  4. Jeanne says:

    I have been monitoring my D levels for about 4 yrs. For 2 summers I spent about an hour in a bikini around the noon hr and my D levels only got to 50ng. In order to get to 98ng I have to take 12000iu of D3

       0 likes

  5. Mikek says:

    I take 8 000 IU daily. Simply because I am over weight. For every 25 lbs I am suppose to take 1000 IU. So Vitamin D is suppose to help weight loss too.

    Sadly I haven’t been taking it consistently until a few weeks ago now I will.

       0 likes

  6. Gail S. says:

    Its sad what the medical profession has become in the US. I have had to argue with my physicians about refusing their prescriptions. When I had a recent intestinal infection, I was put on an antibiotic that gave me a headache until I finished the pills. The antibiotics created a negative flora balance, and I then had a dreadful case of diarrhea, so was prescribed another dose of antibiotics. Which still continued, and a third dose of antibiotics. Half way thru the third dose, I was blessed to receive some information on probiotics, bought myself a bunch and cured myself. I take a mild dose every day to ward off another infection (I have diverticulosis). The wonderful thing about this episode was the blood test that revealed that I was D deficient. My count was in the single digits! I thought as a normally active outdoorsy 59 year old, eating a balanced diet that I wouldn’t be deficient. Never avoided being in the sun and avoided sunscreens (I will use mineral-based sunscreens only, nothing with oxybenzone). Fortunately, my doctor saw the need to treat the D deficiency – with 50,000iu for 10 weeks at a time, which I did 3 cycles! Each blood test revealed that my level was barely climbing up, but after 9 months, ended up in the mid 20’s. As a menopausal woman, it is critical I keep my D up. If this had not been caught by accident, I was cruising for osteoporosis big time! There have been other health benefits also. Currently taking 3,000iu daily, but an annual checkup soon will reveal if I need more to stay at the potential new minimum level of 20ng/ml. Crazy! I also want to say thanks to all the people who leave comments – I have learned a lot from you and get a feeling I am not alone any more, arguing with my doctor.

       0 likes

  7. Kat says:

    I was taking 5000-6000 IU’s a day. I thought I was in great shape “D-wise” and was shocked when I found out my blood level was only 30! Barely into the “normal” range. The dosage needed does indeed vary by person. Get your level tested!

       0 likes

  8. garlicfrau says:

    As an MS sufferer, Vitamin D3 is even more important to me and others than for normals. I (and others) discovered that liquid D3 drops are much more pure and raise serum D levels rapidly.

       0 likes

  9. Bev Teter says:

    The RDA committee in the mid 1990’s ran into the same problem. At that time and probably now part of the rationale for low RDA’s or MDR’s is that the higher they are the more people will be receiving sub par nutrition and qualify for Food Stamps and other programs. Looking into this aspect of the problem would probably answer the question. There is an abundance of evidence for a higher level somewhere around 2000 to 4000 IU/day or even more in northern latitudes.

       0 likes

  10. Kelli says:

    Now Big Pharma is trying to patent a synthetic vitamin D so they can make another cash cow out of illness! What is up with western science’s bizarre obsession with chemicals? Why do they always believe only a patent chemical can cure you? Seriously, its time we form a “Health Freedom Liberation Front” and revolt even more than we already are against this chemical-pushing craze. The body cannot metabolize chemicals so they build up inside wreaking havoc. Cancer is a man-made disease that can be treated by dozens of non-chemical cures. We need to keep these #ssholes from preying on vulnerable children another Big Pharma cash cow. Supplements are never as dangerous as synthetic drugs, in fact there very safe compared to any of conventional medicine’s dangerous nonsense. Which is all of conventional medicine.

    Please check out these sites (no, I do not own them):
    vaccineliberationarmy.com

    nocodexgenocide.com

       0 likes

  11. Horacio Arcila says:

    I used to take flu shots every year, I quit last year taking those shots and I increase the vitamin D3 from 1000 to 5000 Units and haven’t get sick at all, my last blolod report was 57.

       0 likes

  12. Donald R. Marsh says:

    I am 93 years old Recovering from a broken Hip. on Warfarin I am now taking 1000 IU of D3 I gather that this is much too low. I think that my bones are brittle. I wih I was back in Puerto Rico.for the REAL THING–God given Sun. Any comments?

       0 likes

  13. Pam says:

    Hello, I am a physician who used supplements in my practice from 1980 until I was force to retire for stress-related health problems 5 years ago. I still belong to the North American Medical Society. The day following the news release from IOM regarding VitaminD, NAMS sent all its members a link to the abstract of the article cited by IOM. Wouldn’t you know, the abstract was surrounded by advertizements from Big Pharma regarding one of its new diabetes drug! I was not surprised, but nevertheless, appalled!
    I was told about Vitamin D a few years ago by the wife of my recently deceased nutritional advisor. She told me that 10,000 Units were often necessary to get ones blood level high enough. I started taking 5-10,000 Units then, depending on the time of year and other factors, such as exposure to infectious diseases. I recently moved from the Southwest with plenty of sun, to the north of the country, so I;m now taking 10,000 Units everyday, and I increase my dose if I get sick, or will be in a place with potentail massive exposures. My blood level was checked a few weeks ago and was 53—good, but definitely not too high. Food for thought…

       0 likes

  14. Sara says:

    I can’t tell if the IoM is arrogant in thinking no one would be watching or if they simply don’t care, but yes, this result is such a tragedy. A co worker who lives for “mainstream medicine” told me the day after this study came out that I was going to get really sick from the Vitamin D I was taking. Even though her blood pressure is through the roof, and even though my blood pressure has dropped like a stone to low normal – she still has to use the IoM study to justify to herself that only mainstream medicine has the answers. That is the tragedy of this study.

    From the first day I heard the Vitamin D hypothesis, I thought, that is it. When it is a sunny day, what does my cat do? Runs over to the sunlight spot (the window) and soaks up the rays. Sure she doesn’t get any Vitamin D but, she thinks she is. For millions of years prior to now, humans walked the earth with no clothing and, for hours a day. How come they didn’t all die of skin cancer? I mean the idea that sun or vitamin d could be bad for you just flys in the face of what nature is telling us. Nature is screaming at us, sun, outside, exercise, do it NOW – all the animals act that way. But, humans in their insane bizzaro arrogance, instead say, sun is bad for you, chemicals are good for you, trust not what nature says, trust in another human. A human compromised by big pharma and big chemical. And people buy this. It is just so sad.

    For me, I know this is it. Since starting on 4000 IU of Vitamin D3, my blood pressure has taken a dive. I am no higher than 115/70 ever, for all of my 20’s I was 130/80 and greater. And all of my family members have high blood pressure. Since getting on vitamin d, my body temp has gone way up. I used to be 97.9 on a good day, now I am up at 98.4 and higher. (oh my doctor used to tell me that 97.9 was normal– right — doctors now try to tell you it is normal for you to be sick). I used to be able to gain weight hand over foot. I mean I could gain 30 lbs in 3 months. But now, my weight is stable no matter what I eat. I have also noticed improvements in my vision. Not to mention that I never have colds anymore and if I do (I got one after visiting a family member in a hospital) its degree of power is significantly lower. My level is around 50 ng per mil. There is no way I could have gotten there with 600 IU. I take 4000 IU and I stay out in the sun like once every two months if I can.

       0 likes

  15. John says:

    I wonder how many “experts” received “gifts” from Big Pharma for their paltry vitamin D advice?

       0 likes

  16. There is “Some” integrity in the health field, but if you live in the USA you are a capitalist and as such should not be surprised when *anyone* attempts to profit off of you. We live in the land of the “I want a free lunch and I won’t pay taxes”, as far as I can tell.
    As for integrity, I give out free advice daily on a huge variety of health issues, for example – why? Because I am a pharmacist. Overstressed, overworked, understaffed, and yes, I grew up in a corner drugstore complete with soda fountain so I THOUGHT I knew what I was getting into when I chose to follow my father’s trade. But to the matter at hand:
    I have been titrating my own dosage of vitamin D3 for several years, and preaching the benefits of it daily. I have handouts I give to people I deem at risk or otherwise susceptible to either my advice or due to their particular health needs. I maintain an overstock of 5,000iu 100-count bottles in my pharmacy, with a prominent flip-down sign that reads, “Buy One, Get One Free”, because the chain I work for puts vitamins on sale once every few weeks and when it does, I urge people to stock up. I’ve been testing myself through ZRT labs twice a year ($65 a test right now), and have found that in order to achieve a blood level of 25(OH)D of around 100ng/ml, I must take 3 to 4 of the 5,0000iu caps daily. Amazing to me since I grew up in South Texas, was outside in nothing but shorts most of my adolescent life, and even now frequent the sun. Your needs will vary. I urge all to get tested, and then to take appropriate action to improve your blood levels to at least 40 if not higher, and keep an eye on the literature as more information/studies are published. As a high performance (elite level) archery coach I first discovered the benefits of D3 while trying to find a way to improve athletic performance – ironic, in that it DOES improve neuromuscular performance, in the young as well as the old. SO get tested, don’t dose yourself blindly as you may end up taking too little. And don’t trust any single source – Dr, Pharmacist, or Vitamin Shop teenage clerk – educate yourself. That’s what ixquick and google are for. :) good luck and may Diogenes assist you on your way.

       0 likes

  17. I wish there was some integrity in the health field

       0 likes

    • Lou says:

      Well Adam we can help bring it back.

      First spend a little time and learn about sunshine and vitamin D. Learn that the Vitamin D Council recommends for a person getting no sun a good vitamin D3 dose is 1000 IU of vitamin D3/25 pounds of body weight/day. Learn why this is so.

      When dealing with anyone from the “Medical Industry” ask them what they think is a good daily amount of vitamin D3 for a person to take. If they have no opinion or their opinion is incorrect inform them in a nice way. Do not be so nice as to agree with their uninformed OPINION.

      IMO there is nothing so embarrassing for a Physician as a patient who CLEARLY knows more about basic medicine that the physician.

      A few million encounters like this and the “Medical Industry” as well as the “Medical Profession” may learn the facts about vitamin D.

      It may be almost impossible to inform most Pediatricians, Oncologists and Obstetricians as they seem to be the most easily brainwashed. But IMO give it a go. Incidentally for these three disciplines to NOT test their patients for their vitamin D levels and NOT replete them to at least 80 ng/ml is IMO criminal.

      http://healthyprotocols.com/2_sun.htm

         0 likes

  18. Mark Pegram says:

    ANH,

    Thank you for this effort. I recognized this need five years ago and visited my US representative. However, without the national spot light, he took no action. I have written extensively about this on my blog Vitamin D Deficiency Survivor. As your article described there is Glenville Jones conflict of interest, but there is greater concern as Hector F. DeLuca as a consultant to the FNB and most likely will have great monetary return from his vitamin D analog patents through Wisconsin Research Alumni Foundation if the 25(OH)D is kept low. There is an interconnection as Jones was DeLuca’s grad student. Check my post from this morning for details. Conflict of Interest at National Academies? I do not think any kind of conspiracy, just institutions working toward their best return. Steenbock – DeLuca-Jones The other side of the coin is that with vitamin D’s reduction in disease states, the loss of a large number of health care worker jobs – as many as ten percent or more and with extended life, increased elderly care – the governments interest.

    Thanks,
    Mark Pegram
    A Vitamin D Deficiency Survivor

       0 likes

  19. bob listecki says:

    As a pharmacist we have been following the grassrootshealth.net guidelines and findings at our community pharmacy, Glen Ellyn Pharmacy and have found similar findings. Several patients had to discontinue their blood pressure meds and anti depressant meds with medical supervision as they did not need the pharmaceutical products when the D got up to the new healthy level of 60 ng/ml. Many are taking 10,000 IU daily to get these benefits. Pain resolution is another big one we have experienced. Our pharmacy students have summarized the information from grassrootshealth.net to guide our patients to the new findings and need to increase their active D levels.

       0 likes

  20. Alberta says:

    My endocrinologist sugested that I take 2 1000mg of Vit. D per day. I have been taking the supplement for over a year now I look and feel much better thank before. I say pooh!! to the naysayer. We all to take certain supplements every day.

       0 likes

  21. Al Stein says:

    Your article is right on. Several Physicians whom I respect greatly are reccomending up to 5,000 units of D. You can add the National Institutes of Health, in protecting Big Pharma and doing countless perpetuated Research projects in the name of Science. The NI.H spends more taxpayer dollars (32 Billion a year) than any other Government Agency except for Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. Probably 80% of this could be put to much better use. —-ANH USA please go after the NIH.—————————————————————-

       0 likes

  22. Maria Geenzier says:

    I am one of the many individuals who has been tested and found deficient in Vitamin D and is on a recommended Vitamin D supplementation. I am of European, Native American, Hispanic, and African descent – the latter 3 groups having been found as some of the most in danger of Vitamin D deficiency.

    I feel that it is important that this issue be looked at in a much more wholistic way and that all research be taken into account. I am thankful for the throrough article posted by Alliance for Natural Health and for all that they do.

    I am currently diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes and, even though I am on two oral medications, it seems to be the Nutraceuticals that I take that are making the most difference (Fenugreek, Gymnema Sylvestre, Cinnamon, Bitter lemon, to name a few). Whenever I run out of my Nutraceutical supplements I notice a big difference in my blood sugar levels.

    I firmly believe that my health, and even my survival, is dependant on my being able to make choices in my health path. These choices would, for me, include supplementation with natural healing herbs. And, I am quite concerned about the government constricting my choices unnecessarily – especially in service to Big Pharm, Big Medicine, the Factory Farm corporations, and International Corporate powers.

    Leave me my freedom of health choices and use the offices of regulation to prevent abuse, dirty practices (in every sense of the word), & malpractice, and to promote preventative health, natural solutions, health coverage for all, and promotion of wellness in all aspects of the word!

       0 likes

    • Dave Philbin says:

      You said it all Maria. I am currently taking 11,000 units of Vitamin D3 trying to get my levels up. I was taking over 7800 units for several months but it was not enough. And when I run short on my supplements I feel a big difference. It is time to stop the deception on the American public. We are not sheep to be tended by the government and big medicine!

         0 likes

      • Mikek says:

        Are you consuming enough magnesium? It is recommended to consume 1 serving of nuts or seeds every other day and eat at least one serving of leafy green vegetable.s

        Remember that drinks like coffee, alcohol, etc suppresses the immune system.

           0 likes

  23. Chuck says:

    “The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day.”—Dr Ley former Commissioner of the FDA.

       0 likes

    • Lou says:

      Bingo Chuck!

      The FDA is a wholly owned organ of the HHS. HHS is a wholly owned organ of the Rockefeller clan. HHS is implementing UN Agenda 21 which posits a vast reduction int earth’s human population.

      Until and unless we acknowledge these simple FACTS we can never have a healthy country.

      It is growing increasingly difficult to remain healthy even as an individual who KNOWS the political and health facts.

      With MANDATORY “vaccination” it will be IMPOSSIBLE to remain healthy.

         0 likes

  24. Alice_S says:

    Of course they are! I am taking part in “Grassroots Health project” A study by the University of California to see what it takes to raise ones Vitamin D levels to optimal levels. Based on research they say 40–60 nm/ml…it took 4000 IU a DAY to raise my levels to that point. I started out thinking that mine would be ideal as I took 1000 IU a day, Was I wrong! my level was only 15 nm/ml!

       0 likes

    • Most of our sunlight is being taken from us. People are getting sick. Sick people need meds but the world is catching on and getting really angry. More and more people turn to alternative because of distrust but they don’t catch on. No pharmas for me, I’ll find another way when possible and have found it very possible thanks to the internet. (until they take that) … although that might rupture this growing infection called corporate rule once and for all!

         0 likes

      • mainsailset says:

        I don’t know how to break this to you but Darrell Issa will be in charge of the oversight hearings. He is pro Big Business in all ways shapes and means and already has released his statement that he already has a full schedule. You would do better going to CNN to one of the medical correspondents such as Elizabeth Cohen.

           0 likes

      • HT Santiago says:

        Being in very good health for a 70+ person who can easily walk 6-12 miles, I was shocked when my MD suggested an Vitamin D supplement because blood work showed an inadequate daily intake. I work part-time in my local library shlepping and shelving books, work outside in my garden, and hike frequently and assumed that sun exposure would provide adequate D, which at my age, helps ward off osteoporosis (brittle bones).
        Boy, was I surprised!

           0 likes

      • Nan says:

        Yes, good point about “sunlight being taken from us”; I hadn’t thought of chemtrails as doing that, but you’re right, they do decrease the amount of sunlight we’re getting on our skin. Far too few people realize our skies are being sprayed.

        People aren’t catching on as fast as they might because they’re locked into looking to authorities for answers. Authoritarianism is a killer for the mind and freedom.

           0 likes

      • Judy says:

        Mr. Issa is an honorable man. Please write him or call. He does have his plate full.

           0 likes

    • Robert says:

      Thank you Alice,

      How long did you have to take 4,000 IU to bring your levels up to the 40-60nm/ml level? Thank you.

         0 likes

Leave a Reply

Comment Policy:
ANH-USA provides a comment forum for our readers to share their constructive thoughts and criticisms about our newsletter articles and engage in civil debate with other readers. All comments are pre-moderated regardless of author. We never censor comments based on political or ideological point of view. We only remove those comments that are abusive, off-topic, use foul language, include personal attacks, or are otherwise discourteous and uncivil. Please do not post comments in ALL CAPS; on the internet this is considered "shouting."

 characters available

Follow us on...